E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

Vol. 145 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 1999 No. 5 House of Representatives The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 19, 1999, at 2 p.m. Senate THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 1999

The Senate met at 1:04 p.m. and was States is sitting for the trial of the articles date an equal number of managers from the called to order by the Chief Justice of of impeachment exhibited by the House of House of Representatives and counsel for the the United States. Representatives against William Jefferson President which shall be placed in the well of Clinton, President of the United States. the Senate. f The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Presiding (2) Such equipment as may be required to TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON Officer recognizes the majority leader. permit the display of video, or audio evi- CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Jus- dence, including video monitors and micro- UNITED STATES phones, which may be placed in the chamber tice. for use by the managers from the House of The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate INSTALLING EQUIPMENT AND FURNITURE IN THE Representatives or the counsel to the Presi- will convene as a Court of Impeach- SENATE CHAMBER dent. ment. The Chaplain will offer a prayer. Mr. LOTT. I send a resolution to the SEC. 3. All equipment and furniture author- desk providing for installing equip- ized by this resolution shall be placed in the PRAYER ment and furniture in the Senate chamber in a manner that provides the least The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Chamber and ask that it be agreed to practicable disruption to Senate proceed- Ogilvie, offered the following prayer: and the motion to reconsider be laid ings. Almighty God, whose providential upon the table. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will care has never varied all through our Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I now report the resolution by title. Nation’s history, we ask You for a spe- ask unanimous consent floor privileges The legislative clerk read as follows: cial measure of wisdom for the women be granted to the individuals listed on and men of this Senate as they act as A resolution (S. Res. 17), to authorize the installation of appropriate equipment and the document I send to the desk, dur- jurors in this impeachment trial. You ing the closed impeachment proceed- have been our Nation’s refuge and furniture in the Senate Chamber for the im- peachment trial. ings of William Jefferson Clinton, strength in triumphs and troubles, President of the United States. prosperity and problems. Now, dear Fa- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objec- tion, the resolution is considered and The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objec- ther, help us through this difficult tion, it is so ordered. time. As You guided the Senators to agreed to. The resolution (S. Res. 17) was agreed The document follows. unity in matters of procedure, continue to, as follows: to make them one in their search for FLOOR PRIVILEGES DURING CLOSED SESSION the truth and in their expression of jus- S. RES. 17 David Hoppe, Administrative Assistant, tice. Keep them focused in a spirit of Resolved, That in recognition of the unique Majority Leader. requirements raised by the impeachment Michael Wallace, Counsel, Majority nonpartisan patriotism today and in trial of a President of the United States, the the crucial days to come. Bless the dis- Leader. Sergeant at Arms shall install appropriate Robert Wilkie, Counsel, Majority Leader. tinguished Chief Justice as he presides equipment and furniture in the Senate cham- Bill Corr, Counsel, Democratic Leader. over this trial. We commit to You all ber for use by the managers from the House Robert Bauer, Counsel, Democratic Leader. that is said and done and ultimately of Representatives and counsel to the Presi- Andrea La Rue, Counsel, Democratic decided. In Your holy Name. Amen. dent in their presentations to the Senate during all times that the Senate is sitting Leader. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Sergeant Peter Arapis, Floor Manager, Democratic at Arms will make the proclamation. for trial with the Chief Justice of the United States presiding. Whip. The Sergeant at Arms, James W. SEC. 2. The appropriate equipment and fur- Kirk Matthew, Chief of Staff, Assistant Ziglar, made proclamation as follows: niture referred to in the first section is as Majority Leader. Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are follows: Stewart Verdery, Counsel, Assistant Ma- commanded to keep silent, on pain of impris- (1) A lectern, a witness table and chair if jority Leader. onment, while the Senate of the United required, and tables and chairs to accommo- Tom Griffith, Senate Legal Counsel.

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

S59

. S60 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 Morgan Frankel, Deputy Senate Legal tives against him on January 7, 1999, Federal grand jury of the United States. Counsel. received by the Secretary of the Senate Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Loretta Symms, Deputy Sergeant at Arms. on January 11, 1999; Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false Bruce Kasold, Chief Counsel, Secretary & The trial brief filed by the House of and misleading testimony to the grand jury Sergeant at Arms. concerning one or more of the following: (1) David Schiappa, Assistant Majority Sec- Representatives, received by the Sec- the nature and details of his relationship retary. retary of the Senate on January 11, with a subordinate Government employee; Lula Davis, Assistant Minority Secretary. 1999; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading tes- Alan Frumin, Assistant Parliamentarian. The trial brief filed by the President, timony he gave in a Federal civil rights ac- Kevin Kayes, Assistant Parliamentarian. received by the Secretary of the Senate tion brought against him; (3) prior false and Patrick Keating, Assistant Journal Clerk. on January 13, 1999; misleading statements he allowed his attor- Scott Sanborn, Assistant Journal Clerk. The replication of the House of Rep- ney to make to a Federal judge in that civil David Tinsley, Assistant Legislative Clerk. rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to Ronald Kavulick, Chief Reporter. resentatives, received by the Secretary influence the testimony of witnesses and to Jerald Linnell, Official Reporter. of the Senate on January 13, 1999; and impede the discovery of evidence in that Raleigh Milton, Official Reporter. The rebuttal brief filed by the House civil rights action. Joel Breitner, Official Reporter. of Representatives, received by the ‘‘In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton Mary Jane McCarthy, Official Reporter. Secretary of the Senate on January 14, has undermined the integrity of his office, Paul Nelson, Official Reporter. has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has Katie-Jane Teel, Official Reporter. 1999. Without objection, the foregoing doc- betrayed his trust as President, and has Patrick Renzi, Official Reporter. acted in a manner subversive of the rule of Lee Brown, Staff Assistant, Official Re- uments will be printed in the CONGRES- law and justice, to the manifest injury of the porter. SIONAL RECORD. people of the United States. Kathleen Alvarez, Bill Clerk. The documents follow: ‘‘Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by Simon Sargent, Staff Assistant to Sen. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ss: such conduct, warrants impeachment and Cleland. The Senate of the United States to James W. trial, and removal from office and disquali- UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT—AUTHORITY Ziglar, Sergeant at Arms, United States Sen- fication to hold and enjoy any office of TO PRINT SENATE DOCUMENTS ate, greeting: honor, trust, or profit under the United Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask You are hereby commanded to deliver to States. unanimous consent that the Secretary and leave with William Jefferson Clinton, if ARTICLE II of the Senate be authorized to print as conveniently to be found, or if not, to leave ‘‘In his conduct while President of the a Senate document all documents filed at his usual place of abode, a true and at- United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in tested copy of the within writ of summons, violation of his constitutional oath faith- by the parties together with other ma- together with a like copy of this precept; and terials for the convenience of all Sen- fully to execute the office of President of the in whichsoever way you perform the service, United States and, to the best of his ability, ators. let it be done at least 2 days before the an- preserve, protect, and defend the Constitu- The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objec- swer day mentioned in the said writ of sum- tion of the United States, and in violation of tion, it is so ordered. mons. his constitutional duty to take care that the Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I am Fail not, and make return of this writ of laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, about to submit a series of unanimous- summons and precept, with your proceedings obstructed, and impeded the administration consent agreements and a resolution thereon indorsed, on or before the day for an- of justice, and has to that end engaged per- for the consideration of the Senate. In swering mentioned in the said writ of sum- sonally, and through his subordinates and mons. addition to these matters, I would like agents, in a course of conduct or scheme de- Witness Strom Thurmond, President pro signed to delay, impede, cover up, and con- to state for the information of all Sen- tempore of the Senate, at Washington, D.C., ceal the existence of evidence and testimony ators that, pursuant to S. Res. 16, the this 8th day of January, 1999, the two hun- related to a Federal civil rights action evidentiary record on which the par- dred and twenty-third year of the Independ- brought against him in a duly instituted ju- ties’ presentations over the next days ence of the United States. dicial proceeding. will be based was filed by the House Attest: ‘‘The means used to implement this course managers yesterday and was distrib- GARY SISCO, of conduct or scheme included one or more of Secretary of the Senate. uted to all Senators through their of- the following acts: ‘‘(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William fices. These materials are now being THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ss: Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a printed at the Government Printing Of- The Senate of the United States to William witness in a Federal civil rights action fice as Senate documents. The initial Jefferson Clinton, greeting: brought against him to execute a sworn affi- documents of the record have been Whereas the House of Representatives of davit in that proceeding that he knew to be printed and are now at each Senator’s the United States of America did, on the 7th perjurious, false and misleading. desk. As the printing of the rest of the day of January, 1999, exhibit to the Senate ‘‘(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William volumes of the record is completed articles of impeachment against you, the Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a said William Jefferson Clinton, in the words witness in a Federal civil rights action over the next few days, they will also brought against him to give perjurious, false be placed on the Senators desks for following: ‘‘Articles of impeachment exhibited by the and misleading testimony if and when called their convenience. House of Representatives of the United to testify personally in that proceeding. THE JOURNAL States of America in the name of itself and ‘‘(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objec- of the people of the United States of Amer- Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, en- ica, against William Jefferson Clinton, Presi- couraged, or supported a scheme to conceal tion, the Journal of the proceedings of evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Fed- the trial are approved to date. dent of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment eral civil rights action brought against him. The Presiding Officer submits to the ‘‘(4) Beginning on or about December 7, against him for high crimes and misdemean- 1997, and continuing through and including Senate for printing in the Senate Jour- ors. nal the following documents: January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton ARTICLE I The precept, issued on January 8, intensified and succeeded in an effort to se- 1999; ‘‘In his conduct while President of the cure job assistance to a witness in a Federal The writ of summons, issued on Jan- United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in civil rights action brought against him in violation of his constitutional oath faith- order to corruptly prevent the truthful testi- uary 8, 1999; and the receipt of sum- fully to execute the office of President of the mony of that witness in that proceeding at a mons, dated January 8, 1999. United States and, to the best of his ability, time when the truthful testimony of that The Presiding Officer submits to the preserve, protect, and defend the Constitu- witness would have been harmful to him. Senate for printing in the Senate Jour- tion of the United States, and in violation of ‘‘(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition nal the following documents, which his constitutional duty to take care that the in a Federal civil rights action brought were received by the Secretary of the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully cor- against him, William Jefferson Clinton cor- Senate pursuant to Senate Resolution rupted and manipulated the judicial process ruptly allowed his attorney to make false 16, 106th Congress, first session: of the United States for his personal gain and misleading statements to a Federal and exoneration, impeding the administra- judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to The answer of William Jefferson tion of justice, in that: prevent questioning deemed relevant by the Clinton, President of the United ‘‘On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson judge. Such false and misleading statements States, to the articles of impeachment Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole were subsequently acknowledged by his at- exhibited by the House of Representa- truth, and nothing but the truth before a torney in a communication to that judge. January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S61 ‘‘(6) On or about January 18 and January States, answers the accusations made by the any way an attempt to thwart the investiga- 20–21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related House of Representatives of the United tion. a false and misleading account of events rel- States in the two Articles of Impeachment it The President states, as he did during his evant to a Federal civil rights brought has exhibited to the Senate as follows: grand jury testimony, that he engaged in im- against him to a potential witness in that PREAMBLE proper physical contact with Ms. Lewinsky. proceeding, in order to corruptly influence The President was truthful when he testified the testimony of that witness. THE CHARGES IN THE ARTICLES DO NOT before the grand jury that he did not engage ‘‘(7) On or about January 21, 23, and 26, CONSTITUTE HIGH CRIMES OR MISDEMEANORS in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky as he 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false The charges in the two Articles of Im- understood that term to be defined by the Jones and misleading statements to potential wit- peachment do not permit the conviction and lawyers during their questioning of him in that nesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in removal from office of a duly elected Presi- deposition. The President further denies that order to corruptly influence the testimony of dent. The President has acknowledged con- his other statements to the grand jury about those witnesses. The false and misleading duct with Ms. Lewinsky that was improper. the nature and details of his relationship statements made by William Jefferson Clin- But Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution with Ms. Lewinsky were perjurious, false, ton were repeated by the witnesses to the provides that the President shall be removed and misleading. grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive from office only upon ‘‘Impeachment for, and (2) The President denies that he made perjuri- false and misleading information. Conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other high ous, false and misleading statements to the ‘‘In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton Crimes and Misdemeanors.’’ The charges in grand jury when he testified about state- has undermined the integrity of his office, the articles do not rise to the level of ‘‘high ments he had made in the Jones deposition has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has Crimes and Misdemeanors’’ as contemplated There is a second myth about the Presi- betrayed his trust as President, and has by the Founding Fathers, and they do not dent’s testimony before the grand jury. The acted in a manner subversive to the rule of satisfy the rigorous constitutional standard myth is that the President adopted his en- law and justice, to the manifest injury of the applied throughout our Nation’s history. Ac- tire Jones deposition testimony in the grand people of the United States. cordingly, the Articles of Impeachment jury. The President was not asked to and did ‘‘Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by should be dismissed. not broadly restate or reaffirm his Jones dep- such conduct, warrants impeachment and THE PRESIDENT DID NOT COMMIT PERJURY OR osition testimony. Instead, in the grand jury trial, and removal from office and disquali- OBSTRUCT JUSTICE he discussed the bases for certain answers he fication to hold and enjoy any office of The President denies each and every mate- gave. The President testified truthfully in honor, trust, or profit under the United rial allegation of the two Articles of Im- the grand jury about statements he made in States.’’ peachment not specifically admitted in this the Jones deposition. The President stated to And demand that you, the said William Jef- answer. the grand jury that he did not attempt to be helpful to or assist the lawyers in the Jones ferson Clinton, should be put to answer the ARTICLE I accusations as set forth in said articles, and deposition in their quest for information President Clinton denies that he made per- about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. that such proceedings, examinations, trials, jurious, false and misleading statements be- and judgments might be thereupon had as He truthfully explained to the grand jury his fore the federal grand jury on August 17, efforts to answer the questions in the Jones are agreeable to law and justice. 1998. You, the said William Jefferson Clinton, deposition without disclosing his relation- are therefore hereby summoned to file with FACTUAL RESPONSES TO ARTICLE I ship with Ms. Lewinsky. Accordingly, the the Secretary of the United States Senate, Without waiving his affirmative defenses, full, underlying Jones deposition is not before S–220 The Capitol, Washington, D.C., 20510, President Clinton offers the following fac- the Senate. Indeed, the House specifically considered an answer to the said articles of impeach- tual responses to the allegations in Article I: and rejected an article of impeachment ment no later than noon on the 11th day of (1) The President denies that he made perjuri- based on the President’s deposition in the January, 1999, and therefore to abide by, ous, false and misleading statements to the Jones case. The House managers should not obey, and perform such orders, directions, grand jury about ‘‘the nature and details of be allowed to prosecute before the Senate an and judgments as the Senate of the United his relationship’’ with Monica Lewinsky article of impeachment which the full House States shall make in the premises according There is a myth about President Clinton’s has rejected. to the Constitution and laws of the United testimony before the grand jury. The myth (3) The President denies that he made perjuri- States. is that the President failed to admit his im- Hereof you are not to fail. ous, false and misleading statements to the proper intimate relationship with Ms. grand jury about ‘‘statements he allowed Witness Strom Thurmond, President pro Monica Lewinsky. The myth is perpetuated tempore of the Senate, at Washington, D.C., his attorney to make’’ during the Jones dep- by Article I, which accuses the President of osition this 8th day of January, 1999, the two hun- lying about ‘‘the nature and details of his re- The President denies that he made perjuri- dred and twenty-third year of the Independ- lationship’’ with Ms. Lewinsky. ence of the United States. The fact is that the President specifically ous, false and misleading statements to the grand jury about the statements his attor- Attest: acknowledged to the grand jury that he had ney made during the Jones deposition. The GARY SISCO, an improper intimate relationship with Ms. President was truthful when he explained to Secretary of the Senate. Lewinsky. He said so, plainly and clearly: the grand jury his understanding of certain ‘‘When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on statements made by his lawyer, Robert Ben- The foregoing writ of summons, addressed certain occasions in early 1996 and once in nett, during the Jones deposition. The Presi- to William Jefferson Clinton, President of early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was dent also was truthful when he testified that the United States, and the foregoing precept, wrong. These encounters . . . did involve in- he was not focusing on the prolonged and addressed to me, were duly served upon the appropriate intimate contact.’’ The Presi- complicated exchange between the attorneys said William Jefferson Clinton, by my deliv- dent described to the grand jury how the re- and Judge Wright. ering true and attested copies of the same to lationship began and how it ended at his in- Charles Ruff, at the White House, on the 8th sistence early in 1997—long before any public (4) The President denies that he made perjuri- day of January, 1999, at 5:27 p.m. attention or scrutiny. He also described to ous, false and misleading statements to the Attest: the grand jury how he had attempted to tes- grand jury concerning alleged efforts ‘‘to in- JAMES W. ZIGLAR, tify in the deposition in the Jones case fluence the testimony of witnesses and to Sergeant at Arms. months earlier without having to acknowl- impede the discovery of evidence’’ in the LORETTA SYMMS, edge to the Jones lawyers what he ultimately Jones case Deputy Sergeant at Arms. admitted to the grand jury—that he had an For the reasons discussed more fully in re- Dated: January 8, 1999. improper intimate relationship with Ms. sponse to Article II, the President denies Witnesseth: Lewinsky. that he attempted to influence the testi- Gary Sisco, Secretary, The President read a prepared statement mony of any witness or to impede the discov- ery of evidence in the Jones case. Thus, the United States Senate. to the grand jury acknowledging his rela- tionship with Ms. Lewinsky. The statement President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements before the [In the Senate of the United States Sitting was offered at the beginning of his testimony grand jury when he testified about these as a Court of Impeachment] to focus the questioning in a manner that would allow the Office of Independent Coun- matters. In re Impeachment of William Jefferson sel to obtain necessary information without FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: ARTICLE I DOES Clinton, President of the United States unduly dwelling on the salacious details of NOT MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD ANSWER OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEF- the relationship. The President’s statement FOR CONVICTION AND REMOVAL FERSON CLINTON TO THE ARTICLES OF was followed by almost four hours of ques- For the same reasons set forth in the pre- IMPEACHMENT tioning. If it is charged that his statement amble of this answer, Article I does not meet The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton, was in any respect perjurious, false and mis- the rigorous constitutional standard for con- President of the United States, in response leading, the President denies it. The Presi- viction and removal from office of a duly to the summons of the Senate of the United dent also denies that the statement was in elected President and should be dismissed. S62 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: ARTICLE I IS in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky, the only gifts on December 28, 1997. The President de- TOO VAGUE TO PERMIT CONVICTION AND RE- witness cited in support of this allegation, nies that he ever asked his secretary, Ms. MOVAL denies this allegation as well. Her testimony Betty Currie, to retrieve gifts he had given Article I is unconstitutionally vague. No and proffered statements are clear and un- Ms. Lewinsky, or that he ever asked, encour- reasonable person could know what specific mistakable: aged, or suggested that Ms. Lewinsky con- charges are being leveled against the Presi- ∑ ‘‘[N]o one even asked me to lie and I was ceal the gifts. Ms. Currie told prosecutors as dent. It alleges that the President provided never promised a job for my silence.’’ early as January 1998 and repeatedly there- the grand jury with ‘‘perjurious, false, and ∑ ‘‘Neither the President nor anyone ever after that it was Ms. Lewinsky who had con- misleading testimony’’ concerning ‘‘one or directed Lewinsky to say anything or to lie tacted her about retrieving gifts. more’’ of four subject areas. But it fails to . . .’’ (4) The President denies that he obstructed jus- identify any specific statement by the Presi- ∑ ‘‘Neither the Pres[ident] nor Mr. Jordan tice in connection with Monica Lewinsky’s dent that is alleged to be perjurious, false (or anyone on their behalf) asked or encour- efforts to obtain a job in New York to ‘‘cor- and misleading. The House has left the Sen- aged Ms. L[ewinsky] to lie.’’ ruptly prevent’’ her ‘‘truthful testimony’’ in ate and the President to guess at what it had The President states that, sometime in De- the Jones case in mind. cember 1997, Ms. Lewinsky asked him wheth- The President denies that he obstructed One of the fundamental principles of our er she might be able to avoid testifying the justice in connection with Ms. Lewinsky’s law and the Constitution is that a person has Jones case because she knew nothing about job search in New York or sought to prevent a right to know what specific charges he or Ms. Jones or the case. The President further her truthful testimony in the Jones case. The she is facing. Without such fair warning, no states that he told her he believed other wit- President states that he discussed with Ms. one can prepare the defense to which every nesses had executed affidavits, and there was Lewinsky her desire to obtain a job in New person is entitled. The law and the Constitu- a chance they would not have to testify. The York months before she was listed as a po- tion also mandate adequate notice to jurors President denies that he ever asked, encour- tential witness in the Jones case. Indeed, Ms. so they may know the basis for the vote they aged or suggested that Ms. Lewinsky file a Lewinsky was offered a job in New York at must make. Without a definite and specific false affidavit or lie. The President states the United Nations more than a month be- identification of false statements, a trial be- that he believed that Ms. Lewinsky could fore she was identified as a possible witness. comes a moving target for the accused. In have filed a limited but truthful affidavit The President also states that he believes addition, the American people deserve to that might have enabled her to avoid having that Ms. Lewinsky raised with him, again know upon what specific statements the to testify in the Jones case. before she was ever listed as a possible wit- President is being judged, given the gravity (2) The President denies that on or about De- ness in the Jones case, the prospect of having and effect of these proceedings, namely nul- cember 17, 1997, he ‘‘corruptly encouraged’’ Mr. Vernon Jordan assist in her job search. lifying the results of a national election. Monica Lewinsky ‘‘to give perjurious, false Ms. Lewinsky corroborates his recollection Article I sweeps broadly and fails to pro- and misleading testimony of and when that it was her idea to ask for Mr. Jordan’s vide the required definite and specific identi- called to testify personally’’ in the Jones help. The President also states that he was fication. Were it an indictment, it would be litigation aware that Mr. Jordan was assisting Ms. dismissed. As an article of impeachment, it Again, the President denies that he en- Lewinsky to obtain employment in New is constitutionally defective and should fail. couraged Ms. Lewinsky to lie if and when York. The President denies that any of these THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: ARTICLE I called to testify personally in the Jones case. efforts had any connection whatsoever to CHARGES MULTIPLE OFFENSE IN ONE ARTICLE The testimony and proffered statements of Ms. Lewinsky’s status as a possible or actual Article I is fatally flawed because it Monica Lewinsky, the only witness cited in witness in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky charges multiple instances of alleged perjuri- support of this allegation, are clear and un- forcefully confirmed the President’s denial ous, false and misleading statements in one mistakable: when she testified, ‘‘I was never promised a article. The Constitution provides that ‘‘no ∑ [N]o one ever asked me to lie and I was job for my silence.’’ person shall be convicted without the Con- never promised a job for my silence.’’ (5) The President denies that he ‘‘corruptly al- currence of two thirds of the Members ∑ ‘‘Neither the President nor anyone ever lowed his attorney to make false and mis- present,’’ and Senate Rule XXIII provides directed Lewinsky to say anything or to lie leading statements to a Federal judge’’ con- that ‘‘an article of impeachment shall not be . . .’’ cerning Monica Lewinsky’s affidavit divisible for the purpose of voting thereon at ∑ ‘‘Neither the Pres[ident] nor Mr. Jordan The President denies that he corruptly al- any time during the trial.’’ By the express (or anyone on their behalf) asked or encour- lowed his attorney to make false and mis- terms of Article I, a Senator may vote for aged Ms. L[ewinsky] to lie.’’ leading statements concerning Ms. impeachment if he or she finds that there The President states that, prior to Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit to a Federal judge dur- was perjurious, false and misleading testi- Lewinsky’s involvement in the Jones case, he ing the Jones deposition. The President de- mony in ‘‘one or more’’ of four topic areas. and Ms. Lewinsky might have talked about nies that he was focusing his attention on This creates the very real possibility that what to do to conceal their relationship from the prolonged and complicated exchange be- conviction could occur even though Senators others. Ms. Lewinsky was not a witness in tween his attorney and Judge Wright. were in wide disagreement as to the alleged any legal proceeding at that time. Ms. (6) The President denies that he obstructed jus- wrong committed. Put simply, the structure Lewinsky’s own testimony and statements tice by relating ‘‘false and misleading state- of Article I presents the possibility that the support the President’s recollection. Ms. ments’’ to ‘‘a potential witness,’’ Betty President could be convicted even though he Lewinsky testified that she ‘‘pretty much Currie, ‘‘in order to corruptly influence would have been acquitted if separate votes can’’ exclude the possibility that she and the [her] testimony’’ were taken on each allegedly perjurious President ever had discussions about denying The President denies that he obstructed statement. For example, it would be possible the relationship after she learned she was a justice or endeavored in any way to influ- for the President to be convicted and re- witness in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky also ence any potential testimony of Ms. Betty moved from office with as few as 17 Senators stated that ‘‘they did not discuss the issue Currie. The President states that he spoke agreeing that any single statement was per- [of what to say about their relationship] is with Ms. Currie on January 18, 1998. The jurious, because 17 votes for each of the four specific relation to the Jones matter,’’ and President testified that, in that conversa- categories in Article I would yield 68 votes, that ‘‘she does not believe they discussed the tion, he was trying to find out what the facts one more than necessary to convict and re- content of any deposition that [she] might be were, what Ms. Currie’s perception was, and move. involved in at a later date.’’ whether his own recollection was correct By charging multiple wrongs in one arti- (3) The President denies that on or about De- about certain aspects of his relationship cle, the House of Representatives has made cember 28, 1997, he ‘‘corruptly engaged in, with Ms. Lewinsky. Ms. Currie testified that it impossible for the Senate to comply with encouraged, or supported a scheme to con- she felt no pressure ‘‘whatsoever’’ from the the Constitutional mandate that any convic- ceal evidence’’ in the Jones case President’s statements and no pressure ‘‘to tion be by the concurrence of two-thirds of The President denies that he engaged in, agree with [her] boss.’’ The President denies the members. Accordingly, Article I should knowing or believing that Ms. Currie would fail. encouraged, or supported any scheme to con- ceal evidence from discovery in the Jones be a witness in any proceeding at the time of FACTUAL RESPONSES TO ARTICLE II case, including any gifts he had given to Ms. this conversation. Ms. Currie had not been Without waiving his affirmative defenses, Lewinsky. The President states that he gave on any of the witness lists proffered by the President Clinton offers the following fac- numerous gifts to Ms. Lewinsky prior to De- Jones lawyers. President Clinton states that, tual responses to the allegations in Article cember 28, 1997. The President states that, after the Independent Counsel investigation II: sometime in December, Ms. Lewinsky in- became public, when Ms. Currie was sched- (1) The President denies that on or about De- quired as to what to do if she were asked in uled to testify, he told Ms. Currie to ‘‘tell cember 17, 1997, he ‘‘corruptly encouraged’’ the Jones case about the gifts he had given the truth.’’ Monica Lewinsky ‘‘to execute a sworn affi- her, to which the President responded that (7) The President denies that he obstructed jus- davit in that proceeding that he knew to be she would have to turn over whatever she tice when he relayed allegedly ‘‘false and perjurious, false and misleading’’ had. The President states that he was uncon- misleading statements’’ to his aides The President denies that he encouraged cerned about having given her gifts and, in The President denies that he obstructed Monica Lewinsky to execute a false affidavit fact, that he gave Ms. Lewinsky additional justice when he misled his aides about the January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S63 nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky Washington, D.C. false affidavit and to use it for the purpose of in the days immediately following the public 20502. obstructing justice in the Jones case. revelation of the Lewinsky investigation. Submitted: January 11, 1999. ∑ The President suggested to Ms. The President acknowledges that, in the Lewinsky that she provide a false account of days following the January 21, 1998, Washing- [In the Senate of the United States Sitting how she received her job at the Pentagon. ton Post article, he misled his family, his as a Court of Impeachment] ∑ The President attempted to influence the friends and staff, and the Nation to conceal expected testimony of his secretary, Ms. In re Impeachment of President William Jef- the nature of his relationship with Ms. Currie, by providing her with a false account ferson Clinton Lewinsky. He sought to avoid disclosing his of his meetings with Ms. Lewinsky. personal wrongdoing to protect his family TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED ∑ The President provided several of his top and himself from hurt and public embarrass- STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES aides with elaborate lies about his relation- ment. The President profoundly regrets his Now comes the United States House of ship with Ms. Lewinsky, so that those aides actions, and he has apologized to his family, Representatives, by and through its duly au- would convey the false information to the his friends and staff, and the Nation. The thorized Managers, and respectfully submits public and to the grand jury. When he did President denies that he had any corrupt to the United States Senate its Brief in con- this, he knew that those aides would likely purpose or any intent to influence the ongo- nection with the Impeachment Trial of Wil- be called to testify, while he was declining ing grand jury proceedings. liam Jefferson Clinton, President of the several invitations to testify. By this action, FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: ARTICLE II United States. he obstructed and delayed the operation of DOES NOT MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL SUMMARY the grand jury. The President conspired with Ms. STANDARD FOR CONVICTION AND REMOVAL ∑ The President is charged in two Articles Lewinsky and Ms. Currie to conceal evidence For the reasons set forth in the preamble with: (1) Perjury and false and misleading that he had been subpoenaed in the Jones of this answer, Article II does not meet the testimony and statements under oath before case, and thereby delayed and obstructed constitutional standard for convicting and a federal grand jury (Article I), and (2) en- justice. removing a duly elected President from of- gaging in a course of conduct or scheme to ∑ The President and his representatives or- fice and should be dismissed. delay and obstruct justice (Article II). chestrated a campaign to discredit Ms. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: ARTICLE II IS The evidence contained in the record, when Lewinsky in order to affect adversely her TOO VAGUE TO PERMIT CONVICTION AND RE- viewed as a unified whole, overwhelmingly credibility as a witness, and thereby at- MOVAL supports both charges. tempted to obstruct justice both in the Article II is unconstitutionally vague. No PERJURY AND FALSE STATEMENTS UNDER OATH Jones case and the grand jury. reasonable person could know what specific President Clinton deliberately and will- ∑ The President lied repeatedly under oath charges are being leveled against the Presi- fully testified falsely under oath when he ap- in his disposition in the Jones case, and dent. Article II alleges that the President peared before a federal grand jury on August thereby obstructed justice in that case. ‘‘obstructed and impeded the administration 17, 1998. Although what follows is not exhaus- ∑ The President’s lies and misleading of justice’’ in both the Jones case and the tive, some of the more overt examples will statements under oath at the grand jury grand jury investigation. But it provides lit- serve to illustrate. were calculated to, and did obstruct, delay tle or no concrete information about the spe- ∑ At the very outset, the President read a and prevent the due administration of jus- cific acts in which the President is alleged to prepared statement, which itself contained tice by that body. have engaged, or with whom, or when, that totally false assertions and other clearly ∑ The President employed the power of his allegedly obstructed or otherwise impeded misleading information. office to procure a job for Ms. Lewinsky after the administration of justice. ∑ The President relied on his statement she signed the false affidavit by causing his As we set forth in the Second Affirmative nineteen times in his testimony when ques- friend to exert extraordinary efforts for that Defense to Article I, one of the fundamental tioned about his relationship with Ms. purpose. principles of our law and the Constitution is Lewinsky. The foregoing are merely accusations of an that a person has the right to know what ∑ President Clinton falsely testified that ongoing pattern of obstruction of justice, specific charges he or she is facing. Without he was not paying attention when his lawyer and witness tampering extending over a pe- such fair warning, no one can mount the de- employed Ms. Lewinsky’s false affidavit at riod of several months, and having the effect fense to which every person is entitled. Fun- the Jones deposition. of seriously compromising the integrity of damental to due process is the right of the ∑ He falsely claimed that his actions with the entire judicial system. President to be adequately informed of the Ms. Lewinsky did not fall within the defini- The effect of the President’s misconduct charges so that he is able to confront those tion of ‘‘sexual relations’’ that was given at has been devastating in several respects. charges and defend himself. his deposition. (1) He violated repeatedly his oath to ‘‘pre- Article II sweeps too broadly and provides ∑ He falsely testified that he answered serve, protect and defend the Constitution of too little definite and specific identification. questions truthfully at his deposition con- the United States.’’ Were it an indictment, it would be dismissed. cerning, among other subjects, whether he (2) He ignored his constitutional duty as As an article of impeachment, it is constitu- had been alone with Ms. Lewinsky. chief law enforcement officer to ‘‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’’ tionally defective and should fail. ∑ He falsely testified that he instructed (3) He deliberately and unlawfully ob- THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: ARTICLE II Ms. Lewinsky to turn over the gifts if she were subpoenaed. structed Paula Jones’s rights as a citizen to CHARGES MULTIPLE OFFENSES IN ONE ARTICLE due process and the equal protection of the For the reasons set forth in the Third Af- ∑ He falsely denied trying to influence Ms. Currie after his deposition. laws, though he had sworn to protect those firmative Defense to Article I, Article II is rights. ∑ He falsely testified that he was truthful constitutionally defective because it charges (4) By his pattern of lies under oath, mis- to his aides when he gave accounts of his re- multiple instances of alleged acts of obstruc- leading statements and deceit, he has seri- lationship, which accounts were subse- tion in one article, which makes it impos- ously undermined the integrity and credibil- quently disseminated to the media and the sible for the Senate to comply with the Con- ity of the Office of President and thereby the grand jury. stitutional mandates that any conviction be honor and integrity of the United States. by the concurrence of the two-thirds of the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (5) His pattern of perjuries, obstruction of members. Accordingly, Article II should fail. The President engaged in an ongoing justice, and witness tampering has affected Respectfully submitted, scheme to obstruct both the Jones civil case the truth seeking process which is the foun- DAVID E. KENDALL, and the grand jury. Further, he undertook a dation of our legal system. NICOLE K. SELIGMAN, continuing and concerted plan to tamper (6) By mounting an assault in the truth EMMET T. FLOOD, with witnesses and prospective witnesses for seeking process, he has attacked the entire MAX STIER, the purpose of causing those witnesses to Judicial Branch of government. GLEN DONATH, provide false and misleading testimony. Ex- The Articles of Impeachment that the ALICIA MARTI, amples abound: House has preferred state offenses that war- Williams & Connolly, ∑ The President and Ms. Lewinsky con- rant, if proved, the conviction and removal 725 12th Street, N.W., cocted a cover story to conceal their rela- from office of President William Jefferson Washington, D.C. tionship, and the President suggested that Clinton. The Articles charge that the Presi- 20005. she employ that story if subpoenaed in the dent has committed perjury before a federal CHARLES F. C. RUFF, Jones case. grand jury and that he obstructed justice in GREGORY B. CRAIG, ∑ The President suggested that Ms. a federal civil rights action. The Senate’s BRUCE R. LINDSEY, Lewinsky provide an affidavit to avoid testi- own precedents establish beyond doubt that CHERYL D. MILLS, fying in the Jones case, when he knew that perjury warrants conviction and removal. LANNY A. BREUER, the affidavit would need to be false to ac- During the 1980s, the Senate convicted and Office of the White complish its purpose. removed three federal judges for committing House Counsel, ∑ The President knowingly and willfully perjury. Obstruction of justice under mines The White House, allowed his attorney to file Ms. Lewinsky’s the judicial system in the same fashion that S64 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 perjury does, and it also warrants conviction Clinton flirted with each other. (Id.) The When considered alone this would seem ex- and removal. President of the United States of America culpatory. However, in the context of the Under our Constitution, judges are im- then invited this unknown young intern into other evidence, another picture emerges. Of peached under the same standard as Presi- a private area off the Oval Office where he course no one said. ‘‘Now, Monica, you go in dents—treason, bribery, or other high crimes kissed her. He then invited her back later there and lie.’’ They didn’t have to. Ms. and misdemeanors. Thus, these judicial im- and when she returned, the two engaged in Lewinsky knew what was expected of her. peachments for perjury set the standard the first of many acts of inappropriate con- Similarly, nobody promised her a job, but here. Finally, the Senate’s own precedents tact. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 12; H.Doc. 105–311, p. once she signed the false affidavit, she got further establish that the President’s crimes 732) one. Thereafter, the two concocted a cover need not arise directly out of his official du- THE ISSUE ties. Two of the three judges removed in the story. If Ms. Lewinsky were seen, she was bringing papers to the President. That story The ultimate issue is whether the Presi- 1980s were removed for perjury that had dent’s course of conduct is such as to affect nothing to do with their official duties. was totally false. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 54; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 774; 8/26/98 Dep., p. 34; H.Doc. 105– adversely the Office of the President and also INTRODUCTION 311, p. 1314) The only papers she brought were upon the administration of justice, and This Brief is intended solely to advise the personal messages having nothing to do with whether he has acted in a manner contrary Senate generally of the evidence that the her duties or those of the President. (ML 8/6/ to his trust as President and subversive to Managers intend to product, if permitted, 98 GJ, pgs. 54–55; H.Doc. 105–311, pp. 774–775) the Rule of Law and Constitutional govern- and of the applicable legal principles. It is After Ms. Lewinsky moved from the White ment. not intended to discuss exhaustively all of House to the Pentagon, her frequent visits to THE BEGINNING the evidence, nor does it necessarily include the President were disguised as visits to The events that form the basis of these each and every witness and document that Betty Currie. (Id.) Those cover stories are charges actually began in late 1995. They the Managers would produce in the course of important, because they play a vital role in reached a critical stage in the winter of 1997 the trial. This Brief, then, is merely an out- the later perjuries and obstructions. and the first month of 1998. The event cul- line for the use of the Senate in reviewing ENCOUNTERS minated when the President of the United and assessing the evidence as it is set forth Over the term of their relationship the fol- States appeared before a federal grand jury, at trial—it is not, and is not intended to be lowing significant matters occurred: raised his right hand to God and swore to tell a substitute for a trial at which all of the 1. Monica Lewinsky and the President were the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but relevant facts will be developed. alone on at least twenty-one occasions; the truth. H. RES. 611, 105TH CONG. 2ND SESS. (1998) 2. They had at least eleven personal sexual DECEMBER 5–6, 1997 The House Impeachment Resolution encounters, excluding phone sex: Three in On Friday, December 5, 1997, Monica 1995, Five in 1996 and Three in 1997; charges the President with high crimes and Lewinsky asked Betty Currie if the Presi- 3. They had at least 55 telephone conversa- misdemeanors in two Articles. Article One dent could see her the next day, Saturday, tions, at least seventeen of which involved alleges that President Clinton ‘‘willfully cor- but Ms. Currie said that the President was rupted and manipulated the judicial process phone sex; 4. The President gave Ms. Lewinsky twen- scheduled to meet with his lawyers all day. of the United States for his personal gain (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 107–108; H. Doc. 105–311, and exoneration, impeding the administra- ty presents; and, 5. Ms. Lewinsky gave the President forty pgs. 827–828) Later that Friday, Ms. tion of justice’’ in that he willfully provided presents (O.I.C. Referral, App., Tab E; H.Doc. Lewinsky spoke briefly to the President at a perjurious, false and misleading testimony 105–311, pgs. 104–111) Christmas party. (ML 7/31/98 Int., p. 1; H. to a federal grand jury on August 17, 1998. These are the essential facts which form Doc. 105–311, p. 1451; ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 108; H. Article Two asserts that the President ‘‘has the backdrop for all of the events that fol- Doc. 105–311, p. 828) prevented, obstructed, and impeded the ad- lowed. THE WITNESS LIST IS RECEIVED ministration of justice and engaged in a The sexual details of the President’s en- That evening, Paula Jones’s attorneys course of conduct or scheme designed to counters with Ms. Lewinsky, though rel- delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the ex- faxed a list of potential witnesses to the evant, need not be detailed either in this President’s attorneys. (849–DC–00000128; 849– istence of evidence and testimony related to document or through witness testimony. It DC–00000121–37; Referral, H. Doc. 105–311, p. a federal civil rights action brought against is necessary, though, briefly to outline that 88) The list included Monica Lewinsky. How- him.’’ Both Articles are now before the Sen- evidence, because it will demonstrate that ever, Ms. Lewinsky did not find out that her ate of the United States for trial as provided the President repeatedly lied about that sex- name was on the list until the President told by the Constitution of the United States. ual relationship in his deposition, before the her ten days later, on December 17. (ML 8/6/ The Office of President represents to the grand jury, and in his responses to the Judi- 98 GJ, pgs. 121–123; H. Doc. 105–311, pgs. 841– American people and to the world, the ciary Committee’s questions. He has consist- 843) That delay is significant. strength, the philosophy and most of all, the ently maintained that Ms. Lewinsky merely honor and integrity that makes us a great performed acts on him, while he never MS. LEWINSKY’S FIRST VISIT nation and an example for the world. Be- touched her in a sexual manner. This charac- After her conversation with Ms. Currie and cause all eyes are focused upon that high of- terization not only directly contradicts Ms. seeing the President at the Christmas party, fice, the character and credibility of any Lewinsky’s testimony, but it also con- Ms. Lewinsky drafted a letter to the Presi- temporary occupant of the Oval Office is tradicts the sworn grand jury testimony of dent terminating their relationship. (ML–55– vital to the domestic and foreign welfare of three of her friends and the statements by DC–0177); ML 7/31/98 Int., p. 2; H. Doc. 105–311, the citizens. Consequently, serious breaches two professional counselors with whom she p. 1452) The next morning, Saturday, Decem- of integrity and duty of necessity adversely contemporaneously shared the details of her ber 6, Ms. Lewinsky went to the White House influence the reputation of the United relationship. (O.I.C. Referral, H. Doc. 105–310, to deliver the letter and some gifts for the States. pgs. 138–140) President to Ms. Currie. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. This case is not about sex or private con- While his treatment of Ms. Lewinsky was 108–109; H. Doc. 105–311, pgs. 828–829) When duct. It is about multiple obstructions of jus- offensive, it is much more offensive for the she arrived at the White House, Ms. tice, perjury, false and misleading state- President to expect the Senate to believe Lewinsky spoke to several Secret Service of- ments, and witness tampering—all commit- that in 1995, 1996, and 1997, his intimate con- ficers, and one of them told her that the ted or orchestrated by the President of the tact with Ms. Lewinsky was so limited that President was not with his lawyers, as she United States. it did not fall within his narrow interpreta- thought, but rather, he was meeting with El- Before addressing the President’s lies and tion of a definition of ‘‘sexual relations’’. As eanor Mondale. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 111; H. Doc. obstruction, it is important to place the later demonstrated, he did not even conceive 105–311, p. 831; Mondale 7/16/98 Int., p. 1; H. events in the proper context. If this were his interpretation until 1998, while preparing Doc. 105–316, pgs. 2907–2908; H. Doc. 105–311, p. only about private sex we would not now be for his grand jury appearance. 2654) Ms. Lewinsky called Ms. Currie from a before the Senate. But the manner in which HOW TO VIEW THE EVIDENCE pay phone, angrily exchanged words with the Lewinsky relationship arose and contin- We respectfully submit that the evidence her, and went home. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 112– ued is important because it is illustrative of and testimony must be viewed as a whole; it 13; H. Doc. 105–311, pgs. 832–833; Currie 1/27/98 the character of the President and the deci- cannot be compartmentalized. It is essential GJ, p. 27; H. Doc. 105–316, p. 553) After that sions he made. to avoid considering each event in isolation, phone call, Ms. Currie told the Secret Serv- BACKGROUND and then treating it separately. Events and ice watch commander that the President was Monica Lewinsky, a 22 year old intern, words that may seem innocent or even excul- so upset about the disclosure of his meeting (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 8; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 728) was patory in a vacuum may well take on a sin- with Ms. Mondale that he wanted somebody working at the White House during the gov- ister, or even criminal connotation when ob- fired. (Purdie 7/23/98 GJ, pgs. 13, 18–19; H. Doc. ernment shutdown in 1995. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. served in the context of the whole plot. For 105–316, pgs. 3356–3357). 10; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 730) Prior to their first example, everyone agrees that Monica THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS intimate encounter, she had never even spo- Lewinsky testified ‘‘No one ever told me to At 12:05 p.m., records demonstrate that Ms. ken with the President. Sometime on No- lie; nobody ever promised me a job.’’ (ML 8/ Currie paged Bruce Lindsey with the mes- vember 15, 1995, Ms. Lewinsky and President 20/98 GJ, p. 105; H. Doc. 105–311, p. 1161) sage: ‘‘Call Betty ASAP.’’ (964–DC–00000862; January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S65 H. Doc. 105–311, p. 2722) Around that same However, during his deposition, the Presi- ployee with whom the President had sexual time, according to Ms. Lewinsky, while she dent testified that he had heard about the relations, proposed sexual relations, or was back at her apartment, Ms. Lewinsky witness list before he saw it. (WJC 1/17/98 sought to have sexual relations. and the President spoke by phone. The Presi- Dep., p. 70) In other words, if the President The President knew that it would be politi- dent was very angry; he told Ms. Lewinsky testified truthfully in his deposition, then he cally and legally expedient to maintain an that no one had every treated him as poorly knew about the witness list before the 5 p.m. amicable relationship with Monica as she had. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 113–14; H. Doc. meeting. It is valid to infer that hearing Ms. Lewinsky. And the President knew that that 105–311, pgs. 833–834) The President acknowl- Lewinsky’s name on a witness list prompted relationship would be fostered by finding Ms. edged to the grand jury that he was upset the President’s sudden and otherwise unex- Lewinsky a job. This was accomplished about Ms. Lewinsky’s behavior and consid- plained change from ‘‘very angry’’ to ‘‘very through enlisting the help of Vernon Jordan. ered it inappropriate. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 85; affectionate’’ that Saturday afternoon. It is DECEMBER 17, 1997, MS. LEWINSKY LEARNS OF H.Doc. 105–311, p. 537). Nevertheless, in a sud- also reasonable to infer that it prompted him WITNESS LIST den change of mood, he invited her to visit to give the unique instruction to a Secret On December 17, 1997, between 2:00 and 2:30 him at the White House that afternoon. (ML Service watch commander to use ‘‘discre- in the morning, Monica Lewinsky’s phone 8/6/98 GJ, p. 114; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 834) tion’’ regarding Ms. Lewinsky’s visit to the rang unexpectedly. It was the President of MS. LEWINSKY’S SECOND VISIT White House, which the watch commander the United States. The President said that Monica Lewinsky arrived at the White interpreted as an instruction to refrain from he wanted to tell Ms. Lewinsky two things: House for the second time that day and was discussing the incident. (Purdie 7/17/98 GJ, one was that Betty Currie’s brother had been cleared to enter at 12:52 p.m. (WAVES: 827– pgs. 20–21; H.Doc. 105–316, pgs. 3351-3352; killed in a car accident; secondly, the Presi- DC–00000018) Although, in Ms. Lewinsky’s Purdie 7/23/98 GJ, pgs. 32–33; H.Doc. 105–315, dent said that he ‘‘had some more bad news,’’ words, the President was ‘‘very angry’’ with pgs. 3360–3361) that he had seen the witness list for the her during their recent telephone conversa- THE JOB SEARCH FOR MS. LEWINSKY Paula Jones case and her name was on it. tion, he was ‘‘sweet’’ and ‘‘very affectionate’’ Monica Lewinsky had been looking for a (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 123; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 843) during this visit. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 113–15; good paying and high profile job in New York The President told Ms. Lewinsky that seeing H.Doc. 105–311, pgs. 833–835). He also told her since the previous July. She was not having her name on the list ‘‘broke his heart.’’ He that he would talk to Vernon Jordan about much success despite the President’s promise then told her that ‘‘if [she] were to be sub- her job situation. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 115–16; to help. In early November, Betty Currie ar- poenaed, [she] should contact Betty and let H.Doc. 105–311, pgs. 835–836) ranged a meeting with Vernon Jordan who Betty know that [she] had received the sub- THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SECRET SERVICE was supposed to help. (BC 5/6/98 GJ, p. 176; poena.’’ (Id.) Ms. Lewinsky asked what she The President also suddenly changed his H.Doc. 105–316, p. 592) should do if subpoenaed. The President re- attitude toward the Secret Service. Ms. On November 5, Ms. Lewinsky met for sponded: ‘‘Well, maybe you can sign an affi- Currie informed some officers that if they twenty minutes with Mr. Jordan (ML 8/6/98 davit.’’ (Id.) Both parties knew that the Affi- kept quiet about the Lewinsky incident, GJ, pg. 104; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 824) No action davit would need to be false and misleading there would be no disciplinary action. (Wil- followed; no job interviews were arranged to accomplish the desired result. liams 7/23/98 GJ, pgs. 25, 27–28; H.Doc. 105–316, and there were no further contacts with Mr. THE PRESIDENT’S ‘‘SUGGESTION’’ p. 4539; Chinery 7/23/98 GJ, p. 22–23; H.Doc. Jordan. It was obvious that he made no ef- Then, the President had a very pointed 105–316, p. 456). According to the Secret Serv- fort to find a job for Ms. Lewinsky. Indeed, suggestion for Monica Lewinsky, a sugges- ice watch commander, Captain Jeffrey it was so unimportant to him that he ‘‘had tion that left little room for compromise. He Purdie, the President personally told him, ‘‘I no recollection of an early November meet- did not specifically tell her to lie. What he hope you use your discretion’’ or ‘‘I hope I ing’’ (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, pg. 50; H.Doc. 105–316, p. did say is ‘‘you know, you can always say can count on your discretion.’’ (Purdie 7/23/98 1799) and that finding a job for Ms. Lewinsky you were coming to see Betty or that you GJ, p. 32; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 3360; Purdie 7/17/ was not a priority (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. 76; H.Doc. were bringing me letters.’’ (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 98 GJ, p. 3; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 3353) Deputy 105–316, p. 1804) (Chart R) Nothing happened 123; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 843) Chief Charles O’Malley, Captain Purdie’s su- throughout the month of November, because In order to understand the significance of pervisor, testified that he knew of no other Mr. Jordan was either gone or would not re- this statement, it is necessary to recall the time in his fourteen years of service at the turn Monica’s calls. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 105–106; ‘‘cover stories’’ that the President and Ms. White House where the President raised a H.Doc. 105–311, pgs. 825–826) Lewinsky had previously structured in order performance issue with a member of the Se- During the December 6 meeting with the to deceive those who protected and worked cret Service uniformed division. (O’Malley 9/ President, she mentioned that she had not with the President. 8/98 Dep., pgs. 40–41; H.Doc. 105–316, pgs. 3168– been able to get in touch with Mr. Jordan Ms. Lewinsky said she would carry papers 3171) After his conversation with the Presi- and that it did not seem he had done any- when she visited the President. When she dent, Captain Purdie told a number of offi- thing to help her. The President responded saw him, she would say: ‘‘Oh, gee, ‘here are cers that they should not discuss the by stating, ‘‘Oh, I’ll talk to him. I’ll get on your letters,’ wink, wink, wink and he would Lewinsky incident. (Porter 8/13/98 GJ, p. 12; it,’’ or something to that effect. (ML 8/6/98 answer, ‘Okay that’s good.’ ’’ (ML 8/6/98 GJ, H.Doc. 105–316, p. 3343; Niedzwiecki 7/30/98 GJ, GJ, pgs. 115–116; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 836) There p. 54; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 774) After Ms. pgs. 30–31, H.Doc. 105–316, p. 3114) was obviously still no urgency to help Ms. Lewinsky left White House employment, she When the President was before the grand Lewinsky. Mr. Jordan met the President the would return to the Oval Office under the jury and questioned about his statements to next day, December 7, but the meeting was guise of visiting Betty Currie, not the Presi- the Secret Service regarding this incident, unrelated to Ms. Lewinsky. (VJ 5/5/98 GJ. dent. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 55; H.Doc. 105–311, p. the President testified, ‘‘I don’t remember pgs. 83, 116; H.Doc. 105–316, pgs. 1805, 1810) 775) what I said and I don’t remember to whom I Moreover, Ms. Lewinsky promised the THE DECEMBER 11, 1997 ACTIVITY said it.’’ (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 86; H.Doc. 105–311, President that she would always deny the p. 534) When confronted with Captain The first activity calculated to help Ms. sexual relationship and always protect him. Purdie’s testimony, the President testified, Lewinsky actually procure employment took The President would respond ‘‘that’s good’’ ‘‘I don’t remember anything I said to him in place on December 11. Mr. Jordan met with or similar language of encouragement. (ML that regard. I have no recollection of that Ms. Lewinsky and gave her a list of contact 8/20/98 GJ, p. 22; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 1078) whatever.’’ (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 91; H.Doc. 105– names. The two also discussed the President. So, when the President called Ms. 311, p. 543) (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 119, 120; H.Doc. 105–311, Lewinsky at 2:00 a.m. on December 17 to tell THE PRESIDENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE WITNESS pgs. 839–840) That meeting Mr. Jordan re- her she was on the witness list, he made sure LIST membered. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 41; H.Doc. 105–316, to remind her of those prior ‘‘cover stories.’’ p. 1798) Vernon Jordan immediately placed President Clinton testified before the Ms. Lewinsky testified that when the Presi- calls to two prospective employers. (VJ 3/3/98 grand jury that he learned that Ms. dent brought up the misleading stories, she GJ, pgs. 54, 62–63; H.Doc. 105–316, pgs. 1800– Lewinsky was on the Jones witness list that understood that the two would continue 1802) Later in the afternoon, he even called evening, Saturday, December 6, during a their pre-existing pattern of deception. the President to give him a report on his job meeting with his lawyers. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. THE PRESIDENT’S INTENTION search efforts. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, pgs. 64–66; 83–84; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 535–536) He stood by It became clear that the President had no H.Doc. 105–316, p. 1802) Clearly, Mr. Jordan this answer in response to Request Number intention of making his sexual relationship and the President were now very interested 16 submitted by the Judiciary Committee. with Monica Lewinsky a public affair. And in helping Monica find a good job in New (Exhibit 18). The meeting occurred around 5 he would use lies, deceit, and deception to York. (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. 95; H.Doc. 105–316, p. p.m., after Ms. Lewinsky had left the White ensure that the truth would not be known. 1807) House. (WAVES: 1407–DC–00000005; Lindsey 3/ It is interesting to note that when the 12/98 GJ, pgs. 64–66; H.Doc. 105–316, pgs. 2418– SIGNIFICANCE OF DECEMBER 11, 1997 grand jury asked the President whether he 19) According to Bruce Lindsey, at the meet- This sudden interest was inspired by a remembered calling Monica Lewinsky at 2:00 ing, Bob Bennett had a copy of the Jones court order entered on December 11, 1997. On a.m., he responded: ‘‘No sir, I don’t. But it witness list faxed to Mr. Bennett the pre- that date, Judge Susan Webber Wright or- would . . . it is quite possible that that hap- vious night. (Lindsey 3/12/98 GJ, pgs. 65–67; dered that Paula Jones was entitled to infor- pened. . . .’’ (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 115; H.Doc. H.Doc. 105–316, p. 2419) (Exhibit 15) mation regarding any state or federal em- 105–311, p. 567) S66 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 And when he was asked whether he encour- (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 128; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 848) 33; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 485) He admitted that he aged Monica Lewinsky to continue the cover (Charts F and G) Extremely distraught, she ‘‘probably’’ gave Ms. Lewinsky the most stories of ‘‘coming to see Betty’’ or ‘‘bring- immediately called the President’s closest gifts he had ever given her on that date, ing the letters,’’ he answered: ‘‘I don’t re- friend, Vernon Jordan. As noted Ms. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 35; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 487) member exactly what I told her that night.’’ Lewinsky testified that the President pre- and that he had given her gifts on other oc- (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 117; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 565) viously told her to call Betty Currie if she casions. (WJC 8/6/98 GJ, p. 35) (Chart D) Six days earlier, he had become aware that was subpoenaed. She called Mr. Jordan in- Among the many gifts the President gave Paula Jones’ lawyers were now able to in- stead because Ms. Currie’s brother recently Ms. Lewinsky on December 28 was a bear quire about other women. Ms. Lewinsky died and she did not want to bother her. (ML that he said was a symbol of strength. (ML 8/ could file a false affidavit, but it might not 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 128–129; H.Doc. 105–311, pgs. 848, 6/98 GJ, p. 176; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 896) Yet only work. It was absolutely essential that both 849) two-and-a-half weeks later, the President parties told the same story. He knew that he VERNON JORDAN’S ROLE forgot that he had given any gifts to Ms. would lie if asked about Ms. Lewinsky, and Lewinsky. Mr. Jordan invited Ms. Lewinsky to his of- he wanted to make certain that she would lie As an attorney, the President knew that fice and she arrived shortly before 5 p.m., also. That is why the President of the United the law will not tolerate someone who says, still extremely distraught. Around this time, States called a twenty-four year old woman ‘‘I don’t recall’’ when that answer is unrea- Mr. Jordan called the President and told him at 2:00 in the morning. sonable under the circumstances. He also Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. (VJ 5/5/ knew that, under those circumstances, his THE EVIDENCE MOUNTS 98 GJ, p. 145; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 1815) (Exhibit answer in the deposition could not be be- But the President had an additional prob- 1) During the meeting with Ms. Lewinsky, lieved. When asked in the grand jury why he lem. It was not enough that he (and Ms. which Mr. Jordan characterized as ‘‘disturb- was unable to remember, even though he had Lewinsky) simply deny the relationship. The ing’’ (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. 100; H.Doc. 105–316, p. given Ms. Lewinsky so many gifts only two- evidence was beginning to accumulate. Be- 1716), she talked about her infatuation with and-a-half weeks before the deposition, the cause of the emerging evidence, the Presi- the President. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. 150; H.Doc. President put forth an obviously contrived dent found it necessary to reevaluate his de- 105–316, p. 1724) Mr. Jordan decided that he explanation. fense. By this time, the evidence was estab- would call a lawyer for her. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. lishing, through records and eyewitness ac- 161; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 1726) ‘‘I think what I meant there was I don’t re- call what they were, not that I don’t recall counts, that the President and Monica MR. JORDAN INFORMS THE PRESIDENT Lewinsky were spending a significant whether I had given them.’’ amount of time together in the Oval Office That evening, Mr. Jordan met with the (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 51; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 503) President and relayed his conversation with complex. It was no longer expedient simply RESPONSE TO COMMITTEE REQUESTS Ms. Lewinsky. The details are extremely im- to refer to Ms. Lewinsky as a ‘‘groupie’’, The President adopted that same answer in ‘‘stalker’’, ‘‘clutch’’, or ‘‘home wrecker’’ as portant because the President, in his deposi- tion, did not recall that meeting. Mr. Jordan Response No. 42 to the House Judiciary Com- the White House first attempted to do. The mittee’s Requests For Admission. (Exhibit unassailable facts were forcing the President told the President again that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed, that he was concerned 18) He was not asked in the deposition to to acknowledge some type of relationship. identify the gifts. He was simply asked, But at this point, he still had the oppor- about her fascination with the President, and that Ms. Lewinsky had asked Mr. Jordan ‘‘Have you ever’’ given gifts to Ms. tunity to establish a non-sexual explanation Lewinsky. The law does not allow a witness for their meetings, since his DNA had not if he thought the President would leave the First Lady. He also asked the President if he to insert unstated premises or mental res- yet been identified on Monica Lewinsky’s ervations into the question to make his an- blue dress. had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. 169; H.Doc 105–3316, p. 1727) The swer technically true, if factually false. The NEED FOR THE COVER STORY President was asked at his deposition: essence of lying is in deception, not in words. Therefore, the President needed Monica The President’s answer was false. The evi- Q. Did anyone other than your attorneys Lewinsky to go along with the cover story in dence also proves that his explanation to the ever tell you that Monica Lewinsky had been order to provide an innocent, intimate-free grand jury and to the Committee is also served with a subpoena in this case? false. The President would have us believe explanation for their frequent meetings. And A. I don’t think so. that he was able to analyze questions as they that innocent explanation came in the form Q. Did you ever talk with Monica were being asked, and pick up such things as of ‘‘document deliveries’’ and ‘‘friendly chats Lewinsky about the possibility that she verb tense in an attempt to make his state- with Betty Currie.’’ might be asked to testify in this case? Significantly, when the President was de- ments at least literally true. But when he A. Bruce Lindsey, I think Bruce Lindsey posed on January 17, 1998, he used the exact was asked a simple, straightforward ques- told me that she was, I think maybe that’s same cover stories that had been utilized by tion, he did not understand it. Neither his the first person told me she was. I want to be Ms. Lewinsky. In doing so, he stayed consist- answer in the deposition nor his attempted as accurate as I can. ent with any future Lewinsky testimony explanation is reasonable or true. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 68–69) while still maintaining his defense in the TESTIMONY CONCERNING GIFTS Jones lawsuit. In the grand jury, the President first re- peated his denial that Mr. Jordan told him The President was asked in the deposition In the President’s deposition, he was asked if Monica Lewinsky ever gave him gifts. He whether he was ever alone with Monica Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. (WJC 8/ 17/98 GJ, p. 39; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 491) Then, responded, ‘‘once or twice.’’ (WJC 1/17/98 Lewinsky. He responded: ‘‘I don’t recall . . . Dep., p. 77) This is also false testimony cal- She—it seems to me she brought things to me when given more specific facts, he admitted that he ‘‘knows now’’ that he spoke with Mr. culated to obstruct justice. He answered this once or twice on the weekends. In that case, question in his Response to the House Judi- whatever time she would be in there, drop it Jordan about the subpoena on the night of December 19, but his ‘‘memory is not clear. ciary Committee by saying that he receives off, exchange a few words and go, she was numerous gifts, and he did not focus on the there.’’ (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 52–53) . . .’’ (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 41–42; H.Doc. 105– 311, p. 493–494) In an attempt to explain away precise number. (Exhibit 18) The law again Additionally, when questions were posed does not support the President’s position. An regarding Ms. Lewinsky’s frequent visits to his false deposition testimony, the President testified in the grand jury that he was trying answer that baldly understates a numerical the Oval Office, the President did not hesi- fact in response to a specific quantitative in- tate to mention Betty Currie in his answers, to remember who told him first. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 41; H.Doc. 105–311, pgs. 492–493) But quiry can be deemed technically true but ac- for example: tually false. For example, a witness is testi- And my recollection is that on a couple of that was not the question. So his answer was false and misleading. When one considers the fying falsely if he says he went to the store occasions after [the pizza party meeting], she five times when in fact he had gone fifty, was there [in the oval office] but my sec- nature of the conversation between the President and Mr. Jordan, the suggestion even though technically he had also gone retary, Betty Currie, was there with her. five times. So too, when the President an- (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 58) that it would be forgotten defies common sense. swered once or twice in the face of evidence Q. When was the last time you spoke with that Ms. Lewinsky was frequently bringing Monica Lewinsky? DECEMBER 28, 1997 gifts, he was lying. (Chart C) A. I’m trying to remember. Probably some- December 28, 1997 is a crucial date, because CONCEALMENT OF GIFTS time before Christmas. She came by to see the evidence shows that the President made On December 28, one of the most blatant Betty sometime before Christmas. And she false and misleading statements to the fed- efforts to obstruct justice and conceal evi- was there talking to her, and I stuck my eral court, the federal grand jury and the dence occurred. Ms. Lewinsky testified that head out, said hello to her. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., Congress of the United States about the she discussed with the President the fact p. 68) events on that date. (Chart J) It is also a that she had been subpoenaed and that the date on which he obstructed justice. DECEMBER 19, 1997, MS. LEWINSKY IS subpoena called for her to produce gifts. She SUBPOENAED THE PRESIDENT’S ACCOUNT recalled telling the President that the sub- On December 19, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky was The President testified that it was ‘‘pos- poena requested a hat pin, and that caused subpoenaed to testify in a deposition sched- sible’’ that he invited Ms. Lewinsky to the her concern. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 151–152; uled for January 23, 1998 in the Jones case. White House for this visit. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. H.Doc. 105–311, pgs. 871–872) The President January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S67 told her that it ‘‘bothered’’ him, too. (ML 8/ that the Jones lawyers might subpoena Jordan, in turn, notified the President that 20/98 GJ, p. 66; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 1122) Ms. every woman he has ever spoken to, and that she signed an affidavit denying a sexual rela- Lewinsky then suggested that she take the ‘‘I don’t think we ever had more of a con- tionship. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 26; H.Doc. 105–316, gifts somewhere, or give them to someone, versation than that about it. .. .’’ (WJC 1/17/ p. 1739) maybe to Betty. The President answered: ‘‘I 98 Dep., p. 70) Not only does Monica don’t know’’ or ‘‘Let me think about that.’’ Lewinsky directly contradict this testimony, MS. LEWINSKY GETS THE JOB (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 152–153; H.Doc. 105–311, but the President also directly contradicted On January 8, 1998, Mr. Jordan arranged an pgs. 872–873) (Chart L) Later that day, Ms. himself before the grand jury. Speaking of interview for Ms. Lewinsky with Lewinsky got a call from Ms. Currie, who his December 28, 1997 meeting, he said that MacAndrews and Forbes in New York. (ML 8/ said: ‘‘I understand you have something to he ‘‘knew by then, of course, that she had 6/98 GJ, p. 206; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 926) The give me’’ or ‘‘the President said you have gotten a subpoena’’ and that they had a interview went poorly, so Ms. Lewinsky something to give me.’’ (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. ‘‘conversation about the possibility of her called Mr. Jordan and informed him. (ML 8/ 154–155; H.Doc. 105–311, pgs. 874–875) Ms. testifying.’’ (WJC 8/17/98 Dep., pgs. 35–36) Re- 6/98 GJ, p. 206; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 926) Mr. Jor- Currie has a fuzzy memory about this inci- member, he had this conversation about her dan, who had done nothing to assist Ms. dent, but says that ‘‘the best she can remem- testimony only two-and-a-half weeks before Lewinsky’s job search from early November ber,’’ Ms. Lewinsky called her. (Currie 5/6/98 his deposition. Again, his version is not rea- to mid December, then called MacAndrews GJ, p. 105; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 581) sonable. and Forbes CEO, Ron Perelman, to ‘‘make THE CELL PHONE RECORD JANUARY 5–9, 1998, MS. LEWINSKY SIGNS THE things happen, if they could happen.’’ (VJ 5/ There is key evidence that Ms. Currie’s AFFIDAVIT AND GETS A JOB 5/98 GJ, p. 231; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 1829) Mr. fuzzy recollection is wrong. Ms. Lewinsky The President knew that Monica Lewinsky Jordan called Ms. Lewinsky back and told said that she thought Ms. Currie called from was going to execute a false Affidavit. He her not to worry. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 208–209; her cell phone. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 154–155) was so certain of the content that when she H.Doc. 105–311, pgs. 928–929) That evening, (Chart K, Exhibit 2) Ms. Currie’s cell phone asked if he wanted to see it, he told her no, Ms. Lewinsky was called by MacAndrews and record corroborates Ms. Lewinsky and proves that he had seen fifteen of them. (ML 8/2/98 Forbes and told that she would be given conclusively that Ms. Currie called Monica Int., p. 3; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 1489) He got his more interviews the next morning. (ML 8/6/98 from her cell phone several hours after she information from discussions with Ms. GJ, p. 209; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 929) had left the White House. Moreover, Ms. Lewinsky and Vernon Jordan generally After a series of interviews with Currie herself later testified that Ms. about the content of the Affidavit. Moreover, MacAndrews and Forbes personnel, she was Lewinsky’s memory may be better than hers the President had suggested the Affidavit informally offered a job. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 210; on this point. (BC 5/6/98 GJ, p. 126; H.Doc. 105– himself and he trusted Mr. Jordan to be cer- H.Doc. 105–311, p. 930) When Ms. Lewinsky 316, p. 584) The facts prove that the President tain the mission was accomplished. called Mr. Jordan to tell him, he passed the directed Ms. Currie to pick up the gifts. ADDITIONAL PRESIDENTIAL ADVICE good news on to Betty Currie stating, ‘‘Mis- MS. CURRIE’S LATER ACTIONS In the afternoon of January 5, 1998, Ms. sion Accomplished.’’ (VJ 5/28/98 GJ, p. 39; That conclusion is buttressed by Ms. Cur- Lewinsky met with her lawyer, Mr. Carter, H.Doc. 105–316, p. 1898). Later, Mr. Jordan rie’s actions. If Ms. Lewinsky had placed the to discuss the Affidavit. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 192; called the President and told him personally. call requesting a gift exchange, Ms. Currie H.Doc. 105–311, p. 912) Her lawyer asked her (VJ 5/28/98 GJ, p. 41; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 1899) would logically ask the reason for such a some hard questions about how she got her (Chart P) transfer. Ms. Lewinsky was giving her a box job. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 195; H.Doc. 105–311, p. THE REASON FOR MR. JORDAN’S UNIQUE of gifts from the President yet she did not 915) After the meeting, she called Betty BEHAVIOR tell the President of this strange request. Currie and said that she wanted to speak to She simply took the gifts and placed them the President before she signed anything. After Ms. Lewinsky had spent months under her bed without asking a single ques- (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 195; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 915) looking for a job—since July according to tion. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 57–58; H.Doc. 105–316, Ms. Lewinsky and the President discussed the President’s lawyers—Vernon Jordan p. 557; BC 5/6/98 GJ, pgs. 105–108, 114; H.Doc. the issue of how she would answer under made the critical call to a CEO the day after 105–316, pgs. 581–582) oath if asked about how she got her job at the false Affidavit was signed. Mr. Perelman The President stated in his Response to the Pentagon. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 197; H.Doc. testified that Mr. Jordan had never called questions No. 24 and 25 from the House Com- 105–311, p. 917) The President told her: ‘‘Well, him before about a job recommendation. mittee that he was not concerned about the you could always say that the people in Leg- (Perelman 4/23/98 Dep., p. 11; H.Doc. 105–316, gifts. (Exhibit 18) In fact, he said that he re- islative Affairs got it for you or helped you p. 3281) Mr. Jordan, on the other hand, said called telling Monica that if the Jones law- get it.’’ (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 197; H.Doc. 105–311, that he called Mr. Perelman to recommend yers request gifts, she should turn them p. 917) That, too, is false and misleading. for hiring: (1) former Mayor Dinkins of New over. The President testified that he is ‘‘not VERNON JORDAN’S NEW ROLE York; (2) a very talented attorney from Akin sure’’ if he knew the subpoena asked for The President was also kept advised as to Gump; (3) a Harvard business school grad- gifts. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 42–43; H.Doc. 105– the contents of the Affidavit by Vernon Jor- uate; and (4) Monica Lewinsky. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, 311, pgs. 494–495) Would Monica Lewinsky and dan. (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. 224; H.Doc. 105–316, p. p. 58–59; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 1747) Even if Mr. the President discuss turning over gifts to 1828) On January 6, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky Perelman’s testimony is mistaken, Ms. the Jones lawyers if Ms. Lewinsky had not picked up a draft of the Affidavit from Mr. Lewinsky’s qualifications do not compare to told him that the subpoena asked for gifts? Carter’s office. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 199; H.Doc. those of the individuals previously rec- On the other hand, if he knew the subpoena 105–311, p. 919) She delivered a copy to Mr. ommended by Mr. Jordan. requested gifts, why would he give Ms. Jordan’s office. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 200; H.Doc. Vernon Jordan was well aware that people Lewinsky more gifts on December 28? Ms. 105–311, p. 920) because she wanted Mr. Jor- with whom Ms. Lewinsky worked at the Lewinsky’s testimony reveals the answer. dan to look at the Affidavit in the belief that White House did not like her (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, She said that she never questioned ‘‘that we if Vernon Jordan gave his imprimatur, the pgs. 43, 59) and that she did not like her Pen- were ever going to do anything but keep this President would also approve. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, tagon job. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, pgs. 43–44; H.Doc. private’’ and that meant to take ‘‘whatever pgs. 194–195; H.Doc. 105–311, pgs. 914, 915) 105–316, pgs. 1706, 1707) Mr. Jordan was asked appropriate steps needed to be taken’’ to (Chart M) Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan con- if at ‘‘any point during this process you won- keep it quiet. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 166; H.Doc. ferred about the contents and agreed to de- dered about her qualifications for employ- 105–311, p. 886) The only logical inference is lete a paragraph inserted by Mr. Carter ment?’’ He answered: ‘‘No, because that was that the gifts—including the bear symbol- which might open a line of questions con- not my judgment to make.’’ (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, p. izing strength—were a tacit reminder to Ms. cerning whether she had been alone with the 44; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 1707) Yet, when he called Lewinsky that they would deny the relation- President. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 200; H.Doc. 105– Mr. Perelman the day after she signed the ship—even in the face of a federal subpoena. 311, p. 920) (Exhibit 3) Mr. Jordan maintained Affidavit, he referred to Ms. Lewinsky as a THE PRESIDENT’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY that he had nothing to do with the details of bright young girl who is ‘‘terrific.’’ Furthermore, the President, at various the Affidavit. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 12; H.Doc. 105– (Perelman 4/23/98 Dep., p. 10; H.Doc. 105–316, times in his deposition, seriously misrepre- 316, p. 1735) He admits, though, that he spoke p. 3281) Mr. Jordan testified that she had sented the nature of his meeting with Ms. with the President after conferring with Ms. been pressing him for a job and voicing unre- Lewinsky on December 28 in order to ob- Lewinsky about the changes made to her Af- alistic expectations concerning positions and struct the administration of justice. First, fidavit. (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. 218; H.Doc. 105–316, p. salary. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, pgs. 37–38; H.Doc. 105– he was asked: ‘‘Did she tell you she had been 1827) 316, p. 1742) Moreover, she narrated a disturb- served with a subpoena in this case?’’ The MS. LEWINSKY SIGNS THE FALSE AFFIDAVIT ing story about the President leaving the President answered flatly: ‘‘No. I don’t know The next day, January 7, Monica Lewinsky First Lady, and how the President was not if she had been.’’ (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 68) signed the false Affidavit. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. spending enough time with her. Yet, none of He was also asked if he ‘‘ever talked to 204–205; H.Doc. 105–311, pgs. 924–925) (Chart N; that gave Mr. Jordan pause in making the Monica Lewinsky about the possibility of Exhibit 12) She showed the executed copy to recommendation, especially after Monica her testifying.’’ ‘‘I’m not sure . . .,’’ he said. Mr. Jordan that same day. (VJ 5/5/98 GJ, p. was subpoenaed. (VJ 3/3/98 GJ, pgs. 156–157; he then added that he may have joked to her 222; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 1828) (Exhibit 4) Mr. H.Doc. 105–316, p. 1725) S68 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FALSE AFFIDAVIT McCurry. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 71) Ms. Currie tes- agreement) with those statements. (BC 7/22/ Monica Lewinsky’s false Affidavit enabled tified that she spoke immediately to Mr. 98 GJ, p. 27; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 669) the President, through his attorneys, to as- Lindsey about Isikoff’s call. (BC 5/6/98 GJ, p. WAS THIS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? sert at his January 17, 1998 deposition ‘‘. . . 127; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 584) The President essentially admitted to there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any JANUARY 17, 1998, DEPOSITION AFTERMATH making these statements when he knew they manner, shape of form with President Clin- By the time the President concluded his were not true. Consequently, he had painted ton. . . .’’ (WJC, 1/17/98 Dep., p. 54) When deposition on January 17, he knew that himself into a legal corner. Understanding questioned by his own attorney in the depo- someone was talking about his relationship the seriousness of the President ‘‘coaching’’ sition, the President stated specifically that with Ms. Lewinsky. He also knew that the Ms. Currie, the argument has been made that paragraph 8 of Ms. Lewinsky’s Affidavit was only person who had personal knowledge was those statements to her could not constitute ‘‘absolutely true.’’ (WJC, 1/17/98 Dep., p. 204) Ms. Lewinsky herself. The cover stories that obstruction because she had not been subpoe- The President later affirmed the truth of he and Ms. Lewinsky created, and that he naed, and the President did not know that that statement when testifying before the used himself during the deposition, were now she was a potential witness at the time. This grand jury. (WJC, 8/17/98 GJ, p. 20–21; H.Doc. in jeopardy. It became imperative that he argument is refuted by both the law and the 105–311, pg. 473) Paragraph 8 of Ms. not only contact Ms. Lewinsky, but that he facts. Lewinsky’s Affidavit states: obtain corroboration of his account of the re- The United States Court of Appeals re- ‘‘I have never had a sexual relationship lationship from his trusted secretary, Ms. jected this argument, and stated, ‘‘[A] person with the President, he did not propose that Currie. At around 7 p.m. on the night of the may be convicted of obstructing justice if he we have a sexual relationship, he did not deposition, the President called Ms. Currie urges or persuades a prospective witness to offer me employment or other benefits in ex- and asked that she come in the following give false testimony. Neither must the tar- change for a sexual relationship, he did not day, Sunday. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, p. 154–155; H.Doc. get be scheduled to testify at the time of the deny me employment or other benefits for 105–316, p. 701 (Exhibit 6) Ms. Currie could not offense, nor must he or she actually give tes- rejecting a sexual relationship.’’ recall the President ever before calling her timony at a later time.’’ United States v. Significantly, Ms. Lewinsky reviewed the that late at home on a Saturday night. (BC Shannon, 836 F.2d 1125, 1128 (8th Cir. 1988) draft Affidavit on January 6, and signed it on 1/27/98 GJ, p. 69; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 559) (Chart (citing, e.g., United States v. Friedland, 660 January 7 after deleting a reference to being S) Sometime in the early morning hours of F.2d 919, 931 (3rd Cir. 1981)). alone with the President. She showed a copy January 18, 1998, the President learned of a Of course Ms. Currie was a prospective wit- of the signed Affidavit to Vernon Jordan, news report concerning Ms. Lewinsky re- ness, and the President clearly wanted her to who called the President and told him that leased earlier that day. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. be deposed to corroborate him, as his testi- she had signed it. (VJ, 3/5/98 GJ, pgs. 24–26; 142–143; H.Doc. 105–311, pgs. 594–595) (Exhibit mony demonstrates. The President claims H.Doc. 105–316, pgs. 1728, 1739; VJ, 5/5/98 GJ, p. 14) that he called Ms. Currie into work on a 222; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 1828) THE TAMPERING WITH THE WITNESS, BETTY Sunday night only to find out what she knew. But the President knew the truth THE RUSH TO FILE THE AFFIDAVIT CURRIE about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, As the charts indicate, between 11:49 a.m. For the affidavit to work for the President and if he had told the truth during his depo- and 2:55 p.m., there were three phone calls in precluding questions by the Jones attor- sition the day before, then he would have no between Mr. Jordan and the President. (Ex- neys concerning Ms. Lewinsky, it had to be reason to worry about what Ms. Currie knew. hibit 7) At about 5 p.m., Ms. Currie met with filed with the Court and provided to the More importantly, the President’s demeanor, the President. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, p. 67; H.Doc. President’s attorneys in time for his deposi- Ms. Currie’s reaction to his demeanor, and 105–316, p. 558) He told her that he had just tion on January 17. On January 14, the Presi- the blatant lies that he suggested clearly been deposed and that the attorneys asked dent’s lawyers called Ms. Lewinsky’s lawyer prove that the President was not merely several questions about Monica Lewinsky. and left a message, presumably to find out if interviewing Ms. Currie. Rather, he was (BC 1/27/98 GJ, p. 69–70; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 559) he had filed the Affidavit with the Court. looking for corroboration for his false cover- He then made a series of statements to Ms. (Carrier 6/18/98 GJ, p. 123; H.Doc. 105–316, p. up, and that is why he coached her. 423) (Chart O) On January 15, the President’s Currie: (Chart T) JANUARY 18, THE SEARCH FOR MS. LEWINSKY attorneys called her attorney twice. When (1) I was never really alone with Monica, they finally reached him, they requested a right? Very soon after his Sunday meeting with copy of the Affidavit and asked him, ‘‘Are we (2) You were always there when Monica Ms. Currie, at 5:12 p.m., the flurry of tele- still on time?’’ (Carter 6/18/98 GJ, p. 123; was there, right? phone calls in search of Monica Lewinsky H.Doc. 105–216, p. 423) Ms. Lewinsky’s lawyer (3) Monica came on to me, and I never began. (Chart S) between 5:12 p.m. and 8:28 faxed a copy on the 15th. (Carter 6/18/98 GJ, touched her, right? p.m., Ms. Currie paged Ms. Lewinsky four p. 123, H.Doc. 105–316, p. 423) The President’s (4) You could see and hear everything, times. ‘‘Kay’’ is a reference to a code name counsel was aware of its contents and used it right? Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Currie agreed to when powerfully in the deposition. (5) She wanted to have sex with me, and I contacting one another. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 216; Ms. Lewinsky’s lawyer called the court in cannot do that. H.Doc. 105–311, pg. 936) At 11:02 p.m., the Arkansas twice on January 15 to ensure that (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 70–75; H.Doc. 105–316, pgs. President called Ms. Currie at home to ask if the Affidavit could be filed on Saturday, 559–560; BC 7/22/98 GJ, pgs. 6–7; H.Doc. 105–316, she had reached Lewinsky. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, p. January 17. (Carter 6/18/98 GJ, pgs. 124–125; p. 664) 160; H. Doc. 105–316, p. 702) H.Doc. 105–316, pgs. 423–424) (Exhibit 5) He During Betty Currie’s grand jury testi- JANUARY 19, THE SEARCH CONTINUES finished the Motion to Quash Ms. Lewinsky’s mony, she was asked whether she believed The following morning, January 19, Ms. deposition in the early morning hours of that the President wished her to agree with Currie continued to work diligently on be- January 16 and mailed it to the Court with the statements: half of the President. Between 7:02 a.m. and the false Affidavit attached, for Saturday de- Q. Would it be fair to say, then—based on 8:41 a.m., she paged Ms. Lewinsky another livery. (Carter 6/18/98 GJ, p. 134; H.Doc. 105– the way he stated [these five points] and the five times. (Chart S) (Exhibit 8) After the 316, p. 426) The President’s lawyers left him demeanor that he was using at the time that 8:41 page, Ms. Currie called the President at another message on January 16, saying, he stated it to you—that he wished you to 8:43 a.m. and said that she was unable to ‘‘You’ll know what it’s about.’’ (Carter 6/18/98 agree with that statement? reach Ms. Lewinsky. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, pgs. 161– GJ, p. 135; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 426) Obviously, A. I can’t speak for him, but—— 162; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 703) One minute later, the President needed that Affidavit to be Q. How did you take it? Because you told at 8:44 a.m., she again paged Ms. Lewinsky. filed with the Court to support his plans to us at these [previous] meetings in the last This time Ms. Currie’s page stated ‘‘Family mislead Ms. Jones’ attorneys in the deposi- several days that that is how you took it. Emergency,’’ apparently in an attempt to tion, and thereby obstruct justice. A. [Nodding.] alarm Ms. Lewinsky into calling back. That THE NEWSWEEK INQUIRY Q. And you’re nodding you head, ‘‘yes,’’ is may have been the President’s idea, since On January 15, Michael Isikoff of News- that correct? Ms. Currie had just spoken with him. The week called Betty Currie and asked her A. That’s correct. President was obviously quite concerned be- about Ms. Lewinsky sending gifts to her by Q. Okay, with regard to the statement that cause he called Betty Currie only six min- courier. (BC 5/6/98 GJ, p. 123; H.Doc. 105–316, the President made to you, ‘‘You remember utes later, at 8:50 a.m. Immediately there- p. 584; ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 228; H.Doc. 105–311, p. I was never really alone with Monica, after, at 8:51 a.m., Ms. Currie tried a dif- 948) Ms. Currie than called Ms. Lewinsky and right?’’ Was that also a statement that, as ferent tact, sending the message: ‘‘Good told her about it. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 228–229; far as you took, that he wished you to agree news.’’ Again, perhaps at the President’s sug- H.Doc. 105–311, pgs. 948–949) The President with that? gestion. If bad news does not get her to call, was out of town, so later, Betty Currie called A. Correct. try good news. Ms. Currie said that she was Ms. Lewinsky back, and asked for a ride to (BC 1/27/98 GJ, p. 74; H.Doc. 105–316, 559) trying to encourage Ms. Lewinsky to call, Mr. Jordan’s office. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 229; Though Ms. Currie would later intimate but there was no sense of ‘‘urgency.’’ (BC 7/ H.Doc. 105–311, p. 949; Currie 5/6/98 GJ, p. 130– that she did not necessarily feel pressured by 22/98 GJ, p. 165; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 704) Ms. 131; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 585) Mr. Jordan advised the President, she did state that she felt the Currie’s recollection of why she was calling her to speak with Bruce Lindsey and Mike President was seeking her agreement (or dis- was again fuzzy. She said at one point that January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S69 she believes the President asked her to call against self incrimination. (Chart Y) Presi- entitled ‘‘January 24, 1998 Talking Points,’’ Ms. Lewinsky, and she thought she was call- dent Clinton was given a fourth choice. The stating flatly that the President’s definition ing just to tell her that her name came up in President was permitted to read a state- of ‘‘sexual relations’’ included oral sex. the deposition. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, p. 162; H.Doc. ment. (Chart Z; WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 8–9) (Chart W) Fourth, the President made state- 105–316, p. 703) Monica Lewinsky had been THE PRESIDENT’S PREPARED STATEMENT ments to staff members soon after the depo- subpoenaed; of course her name came up in That statement itself is demonstrably false sition, saying that he did not have sexual re- the deposition. There was obviously another in many particulars. President Clinton lations, including oral sex, with Ms. and more important reason the President claims that he engaged in inappropriate con- Lewinsky, (Podesta 6/16/98 GJ, pg. 92; H.Doc. needed to get in touch with her. duct with Ms. Lewinsky ‘‘on certain occa- 105–316, p. 3311) and that she threatened to MR. JORDAN AND MS. LEWINSKY’S LAWYERS sions in early 1996 and once in 1997.’’ Notice tell people she and the President had an af- JOIN THE SEARCH he did not mention 1995. There was a reason. fair when he rebuffed her sexual advances. (Blumenthal 6/4/98 GJ, p. 59; H.Doc. 105–316, p. At 8:56 a.m., the President telephoned Ver- On three ‘‘occasions’’ in 1995, Ms. Lewinsky 185) Fifth, President Clinton’s Answer filed non Jordan, who then joined in the activity. said she engaged in sexual contact with the in Federal District Court in response to Over a course of twenty-four minutes, from President. Ms. Lewinsky was a twenty-one Paula Jones’ First Amended Complaint 10:29 to 10:53 a.m., Mr. Jordan called the year old intern at the time. states unequivocally that ‘‘President Clinton White House three times, paged Ms. The President unlawfully attempted to denies that he engaged in any improper con- Lewinsky, and called Ms. Lewinsky’s attor- conceal his three visits alone with Ms. duct with respect to plaintiff or any other ney, Frank Carter. Between 10:53 a.m. and Lewinsky in 1995 during which they engaged woman.’’ (Answer of Defendant William Jef- 4:54 p.m., there are continued calls between in sexual conduct. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 27–28; ferson Clinton, December 17, 1997, p. 8, para. Mr. Jordan, Ms. Lewinsky’s attorney and in- H.Doc. 105–311, pgs. 747–748; ML 8/6/98 GJ, Ex. 39) Sixth, in President Clinton’s sworn An- dividuals at the White House. 7; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 1251; Chart A) Under swers to Interrogatories Numbers 10 and 11, MS. LEWINSKY REPLACES HER LAWYER Judge Wright’s ruling, this evidence was rel- evant and material to Paula Jones’ sexual as amended, he flatly denied that he had sex- Later that afternoon, at 4:54 p.m., Mr. Jor- harassment claims. (Order, Judge Susan ual relations with any federal employee. The dan called Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter relayed Webber Wright, December 11, 1997, p. 3) President filed this Answer prior to his depo- that he had been told he no longer rep- The President specifically and unequivo- sition. Finally, as described below, the Presi- resented Ms. Lewinsky. (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 141; cally states, ‘‘[The encounters] did not con- dent sat silently while his attorney, refer- H.Doc. 105–316, p. 1771) Mr. Jordan then made stitute sexual relations as I understood that ring to Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit, represented feverish attempts to reach the President or term to be defined at my January 17, 1998 to the court that there was no sex of any someone at the White House to tell them the deposition.’’ That assertion is patently false. kind or in any manner between the President bad news, as represented by the six calls be- It is directly contradicted by the corrobo- and Ms. Lewinsky. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pg. 54) tween 4:58 p.m. and 5:22 p.m. Vernon Jordan rated testimony of Monica Lewinsky. (See This circumstantial evidence reveals the said that he tried to relay this information eg: ML 8/20/98 GJ, pgs. 31–32; H.Doc. 311, p. President’s state of mind at the time of the to the White House because ‘‘[t]he President 1174; ML 8/26/98 Dep., p. 25, 30; H.Doc. 311, pgs. deposition: his concern was not in tech- asked me to get Monica Lewinsky a job,’’ 1357, 1358) nically or legally accurate answers, but in and he thought it was ‘‘information that Evidence indicates that the President and categorically denying anything improper. they ought to have.’’ (VJ 6/9/98 GJ, pgs. 45–46; Ms. Lewinsky engaged in ‘‘sexual relations’’ His grand jury testimony about his state of H.Doc. 105–316, p. 1968) (Chart Q) Mr. Jordan as the President understood the term to be mind during the deposition is false. then called Mr. Carter back at 5:14 p.m. to go defined at his deposition and as any reason- REASONS FOR THE FALSE TESTIMONY over what they had already talked about. able person would have understood the term The President did not lie to the grand jury (VJ 3/5/98 GJ, p. 146; H.Doc. 104–316, p. 1772) to have been defined. to protect himself from embarrassment, as Mr. Jordan finally reached the President at Contrary to his statement under oath, the he could no longer deny the affair. Before his 5:56 p.m. and told him that Mr. Carter had President’s conduct during the 1995 visits grand jury testimony, the President’s semen been fired. (VJ 6/9/98 GJ, p. 54; H.Doc. 105–316, and numerous additional visits did con- had been identified by laboratory tests on p. 1970) stitute ‘‘sexual relations’’ as he understood Ms. Lewinsky’s dress, and during his testi- THE REASON FOR THE URGENT SEARCH the term to be defined at his deposition. Be- mony, he admitted an ‘‘inappropriate inti- This activity shows how important it was fore the grand jury, the President admitted mate relationship’’ with Ms. Lewinsky, In for the President of the United States to find that directly touching or kissing another fact, when he testified before the grand jury, Monica Lewinsky to learn to whom she was person’s breast, or directly touching another he was only hours away from admitting the talking. Betty Currie was in charge of con- person’s genitalia with the intent to arouse, affair on national television. Embarrassment tacting Ms. Lewinsky. The President had would be ‘‘sexual relations’’ as the term was was inevitable. But, if he truthfully admit- just completed a deposition in which he pro- defined. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 94–95; H.Doc ted the details of his encounters with Ms. vided false and misleading testimony about 105–311, pgs. 546–547) However, the President Lewinsky to the grand jury, he would be ac- his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. She was maintained that he did not engage in such knowledging that he lied under oath during a co-conspirator in hiding this relationship conduct. (Id.) These statements are contra- his deposition when he claimed that he did from the Jones attorneys, and he was losing dicted by Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony and the not engage in sexual relations with Ms. control over her. The President never got testimony of numerous individuals with Lewinsky. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 78, 109, 204) complete control over her again. whom she contemporaneously shared the de- Instead, he chose to lie, not to protect his ARTICLE I.—FALSE AND MISLEADING tails of her encounters with the President. family or the dignity of his office, but to pro- STATEMENTS TO THE GRAND JURY Moreover, the theory that Ms. Lewinsky re- tect himself from criminal liability for his peated and unilaterally performed acts on Article I addresses the President’s perjuri- perjury in the Jones case. the President while he tailored his conduct ous, false, and misleading testimony to the ADDITIONAL FALSITY IN THE PREPARED to fit a contorted definition of ‘‘sexual rela- grand jury. Four categories of false grand STATEMENT tions’’ which he had not contemplated at the jury testimony are listed in the Article. The President’s statement continued, ‘‘I time of the acts, defies common sense. Some salient examples of false statements regret that what began as a friendship came Moreover, the President had not even are described below. When judging the state- to include this conduct [.]’’ (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, formed the contorted interpretation of ‘‘sex- ments made and the answers given, it is vital p. 9; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 461) The truth is much ual relations’’ which he asserted in the grand to recall that the President spent literally more troubling. As Ms. Lewinsky testified, jury until after his deposition had concluded. days preparing his testimony with his law- her relationship with the President began This is demonstrated by the substantial evi- yer. He and his attorney were fully aware with flirting, including Ms. Lewinsky show- dence revealing the President’s state of mind that the testimony would center around his ing the President her underwear. (ML 7/30/98 during his deposition testimony. First, the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and his dep- Int., p. 5; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 1431) As Ms. President continuously denied at his deposi- osition testimony in the Jones case. Lewinsky candidly admitted, she was sur- tion any fact that would cause the Jones law- prised that the President remembered her GRAND JURY TESTIMONY yers to believe that he and Ms. Lewinsky had name after their first two sexual encounters. On August 17, after six invitations, the any type of improper relationship, including (ML 8/26/98 Dep., p. 25; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 1295) President of the United States appeared be- a denial that they had a sexual affair, (WJC fore a grand jury of his fellow citizens and 1/17/98 Dep., p. 78) not recalling if they were REASON FOR THE FALSITY took an oath to tell the complete truth. The ever alone, (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 52–53, 59) The President’s prepared statement, President proceeded to equivocate and en- and not recalling whether Ms. Lewinsky had fraught with untruths, was not an answer gage in legalistic fencing; he also lied. The ever given him gifts. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pg. the President delivered extemporaneously to entire testimony was calculated to mislead 75) Second, the President testified that Ms. a particular question. It was carefully draft- and deceive the grand jury and to obstruct Lewinsky’s affidavit denying a sexual rela- ed testimony which the President read and its process, and eventually to deceive the tionship was ‘‘absolutely true’’ when, even relied upon throughout his deposition. The American people. He set the tone at the very by his current reading of the definition, it is President attempted to use the statement to beginning. In the grand jury a witness can absolutely false. (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., p. 204) foreclose questioning on an incriminating tell the truth, lie or assert his privileges Third, the White House produced a document topic on nineteen separate occasions. Yet, S70 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999

this prepared testimony, which along with TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE FALSE AFFIDAVIT suggested that she give the gifts to someone, other testimony provides the basis for Arti- Article I, Item 3 charges the President maybe to Betty. But rather than instructing cle I, Item 1, actually contradicts his sworn with providing perjurious, false and mislead- her to turn the gifts over to Ms. Jones’ attor- deposition testimony. ing testimony before a federal grand jury neys, the President replied, ‘‘I don’t know’’ CONTRARY DEPOSITION TESTIMONY concerning false and misleading statements or ‘‘Let me think about that.’’ (ML 8/6/98 GJ, In this statement, the President admits his attorney Robert Bennett made to Judge p. 152; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 872) Several hours that he and Ms. Lewinsky were alone on a Wright at the President’s deposition. In one later, Ms. Currie called Ms. Lewinsky on her number of occasions. He refused to make this statement, while objecting to questions re- cellular phone and said, ‘‘I understand you admission in his deposition in the Jones case. garding Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Bennett misled have something to give me’’ or ‘‘the Presi- During the deposition, the following ex- the Court, perhaps knowingly, stating, dent said you have something to give me.’’ change occurred: ‘‘Counsel [for Ms. Jones] is fully aware that (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 154–155; H.Doc. 105–311, pgs. 874–875) Q. Mr. President, before the break, we were Ms. Lewinsky has filed, has an affidavit Although Ms. Currie agrees that she picked talking about Monica Lewinsky. At any time which they are in possession of saying that up the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Currie were you and Monica Lewinsky together there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any testified that ‘‘the best’’ she remembers is alone in the Oval Office? manner, shape or form, with President that Ms. Lewinsky called her. (BC 5/6/98 GJ, A. I don’t recall, but as I said, when she Clinton[.]’’ (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 53–54) p. 105; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 581) She later con- worked in the legislative affairs office, they When Judge Wright interrupted Mr. Bennett ceded that Ms. Lewinsky’s memory may be always had somebody there on the weekends. and expressed her concern that he might be better than hers on this point. (BC 5/6/98 GJ, I typically work some on the weekends. coaching the President, Mr. Bennett re- p. 126; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 584) A telephone Sometimes they’d bring me things on the sponded, ‘‘In preparation of the witness for record corroborates Ms. Lewinsky, revealing weekends. She—it seems to me she brought this deposition, the witness is fully aware of that Ms. Currie did call her from her cellular things to me once or twice on the weekends. Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit, so I have not told phone several hours after Ms. Lewinsky’s In that case, whatever time she would be in him a single thing he doesn’t know[.]’’ (WJC meeting with the President. The only logical there, drop if off, exchange a few words and 1/17/98 Dep., p. 54) (Emphasis added) reason Ms. Currie called Ms. Lewinsky to re- go, she was there. I don’t have any specific When asked before the grand jury about trieve gifts from the President is that the recollections of what the issues were, what his statement to Judge Wright, the Presi- President told her to do so. He would not was going on, but when the Congress is dent testified, ‘‘I’m not even sure I paid at- have given this instruction if he wished the there, we’re working all the time, and typi- tention to what he was saying,’’ (WJC 8/17/98 gifts to be given to Ms. Jones’ attorneys. cally I would do some work on One of the GJ, p. 24; H.Doc. 105–3131, p. 476) He added, ‘‘I days of the weekends in the afternoon. didn’t pay much attention to this conversa- TESTIMONY CONCERNING MS. CURRIE Q. So I understand, your testimony is that tion, which is why, when you started asking The President again testified falsely when it was possible, then, that you were alone me about this, I asked to see the deposi- he told the grand jury that he was simply with her, but you have no specific recollec- tion.’’ (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 24; H.Doc. 105–311, trying to ‘‘refresh’’ his recollection when he tion of that ever happening? p. 477) Finally, ‘‘I don’t believe I ever even made a series of statements to Ms. Currie A. Yes, that’s correct. It’s possible that focused on what Mr. Bennett said in the the day after his deposition. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, she, in, while she was working there, brought exact words he did until I started reading p. 131; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 583) Ms. Currie testi- something to me and that at the time she this transcript carefully for this hearing. fied that she met with the President at brought it to me, she was the only person That moment, the whole argument just about 5:00 P.M. on January 18, 1998, and he there. That’s possible. passed me by.’’ (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 29; H. Doc. proceeded to make these statements to her: (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 52–53) 105–311, p. 481) (1) I was never really alone with Monica, This grand jury testimony defies common After telling this verbose lie under oath, right? the President was given an opportunity to sense. During his deposition testimony, the (2) You were always there when Monica correct himself. This exchange followed: President admittedly misled Ms. Jones’ at- was there, right? torneys about his affair with Ms. Lewinsky, Q. At any time have you and Monica (3) Monica came on to me, and I never which continued while Ms. Jones’ lawsuit Lewinsky ever been alone together in any touched her, right? was pending, because he did not want the room in the White House? (4) You could see and hear everything, A. I think I testified to that earlier. I truth to be known. Of course, when Ms. right? think that there is a, it is—I have no specific Lewinsky’s name is mentioned during the (5) She wanted to have sex with me, and I recollection, but it seems to me that she was deposition, particularly in connection with cannot do that. on duty on a couple of occasions working for sex, the President is going to listen. Any (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 70–75; H.Doc. 105–316, pgs. the legislative affairs office and brought me doubts as to whether he listened to Mr. Ben- 559–560; BC 7/22/98 GJ, pgs. 6–7; H.Doc. 105–316, some things to sign, something on the week- nett’s representations are eliminated by p. 664) end. That’s—I have a general memory of watching the videotape of the President’s Ms. Currie testified that these were more that. deposition. The videotape shows the Presi- like statements than questions, and that, as Q. Do you remember anything that was dent looking directly at Mr. Bennett, paying far as she understood, the President wanted said in any of those meetings? close attention to his argument to Judge her to agree with the statements. (BC 1/27/98 A. No. You know, we just had conversa- Wright. GJ, p. 74; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 559) tion, I don’t remember. FALSE TESTIMONY CONCERNING OBSTRUCTION The President was asked specifically about (WJC 1/17/98 Dep., pgs. 52–53) OF JUSTICE these statements before the grand jury. He Before the grand jury, the President main- Article I, Item 4 concerns the President’s did not deny them, but said that he was tained that he testified truthfully at his dep- grand jury perjury regarding his efforts to ‘‘trying to refresh [his] memory about what osition, a lie which provides, in part, the influence the testimony of witnesses and his the facts were.’’ (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 131; basis for Article I, Item 2. He stated, ‘‘My efforts to impede discovery in the Jones v. H.Doc. 105–311, p. 583) He added that he want- goal in this deposition was to be truthful, Clinton lawsuit. These lies are perhaps the ed to ‘‘know what Betty’s memory was about but not particularly helpful . . . I was deter- most troubling, as the President used them what she heard,’’ (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 54; mined to walk through the mind field of this in an attempt to conceal his criminal actions H.Doc. 105–316, p. 506) and that he was ‘‘try- deposition without violating the law, and I and the abuse of his office. ing to get as much information as quickly as believe I did.’’ (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 80; H.Doc. For example, the President testified before [he] could.’’ (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 56; H.Doc. 105– 105–311, p. 532) But contrary to his deposition the grand jury that he recalled telling Ms. 311, p. 508) Logic demonstrates that the testimony, he certainly was along with Ms. Lewinsky that if Ms. Jones’ lawyers re- President’s explanation is contrived and Lewinsky when she was not delivering pa- quested the gifts exchanged between Ms. false. pers, as the President conceded in his pre- Lewinsky and the President, she should pro- A person does not refresh his recollection pared grand jury statement. vide them. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 43; H.Doc. 105– by firing declarative sentences dressed up as In other words, the President’s assertion 311, p. 495) He stated, ‘‘And I told her that if leading questions to his secretary. If the before the grand jury that he was alone with they asked her for gifts, she’d have to give President was seeking information, he would Ms. Lewinsky, but that he testified truth- them whatever she had, that that’s what the have asked Ms. Currie what she recalled. Ad- fully in his deposition, in inconsistent. Yet, law was.’’ (Id.) This testimony is false, as ditionally, a person does not refresh his to this day, both the President and his attor- demonstrated by both Ms. Lewinsky’s testi- recollection by asking questions concerning neys have insisted that he did not lie at his mony and common sense. factual scenarios of which the listener was deposition and that he did not lie when he Ms. Lewinsky testified that on December unaware, or worse, of which the declarant swore under oath that he did not lie at his 28, 1997, she discussed with the President the and the listener knew were false. How would deposition. subpoena’s request for her to produce gifts, Ms. Currie know if she was always there In addition to his lie about not recalling including a hat pin. She told the President when Ms. Lewinsky was there? Ms. Currie, in being alone with Ms. Lewinsky, the Presi- that it concerned her, (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 151; fact, acknowledged during her grand jury dent told numerous other lies at his deposi- H.Doc. 105–311, p. 871) and he said that it testimony that Ms. Lewinsky could have vis- tion. All of those lies are incorporated in Ar- ‘‘bothered’’ him too. (ML 8/20/98 GJ, p. 66; ited the President at the White House when ticle I, Item 2. H.Doc. 105–311, p. 1122) Ms. Lewinsky then Ms. Currie was not there. (BC 7/22/98 GJ, pgs. January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S71 65–66; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 679) Ms. Currie also criminate him at the risk of subjecting to destroy the character and reputation of testified that there were several occasions themselves to a perjury indictment. We sug- Monica Lewinsky, a young woman that had when the President and Ms. Lewinsky were gest that it is illustrative of the President’s been ill-used by the President. As soon as her in the Oval Office or study area without any- character that he never felt any compunc- name surfaced, the campaign began to muz- one else present. (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 32–33, 36– tion in exposing others to false testimony zle any possible testimony, and to attack the 38; H.Doc. 105–316, pgs. 552–553) charges, so long as he could conceal his own credibility of witnesses, in a concerted effort More importantly, the President admitted perjuries. Simply put, such a conspiracy did to obstruct the due administration of justice in his statement to the grand jury that he not exist. in a lawsuit filed by one female citizen of Ar- was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on several oc- The above are merely highlights of the kansas. It almost worked. casions. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 9–10; H.Doc. President’s grand jury perjury, and there are When the President testified at his deposi- 105–311, pgs. 460–461) Thus, by his own admis- numerous additional examples. In order to tion that he had no sexual relations, sexual sion, his statement to Ms. Currie about keep these lies in perspective, three facts affair or the like with Monica Lewinsky, he never being alone with Ms. Lewinsky was must be remembered. First, before the grand felt secure. Monica Lewinksy, the only other false. And if they were alone together, Ms. jury, the President was not lying to cover up witness was on board. She had furnished a Currie certainly could not say whether the an affair and protect himself from embar- false affidavit also denying everything. President touched Ms. Lewinsky or not. rassment, as concealing the affair was now Later, when he realized from the January 18, The statement about whether Ms. Currie impossible. Second, the President could no 1998, Drudge Report that there were taped longer argue that the facts surrounding his could see and hear everything is also refuted conversations between Ms. Lewinsky and relationship with Ms. Lewinsky were some- by the President’s own grand jury testimony. Linda Tripp, he had to develop a new story, how irrelevant or immaterial, as the Office During his ‘‘intimate’’ encounters with Ms. and he did. In addition, he recounted that of Independent Counsel and the grand jury Lewinsky, he ensured everyone, including story to White House aides who passed it on had mandates to explore them. Third, he Ms. Currie, was excluded. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. cannot claim to have been surprised or un- to the grand jury in an effort to obstruct 53; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 505) Why would someone prepared for questions about Ms. Lewinsky that tribunal too. refresh his recollection by making a false before the grand jury, as he spent days with On Wednesday, January 21, 1998, The Wash- statement of fact to a subordinate? The an- his lawyer, preparing responses to such ques- ington Post published a story entitled ‘‘Clin- swer is obvious—he would not. tions. ton Accused of Urging Aide to Lie; Starr Lastly, the President stated in the grand Probes Whether President Told Woman to THE PRESIDENT’S METHOD jury that he was ‘‘downloading’’ information Deny Alleged Affair to Jones’ Lawyers.’’ The in a ‘‘hurry,’’ apparently explaining that he Again, the President carefully crafted his White House learned the substance of the made these statements because he did not statements to give the appearance of being Post story on the evening of January 20, 1998. candid, when actually his intent was the op- have time to listen to answers to open-ended MR. BENNETT’S REMARK questions. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 56; H.Doc. 105– posite. In addition, throughout the testi- 311, p. 508) But, if he was in such a hurry, mony, whenever the President was asked a After the President learned of the exist- why did the President not ask Ms. Currie to specific question that could not be answered ence of the story, he made a series of tele- refresh his recollection when he spoke with directly without either admitting the truth phone calls. At 12:08 a.m. he called his attorney, Mr. her on the telephone the previous evening? or giving an easily provable false answer, he Bennett, and they had a conversation. The He also has no adequate explanation as to said, ‘‘I rely on my statement.’’ 19 times he next morning, Mr. Bennett was quoted in the why he could not spend an extra five or 10 relied on this false and misleading state- ment; nineteen times, then, he repeated Washington Post stating: minutes with Ms. Currie on January 18 to get those lies in ‘‘answering’’ questions pro- her version of the events. In fact, Ms. Currie ‘‘The President adamantly denies he ever pounded to him. (See eg. WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pg. testified that she first met the President on had a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and 139; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 591) January 18 while he was on the White House she has confirmed the truth of that.’’ He putting green, and he told her to go into the THE HOUSE COMMITTEE’S REQUEST added, ‘‘This story seems ridiculous and I office and he would be in in a few minutes. In an effort to avoid unnecessary work and frankly smell a rat.’’ (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 67–70; H.Doc. 105–316, pgs. to bring its inquiry to an expeditious end, ADDITIONAL CALLS the Judiciary Committee of the House of 558–559) And if he was in such a hurry, why After that conversation, the President had Representatives submitted to the President did he repeat these statements to Ms. Currie a half hour conversation with White House 81 requests to admit or deny specific facts a few days later? (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 80–81; counsel, Bruce Lindsey. relevant to this investigation. (Exhibit 18) H.Doc. 105–316, pgs. 560–561) The reason for At 1:16 a.m., the President called Betty Although, for the most part, the questions these statements had nothing to do with Currie and spoke to her for 20 minutes. could have been answered with a simple time constraints or refreshing recollection; He then called Bruce Lindsey again. ‘‘admit’’ or ‘‘deny,’’ the President elected to he had just finished lying during the Jones At 6:30 a.m. the President called Vernon follow the pattern of selective memory, ref- deposition about these issues, and he needed Jordan. erence to other testimony, blatant untruths, corroboration from his secretary. After that, the President again conversed artful distortions, outright lies, and half with Bruce Lindsey. TESTIMONY ABOUT INFLUENCING AIDES truths. When he did answer, he engaged in le- This flurry of activity was a prelude to the Not only did the President lie about his at- galistic hair-splitting in an obvious attempt tempts to influence Ms. Currie’s testimony, to skirt the whole truth and to deceive and stories which the President would soon in- but he lied about his attempts to influence obstruct the due proceedings of the Commit- flict upon top White House aides and advi- the testimony of some of his top aides. tee. sors. Among the President’s lies to his aides, de- THE PRESIDENT REPEATS HIS FALSITIES THE PRESIDENT’S STATEMENTS TO STAFF scribed in detail later in this brief, were that Thus, on at least 23 questions, the Presi- ERSKINE BOWLES Ms. Lewinsky did not perform oral sex on dent professed a lack of memory. This from On the morning of January 21, 1998, the him, and that Ms. Lewinsky stalked him a man who is renowned for his remarkable President met with Whie House Chief of while he rejected her sexual demands. These memory, for his amazing ability to recall de- Staff, Erskine Bowles, and his two deputies, lies were then disseminated to the media and tails. John Podesta and Sylvia Matthews. attributed to White House sources. They In at least 15 answers, the President mere- Erskine Bowles recalled entering the were also disseminated to the grand jury. ly referred to ‘‘White House Records.’’ He President’s office at 9:00 a.m. that morning. When the president was asked about these also referred to his own prior testimony and He then recounts the President’s immediate lies before the grand jury, he testified: that of others. He answered several of the re- words as he and two others entered the Oval ‘‘And so I said to them things that were quests by merely restating the same decep- Office: true about this relationship. That I used—in tive answers that he gave to the grand jury. And he looked up at us and he said the the language I used, I said, there’s nothing We will point out several false statements in same thing he said to the American people. going on between us. That was true. I said, I this Brief. He said, ‘‘I want you to know I did not In addition, the half-truths, legalistic have not had sex with her as I defined it. have sexual relationships with this woman, parsings, evasive and misleading answers That was true. And did I hope that I never Monica Lewinsky. I did not ask anybody to were obviously calculated to obstruct the ef- would have to be here on this day giving this lie. And when the facts come out, you’ll un- forts of the House Committee. They had the testimony? Of course. derstand.’’ ‘‘But I also didn’t want to do anything to effect of seriously hampering its ability to complicate this matter further. So I said inquire and to ascertain the truth. The (Bowles, 4/2/98 GJ, p. 84; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 239) things that were true. They may have been President has, therefore, added obstruction After the President made that blanket de- misleading, and if they were I have to take of an inquiry and an investigation before the nial, Mr. Bowles responded: responsibility for it, and I’m sorry.’’ Legislative Branch to his obstructions of jus- I said, ‘‘Mr. President, I don’t know what (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, p. 106; H.Doc. 105–311, p. 558) tice before the Judicial Branch of our con- the facts are. I don’t know if they’re good, To accept this grand jury testimony as stitutional system of government. bad, or indifferent. But whatever they are, truth, one must believe that many of the THE EARLY ATTACK ON MS. LEWINSKY you ought to get them out. And you ought to President’s top aides engaged in a concerted After his deposition, the power and pres- get them out rignt now.’’ effort to lie to the grand jury in order to in- tige of the Office of President was marshaled (Bowles, 4/2/98 GJ, p. 84; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 239) S72 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 When counsel asked whether the President (Blumenthal, 6/4/98 GJ, p. 49; H.Doc. 105–316, the ongoing grand jury criminal investiga- responded to Bowles’ suggestion that he tell p. 185) tion. He said that he was ‘‘sensitive about the truth, Bowles responded: And then consider what the President told not exchanging information because I knew I I don’t think he made any response, but he Mr. Blumenthal moments later: was a potential witness.’’ (Podesta 6/23/98 GJ, didn’t disagree with me. And he said, ‘‘I feel like a character in a p. 79; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 3332) He also recalled (Bowles, 4/2/98 GJ, p. 84; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 239) novel. I feel like somebody who is sur- that the President volunteered to provide in- formation about Ms. Lewinsky to him even JOHN PODESTA rounded by an oppressive force that is creat- ing a lie about me and I can’t get the truth though Mr. Podesta had not asked for these January 21, 1998 out. I feel like the character in the novel details. (Podesta 6/23/98 GJ, p. 79; H.Doc. 105– Deputy Chief John Podesta also recalled a Darkness at Noon. 316, p. 3332) meeting with the President on the morning And I said to him, ‘‘When this happened In other words, the President’s lies and de- of January 21, 1998. with Monica Lewinsky, were you alone?’’ He ceptions to his White House aides, coupled He testified before the grand jury as to said, ‘‘Well, I was within eyesight or earshot with his steadfast refusal to testify had the what occurred in the Oval Office that morn- of someone.’’ effect of presenting a false account of events ing: (Blumenthal, 6/4/98 GJ, p. 50; H.Doc. 105–316, to investigators and grand jurors. The Presi- A. And we started off meeting—we didn’t— p. 185) dent’s aides believed the President when he I don’t think we said anything. And I think At one point, Mr. Blumenthal was asked by told them his contrived account. The aides’ the President directed this specifically to the grand jury to describe the President’s eventual testimony provided the President’s Mr. Bowles. He said, ‘‘Erskine, I want you to manner and demeanor during the exchange. calculated falsehoods to the grand jury know that this story is not true.’’ which, in turn, gave the jurors an inaccurate Q. In response to my question how you re- Q. What else did he say? and misleading set of facts upon which to sponded to the President’s story about a A. He said that—that he had not had a sex- base any decisions. threat or discussion about a threat from Ms. ual relationship with her, and that he never WIN, WIN, WIN asked anybody to lie. Lewinsky, you mentioned you didn’t recall specifically. Do you recall generally the na- President Clinton also implemented a win- (Podesta, 6/16/98 GJ, p. 85; H.Doc. 105–316, p. ture of your response to the President? at-all-costs strategy calculated to obstruct 3310) A. It was generally sympathetic to the the administration of justice in the Jones January 23, 1998 President. And I certainly believed his story. case and in the grand jury. This is dem- Two days later, on January 23, 1998, Mr. It was a very heartfelt story, he was pouring onstrated in testimony presented by Richard Podesta had another discussion with the out his heart, and I believed him. ‘‘Dick’’ Morris to the federal grand jury. President: (Blumenthal, 6/25/98 GJ, pgs. 16–17; H.Doc. Mr. Morris, a former presidential advisor, ‘‘I asked him how he was doing, and he said 105–316, pgs. 192–193) testified that on January 21, 1998, he met President Clinton and they discussed the he was working on this draft and he said to BETTY CURRIE me that he never had sex with her, and turbulent events of the day. The President When Betty Currie testified before the that—and that he never asked—you know, he again denied the accusations against him. grand jury, she could not recall whether she repeated the denial, but he was extremely After further discussions, they decided to had another one-on-one discussion with the explicit in saying he never had sex with have an overnight poll taken to determine if President on Tuesday, January 20, or her.’’ the American people would forgive the Presi- Wednesday, January 21. But she did state Then Podesta testified as follows: dent for adultery, perjury, and obstruction of that on one of those days, the President sum- justice. When Mr. Morris received the re- Q. Okay. Not explicit, in the sense that he moned her back to his office. At that time, sults, he called the President: got more specific than sex, than the word the President recapped their now-infamous ‘‘sex.’’ Sunday afternoon post-deposition discussion ‘‘And I said, ‘They’re just too shocked by A. Yes, he was more specific than that. in the Oval Office. It was at that meeting this. It’s just too new, it’s too raw.’ And I Q. Okay, share that with us. that the President made a series of state- said, ‘And the problem is they’re willing to A. Well, I think he said—he said that— ments to Ms. Currie, to some of which she forgive you for adultery, but not for perjury there was some spate. Of, you know, what could not possibly have known the answers. or obstruction of justice or the various other sex acts were counted, and he said that he (e.g. ‘‘Monica came on to me and I never things.’ ’’ had never had sex with her in any way touched her, right?’’) (BC 1/27/98 GJ, pgs. 70– (Morris 8/18/98 GJ. p. 28; H.Doc. 105–316, p. whatsoever—— 75; H.Doc. 105–316, pgs. 559–560; BC 7/22/98 GJ, 2929) Q. Okay. pgs. 6–7; H.Doc. 105–316, p. 664) Morris recalls the following exchange: A. That they had not had oral sex. When he spoke to her on January 20 or 21, Morris: And I said, ‘‘They’re just not ready (Podesta, 6/16/98 GJ, p. 92; H.Doc. 105–316, p. he spoke in the same tone and demeanor for it.’’ meaning the voters. 3311) (Exhibit V) that he used in his January 18 Sunday ses- WJC: Well, we just have to win, then. SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL sion. (Morris 8/18/98 GJ, p. 30; H.Doc. 105–216, p. Later in the day on January 21, 1998, the Ms. Currie stated that the President may 2930) President called Sidney Blumenthal to his have mentioned that she might be asked The President, of course, cannot recall this office. It is interesting to note how the about Monica Lewinsky. (BC, 1/24/98 Int., p. 8; statement, (Presidential Responses to Ques- President’s lies become more elaborate and H.Doc. 105–316, p. 536) tions, Numbers 69, 70, and 71) pronounced when he has time to concoct this MOTIVE FOR LIES TO STAFF THE PLOT TO DISCREDIT MONICA LEWINSKY newest line of defense. When the President It is abundantly clear that the President’s In order to ‘‘win,’’ it was necessary to con- spoke to Mr. Bowles and Mr. Podesta, he assertions to staff were designed for dissemi- vince the public, and hopefully the grand ju- simply denied the story. But, by the time he nation to the American people. But it is rors who read the newspapers, that Monica spoke to Mr. Blumenthal, the President has more important to understand that the Lewinsky was unworthy of belief. If the ac- added three new angles to his defense strat- President intended his aides to relate that count given by Ms. Lewinsky to Linda Tripp egy: (1) he now portrays Monica Lewinsky as false story to investigators and grand jurors was believed, then there would emerge a taw- the aggressor; (2) he launches an attack on alike. We know that this is true for the fol- dry affair in and near the Oval Office. More- her reputation by portraying her as a ‘‘stalk- lowing reasons: the Special Division had re- over, the President’s own perjury and that of er’’; and (3) he presents himself as the inno- cently appointed the Office of Independent Monica Lewinsky would surface. To do this, cent victim being attacked by the forces of Counsel to investigate the Monica Lewinsky the President employed the full power and evil. matter; the President realized that Jones’ credibility of the White House and its press Note well this recollection by Mr. attorneys and investigators were investigat- corps to destroy the witness. Thus on Janu- Blumenthal in his June 4, 1998 testimony: ing this matter; the Washington Post journal- ary 29, 1998: (Chart U) ists and investigators were exposing the de- Inside the White House, the debate goes on And it was at this point that he gave his tails of the Lewinsky affair; and, an inves- about the best way to destroy That Woman, account of what had happened to me and he tigation relating to perjury charges based on as President Bill Clinton called Monica said that Monica—and it came very fast. He Presidential activities in the Oval Office Lewinsky. Should they paint her as a friend- said, ‘‘Monica Lewinsky came at me and would certainly lead to interviews with West ly fantasist or a malicious stalker? (The made a sexual demand on me.’’ He rebuffed Wing employees and high level staffers. Be- Plain Dealer) her. He said, ‘‘I’ve gone down that road be- cause the President would not appear before fore, I’ve caused pain for a lot of people and the grand jury, his version of events would Again: I’m not going to do that again.’’ She threat- be supplied by those staffers to whom he had ‘‘That poor child has serious emotional ened him. She said that she would tell people lied. The President actually acknowledged problems,’’ Rep. Charles Rangel, Democrat of they’d had an affair, that she was known as that he knew his aides might be called before New York, said Tuesday night before the the stalker among her peers, and that she the grand jury. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ, pgs. 105–109; State of the Union. ‘‘She’s fantasizing. And I hated it and if she had an affair or said she H.Doc. 105–311, pgs. 557–557) haven’t heard that she played with a full had an affair then she wouldn’t be the stalk- In addition, Mr. Podesta testified that he deck in her other experiences.’’ (The Plain er anymore. knew that he was likely to be a witness in Dealer) January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S73 From Gene Lyons, an Arkansas columnist on WJC. No. wrong was based upon the Constitution of January 30: Q. And you’ve told us that you—— the United States. She claimed essentially ‘‘But it’s also very easy to take a mirror’s WJC. I’m just telling you what I meant by that she was subjected to sexual harassment, eye view of this thing, look at this thing it. I told you what I meant by it when they which, in turn, constitutes discrimination on from a completely different direction and started this deposition. the basis of gender. The case was not brought take the same evidence and posit a totally Q. You’ve told us now that you were being against just any citizen, but against the innocent relationship in which the president careful, but that it might have been mislead- President of the United States, who was was, in a sense, the victim of someone rather ing. Is that correct? under a legal and moral obligation to pre- like the woman who followed David WJC. It must have been * * * So, what I serve and protect Ms. Jones’ rights. It is rel- Letterman around.’’ (NBC News) was trying to do was to give them something atively simple to mouth high-minded plati- they could—that would be true, even if mis- tudes and to prosecute vigorously right vio- From another ‘‘source’’ on February 1: leading in the context of this deposition, and lations by someone else. It is, however, a ‘‘Monica had become known at the White keep them out of trouble, and let’s deal—and test of courage, honor and integrity to en- House, says one source, as ‘the stalker.’ ’’ deal with what I thought was the almost lu- force those rights against yourself. The And on February 4: dicrous suggestion that I had urged someone President failed that test. As a citizen, Ms. ‘‘The media have reported that sources de- to lie or tried to suborn perjury, in other Jones enjoyed an absolute constitutional scribe Lewinsky as ‘infatuated’ with the words. right to petition the Judicial Branch of gov- president, ‘star struck’ and even ‘a stalker’.’’ (WJC 8/17/97 GJ, pgs. 106–108; H. Doc. 105–311, ernment to redress that wrong by filing a (Buffalo News) pgs. 558–560) lawsuit in the United States District Court, which she did. At this point she became enti- Finally, on January 31: As the President testified before the grand jury, he maintained that he was being truth- tled to a trial by jury if she chose, due proc- ‘‘One White House aide called reporters to ful with his aides. (Exhibit 20) He stated that ess of law and the equal protection of the offer information about Monica Lewinsky’s when he spoke to them, he was very careful laws no matter who the defendant was in her past, her weight problems and what the aide with his wording. The President stated that suit. Due process contemplates that right to said was her nickname—‘The Stalker.’ ’’ he wanted his statement regarding ‘‘sexual a full and fair trial, which, in turn, means ‘‘Junior staff members, speaking on the relations’’ to be literally true because he was the right to call and question witnesses, to condition that they not be identified, said only referring to intercourse. cross-examine adverse witnesses and to have she was known as a flirt, wore her skirts too However, recall that John Podesta said her case decided by an unbiased and fully in- short, and was ‘A little bit weird.’ ’’ that the President denied sex ‘‘in any way formed jury. What did she actually get? None ‘‘Little by little, ever since allegations of whatsoever’’ ‘‘including oral sex.’’ The Presi- of the above. an affair between U.S. President Bill Clinton dent told Mr. Podesta, Mr. Bowles, Ms. Wil- On May 27, 1997, the United States Su- and Lewinsky surfaced 10 days ago, White liams, and Harold Ickes that he did not have preme Court ruled in a nine to zero decision House sources have waged a behind-the- a ‘‘sexual relationship’’ with that woman. that, ‘‘like every other citizen,’’ Paula Jones scenes campaign to portray her as an Importantly, seven days after the Presi- ‘‘has a right to an orderly disposition of her untrustworthy climber obsessed with the dent’s grand jury appearance, the White claims.‘‘ In accordance with the Supreme President.’’ House issued a document entitled, ‘‘Talking Court’s decision, United States District ‘‘Just hours after the story broke, one Points January 24, 1998.’’ (Chart W; Exhibit Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled on Decem- White House source made unsolicited calls 16) This ‘‘Talking Points’’ document outlines ber 11, 1997, that Ms. Jones was entitled to offering that Lewinsky was the ‘troubled’ proposed questions that the President may information regarding state or federal em- product of divorced parents and may have be asked. It also outlines suggested answers ployees with whom the President had sexual been following the footsteps of her mother, to those questions. The ‘‘Talking Points’’ relations from May, 1986 to the present. who wrote a tell-all book about the private purport to state the President’s view of sex- Judge Wright had determined that the infor- lives of three famous opera singers.’’ ual relations and his view of the relationship mation was reasonably calculated to lead to ‘‘One story had Lewinsky following former with Monica Lewinsky. (Exhibit 17) the discovery of admissible evidence. Six Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos to The ‘‘Talking Points’’ state as follows: days after this ruling, the President filed an Starbucks. After observing what kind of cof- Q. What acts does the President believe con- answer to Ms. Jones’ Amended Complaint. fee he ordered, she showed up the next day at stitute a sexual relationship? The President’s Answer stated: ‘‘President his secretary’s desk with a cup of the same A. I can’t believe we’re on national tele- Clinton denies that he engaged in any im- coffee to ‘surprise him.’ ’’ (Toronto Sun) vision discussing this. I am not about to en- proper conduct with respect to plaintiff or This sounds familiar because it is the exact gage in an ‘‘act-by-act’’ discussion of what any other woman.’’ tactic used to destroy the reputation and constitutes a sexual relationship. Ms. Jones’ right to call and depose wit- credibility of Paula Jones. The difference is Q. Well, for example, Ms. Lewinsky is on tape nesses was thwarted by perjurious and mis- that these false rumors were emanating from indicating that the President does not believe leading affidavits and motions; her right to the White House, the bastion of the free oral sex is adultery. Would oral sex, to the elicit testimony from adverse witnesses was world, to protect one man from being forced President, constitute a sexual relationship? compromised by perjury and false and mis- to answer for his deportment in the highest A. Of course it would. leading statements under oath. As a result, had a jury tried the case, it would have been office in the land. The President’s own talking points refute deprived of critical information. On August 17, 1998, the President testified the President’s ‘‘literal truth’’ argument. before the grand jury. He then was specifi- That result is bad enough, but it reaches cally asked whether he knew that his aides EFFECT OF THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT constitutional proportions when denial of (Blumenthal, Bowles, Podesta and Currie) Some ‘‘experts’’ have questioned whether the civil rights is directed by the President were likely to be called before the grand the President’s deportment affects his office, of the United States who twice took an oath jury. the government of the United States or the to preserve, protect and defend those rights. Q. It may have been misleading, sir, and dignity and honor of the country. But we now know what the ‘‘sanctity of an you knew though, after January 21st when Our founders decided in the Constitutional oath’’ means to the President. the Post article broke and said that Judge Convention that one of the duties imposed THE EFFECT ON THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT upon the President is to ‘‘take care that the Starr was looking into this, you knew that Moreover, the President is the spokesman laws be faithfully executed.’’ Furthermore, they might be witnesses. You knew that they for the government and the people of the he is required to take an oath to ‘‘Preserve, might be called into a grand jury, didn’t United States concerning both domestic and protect and defend the Constitution of the you? foreign matters. His honesty and integrity, United States.’’ Twice this President stood WJC. That’s right. I think I was quite care- therefore, directly influence the credibility on the steps of the Capitol, raised his right ful what I said after that. I may have said of this country. When, as here, that spokes- hand to God and repeated that oath. something to all these people to that effect, man is guilty of a continuing pattern of lies, The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution but I’ll also—whenever anybody asked me misleading statements, and deceits over a of the United States provides that no person any details, I said, look, I don’t want you to long period of time, the believability of any shall ‘‘be deprived of life, liberty or property be a witness or I turn you into a witness or of his pronouncements is seriously called without due process of law.‘‘ give you information that would get you in into question. Indeed, how can anyone in or The Seventh Amendment insures that in trouble. I just wouldn’t talk. I, by and large, out of our country any longer believe any- civil suits ‘‘the right of trial by jury shall be didn’t talk to people about it. thing he says? And what does that do to con- preserved.’’ Q. If all of these people—let’s leave Mrs. fidence in the honor and integrity of the Finally, the Fourteenth Amendment guar- Currie for a minute. Vernon Jordan, Sid United States? antees due process of law and the equal pro- Blumenthal, John Podesta, Harold Ickes, Er- Make no mistake, the conduct of the Presi- tection of the laws. skine Bowles, Harry Thomasson, after the dent is inextricably bound to the welfare of story broke, after Judge Starr’s involvement THE EFFECT ON MS. JONES’ RIGHTS the people of the United States. Not only was known on January 21st, have said that Paula Jones is an American citizen, just a does it affect economic and national defense, you denied a sexual relationship with them. single citizen who felt that she had suffered but even more directly, it affects the moral Are you denying that? a legal wrong. More important, that legal and law-abiding fibre of the commonwealth, S74 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 without which no nation can survive. When, struction need not have any direct connec- articles of impeachment state an impeach- as here, that conduct involves a pattern of tion to the officer’s official duties. able offense? There is really no debate on abuses of power, of perjury, of deceit, of ob- PRECEDENTS this point. The articles allege misconduct struction of justice and of the Congress, and In the 1980s, the Senate convicted and re- that is criminal and wholly inconsistent of other illegal activities, the resulting dam- moved from office three federal judges for with judicial integrity and the judicial oath. age to the honor and respect due to the making perjurious statements. Background Everyone agrees that a judge who lies under United States is, of necessity, devastating. and History of Impeachment Hearings before the oath, or who deceives Federal investigators THE EFFECT ON THE SYSTEM Subcomm. On the Constitution of the House by lying in an interview, is not fit to remain Again: there is no such thing as non-seri- Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess. on the bench.’’ ous lying under oath. Every time a witness at 190–193 (Comm. Print 1998), (Testimony of 135 Cong. Rec. S14,497 (Statement of Rep. lies, that witness chips a stone from the Charles Cooper) (‘‘Cooper Testimony’’) Al- Sensenbrenner) foundation of our entire legal system. Like- though able counsel represented each judge, The Senate agreed, overwhelmingly voting wise, every act of obstruction of justice, of none of them argued that perjury or making to convict Judge Nixon of perjury on the witness tampering or of perjury adversely af- false statements are not impeachable of- first two articles (89–8 and 78–19, respec- fects the judicial branch of government like fenses. Nor did a single Congressman or Sen- tively). As Senator Carl Levin explained: a pebble tossed into a lake. You may not no- ator, in any of the three impeachment pro- ‘‘The record amply supports the finding in tice the effect at once, but you can be cer- ceedings, suggest that perjury does not con- the criminal trial that Judge Nixon’s state- tain that the tranquility of that lake has stitute a high crime and misdemeanor. Fi- ments to the grand jury were false and mis- been disturbed. And if enough pebbles are nally, in the cases of Judge Claiborne and leading and constituted perjury. Those are thrown into the water, the lake itself may Judge Nixon, it was undisputed that the per- the statements cited in articles I and II and disappear. So too with the truth-seeking jury was not committed in connection with it is on those articles that I vote to convict process of the courts. Every unanswered and the exercise of the judges’ judicial powers. Judge Nixon and remove him from office.’’ unpunished assault upon it has its lasting ef- JUDGE NIXON 135 Cong. Rec. S14,637 (Statement of Sen. fect and given enough of them, the system In 1989, Judge Walter L. Nixon, Jr., was im- Levin). itself will implode. peached, convicted, and removed from office JUDGE HASTINGS That is why two women who testified be- for committing perjury. Judge Nixon’s of- fore the Committee had been indicted, con- Also in 1989, the House impeached Judge fense stemmed from his grand jury testi- victed and punished severely for false state- Alcee L. Hastings for, among other things, mony and statements to federal officers con- ments under oath in civil cases. And that is committing numerous acts of perjury. The cerning his intervention in the state drug why only recently a federal grand jury in Senate convicted him, and he was removed prosecution of Drew Fairchild, the son of Chicago indicted four former college football from office. Initially, Judge Hastings had Wiley Fairchild, a business partner of Judge players because they gave false testimony been indicted by a federal grand jury for con- Nixon’s. under oath to a grand jury. Nobody sug- spiracy stemming from his alleged bribery Although Judge Nixon had no official role gested that they should not be charged be- conspiracy with his friend Mr. William Bor- or function in Drew Fairchild’s case (which cause their motives may have been to pro- ders to ‘‘fix’’ cases before Judge Hastings in was assigned to a state court judge), Wiley tect their careers and family. And nobody exchange for cash payments from defend- Fairchild had asked Judge Nixon to help out has suggested that the perjury was non-seri- ants. Mr. Borders was convicted, but, at his by speaking to the prosecutor. Judge Nixon ous because it involved only lies about own trial, Judge Hastings took the stand and did so, and the prosecutor, a long-time friend sports; i.e., betting on college football unequivocally denied any participation in a of Judge Nixon’s, dropped the case. When the games. conspiracy with Mr. Borders. The jury ac- FBI and the Department of Justice inter- quitted Judge Hastings on all counts. Never- DISREGARD OF THE RULE OF LAW viewed Judge Nixon, he denied any involve- theless, the House impeached Judge Apart from all else, the President’s illegal ment whatsoever. Subsequently, a federal Hastings, approving seventeen articles of im- actions constitute an attack upon and utter grand jury was empaneled and Judge Nixon peachment, fourteen of which were for lying disregard for the truth, and for the rule of again denied his involvement before that under oath at his trial. law. Much worse, they manifest an arrogant grand jury. The House voted 413 to 3 to impeach. The disdain not only for the rights of his fellow After a lengthy criminal prosecution, House Managers’ Report left no doubt that citizens, but also for the functions and the Judge Nixon was convicted on two counts of perjury alone is impeachable: integrity of the other two co-equal branches perjury before the grand jury and sentenced ‘‘It is important to realize that each in- of our constitutional system. One of the wit- to five years in prison on each count. Not stance of false testimony charged in the false nesses that appeared earlier likened the gov- long thereafter, the House impeached Judge statement articles is more than enough rea- ernment of the United States to a three- Nixon by a vote of 417 to 0. The first article son to convict Judge Hastings and remove legged stool. The analysis is apt, because the of impeachment charged him with making him from office. Even if the evidence were entire structure of our country rests upon the false or misleading statement to the insufficient to prove that Judge Hastings three equal supports: the Legislative, the Ju- grand jury that he could not ‘‘recall’’ dis- was part of the conspiracy with William Bor- dicial, and the Executive. Remove one of cussing the Fairchild case with the prosecu- ders, which the House in no way concedes, those supports, and the State will totter. Re- tor. The second article charged Nixon with the fact that he lied under oath to assure his move two and the structure will collapse al- making affirmative false or misleading acquittal is conduct that cannot be tolerated together. statements to the grand jury that he had of a United States District Judge. To bolster ‘‘nothing whatsoever officially or unoffi- EFFECT ON THE JUDICIAL BRANCH one’s defense by lying to a jury is separate, cially to do with the Drew Fairchild case.’’ The President mounted a direct assault independent corrupt conduct. For this reason The third article alleged that Judge Nixon upon the truth-seeking process which is the alone, Judge Hastings should be removed made numerous false statements (not under very essence and foundation of the Judicial from public office.’’ oath) to federal investigators prior to his Branch. Not content with that, though, Mr. The House of Representatives’ Brief in Sup- Clinton renewed his lies, half-truths and ob- grand jury testimony. See 135 Cong. Rec. H1802–03. port of the Articles of Impeachment at 127– struction to this Congress when he filed his 28 (1989). Representative John Conyers (D– answers to simple requests to admit or deny. The House unanimously impeached Judge Nixon, and the House Managers’ Report ex- Mich.) also argued for the impeachment of In so doing, he also demonstrated his lack of Judge Hastings: respect for the constitutional functions of pressed no doubt that perjury is an impeach- the Legislative Branch. able offense: ‘‘[W]e can no more close our eyes to acts Actions do not lose their public character ‘‘It is difficult to imagine an act more sub- that constitute high crimes and misdemean- merely because they may not directly affect versive to the legal process than lying from ors when practiced by judges whose views we the domestic and foreign functioning of the the witness stand. A judge who violates his approve than we could against judges whose Executive Branch. Their significance must testimonial oath and misleads a grand jury views we detested. It would be disloyal . . . be examined for their effect on the function- is clearly unfit to remain on the bench. If a to my oath of office at this late state of my ing of the entire system of government. judge’s truthfulness cannot be guaranteed, if career to attempt to set up a double stand- Viewed in that manner, the President’s ac- he sets less than the highest standard for ard for those who share my philosophy and tions were both public and extremely de- candor, how can ordinary citizens who ap- for those who may oppose it. In order to be structive. pear in court be expected to abide by their true to our principles, we must demand that all persons live up to the same high stand- THE CONDUCT CHARGED WARRANTS testimonial oath?’’ ards that we demand of everyone else.’’ CONVICTION AND REMOVAL House of Representatives’ Brief in Support of The Articles state offenses that warrant the Articles of Impeachment at 59 (1989). 134 Cong. Rec. H6184 (1988) (Statement of the President’s conviction and removal from House Manager Sensenbrenner addressed the Rep. Conyers). office. The Senate’s own precedents establish question even more directly: JUDGE CLAIBORNE that perjury and obstruction warrant convic- ‘‘There are basically two questions before In 1986, Judge Harry E. Claiborne was im- tion and removal from office. Those same you in connection with this impeachment. peached, convicted, and removed from office precedents establish that the perjury and ob- First, does the conduct alleged in the three for making false statements under penalties January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S75 of perjury. In particular, Judge Claiborne The staff of the House Judiciary Commit- ferent from judicial ones, surely the Presi- had filed false income tax returns in 1979 and tee in the 1970s and the National Commission dent ought not be held to a lower standard of 1980, grossly understating his income. As a on Judicial Discipline and Removal in the impeachability than judges. In the course of result, he was convicted by a jury of two 1990s both issued reports rejecting these ar- the 1980s judicial impeachments, Congress counts of willfully making a false statement guments. In 1974, the staff of the Judiciary emphasized unequivocally that the removal on a federal tax return in violation of 26 Committee’s Impeachment Inquiry issued a from office of federal judges guilty of crimes U.S.C. § 7206 (a). Subsequently, the House report which included the following conclu- indistinguishable from those currently unanimously (406–0) approved four articles of sion: charged against the President was essential impeachment. The proposition that Clai- ‘‘Does Article III, Section 1 of the Con- to the preservation of the rule of law. If the borne’s perjurious personal income tax fil- stitution, which states that judges ‘shall perjury of just one judge so undermines the rule of law as to make it intolerable that he ings were not impeachable was never even hold their Offices during good Behaviour,’ remain in office, then how much more so seriously considered. As the House Managers limit the relevance of the ten impeachments does perjury committed by the President of explained: of judges with respect to presidential im- the United States, who alone is charged with ‘‘[T]he constitutional issues raised by the peachment standards as has been argued by the duty ‘‘to take Care that the Laws be first two Articles of Impeachment [concern- some? It does not. The argument is that faithfully executed.’’ See generally, Cooper ing the filing of false tax returns] are readily ‘good behavior’ implies an additional ground Testimony at 194) resolved. The Constitution provides that for impeachment of judges not applicable to It is just as devastating to our system of Judge Claiborne may be impeached and con- other civil officers. However, the only im- government when a President commits per- victed for ‘‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors.’’ peachment provision discussed in the Con- jury. As the House Judiciary Committee Article II, Section 4. The willful making or vention and included in the Constitution is stated in justifying an article of impeach- subscribing of a false statement on a tax return Article II, Section 4, which by its expressed ment against President Nixon, the President is a felony offense under the laws of the terms, applies to all civil officers, including not only has ‘‘the obligation that every citi- United States. The commission of such a felony judges, and defines impeachment offenses as zen has to live under the law,’’ but in addi- is a proper basis for Judge Clairborne’s impeach- ‘Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and tion has the duty ‘‘not merely to live by the ment and conviction in the Senate.’’ Misdemeanors.’ ’’ law but to see that law faithfully applied.’’ Proceedngs of the United States Senate Im- Staff of House Comm. on the Judiciary, 93rd Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of peachment Trial of Judge Harry E. Clairborne, Cong. 2d Sess., Constitutional Grounds for the United States, H. Rept. No. 93–1305, 93rd S. Doc. No. 99–48, at 40 (1986) (Claiborne Pro- Presidential Impeachment (Comm. Print 1974) Cong., 2d Sess. at 180 (1974). The Constitution ceedings’’) (emphases added). (‘‘1974 Staff Report’’) at 17. provides that he ‘‘shall take Care that the House Manager Rodino, in his oral argu- The National Commission on Judicial Dis- Laws be faithfully executed.’’ U.S. Const. ment to the Senate, emphatically made the cipline and Removal came to the same con- Art. II, § 3. When a President, as chief law en- same point: clusion. The Commission concluded that forcement officer of the United States, com- ‘‘Honor in the eyes of the American people ‘‘the most plausible reading of the phrase mits perjury, he violates this constitutional lies in public officials who respect the law, ‘during good Behavior’ is that it means ten- oath unique to his office and casts doubt on not in those who violate the trust that has ure for life, subject to the impeachment the notion that we are a nation ruled by laws been given to them when they are trusted power. . . . The ratification debates about and not men. with public office. Judge Harry E. Claiborne the federal judiciary seem to have proceeded PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION ARE AS SERIOUS has, sad to say, undermined the integrity of on the assumption that good-behavior tenure AS BRIBERY the judicial branch of Government. To re- meant removal only through impeachment Further evidence that perjury and obstruc- store that integrity and to maintain public and conviction.’’ National Commission on tion warrant conviction and removal comes confidence in the administration of justice, Judicial Discipline and Removal, Report of directly from the text of the Constitution. Judge Claiborne must be convicted on the the National Commission on Judicial Discipline Because the Constitution specifically men- fourth Article of Impeachment [that of re- and Removal 17–18 (1993) (footnote omitted). tions bribery, no one can dispute that it is an ducing confidence in the integrity of the ju- The record of the 1986 impeachment of impeachable offense. U.S. Const., art. II, § 4. diciary].’’ Judge Claiborne also argues against different Because the constitutional language does 132 Cong. Rec. S15,481 (1986) (Statement of impeachment standards for federal judges not limit the term, we must take it to mean Rep. Rodino). and presidents. Judge Claiborne filed a mo- all forms of bribery. Our statutes specifically The Senate agreed. Telling are the words tion asking the Senate to dismiss the arti- criminalize bribery of witnesses with the in- of then-Senator Albert Gore, Jr. In voting to cles of impeachment against him for failure tent to influence their testimony in judicial convict Judge Claiborne and remove him to state impeachable offenses. One of the proceedings. 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3) & (4), (c)(2) & from office: motion’s arguments was that ‘‘[t]he standard (3). See also 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 (general obstruc- ‘‘The conclusion is inescapable that for impeachment of a judge is different than tion of justice statute), 1512 (witness tamper- Clairborne filed false income tax returns and that for other officers’’ and that the Con- ing statute). Indeed, in a criminal case, the that he did so willfully rather than neg- stitution limited ‘‘removal of the judiciary efforts to provide Ms. Lewinsky with job as- ligently. . . . Given the circumstances, it is to acts involving misconduct related to dis- sistance in return for submitting a false affi- incumbent upon the Senate to fulfill its con- charge of office.’’ Memorandum in Support of davit charged in the Articles might easily stitutional responsibility and strip this man Motion to Dismiss the Articles of Impeachment have been charged under these statutes. No of his title. An individual who has knowingly on the Grounds They Do Not State Impeachable one could reasonably argue that the Presi- falsified tax returns has no business receiv- Offenses 4 (hereinafter cited as ‘‘Claiborne dent’s bribing a witness to provide false tes- ing a salary derived from the tax dollars of Motion’’), reprinted in Hearings Before the timony—even in a private lawsuit—does not honest citizens. More importantly, an indi- Senate Impeachment Trial Committee, 99th rise to the level of an impeachable offense. vidual quality of such reprehensible conduct Cong., 2d Sess. 245 (1986) (hereinafter cited as The plain language of the Constitution indi- ought not be permitted to exercise the awe- ‘‘Senate Claiborne Hearings’’). cates that it is. some powers which the Constitution entrusts Representative Kastenmeier responded Having established that point, the rest is to the Federal Judiciary.’’ that ‘‘reliance on the term ‘good behavior’ as easy. Bribing a witness is illegal because it Claiborne Proceedings, S. Doc. No. 99–48, at 372 stating a sanction for judges is totally mis- leads to false testimony that in turn under- (1986). placed and virtually all commentators agree mines the ability of the judicial system to APPLICATION TO THE PRESIDENT that that is directed to affirming the life reach just results. Thus, among other things, To avoid the conclusive force of these re- tenure of judges during good behavior. It is the Framers clearly intended impeachment cent precedents—and in particular the exact not to set them down, differently, as judicial to protect the judicial system from these precedent supporting impeachment for, con- officers from civil officers.’’ Id. at 81–82. He kinds of attacks. Perjury and obstruction of viction, and removal for perjury—the only further stated that ‘‘[n]or . . . is there any justice are illegal for exactly the same rea- recourse for the President’s defenders is to support for the notion that . . . Federal son, and they accomplish exactly the same argue that a high crime or misdemeanor for judges are not civil officers of the United ends through slightly different means. Sim- a judge is not necessarily a high crime or States, subject to the impeachment clause of ple logic establishes that perjury and ob- misdemeanor for the President. The argu- article II of the Constitution.’’ Id. at 81. struction of justice—even in a private law- ments advanced in support of this dubious The Senate never voted on Claiborne’s mo- suit—are exactly the types of other high proposition do not withstand serious scru- tion. However, the Senate was clearly not crimes and misdemeanors that are of the tiny. See generally Cooper Testimony, at 193. swayed by the arguments contained therein same magnitude as bribery. The Constitution provides that Article III because it later voted to convict Judge Clai- HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS judges ‘‘shall hold their Offices during good borne. 132 Cong. Rec. S15,760–62 (daily ed. Although Congress has never adopted a Behavior, U.S. Const. Art. III, 1. Thus, these Oct. 9, 1986). The Senate thus rejected the fixed definition of ‘‘high crimes and mis- arguments suggest that judges are impeach- claim that the standard of impeachable of- demeanors,’’ much of the background and able for ‘‘misbehavior’’ while other federal fenses was different for judges than for presi- history of the impeachment process con- officials are only impeachable for treason, dents. tradicts the President’s claim that these of- bribery, and other high crimes and mis- Moreover, even assuming that presidential fenses are private and therefore do not war- demeanors. high crimes and misdemeanors could be dif- rant conviction and removal. Two reports S76 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 prepared in 1974 on the background and his- peached, convicted, and removed from office Experts pointed to the fact that the House tory of impeachment are particularly helpful for making false statements under penalty of refused to impeach President Nixon for lying in evaluating the President’s defense. Both perjury on his income tax returns. That mis- on an income tax return. Can you imagine a reports support the conclusion that the facts conduct had nothing to do with his official future President, faced with possible im- in this case compel the conviction and re- responsibilities. peachment, pointing to the perjuries, lies, moval of President Clinton. Nothing in the text, structure, or history obstructions, and tampering with witnesses Many have commented on the report on of the Constitution suggests that officials by the current occupant of the office as not ‘‘Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Im- are subject to impeachment only for official rising to the level of high crimes and mis- peachment’’ prepared in February 1974 by the misconduct. Perjury and obstruction of jus- demeanors? If this is not enough, what is? staff of the Nixon impeachment inquiry. The tice—even regarding a private matter—are How far can the standard be lowered without general principles concerning grounds for offenses that substantially affect the Presi- completely compromising the credibility of impeachment set forth in that report indi- dent’s official duties because they are gross- the office for all time? cate that perjury and obstruction of justice ly incompatible with his preeminent duty to Dated: January 11, 1999. are impeachable offenses. Consider this key ‘‘take care that the laws be faithfully exe- language from the staff report describing the cuted.’’ Regardless of their genesis, perjury APPENDIX type of conduct which gives rise to impeach- and obstruction of justice are acts of public [In the Senate of the United States Sitting ment: misconduct—they cannot be dismissed as un- as a Court of Impeachment] ‘‘The emphasis has been on the significant derstandable or trivial. Perjury and obstruc- In re Impeachment of President William Jef- effects of the conduct—undermining the integ- tion of justice are not private matters; they ferson Clinton rity of office, disregard of constitutional duties are crimes against the system of justice, for Appendix to Trial Memorandum of the Man- and oath of office, arrogation of power, abuse which impeachment, conviction, and re- agers Appointed by the U.S. House of Rep- of the governmental process, adverse impact moval are appropriate. resentatives on the system of government.’’ The record of Judge Claiborne’s impeach- THE UNITED STATES 1974 Staff Report at 26 (emphasis added). ment proceedings affirms that conclusion. HOUSE OF Perjury and obstruction of justice clearly Representative Hamilton Fish, the ranking REPRESENTATIVES ‘‘undermine the integrity of office.’’ They member of the Judiciary Committee and one unavoidably erode respect for the office of of the House managers in the Senate trial, HENRY J. HYDE, the President. Such offenses obviously in- stated that ‘‘[i]mpeachable conduct does not F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, volve ‘‘disregard of [the President’s] con- have to occur in the course of the perform- Jr., stitutional duties and oath of office.’’ More- ance of an officer’s official duties. Evidence BILL MCCOLLUM, over, these offenses have a direct and serious of misconduct, misbehavior, high crimes, GEORGE W. GEKAS, ‘‘adverse impact on the system of govern- and misdemeanors can be justified upon CHARLES T. CANADY, ment.’’ Obstruction of justice is by definition one’s private dealings as well as one’s exer- STEPHEN E. BUYER, an assault on the due administration of jus- cise of public office. That, of course, is the ED BRYANT, tice—a core function of our system of gov- situation in this case.’’ 132 Cong. Rec. H4713 STEVE CHABOT, ernment. (daily ed. July 22, 1986). BOB BARR, The thoughtful report on ‘‘The Law of Judge Claiborne’s unsuccessful motion ASA HUTCHINSON, Presidential Impeachment’’ prepared by the that the Senate dismiss the articles of im- CHRIS CANNON, Association of the Bar of the City of New peachment for failure to state impeachable JAMES E. ROGAN, York in January of 1974 also places a great offenses provides additional evidence that LINDSEY O. GRAHAM. deal of emphasis on the corrosive impact of personal misconduct can justify impeach- Managers on the Part of the House presidential misconduct on the integrity of ment. One of the arguments his attorney office: made for the motion was that ‘‘there is no TABLE OF CONTENTS It is our conclusion, in summary, that the allegation . . . that the behavior of Judge CHARTS grounds for Claiborne in any way was related to mis- A. The President’s Contacts Alone With ‘‘impeachment are not limited to or synony- behavior in his official function as a judge; it Lewinsky mous with crimes . . . Rather, we believe was private misbehavior.’’ (Senate Claiborne B. The President’s Telephone Contacts that acts which undermine the integrity of gov- Hearings, at 77, Statement of Judge Clai- With Lewinsky ernment are appropriate grounds whether or borne’s counsel, Oscar Goodman). (See also C. Lewinsky’s Gifts to The President not they happen to constitute offenses under Claiborne Motion, at 3) D. The President’s Gifts to Lewinsky the general criminal law. In our view, the es- Representative Kastenmeier responded by E. 12/5/97 Facsimile Transmission of Wit- sential nexus to damaging the integrity of stating that ‘‘it would be absurd to conclude ness List in Jones v. Clinton government may be found in acts which con- that a judge who had committed murder, F. The December 19, 1997 Subpoena to stitute corruption in, or flagrant abuse of mayhem, rape, or perhaps espionage in his Lewinsky in Jones v. Clinton G. December 19, 1997 Activities Following the powers of, official position. It may also private life, could not be removed from office Lewinsky’s Receipt of Subpoena be found in acts which, without directly af- by the U.S. Senate.’’ (Senate Claiborne Hear- ings, at 81) Kastenmeier’s response was re- H. The President’s December 23, 1997 Re- fecting governmental processes, undermine sponse to Interrogatory No. 10 in Jones v. that degree of public confidence in the probity peated by the House of Representatives in its pleading opposing Claiborne’s motion to dis- Clinton of executive and judicial officers that is essen- I. The President’s December 23, 1997 Re- miss. (Opposition to Claiborne Motion at 2) tial to the effectiveness of government in a free sponse to Interrogatory No. 11 in Jones v. society.’’ The Senate did not vote on Judge Clai- borne’s motion, but it later voted to convict Clinton Association of the Bar of the City of New J. December 28, 1997, The President’s Final him. 132 Cong. Rec. S15,760–62 (daily ed. Oct. York, The Law of Presidential Impeachment, Meeting With Lewinsky and Concealment of 9, 1986). The Senate thus agreed with the (1974) at 161 (emphasis added). The commis- Gifts House that private improprieties could be, sion of perjury and obstruction of justice by K. Currie’s Cell Phone Records for 12/28/97 and were in this instance, impeachable of- a President are acts that without doubt ‘‘un- L. The President’s Statements About Con- fenses. dermine that degree of public confidence in cealing Gifts The Claiborne case makes clear that per- the probity of the [the President] that is es- M. Lewinsky’s Draft Affidavit jury, even if it relates to a matter wholly sential to the effectiveness of government in N. Lewinsky Final Affidavit dated January separated from a federal officer’s official du- a free society.’’ Such acts inevitably subvert 7, 1998 Paragraph 8, Jones v. Clinton ties—a judge’s personal tax returns—is an O. Filing Lewinsky’s Affidavit and Motion the respect for law which is essential to the impeachable offense. Judge Nixon’s false to Quash (1/14/98–1/17/98) well-being of our constitutional system. statements were also in regard to a matter P. Mission Accomplished: Lewinsky Signs That the President’s perjury and obstruc- distinct from his official duties. In short, the Her Affidavit and Is Hired By Revlon in New tion do not directly involve his official con- Senate’s own precedents establish that mis- York (1/5/98–1/9/98) duct does not diminish their significance. conduct need not be in one’s official capacity Q. The President’s Involvement With The record is clear that federal officials have to warrant removal. Lewinsky’s Job Search been impeached for reasons other than offi- R. Jordan’s Testimony About His Pre-Wit- CONCLUSION cial misconduct. As set forth above, two re- ness List Job Search Efforts cent impeachments of federal judges are This is a defining moment for the Presi- S. Activity Following The President’s Dep- compelling examples. In 1989, Judge Walter dency as an institution, because if the Presi- osition (1/17/98–1/1998) Nixon was impeached, convicted, and re- dent is not convicted as a consequence of the T. The President’s Statements to Currie 1/ moved from office for committing perjury conduct that has been portrayed, then no 18/98 before a federal grand jury. Judge Nixon’s House of Representatives will ever be able to U. The President’s Denial of Sexual Rela- perjury involved his efforts to fix a state impeach again and no Senate will ever con- tions case for the son of a business partner—a vict. The bar will be so high that only a con- V. The President’s 1/21/98 Denial of Sexual matter in which he had no official role. In victed felon or a traitor will need to be con- Relations to Blumenthal, Podesta and Mor- 1986, Judge Harry E. Claiborne was im- cerned. ris January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S77 W. The White House 1/24/98 ‘‘Talking [Chart B] 4:00 a.m.—job talk—argument—ML at Points’’ THE PRESIDENT’S TELEPHONE home. X. The President’s Claims That He Was CONTACTS WITH LEWINSKY 10/23/97 (Thur): Conversation—ML at home— Truthful With Aides 1/7/96 (Sun): Conversation—first call to ML’s end b/c HRC. Y. The Three Options of a Grand Jury Wit- home. 10/30/97 (Thur): Conversation—ML at home— ness 1/7/96 (Sun): Conversation—ML at office. interview prep. Z. The President’s Grand Jury ‘‘State- 1/15 or 1/16/96 (Mon or Tue): Conversation, 11/12/97 (Wed): Conversation—discuss re: ML ment’’ approx. 12:30 a.m.—ML at home.* visit.* Approx. 1/28/96 (Sun): Caller ID on ML’s office 12/6/97 (Sat): Conversation—approx. 30 min— ML at home. [Chart A] phone indicated POTUS call. 1/30/96 (Tues): Conversation—during middle 12/17/ or 12/18/97 (Wed or Thur): Conversa- THE PRESIDENT’S CONTACTS ALONE of workday at ML’s office. tion—b/t 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m.—ML at WITH LEWINSKY 2/4/96 (Sun): Conversations—ML at office— home—witness list. LEWINSKY WHITE HOUSE EMPLOYEE (7/95–4/96) multiple calls. 1/5/98 (Mon): Conversation. 2/7 or 2/8/96 (Wed or Thur): Conversation—ML *Conversation that involved and may have in- 1995 at home. volved phone sex. 11/15/95 (Wed): The President meets alone 2/8 or 2/9/96 (Thur or Fri): Conversation—ML twice with Lewinsky in Oval Office at home.* [Chart C] study and hallway outside the Oval Of- 2/19/96 (Mon): Conversation—ML at home. LEWINSKY GIFTS TO THE PRESIDENT fice. (Sexual Encounter) Approx. 2/28 2/28 or 3/5/96: Conversation— 10/24/95: Lewinsky (before the sexual rela- 11/17/95 (Fri): The President meets alone approx. 20 min.—after chance meeting tionship began) gives her first gift to twice with Lewinsky in The Presi- in hallway—ML at home. The President of a matted poem given dent’s private bathroom outside the 3/26/96 (Tues): Conversation—approx. 11 by her and other White House interns Oval Office study. (Sexual Encounter) a.m.—ML at office. to commemorate ‘‘National Boss’ 12/5/95 (Tues): The President meets alone 3/29/96: Conversation—ML at office—approx. 8 Day’’. It is the only gift the President with Lewinsky in the Oval Office and p.m.—invitation to movie. study. (No Sexual Encounter) 3/31/96: Conversation—ML at office—approx. 1 sent to the archives instead of keeping. 12/31/95 (Sun): The President meets alone p.m.—Pres. ill. 11/20/95: Lewinsky gives The President a with Lewinsky in the Oval Office and 4/7/96 (Easter Sunday): Conversation——ML Zegna necktie. Oval Office study. (Sexual Encounter) at home. 3/31/96: Lewinsky gives The President a Hugo Boss Tie. 1996 4/7/96 (Easter Sunday): Conversation—ML at home—why ML left. Christmas 1996: Lewinsky gives The Presi- 1/7/96 (Sun): The President meets alone with dent a Sherlock Homes game and a Lewinsky in the bathroom outside the 4/12/96 (Fri): Conversation—ML at home— daytime. glow in the dark frog. Oval Office study. (Sexual Encounter) Before 8/16/96: Lewinsky gives The President 1/21/96 (Sun): The President meets alone with 4/12 or 4/13/96 (Fri or Sat): Conversation—ML at home—after midnight. a Zegna necktie and a t-shirt from Bos- Lewinsky in the hallway outside the nia. Oval Office study. (Sexual Encounter) 4/22/96 (Mon): Conversations—job talk—ML at home. Early 1997: Lewinsky gives The President Oy 2/4/96 (Sun): The President meets alone with Ve, a small golf book, golf balls, golf Lewinsky in the Oval Office study and 4/29 or 4/30/96 (Mon or Tues): Message—after 6:30 a.m. tees, and a plastic pocket frog. in the adjacent hallway. (Sexual En- 3/97: Lewinsky gives The President a care counter) 5/2/96 (Thur): Conversation—ML at home.* 5/6/96 (Mon): Possible phone call. package after he injured his leg includ- 2/19/96 (Mon): The President meets alone with ing a metal magnet with The Presi- Lewinsky in the Oval Office. (No Sex- 5/16/96 (Thur): Conversation—ML at home. 5/21/96 (Tues): Conversation—ML at home.* dential seal for his crutches, a license ual Encounter) plate with ‘‘Bill’’ for his wheelchair, 3/31/96 (Sun): The President meets alone with 5/31/96 (Fri): Message. 6/5/96 (Wed): Conversation—ML at home— and knee pads with The Presidential Lewinsky in hallway outside the Oval seal. Office. (Sexual Encounter) early evening. 3/29/97: Lewinsky gives The President her 4/7/96 (Sun): The President meets alone with 6/23/96 (Sun): Conversation—ML at home.* personal copy of Vox, a book about Lewinsky in the hallway outside the 7/5 or 7/6/96 (Fri or Sat): Conversation—ML at phone sex, a penny medallion with the Oval Office study and in the Oval Office home.* heart cut out, a framed Valentine’s study. (Sexual Encounter) 7/19/96 (Fri): Conversation—6:30 a.m.—ML at home.* Day ad, and a replacement for the 1997 7/28/96 (Sun): Conversation—ML at home. Hugo Boss tie that had the bottom cut 2/28/97 (Fri): The President meets alone with 8/4/96 (Sun): Conversation—ML at home.* off. Lewinsky in the Oval Office private 8/24/96 (Sat): Conversation—ML at home.* 5/24/97: Lewinsky gives The President a Ba- bathroom. (Sexual Encounter) 9/5/96 (Thur): Conversation—Pres. In Fla—ML nana Republic casual shirt and a puzzle 3/29/97 (Sat): The President meets alone with at home.* on gold mysteries. Lewinsky in the Oval Office study. 9/10/96 (Tues): Message. 7/14/97: Lewinsky gives The President a wood- (Sexual Encounter) 9/30/96 (Mon): Conversation.* en B, with a frog in it from Budapest. 5/24/97 (Sat): The President meets alone with 10/22/96 (Tues): Conversation—ML at home.* Before 8/16/97: Lewinsky gives The President Lewinsky in the Oval Office dining 10/23 or 10/24/96 (early am): Conversation—ML The Notebook. room, study and hallway. (No Sexual at home. 8/16/97: Lewinsky gives The President an an- Encounter) 12/2/96 (Mon): Conversation—approx. 10–15 tique book on Peter the Great, the card 7/4/97 (Fri): The President meets alone with min.—ML at home. game ‘‘Royalty’’, and a book, Disease Lewinsky in the Oval Office study and 12/2/96 (Mon): Conversation—later that and Misrepresentation. hallway. (No Sexual Encounter) evening—ML at home—approx. 10:30 10/21/97 or 10/22/97: Lewinsky gives The Presi- 7/14/97 (Mon): The President meets alone with p.m.—Pres fell asleep.* dent a Calvin Klein tie, and pair of sun- Lewinsky in Heinreich’s office. (No 12/18/96 (Wed): Conversation—approx. 5 min.— glasses. Sexual Encounter) 10:30 p.m.—ML at home. 10/97: Lewinsky gives The President a pack- 7/24/97 (Sat): The President meets alone with 12/30/96 (Mon): Message. age Before filled with Halloween-relat- Lewinsky in the Oval Office study. (No 1/12/97 (Sun): Conversation—job talk—ML at ed items, such as a Halloween pumpkin Sexual Encounter) home.* lapel pin, a wooden letter opener with 8/16/97 (Sat): The President meets alone with 2/8/97 (Sat): Conversation—ML at home—mid- a frog on the handle, and a plastic Lewinsky in the Oval Office study. day—11:30–12:00. pumpkin filled with candy. (Sexual Encounter) 2/8/97 (Sat): Conversation—job talk—1:30 or 11/13/97: Lewinsky gives The President an an- 10/11/97 (Sat): The President meets alone with 2:00 p.m.—ML at home.* tique paperweight that depicted the Lewinsky in the Oval Office study. (No 3/12/97 (Wed): Conversation—three minutes— White House. Sexual Encounter) ML at work. 12/6/97: Lewinsky gives The President Our Pa- 11/13/97 (Thurs): The President meets alone 4/26/97 (Sat): Conversation—late afternoon— triotic President: His Life in Pictures, with Lewinsky in the Oval Office 20 min.—ML at home. Anecdotes, Sayings, Principles and Biog- study. (No Sexual Encounter) 5/17/97 (Sat): Conversations—multiple calls. raphy; an antique standing cigar hold- 12/6/97 (Sat): The President meets alone with 5/18/97 (Sun): Conversations—multiple calls. er; a Starbucks Santa Monica mug; a Lewinsky in the Oval Office study. (No 7/15/97 (Tues): Conversation—ML at home. Hugs and Kisses box; and a tie from Sexual Encounter) 8/1/97 (Fri): Conversation. London. 12/28/97 (Sun): The President meets alone 9/30/97 (Tues): Conversation.* 12/28/97: Lewinsky gives The President a with Lewinsky in the Oval Office 10/9 or 10/10/97 (Thur or Fri): Conversation— hand-painted Easter Egg and ‘‘gummy study. (No Sexual Encounter) long, from 2 or 2:30 a.m. until 3:30 or boobs’’ from Urban Outfitters. S78 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 1/4/98: Lewinsky gives Currie a package with 2/28/97: The President gives Lewinsky a hat baseball cap*, 2 T-shirts*, a hat and a her final gift to The President contain- pin*, ‘‘Davidoff’’ cigars, and the book dress.* ing a book entitled The Presidents of the the Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman as 12/28/97: The President gives Lewinsky the United States and a love note inspired belated Christmas gifts. largest number of gifts including: by the movie Titanic. The President gives Lewinsky a 1. a large Rockettes blanket,* gold brooch.* 2. a pin of the New York skyline,* The President gives Lewinsky an 3. a marblelike bear’s head from [Chart D] Annie Lennox compact disk. Vancouver,* The President gives Lewinsky a 4. a pair of sunglasses,* THE PRESIDENT’S GIFTS TO LEWINSKY cigar. 5. a small box of cherry chocolates, 12/5/95: The President gives Lewinsky an 7/24/97: The President gives Lewinsky an an- 6. a canvas bag from the Black autographed photo of himself wearing tique flower pin in a wooden box, a por- Dog,* the Zenga necktie she gave him.* celain object d’art, and a signed photo- 7. a stuffed animal wearing a T- 2/4/96: The President gives Lewinsky a signed graph of the President and Lewinsky.* shirt from the Black Dog.* ‘‘State of the Union’’ Address.* Early 9/97: The President brings Lewinsky (*Denotes those items Lewinsky produced to the 3/31/96: The President gives Lewinsky cigars. several Black Dog items, including a OIC on 7/29/98). January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S79 S80 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 [Chart F] 5:01–5:05 p.m.: The President telephones Jor- b. Governor of the State of Arkansas; dan; Jordan notifies The President LEWINSKY SUBPOENA c. President of the United States. about Lewinsky’s subpoena. JONES V. CLINTON 5:06 p.m.: Jordan telephones attorney Carter (Court modifies scope to incidents from May 8, 1986 to the present involving state or fed- DECEMBER 19, 1997 to represent Lewinsky. Later that Evening: The President meets eral employees.) The Jones v. Clinton subpoena to alone with Jordan at the White House. Supplemental Response to Interrogatory Lewinsky called for: No. 11 (as modified by direction of the (1) Her testimony on January 23, 1998 at 9:30 [Chart H] Court): None. a.m.; DECEMBER 23, 1997 (2) Production of ‘‘each and every gift includ- JONES V. CLINTON INTERROGATORY NO. 10 [Chart J] ing but not limited to, any and all dresses, accessories, and jewelry, and/ Interrogatory No. 10: Please state the DECEMBER 28, 1997 name, address, and telephone number of each or hat pins given to you by, or on be- (Sunday) half of, Defendant Clinton;’’ and and every individual (other than Hillary (3) ‘‘Every document constituting or con- Rodham Clinton) whom you had sexual rela- THE PRESIDENT’S FINAL MEETING WITH taining communications between you tions when you held any of the following po- LEWINSKY AND THE CONCEALMENT OF THE and Defendant Clinton, including let- sitions: GIFTS TO LEWINSKY ters, cards, notes, memoranda and all a. Attorney General of the State of Arkan- 8:16 a.m.: Lewinsky meets The President at telephone records.’’ sas; the White House at Currie’s direction. b. Governor of the State of Arkansas; ∑ The President gives Lewinsky nu- c. President of the United States. [Chart G] merous gifts. (Court modifies scope to incidents from May ∑ The President and Lewinsky discuss DECEMBER 19, 1997 8, 1986 to the present involving state or fed- the subpoena, calling for, among (Friday) eral employees.) other things, the hat pin. The Presi- Supplemental Response to Interrogatory dent acknowledges ‘‘that sort of LEWINSKY IS SERVED WITH A SUBPOENA IN No. 10 (as modified by direction of the bothered [him] too.’’ JONES V. CLINTON Court): None. ∑ Lewinsky states to The President: 1:47–1:48 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan’s ‘‘Maybe I should put the gifts away office. [Chart I] outside my house somewhere or give 3:00–4:00 p.m.: Lewinsky is served with a sub- DECEMBER 23, 1997 them to someone, maybe Betty poena in Jones v. Clinton. JONES V. CLINTON INTERROGATORY NO. 11 [Currie].’’ —: Lewinsky telephones Jordan immediately 3:32 p.m.: Currie telephones Lewinsky at about subpoena. Interrogratory No. 11: Please state the home from Currie’s cell phone. 3:51–3:52 p.m.: Jordan telephones The Presi- name, address, and telephone number of each dent and talks to Debra Schiff. and every individual (other than Hillary ‘‘I understand you have something to 4:17–4:20 p.m.: Jordan telephones White Rodham Clinton) with whom you sought to give me.’’ or House Social Office. have sexual relations, when you held any of ‘‘The President said you have some- 4:47 p.m.: Lewinsky meets Jordan and re- the following positions: thing to give me.’’ quests that Jordan notify The Presi- a. Attorney General of the State of Arkan- Later that Day: Currie picks up gifts from dent about her subpoena. sas; Lewinsky. January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S81 S82 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 [Chart L] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ss: deposition testimony in Jones v. Clinton THE PRESIDENT’S STATEMENTS ABOUT Monica S. Lewinsky, being first duly sworn scheduled for January 23, 1998. CONCEALING GIFTS on oath according to law, deposes and says Lewinsky telephones Currie stating that she 12/28/97 that she has read the foregoing Affidavit of needs to speak to the President about Jane Doe # by her subscribed, that the mat- an important matter; specifically that ‘‘[Lewinsky]: And then at some point I said ters stated herein are true to the best of her to him [The President], ‘Well, you know, she was anxious about something she information, knowledge and belief. should I—maybe I should put the gifts away needed to sign—an Affidavit. outside my house somewhere or give them to Monica S. Lewinsky. The President returns Lewinsky’s call; someone, maybe Betty.’ And he sort of said— Subscribed and sworn to before me this Lewinsky mentions the Affidavit she’d I think he responded, ‘I don’t know’ or ‘Let lll day of lllll, 1998. be signing; Lewinsky offers to show the me think about that.’ And left that topic.’’— lllllllllllll Affidavit to The President who states (Lewinsky Grand Jury 8/6/98 Tr. 152) NOTARY PUBLIC, D.C. that he doesn’t need to see it because My Commission expires: llll he has already seen about fifteen oth- [Chart M] ers. AFFIDAVIT OF JANE DOE # [Chart N] JANUARY 6, 1998 1. My name is Jane Doe # . I am 24 years FINAL AFFIDAVIT OF JANE DOE #6 11:32 a.m.: Carter pages Lewinsky: ‘‘Please old and I currently reside at 700 New Hamp- [LEWINSKY] call Frank Carter.’’ Lewinsky meets shire Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20037. 1/7/98 Carter and receives draft Affidavit. 2. On December 19, 1997, I was served with 8. I have never had a sexual relationship with 2:08–2:10 p.m.: Jordan calls Lewinsky. a subpoena from the plaintiff to give a depo- the President, he did not propose that Lewinsky delivers draft Affidavit to sition and to produce documents in the law- we have a sexual relationship, he did Jordan. suit filed by Paula Corbin Jones against not offer me employment or other ben- 3:14 p.m.: Carter again pages Lewinsky: President William Jefferson Clinton and efits in exchange for a sexual relation- ‘‘Frank Carter at [telephone number] Danny Ferguson. will see you tomorrow morning at 10:00 3. I can not fathom any reason that the ship, he did not deny me employment in my office.’’ plaintiff would seek information from me for or other benefits for rejecting a sexual 3:26–3:32 p.m.: Jordan telephones Carter. her case. relationship. I do not know of any 4. I have never met Ms. Jones, nor do I other person who had a sexual relation- 3:38 p.m.: Jordan telephones Nancy have any information regarding the events ship with the President, was offered Hernreich, Deputy Assistant to The she alleges occurred at the Excelsior Hotel employment or other benefits in ex- President. on May 8, 1991 or any other information con- change for a sexual relationship, or was 3:48 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lewinsky. cerning any of the allegations in her case. denied employment or other benefits 3:49 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lewinsky to dis- 5. I worked at the White House in the sum- for rejecting a sexual relationship. The cuss draft Affidavit. Both agree to de- mer of 1995 as a White House intern. Begin- occasions that I saw the President lete implication that she had been ning in December, 1995, I worked in the Of- after I left my employment at the alone with The President. fice of Legislative Affairs as a staff assistant White House in April, 1996, were official 4:19–4:32 p.m.: The President telephones Jor- for correspondence. In April, 1996, I accepted receptions, formal functions or events dan. a job as assistant to the Assistant Secretary related to the U.S. Department of De- 4:32 p.m.: Jordan telephones Carter. for Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of fense, where I was working at the time. 4:34–4:37 p.m.: Jordan again telephones Defense. I maintained that job until Decem- There were other people present on Carter. ber 26, 1997. I am currently unemployed but those occasions. 5:15–5:19 p.m.: Jordan telephones White seeking a new job. House. 6. In the course of my employment at the [Chart O] 9:26–9:29 a.m.: Jordan telephones Carter. White House, I met President Clinton on sev- LEWINSKY’S AFFIDAVIT GETS FILED 10:00 a.m.: Lewinsky signs false Affidavit at eral occasions. I do not recall ever being Carter’s Office. alone with the President, although it is pos- (1/14/98-1/17/98) —: Lewinsky delivers signed Affidavit to Jor- sible that while working in the White House JANUARY 14, 1998 (WEDNESDAY) dan. Office of Legislative Affairs I may have pre- 7:45 p.m.: Bennett’s firm (Sexton) leaves 11:58 a.m.–12:09 p.m.: Jordan telephones the sented him with a letter for his signature Carter telephone message. White House. while no one else was present. This would —: Carter faxes signed affidavit to Bennett’s 5:46–5:56 p.m.: Jordan telephones the White have lasted only a matter of minutes. firm. House (Hernreich’s Office). 7. I have the utmost respect for the Presi- JANUARY 15, 1998 (THURSDAY) 6:50–6:54 p.m.: Jordan telephones the White dent who has always behaved appropriately House and tells The President that 9:17 a.m.: Sexton leaves Carter telephone in my presence. Lewinsky signed an Affidavit. 8. I have never had a sexual relationship message. with the President, he did not propose that 12:59 p.m.: Sexton leaves Carter telephone JANUARY 8, 1998 we have a sexual relationship, he did not message. 9:21 a.m.: Jordan telephones the White House offer me employment or other benefits in ex- —: Currie called by Newsweek. Counsel’s Office. change for a sexual relationship, he did not —: Lewinsky drives Currie to meet Jordan. 9:21 a.m.: Jordan telephones the White deny me employment or other benefits for —: Sexton telephones Carter: ‘‘STILL ON House. rejecting a sexual relationship. I do not TIME?’’ —: Lewinsky interviews in New York at know of any other person who had a sexual —: Carter telephones Court Clerk for Satur- MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc. relationship with the President, was offered day (1/17/98) Filing of Affidavit and mo- (MFH) employment or other benefits in exchange tion to quash. 11:50–11:51 a.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan. for a sexual relationship, or was denied em- JANUARY 16, 1998 (FRIDAY) 3:09–3:10 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan. ployment or other benefits for rejecting a 2 a.m. (Approx.): Carter completes motion to 4:48–4:53 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan sexual relationship. The occasions that I saw quash Lewinsky’s deposition. and advises that the New York MFH the President, with crowds of other people, Carter sends by overnight mail mo- Interview went ‘‘Very Poorly.’’ after I left my employment at the White tion to quash and affidavit to Ben- 4:54 p.m.: Jordan telephones Ronald House in April, 1996 related to official recep- nett’s firm and to the Court. Perelman in New York, CEO of Revlon tions, formal functions or events related to 11:30 a.m.: Sexton message to Carter: ‘‘Please (subsidiary of MFH) ‘‘to make things the U.S. Department of Defense, where I was call.’’ happen . . . if they could happen.’’ working at the time. There were other peo- 4:56 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lewinsky stat- JANUARY 17, 1998 (SATURDAY) ple present on all of these occasions. ing, ‘‘I’m doing the best I can to help 9. Since I do not possess any information —: Lewinsky Affidavit is submitted to the you out.’’ that could possibly be relevant to the allega- Court. 6:39 p.m.: Jordan telephones White House tions made by Paula Jones or lead to admis- —: The President is deposed. Counsel’s Office (Cheryl Mills), pos- sible evidence in this case, I asked my attor- sibly about Lewinsky. ney to provide this affidavit to plaintiff’s [Chart P] Evening: Revlon in New York telephones counsel. Requiring my deposition in this MISSION ACCOMPLISHED: LEWINSKY Lewinsky to set up a follow-up inter- matter would cause unwarranted attorney’s SIGNS AFFIDAVIT AND GETS A NEW view. fees and costs, disruption of my life, espe- YORK JOB 9:02–9:03 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan cially since I am looking for employment, (1/5/98–1/9/98) about Revlon interview in New York. and constitute an invasion of my right to privacy. JANUARY 5, 1998 JANUARY 9, 1998 I declare under the penalty of perjury that Lewinsky meets with attorney Carter for an —: Lewinsky interviews in New York with the foregoing is true and correct. hour; Carter drafts an Affidavit for Senior V.P. Seidman of MacAndrews & MONICA S. LEWINSKY. Lewinsky in an attempt to avert her Forbes and two Revlon individuals. January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S83 Lewinsky offered Revlon job in [Chart S] ∑ 10:53 a.m.: Jordan telephones Carter. New York and accepts. JANUARY 17, 1998 ∑ 10:58 a.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones 1:29 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan. SATURDAY Jordan at his office. 4:14 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan to say ∑ 11:04 a.m.: Jordan telephones Bruce 4:00 p.m. (approx): THE PRESIDENT fin- that Revlon offered her a job in New ∑ Lindsey at the White House. ishes testifying under oath in Jones v. York. ∑ 11:16 a.m.: Jordan pages Lewinsky: ‘‘Please Clinton, et al. Jordan notifies Currie: ‘‘Mission call Mr. Jordan at [number redacted].’’ ∑ 5:19 p.m.: Jordan telephones White House. Accomplished’’ and requests she tell ∑ 11:17 a.m.: Jordan telephones Lindsey at ∑ 5:38 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones The President. the White House. Jordan at home. Jordan notifies The President of ∑ 12:31 p.m.: Jordan telephones the White ∑ 7:02 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones Lewinsky’s New York job offer. The House from a cellular phone. Currie at home but does not speak with President replies ‘‘Thank you very her. ∑ —:Jordan lunches with Carter. much.’’ 1:45 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones ∑ 702: p.m.: THE PRESIDENT places a call to ∑ 4:37 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Carter. Jordan’s office. Currie at home. 5:04 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan. 2:29 p.m.: Jordan telephones the White ∑ 7:13 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones ∑ 5:05 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Currie. Currie at home and asks her to meet House from a celluar phone. 5:08 p.m.: The President telephones Currie. with him on Sunday. ∑ 2:44 p.m.: Jordan enters the White House 5:09–5:11 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Jordan. and over the course of an hour meets JANUARY 18, 1998 5:12 p.m.: Currie telephones The President. with THE PRESIDENT, Erskine 5:18–5:20 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lewinsky. SUNDAY Bowles, Bruce Lindsay, Cheryl Mills, 5:21–5:26 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Currie. ∑ 6:11 a.m.: Drudge Report Released. Charles Ruff, Rahm Emanuel and oth- ∑ —: The President learns of the Drudge Re- ers. [Chart Q] port and [Tripp] tapes. ∑ 2:46 p.m.: Carter pages Lewinsky: ‘‘Please THE PRESIDENT’S INVOLVEMENT WITH ∑ 11:49 a.m.: Jordan telephones the White call Frank Carter at [number re- LEWINSKY JOB SEARCH House. dacted].’’ ∑ 12:30 p.m.: Jordan has lunch with Bruce ‘‘Q Why are you trying to tell someone at ∑ 4:51 p.m.: Jordan telephones Currie at Lindsey. Lindsey informs Jordan about home. the White House that this has hap- the Drudge Report and [Tripp] tapes. pened [Carter had been fired]? ∑ 4:53 p.m.: Jordan telephones Carter at ∑ 12:50 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones [Jordan]: Thought they had a right to know. home. Jordan at home. ∑ 4:54 p.m.: Jordan telephones Carter at his Q Why? ∑ 1:11 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones [Jordan]: The President asked me to get office. Carter informs Jordan that Currie at home. Lewinsky has replaced Carter with a Monica Lewinsky a job. I got her a law- ∑ 2:15 p.m.: Jordan telephones the White yer. The Drudge Report is out and she new attorney. House. ∑ 4:58 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lindsey, has new counsel. I thought that was in- ∑ 2:55 p.m.: Jordan telephones THE PRESI- formation that they ought to have White House Counsel’s Office. DENT. ∑ 4:59 p.m.: Jordan telephones Mills, White ... .’’ (Jordan Grand Jury 6/9/98 Tr. 45– ∑ 5:00 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT meets with 46) House Counsel’s Office. Currie, concerning his contacts with ∑ 5:00 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lindsey, ‘‘Q Why did you think the President needed Lewinsky. to know that Frank Carter had been re- White House Counsel’s Office. ∑ 5:12 p.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ‘‘Please ∑ 5:00 p.m.: Jordan telephones Ruff, White placed? call Kay at home.’’ [Jordan]: Information. He knew that I had House Counsel’s Office. ∑ 6:22 p.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ‘‘Please ∑ 5:05 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lindsey, gotten her a job, he knew that I had call Kay at home.’’ gotten her a lawyer. Information. He White House Counsel’s Office. ∑ 7:06 p.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ‘‘Please ∑ 5:05 p.m.: Jordan again telephones Lindsey, was interested in this matter. He is the call Kay at home.’’ source of it coming to my attention in White House Counsel’s Office. ∑ 7:19 p.m.: Jordan telephones Cheryl Mills, ∑ 5:05 p.m.: Jordan telephones the White the first place . . . .’’ (Jordan Grand White House Counsel’s Office. Jury 6/9/98 Tr. 58–59) House. ∑ 8:28 p.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ‘‘Call ∑ 5:09 p.m.: Jordan telephones Mills, White Kay.’’ [Chart R] House Counsel’s Office. ∑ 10:09 p.m.: Lewinsky telephones Currie at ∑ 5:14 p.m.: Jordan telephones Carter con- JORDAN’S PRE-WITNESS LIST JOB home. cerning his termination as Lewinsky’s SEARCH EFFORTS ∑ 11:02 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones attorney. ‘‘[Jordan]: I have no recollection of an early Currie at home and asks if she reached ∑ 5:22 p.m.: Jordan telephones Lindsey, November meeting with Ms. Monica Lewinsky. White House Counsel’s Office. Lewinsky. I have absolutely no recol- JANUARY 19, 1998 ∑ 5:22 p.m.: Jordan telephones Mills, White lection of it and I have no record of it.’’ MONDAY—MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY House Counsel’s Office. (Jordan Grand Jury 3/3/98 Tr. 50) ∑ 7:02 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ‘‘Please ∑ 5:55 p.m.: Jordan telephones Currie at * * * call Kay at home at 8:00 this morning.’’ home. ‘‘Q Is it fair to say that back in November ∑ 8:08 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ‘‘Please ∑ 5:56 p.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones getting Monica Lewinsky a job on any call Kay .’’ Jordan at his office; Jordan informs fast pace was not any priority of yours? ∑ 8:33 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ‘‘Please The President that Carter was fired. [Jordan]: I think that’s fair to say.’’ (Jordan call Kay at home.’’ ∑ 6:04 p.m.: Jordan telephones Currie at Grand Jury 5/5/98 Tr. 76) ∑ 8:37 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ‘‘Please home. ∑ 6:26 p.m.: Jordan telephones Stephen * * * call Kay at home. It’s a social call. Thank you.’’ Goodin, an aide to THE PRESIDENT. ‘‘[Lewinsky]: [Referring to 12/6/97 meeting ∑ 8:41 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ‘‘Kay is with the President]. I think I said that at home. Please call.’’ [Chart T] .. . I was supposed to get in touch with ∑ 8:43 a.m.: Currie telephones The President THE PRESIDENT’S POST-DEPOSITION Mr. Jordan the previous week and that from home to say she has been unable STATEMENTS TO CURRIE things did not work out and that noth- to reach Lewinsky. 1/18/98 ing had really happened yet [on the job ∑ 8:44 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ‘‘Please ‘‘I was never really alone with Monica, front]. ∑ call Kate re: family emergency.’’ right?’’ Q Did the President say what he was going to ∑ 8:50 a.m. THE PRESIDENT telephones ∑ ‘‘You were always there when Monica do? Currie at home. was there, right?’’ [Lewinsky]: I think he said he would—you ∑ 8:51 a.m.: Currie pages Lewinsky: ‘‘Msg. ∑ ‘‘Monica came on to me, and I never know, this was not sort of typical of From Kay. Please call, have good touched her, right?’’ him, to sort of say, ‘Oh, I’ll talk to news.’’ ∑ ‘‘You could see and hear everything, him. I’ll get on it.’ ’’ (Lewinsky Grand ∑ 8:56 a.m.: THE PRESIDENT telephones right?’’ Jury 8/6/98 Tr. 115–116) Jordan at home. ∑ ‘‘She wanted to have sex with me, and I * * * ∑ 10:29 a.m.: Jordan telephones the White cannot do that.’’—(Currie Grand Jury 7/22/98 ‘‘Q But what is also clear is that as of this House from his office. Tr. 6–7; Currie Grand Jury 1/27/98 Tr. 70–75) date, December 11th, you are clear that ∑ 10:35 a.m.: Jordan telephones Nancy [Chart U] at that point you had made a decision Hernreich at the White House. that you would try to make some calls ∑ 10:36 a.m.: Jordan pages Lewinsky: ‘‘Please THE PRESIDENT’S DENIALS to help get her a job. call Mr. Jordan at [number redacted].’’ 1/21/98 [Jordan]: There is no question about that.’’ ∑ 10:44 a.m.: Jordan telephones Erskine ‘‘And it was at that point that he gave his (Jordan Grand Jury 5/5/98 Tr. 95) Bowles at the White House. account of what had happened to me [sic] S84 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 and he said that Monica—and it came very * Produced by the White House pursuant to OIC about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; fast. He said, ‘Monica Lewinsky came at me Subpoena. questions about my understanding of the and made a sexual demand on me.’ He term ‘sexual relations’, as I understood it to rebuffed her. He said, ‘I’ve gone down that [Chart X] be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposi- road before, I’ve caused pain for a lot of peo- THE PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE WAS tion; and questions concerning alleged sub- ple and I’m not going to do that again.’ TRUTHFUL WITH AIDES ornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, She threatened him. She said that she [President]: And so I said to them things and intimidation of witnesses. That, Mr. would tell people they’d had an affair, that that were true about this relationship. That Bittman, is my statement.’’ she was known as the stalker among her I used—in the language I used, I said, there’s peers, and that she hated it and if she had an nothing going on between us. That was true. TABLE OF CONTENTS affair or said she had an affair then she I said, I have not had sex with her as I de- EXHIBITS wouldn’t be the stalker any more.’’— fined it. That was true. And did I hope that Telephone records (Blumenthal Grand Jury 6/4/98 Tr. 49) I would never have to be here on this day ‘‘And he said, ‘I feel like a character in a giving this testimony? Of course. (1) Summary chart, 12/19/97 novel. I feel like somebody who is sur- But I also didn’t want to do anything to (2) Currie Cell phone records, 12/28/97 rounded by an oppressive force that is creat- complicate this matter further. So I said (3) Summary chart, 1/6/98 ing a lie about me and I can’t get the truth things that were true. They may have been (4) Summary chart, 1/7/98 out. I feel like the character in the novel misleading, and if they were I have to take (5) Summary chart, 1/15/98–1/16/98 Darkness at Noon.’ responsibility for it, and I’m sorry.—(The (6) Summary chart, 1/17/98 And I said to him, I said, ‘When this hap- President Grand Jury 8/17/98 Tr. 106) (7) Summary chart, 1/18/98 pened with Monica Lewinsky, were you (8) Summary chart, 1/19/98 alone? He said, ‘Well, I was within eyesight [Chart Y] or earshot of someone.’’’—(Blumenthal Court Documents GRAND JURY WITNESSES Grand Jury 6/4/98 Tr. 50) (9) Jones v. Clinton. Jan. 29, 1998 District A person testifying before a federal grand Court Order regarding discovery [Chart V] jury has three options under the law: (10) President Clinton’s Answer to First ‘‘Q. Okay. Share that with us. (1) To obey the oath and testify to the Amended Complaint. Jones v. Clinton A. Well, I think he said—he said that— truth, the whole truth and nothing but the (11) In re: Sealed Case, Nos. 98–3053 & 3059, there was some spate of, you know, what sex truth; U.S. court of Appels, District of Columbia acts were counted, and he said that he had (2) To lie; (12) Jane Doe #6 (Lewinsky) Affidavit filed never had sex with her in any way (3) To assert the Fifth Amendment or an- in Jones v. Clinton whatsoever— other legally recognized privilege. (13) ‘‘Sexual Relations’’ definition Q. Okay. Miscellaneous A—that they had not had oral sex’’—(John [Chart Z] Podesta Grand Jury 6/16/98 Tr. 92) PRESIDENT’S STATEMENT GRAND JURY (14) 1/18/98 Drudge Report TESTIMONY (15) Jones’ attorneys fax cover sheet of wit- * * * ness list to Bennett ‘‘When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on ‘‘And I said, ‘They’re just too shocked by (16) White House ‘‘Talking Points,’’ Janu- certain occasions in early 1996 and once in this. It’s just too new, it’s too raw.’ And I ary 24, 1998 early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was said, ‘And the problem is they’re willing to (17) LA Times 1/25/98 Article regarding wrong. These encounters did not consist of forgive you [The President] for adultery, but White House ‘‘Talking Points’’ not for perjury or obstruction of justice or sexual intercourse. They did not constitute (18) Response of William J. Clinton to Judi- the various other things.’’’—(Dick Morris sexual relations as I understood that term to ciary Committee Questions Grand Jury 8/18/98 Tr. 10, 12, 20) be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposi- tion. But they did involve inappropriate inti- (19) President Clinton Grand Jury Tr. 138 * * * mate contact. L. 16–23 (From GJ Tape 2) ‘‘And I said, ‘They’re just not ready for it,’ These inappropriate encounters ended, at (20) President Clinton Grand Jury Tr. 100 meaning the voters.’ And he [The President] my insistence, in early 1997. I also had occa- L. 20–25, Tr. 105 L. 19–25, Tr. 106 L. 1–12 (From said, ‘Well, we just have to win, then.’’’— sional telephone conversations with Ms. GJ Tape 3) (Dick Morris Grand Jury 8/18/98 Tr. 30) Lewinsky that included inappropriate sexual (21) President Clinton Deposition Tr. 75 L. banter. 2–8, Tr. 76 L. 24–25, Tr. 77 L. 1–2, (From Dep. [Chart W] I regret that what began as a friendship Tape 1) ‘‘TALKING POINTS’’ * came to include this conduct, and I take full (22) President Clinton Deposition Tr. 52 L. January 24, 1998 responsibility for my actions. 18–25, Tr. 53 L. 1–9, 10–18, Tr. 58 L. 22–25, Tr. While I will provide the grand jury what- 59 L. 1–3, 7–16, 17–20 (From Dep. Tape 3) * * * ever other information I can, because of pri- (23) President Clinton Deposition Tr. 78 L. ‘‘Q. Well, for example, Ms. Lewinsky is on vacy considerations affecting my family, 4–23, (From Dep. Tape 4) tape indicating that the President does not myself, and others, and in an effort to pre- (24) President Clinton Deposition Tr. 53 L. believe oral sex is adultery. Would oral sex, serve the dignity of the office I hold, this is 22–25, Tr. 54 L. 1–7, 20–25, Tr. 55 L. 1–3 (From to the President, constitute a sexual rela- all I will say about the specifics of these par- Dep. Tape 5) tionship?’’ ticular matters. (25) President Clinton Deposition Tr. 204 L. ‘‘A: Of course it would.’’ I will try to answer, to the best of my abil- 5–14, (From Dep. Tape 8) * * * ity, other questions including questions (26) President Clinton Grand Jury Tr. 9–11 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S85 S86 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S87 S88 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S89 S90 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S91 S92 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S93 S94 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S95 S96 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S97 S98 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S99 S100 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S101 S102 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S103 S104 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S105 S106 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S107 S108 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S109 S110 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S111 S112 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S113 S114 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S115 S116 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S117 S118 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S119 S120 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S121 S122 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S123 S124 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S125 S126 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S127 S128 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S129 S130 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S131 S132 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S133 S134 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S135 S136 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S137 S138 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S139 S140 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S141 S142 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S143 S144 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S145 S146 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S147 S148 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S149 S150 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S151 S152 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S153 S154 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S155 S156 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S157 S158 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S159 S160 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S161 S162 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S163 S164 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S165 S166 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S167 S168 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S169 S170 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S171 S172 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S173 S174 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S175 S176 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S177 S178 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S179 S180 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S181 S182 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S183 S184 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S185 S186 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S187 S188 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S189 S190 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S191 [In the Senate of the United States Sitting attorney to Judge Wright during the Jones 2. The Allegations of Both Articles Are Un- as a Court of Impeachment] deposition constitutionally Vague 4. The President denies that he made per- D. The Senate’s Judgment Will Be Final In re Impeachment of William Jefferson jurious, false and misleading statements to and That Judgment Must Speak Clearly and Clinton, President of the United States the grand jury when he denied attempting Intelligibly TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF PRESIDENT ‘‘to influence the testimony of witnesses and VII. THE NEED FOR DISCOVERY WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON to impede the discovery of evidence’’ in the VIII. CONCLUSION Jones case David E. Kendall Charles F.C. Ruff TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF PRESIDENT V. THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE AC- WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON Nicole K. Seligman Gregory B. Craig QUITTED ON ARTICLE II I. INTRODUCTION Emmet T. Flood Bruce R. Lindsey A. Applicable Law Max Stier Cheryl D. Mills B. Structure of the Allegations Twenty-six months ago, more than 90 mil- Glen Donath Lanny A. Breuer C. Response to the Particular Allegations lion Americans left their homes and work Alicia L. Marti Office of the White in Article II places to travel to schools, church halls and Williams & Connolly House Counsel 1. The President denies that on or about other civic centers to elect a President of the 725 12th Street, N.W. The White House December 17, 1997, he ‘‘corruptly encour- United States. And on January 20, 1997, Wil- Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. aged’’ Monica Lewinsky ‘‘to execute a sworn liam Jefferson Clinton was sworn in to serve 20005 20502 affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to a second term of office for four years. The Senate, in receipt of Articles of Im- January 13, 1999. be perjurious, false and misleading’’ 2. The President denies that on or about peachment from the House of Representa- TABLE OF CONTENTS December 17, 1997, he ‘‘corruptly encour- tives, is now gathered in trial to consider I. INTRODUCTION aged’’ Monica Lewinsky ‘‘to give perjurious, whether that decision should be set aside for A. The Constitutional Standard for Im- false and misleading testimony if and when the remaining two years of the President’s peachment Has Not Been Satisfied called to testify personally’’ in the Jones term. It is a power contemplated and author- B. The President Did Not Commit Perjury litigation ized by the Framers of the Constitution, but or Obstruct Justice 3. The President denies that he ‘‘corruptly never before employed in our nation’s his- C. Compound Charges and Vagueness engaged in, encouraged, or supported a tory. The gravity of what is at stake—the II. BACKGROUND scheme to conceal evidence’’—gifts he had democratic choice of the American people— A. The Whitewater Investigative Dead-End given to Monica Lewinsky—in the Jones case and the solemnity of the proceedings dictate B. The Paula Jones Litigation a. Ms. Lewinsky’s December 28 Meeting that a decision to remove the President from C. The President’s Grand Jury Testimony with the President office should follow only from the most seri- About Ms. Lewinsky b. Ms. Currie’s Supposed Involvement in ous of circumstances and should be done in D. Proceedings in the House of Representa- Concealing Gifts conformity with Constitutional standards tives c. The Obstruction-by-Gift-Concealment and in the interest of the Nation and its peo- III. THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD Charge Is at Odds With the President’s Ac- ple. AND BURDEN OF PROOF FOR DECISION tions The Articles of Impeachment that have A. The Offenses Alleged Do Not Meet the 4. The President denies that he obstructed been exhibited to the Senate fall far short of Constitutional Standard of High Crimes and justice in connection with Monica what the Founding Fathers had in mind Misdemeanors Lewinsky’s efforts to obtain a job in New when they placed in the hands of the Con- 1. The Senate Has a Constitutional Duty to York in an effort to ‘‘corruptly prevent’’ her gress the power to impeach and remove a Confront the Question Whether Impeachable ‘‘truthful testimony’’ in the Jones case President from office. They fall far short of Offenses Have Been Alleged a. The Complete Absence of Direct Evi- what the American people demand be shown 2. The Constitution Requires a High Stand- dence Supporting This Charge and proven before their democratic choice is ard of Proof of ‘‘High Crimes and Mis- b. Background of Ms. Lewinsky’s New reversed. And they even fall far short of demeanors’’ for Removal York Job Search what a prudent prosecutor would require be- a. The Constitutional Text and Structure c. The Committee Report’s Circumstantial fore presenting a case to a judge or jury. Set an Intentionally High Standard for Re- Case Take away the elaborate trappings of the moval (1) Monica Lewinsky’s December 11 meet- Articles and the high-flying rhetoric that b. The Framers Believed that Impeach- ing with Vernon Jordan has accompanied them, and we see clearly (2) The January job interviews and the ment and Removal Were Appropriate Only that the House of Representatives asks the Revlon employment offer for Offenses Against the System of Govern- Senate to remove the President from office d. Conclusion ment because he: 5. The President denies that he ‘‘corruptly 3. Past Precedents Confirm that Allega- used the phrase ‘‘certain occasions’’ to allowed his attorney to make false and mis- ∑ tions of Dishonesty Do Not Alone State Im- describe the frequency of his improper inti- leading statements to a Federal judge’’ con- peachable Offenses mate contacts with Ms. Monica Lewinsky. a. The Fraudulent Tax Return Allegation cerning Monica Lewinsky’s affidavit 6. The President denies that he obstructed There were, according to the House Man- Against President Nixon justice by relating ‘‘false and misleading agers, eleven such contacts over the course b. The Financial Misdealing Allegation statements’’ to ‘‘a potential witness,’’ Betty of approximately 500 days. Against Alexander Hamilton Should the will of the people be overruled Currie, ‘‘in order to corruptly influence [her] 4. The Views of Prominent Historians and and the President of the United States be re- testimony’’ Legal Scholars Confirm that Impeachable 7. The President denies that he obstructed moved from office because he used the Offenses Are Not Present justice when he relayed allegedly ‘‘false and phrase ‘‘certain occasions’’ to describe elev- a. No Impeachable Offense Has Been Stated misleading statements’’ to his aides en events over some 500 days? That is what Here VI. THE STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES the House of Representatives asks the Sen- b. To Make Impeachable Offenses of These OF THE ARTICLES PRECLUDE A CON- ate to do. Allegations Would Forever Lower the Bar in STITUTIONALLY SOUND VOTE ∑ used the word ‘‘occasional’’ to describe a Way Inimical to the Presidency and to Our A. The Articles Are Both Unfairly Complex the frequency of inappropriate telephone Government of Separated Powers and Lacking in Specificity conversations between he and Monica 5. Comparisons to Impeachment of Judges 1. The Structure of Article I Lewinsky. According to Ms. Lewinsky, the Are Wrong 2. The Structure of Article II President and Ms. Lewinsky engaged in be- B. The Standard of Proof B. Conviction on These Articles Would Vio- tween ten and fifteen such conversations IV. THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE AC- late the Constitutional Requirement That spanning a 23-month period. QUITTED ON ARTICLE I Two-Thirds of the Senate Reach Agreement Should the will of the people be overruled A. Applicable Law that Specific Wrongdoing Has Been Proven and the President of the United States be re- B. Structure of the Allegations 1. The Articles Bundle Together Disparate moved from office because he used the word C. Response to the Particular Allegations Allegations in Violation of the Constitu- ‘‘occasional’’ to describe up to 15 telephone in Article I tion’s Requirements of Concurrence and Due calls over a 23-month period? That is what 1. The President denies that he made mate- Process the House of Representatives asks the Sen- rially false or misleading statements to the a. The Articles Violate the Constitution’s ate to do. grand jury about ‘‘the nature and details of Two-Thirds Concurrence Requirement ∑ said the improper relationship with Ms. his relationship’’ with Monica Lewinsky b. Conviction on the Articles Would Vio- Lewinsky began in early 1996, while she re- 2. The President denies that he made per- late Due Process Protections that Forbid calls that it began in November 1995. And he jurious, false and misleading statements to Compound Charges in a Single Accusation said the contact did not include touching the grand jury about testimony he gave in C. Conviction on These Articles Would Vio- certain parts of her body, while she said it the Jones case late Due Process Protections Prohibiting did. 3. The President denies that he made per- Vague and Nonspecific Accusations Should the will of the people be overruled jurious, false and misleading statements to 1. The Law of Due Process Forbids Vague and the President of the United States be re- the grand jury about the statements of his and Nonspecific Charges moved from office because two people have a S192 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 different recollection of the details of a figured and diminished, at the mercy as water investigation. On August 5, 1994, the wrongful relationship—which the President never before of caprices of any Congress. The Special Division of the United States Court has admitted? That is what the House of Presidency, historically the center of leader- of Appeals for the District of Columbia Court Representatives asks the Senate to do. ship during our great national ordeals, will Circuit appointed Kenneth W. Starr as Inde- The Articles of Impeachment are not lim- be crippled in meeting the inevitable chal- pendent Counsel to conduct an investigation ited to the examples cited above, but the lenges of the future.’’ centering on two Arkansas entities, White- other allegations of wrongdoing are simi- We address why the charges in the two ar- water Development Company, Inc., and larly unconvincing. There is the charge that ticles do not rise to the level of ‘high Crimes Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Asso- the President unlawfully obstructed justice and Misdemeanors’’ in Section III, Constitu- ciation. by allegedly trying to find a job for Monica tional Standard and Burden of Proof. In the spring of 1997, OIC investigators, Lewinsky in exchange for her silence about B. THE PRESIDENT DID NOT COMMIT PERJURY OR without any expansion of jurisdiction, inter- their relationship. This charge is made de- OBSTRUCT JUSTICE viewed Arkansas state troopers who had spite the fact that no one involved in the ef- Article I alleges perjury before a federal once been assigned to the Governor’s secu- fort to find work for Ms. Lewinsky—includ- grand jury. Article II alleges obstruction of rity detail, and ‘‘[t]he troopers said Starr’s ing Ms. Lewinsky herself—testifies that justice. Both perjury and obstruction of jus- investigators asked about 12 to 15 women by there was any connection between the job tice are statutory crimes. In rebutting the name, including Paula Corbin Jones. . . .’’ search and the affidavit. Indeed, the basis for allegations contained in the articles of im- Woodward & Schmidt, ‘‘Starr Probes Clinton that allegation, Ms. Lewinsky’s statements peachment, this brief refers to the facts as Personal Life,’’ The Washington Post (June 25, to Ms. Tripp, was expressly repudiated by well as to laws, legal principles, court deci- 1997) at A1 (emphasis added). ‘‘The nature of Ms. Lewinsky under oath. sions, procedural safeguards, and the Con- the questioning marks a sharp departure There is also the charge that the President stitution itself. Those who seek to remove from previous avenues of inquiry in the conspired to obstruct justice by arranging the President speak of the ‘‘rule of law.’’ three-year old investigation. . . . Until now, for Ms. Lewinsky to hide gifts that he had Among the most fundamental rules of law . . . what has become a wide-ranging inves- given her, even though the facts and the tes- are the principles that those who accuse tigation of many aspects of Clinton’s gover- timony contain no evidence that he did so. have the burden of proof, and those who are norship has largely steered clear of questions In fact, the evidence shows that the Presi- accused have the right to defend themselves about Clinton’s relationships with dent gave her new gifts on the very day that by relying on the law, established proce- women. . . .’’ 2 One of the most striking as- the articles allege he conspired to conceal dures, and the Constitution. These principles pects of this new phase of the Whitewater in- his gifts to her. are not ‘‘legalisms’’ but rather the very es- vestigation was the extent to which it fo- In the final analysis, the House is asking sence of the ‘‘rule of law’’ that distinguishes cused on the Jones case. One of the troopers the Senate to remove the President because our Nation from others. interviewed declared, ‘‘[t]hey asked me he had a wrongful relationship and sought to We respond, in detail, to those allegations about Paula Jones, all kinds of questions keep the existence of that relationship pri- whose substance we can decipher in Section about Paula Jones, whether I saw Clinton vate. IV, The President Should Be Acquitted on and Paula together and how many times.’’ 3 Nothing said in this Trial Memorandum is Article I, and in Section V, The President In his November 19, 1998, testimony before intended to excuse the President’s actions. Should Be Acquitted on Article II. the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Starr By his own admission, he is guilty of per- C. COMPOUND CHARGES AND VAGUENESS conceded that his agents had conducted sonal failings. As he has publicly stated, ‘‘I If there were any doubt that the House of these interrogations and acknowledged that don’t think there is a fancy way to say that Representatives has utterly failed in its con- at that time, he had not sought expansion of I have sinned.’’ He has misled his family, his stitutional responsibility to the Senate and his jurisdiction from either the Special Divi- friends, his staff, and the Nation about the to the President, that doubt vanishes upon sion or the Attorney General.4 Mr. Starr con- nature of his relationship with Ms. reading the Trial Memorandum submitted by tended that these inquiries were somehow Lewinsky. He hoped to avoid exposure of per- the House Managers. Having proferred two relevant to his Whitewater investigation: sonal wrongdoing so as to protect his family articles of impeachment, each of which un- ‘‘we were, in fact interviewing, as good pros- and himself and to avoid public embarrass- constitutionally combines multiple offenses ecutors, good investigators do, individuals ment. He has acknowledged that his actions and fails to give even minimally adequate who would have information that may be rel- were wrong. notice of the charges it encompasses, the evant to our inquiry about the President’s By the same token, these actions must not House—three days before the Managers are involvement in Whitewater, in Madison be mischaracterized into a wholly groundless to open their case—is still expanding, not re- Guaranty Savings and Loan and the like.’’5 excuse for removing the President from the fining, the scope of those articles. In further It seems irrefutable, however, that the OIC office to which he was twice elected by the violation of the most basic constitutional was in fact engaged in an unauthorized at- American people. The allegations in the arti- principles, their brief advances, merely as tempt to gather embarrassing information cles and the argument in the House Man- ‘‘examples,’’ nineteen conclusory allega- about the President—information wholly un- agers’ Trial Memorandum do not begin to tions—eight of perjury under Article I and related to Whitewater or Madison Guaranty satisfy the stringent showing required by our eleven of obstruction of justice under Article Savings and Loan, but potentially relevant Founding Fathers to remove a duly elected II, some of which have never appeared before, to the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones. President from office, either as a matter of even in the Report submitted by the Judici- B. THE PAULA JONES LITIGATION fact or law. ary Committee (‘‘Committee Report’’), much less in the Office of Independent Counsel The Paula Jones lawsuit made certain alle- A. THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD FOR gations about events she said had occurred IMPEACHMENT HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED (‘‘OIC’’) Referral or in the articles them- 1 three years earlier, in 1991, when the Presi- There is strong agreement among constitu- selves. If the target the Managers present to the Senate and to the President is still mov- dent was Governor of Arkansas. Discovery in tional and legal scholars and historians that the case had been stayed until the Supreme the substance of the articles does not ing now, what can the President expect in the coming days? Is there any point at which Court’s decision on May 27, 1997, denying the amount to impeachable offenses. On Novem- President temporary immunity from suit.6 ber 6, 1998, 430 Constitutional law professors the President will be given the right ac- corded a defendant in the most minor crimi- Shortly thereafter, Ms. Jones’ legal team wrote: nal case—to know with certainty the charges began a public relations offensive against ‘‘Did President Clinton commit ‘high against which he must defend? the President, headed by Ms. Jones’ new Crimes and Misdemeanors’ warranting im- The Senate, we know, fully appreciates spokesperson, Mr. Susan Carpenter-McMil- peachment under the Constitution? We . . . these concerns and has, in past proceedings, lan, and her new counsel affiliated with the believe that the misconduct alleged in the dealt appropriately with articles far less conservation Rutherford Institute.7 ‘‘I will report of the Independent Counsel . . . does flawed than these. The constitutional con- not cross the threshold. . . . [I]t is clear that cerns raised by the House’s action are ad- 2 Ibid. Trooper Roger Perry, a 21-year veteran of Members of Congress could violate their con- dressed in Section VI, The Structural Defi- the Arkansas state police, stated that he ‘‘was asked stitutional responsibilities if they sought to ciencies of the Articles Preclude a Constitu- about the most intimate details of Clinton’s life: ‘I impeach and remove the President for mis- tionally Sound Vote. was left with the impression that they wanted me to show he was a womanizer. . . . All they wanted to conduct, even criminal misconduct, that fell II. BACKGROUND short of the high constitutional standard re- talk about was women.’ ’’ Ibid. (Ellipsis in original). A. THE WHITEWATER INVESTIGATIVE DEAD-END 3 quired for impeachment.’’ Ibid. The Lewinsky investigation emerged in 4 Transcript of November 19, 1998 House Judiciary On October 28, 1998, more than 400 histo- January 1998 from the long-running White- Committee Hearing at 377–378. rians issued a joint statement warning that 5 Ibid. at 378. because impeachment had traditionally been 6 Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors 1 For example, the House managers add a charge 7 Ms. Jones was described as having ‘‘accepted fi- in the exercise of executive power, impeach- that the President engaged in ‘‘legalistic hair split- nancial support of a Virginia conservative group,’’ ting [in his response to the 81 questions] in an obvi- which intended to ‘‘raise $100,000 or more on Jones’s ment of the President based on the facts al- ous attempt to skirt the whole truth and to deceive behalf, although the money will go for expenses and leged in the OIC Referral would set a dan- and obstruct’’ the Committee. This charge was spe- not legal fees.’’ ‘‘Jones Acquires New Lawyers and gerous precedent. ‘‘If carried forward, they cifically rejected by the full House of Representa- Backing,’’ The Washington Post (October 2, 1998) at will leave the Presidency permanently dis- tives when it rejected Article IV. A1. Jones’ new law firm, the Dallas-based Radar, January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S193 never deny that when I first heard about this was dependent on the OIC to use its best ef- questions put to him about his relationship case I said, ‘‘Okay, good. We’re gonna get forts to protect her from state prosecution. with her. No one who watched the videotape that little slimeball,’ said Ms. Carpenter-Mc- At the deposition the next day, the President of this grand jury testimony had any doubt Millan.’’8 While Ms. Jones’ previous attor- was asked numerous questions about his re- that the President admitted to having had neys, Messrs. Gilbert Davis and Joseph lationship with Ms. Lewinsky by lawyers an improper intimate relationship with Ms. Cammarata, had largely avoided the media, who already knew the answers. Lewinsky. as the Jones civil suit increasingly became a The Jones case, of course, was not about D. PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE OF partisan vehicle to try to damage the Presi- Ms. Lewinsky. She was a peripheral player REPRESENTATIVES and, since her relationship with the Presi- dent, public personal attacks became the On September 9, 1998, Mr. Starr transmit- 9 dent was concededly consensual, irrelevant order of the day. As is now well known, this ted a Referral to the House of Representa- effort led ultimately to the Jones lawyers to Ms. Jones’ case. Shortly after the Presi- dent’s deposition, Chief Judge Wright ruled tives that alleged eleven acts by the Presi- being permitted to subpoena various women, dent related to the Lewinsky matter that, in to discover the nature of their relationship, that evidence pertaining to Ms. Lewinsky would not be admissible at the Jones trial be- the opinion of the OIC, ‘‘may constitute if any, with the President, allegedly for the 18 cause ‘‘it is not essential to the core issues grounds for an impeachment.’’ The allega- purpose of determining whether they had in- tions fell into three broad categories: lying formation relevant to the sexual harassment in this case.’’ 12 The Court also ruled that, given the allegations at issue in the Jones under oath, obstruction of justice, and abuse charge. Among these women was Ms. of power. Lewinsky. case, the Lewinsky evidence ‘‘might be inad- missible as extrinsic evidence’’ under the The House Judiciary held a total of four In January 1998, Mr. Linda Tripp notified hearings and called but one witness: Kenneth the OIC of certain information she believed Federal Rules of Evidence because it in- volved merely the ‘‘specific instances of con- W. Starr. The Committee allowed the Presi- she had about Ms. Lewinsky’s involvement dent’s lawyers two days in which to present in the Jones case. At that time, the OIC in- duct’’ of a witness.13 On April 1, 1998, the Court ruled that Ms. a defense. The White House presented four vestigation began to intrude formally into panels of distinguished expert witnesses who the Jones case: the OIC met with Ms. Tripp Jones had no case and granted summary judgment for the President. Although Judge testified that the facts, as alleged, did not through the week of January 12, and with constitute an impeachable offense, did not her cooperation taped Ms. Lewinsky discuss- Wright ‘‘viewed the record in the light most favorable to [Ms. Jones] and [gave] her the reveal an abuse of power, and would not sup- ing the Jones case and the President. Ms. port a case for perjury or obstruction of jus- Tripp also informed the OIC that she had benefit of all reasonable factual infer- 14 tice that any reasonable prosecutor would been surreptitiously taping conversations ences,’’ the Court ruled that, as a matter of law, she simply had no case against Presi- bring. White House Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff with Ms. Lewinsky in violation of Maryland dent Clinton, both because ‘‘there is no genu- presented argument to the Committee on be- law, and in exchange for her cooperation, the ine issue as to any material fact’’ and be- half of the President, which is incorporated OIC promised Ms. Tripp immunity from fed- cause President Clinton was ‘‘entitled to a into this Trial Memorandum by reference.19 eral prosecution, and assistance in protect- judgment as a matter of law.’’ Id. at 11–12. On December 11 and 12, the Judiciary Com- ing her from state prosecution.10 On Friday, After reviewing all the proffered evidence, mittee voted essentially along party lines to January 16, after Ms. Tripp wore a body wire the Court ruled that ‘‘the record taken as a approve four articles of impeachment. Re- and had taped conversations with Ms. whole could not lead a rational trier of fact publicans defeated the alternative resolution Lewinsky for the OIC, the OIC received juris- to find for’’ Ms. Jones. Id. at 39. of censure offered by certain Committee diction from the Attorney General and for- Democrats. Almost immediately after cen- malized an immunity agreement with Ms. C. THE PRESIDENT’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY ABOUT MS. LEWINSKY sure failed in the Committee, the House Re- Tripp in writing. publican leadership declared publicly that no The President’s deposition in the On August 17, 1998, the President volun- Jones censure proposal would be considered by the case was scheduled to take place the next tarily testified to the grand jury and specifi- cally acknowledged that he had had a rela- full House when it considered the articles of day, on Saturday, January 17. As we now 20 tionship with Ms. Lewinsky involving ‘‘im- impeachment. know, Ms. Tripp met with and briefed the On December 19, 1998, voting essentially on lawyers for Ms. Jones the night before the proper intimate contact,’’ and that he ‘’en- gaged in conduct that was wrong.’’ App. at party lines, the House of Representatives ap- deposition on her perception of the relation- proved two articles of impeachment: Article ship between Ms. Lewinsky and the Presi- 461.15 He described how the relationship began and how he had ended it early in 1997— I, which alleged perjury before the grand dent—doing so based on confidences Ms. jury, passed by a vote of 228 to 206 and Arti- Lewinsky had entrusted to her.11 She was long before any public attention or scrutiny. He stated to the grand jury ‘‘it’s an embar- cle III, which alleged obstruction of justice, permitted to do so even though she has been passed by a vote of 221 to 212. The full House acting all week at the behest of the OIC and rassing and personally painful thing, the truth about my relationship with Ms. defeated two other Articles: Article II, which Lewinsky,’’ App. at 533, and told the grand alleged that the President committed per- Campbell, Fisher and Pyke, had ‘‘represented con- jurors, ‘‘I take full responsibility for it. It jury in his civil deposition, and Article IV, servatives in antiabortion cases and other causes.’’ which alleged abuse of power. Consideration Ibid. See also Dallas Lawyers Agree to Take on Paula wasn’t her fault, it was mine.’’ App. at 589– 90. of a censure resolution was blocked, even Jones’ Case—Their Small Firm Has Ties to Conserv- though members of both parties had ex- ative Advocacy Group,’’ The Los Angeles Times (Oct. The President also explained how he had 2, 1997) (Rutherford Institute a ‘‘conservative advo- tried to navigate the deposition in the Jones pressed a desire to vote on such an option. cacy group.’’). case months earlier without admitting what From beginning to end the House process 8 ‘‘Cause Celebre: An Antiabortion Activist Makes he admitted to the grand jury—that he had was both partisan and unfair. Consider: Herself the Unofficial Mouthpiece for Paula Jones.’’ been engaged in an improper intimate rela- ∑ The House released the entire OIC Refer- The Washington Post (July 23, 1998) at C1. Ms. Car- tionship with Ms. Lewinsky. Id. a 530–531. He ral to the public without ever reading it, re- penter-McMillan, ‘‘a cause-oriented, self-defined further testified that the ‘‘inappropriate en- viewing it, editing it, or allowing the Presi- conservative feminist’’’, described her role as ‘flam- dent’s counsel to review it; ing the White House’’ and declared ‘‘‘Unless Clinton counters’’ with Ms. Lewinsky had ended, at wants to be terribly embarrassed, he’d better cough his insistence, in early 1997. He declined to up what Paula needs. Anybody that comes out and describe, because of considerations of per- tionship with Ms. Lewinsky, questions about my un- testifies against Paula better have the past of a sonal privacy and institutional dignity, cer- derstanding of the term ‘sexual relations,’ as I un- Mother Teresa, because our investigators will inves- tain specifics about his conduct with Ms. derstood it to be defined at my January 17th, 1998 tigate their morality.’’’ ‘‘Paula Jones’ Team Not All Lewinsky,16 but he indicated his willingness deposition; and questions concerning alleged sub- About Teamwork,’’ USA Today (Sept. 29, 1997) at 4A. to answer,17 and he did answer, the other ornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and in- 9 After Ms. Jones’ new team had been in action for timidation of witnesses.’’ App. at 461. three months, one journalist commented: ‘‘In six 18 Referral from Independent Counsel Kenneth W. years of public controversy over Clinton’s personal 12 Order, at 2, Jones v. Clinton, No. LR–C–94–290 Starr in Conformity with the Requirements of Title life, what is striking in some ways is how little the (E.D. Ark.) (Jan. 29, 1998). 28, United States Code, Section 595(c), at 1 (House debate changes. As in the beginning, many conserv- 13 Ibid. Judiciary Committee) (printed September 11, 1998). atives nurture the hope that the past will be Clin- 14 Jones v. Clinton, No. LR–C–94–290 (E.D. Ark.), 19 Also incorporated by reference into this Trial ton’s undoing. Jone’s adviser, Susan Carpenter-Mc- Memorandum Opinion and Order (April 1, 1998), at 3 Memorandum are the four prior submissions of the Millan, acknowledged on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ yes- n.3. President to the House of Representatives: Prelimi- terday that her first reaction when she first heard 15 Appendices to the Referral to the United States nary Memorandum Concerning Referral of Office of Jone’s claims about Clinton was, ‘‘Good, we’re going House of Representatives Pursuant to Title 28, Independent Counsel (September 11, 1998) (73 pages); to get that little slime ball.’’ (Harris, ‘‘Jones Case United States Code Section 595(c), H. Doc. 105–311 Initial Response to Referral of Office of Independent Tests Political Paradox,’’ The Washington Post (Jan. (hereinafter ‘‘App.’’) at 461 (House Judiciary Com- Counsel (September 12, 1998) (42 pages); Memoran- 19, 1998) at A1. mittee) (Sept. 18, 1998). dum Regarding Standards of Impeachment (October 10 Supplemental Materials to the Referral to the 16 ‘‘While I will provide the grand jury whatever 2, 1998) (30 pages); Submission by Counsel for Presi- United States House of Representatives Pursuant to other information I can, because of privacy consid- dent Clinton to the Committee on the House Judici- Title 28, United States Code Section 595(C), H. Doc. erations affecting my family, myself, and others, ary of the United States House of Representatives 105–316 (hereinafter ‘‘Supp.’’) at 3758–3759, 4371–4373 and in an effort to preserve the dignity of the office (December 8, 1998) (184 pages). (House Judiciary Committee) (Sept. 28, 1998). I hold, this is all I will say about the specifics of 20 See Baker & Eilperin, ‘‘GOP Blocks Democrats’ 11 Baker, ‘‘Linda Tripp Briefed Jones Team on these particular matters.’’ App. at 461. Bid to Debate Censure in House: Panel Votes Final, Tapes: Meeting Occurred Before Clinton Deposi- 17 ‘‘I will try to answer, to the best of my ability, Trimmed Article of Impeachment,’’ The Washington tion,’’ The Washington Post (Feb. 14, 1998) at A1. other questions including questions about my rela- Post (Dec. 13, 1998) at A1. S194 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 ∑ The Chairman of the House Judiciary 2. The Constitution Requires a High Standard of Any just and proper impeachment process Committee said he had ‘‘no interest in not Proof of ‘‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’’ must be reasonably viewed by the public as working in a bipartisan way’’; 21 for Removal arising from one of those rare cases when the Legislature is compelled to stand in for all The Chairman also pledged a process the a. The Constitutional Text and Structure Set ∑ the people and remove a President whose American people would conclude was fair; 22 an Intentionally High Standard for Re- moval continuation in office threatens grave harm ∑ The Speaker-Designate of the House en- The Constitution provides that the Presi- to the Republic. Indeed, it is not exaggera- dorsed a vote of conscience on a motion to dent shall be removed from office only upon tion to say—as a group of more than 400 lead- censure;23 ‘‘Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Trea- ing historians and constitutional scholars publicly stated—that removal on these arti- Members of the House were shown secret son, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Mis- ∑ cles would ‘‘mangle the system of checks and ‘‘evidence’’ in order to influence their vote— demeanors.’’ U.S. Constitution, Art. II, sec- tion 4. The charges fail to meet the high balances that is our chief safeguard against evidence which the President’s counsel still 30 27 abuses of public power.’’ Removal of the has not been able to review. standard that the Framers established. The syntax of the Constitutional standard President on these grounds would defy the III. THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD AND ‘‘Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and constitutional presumption that the removal BURDEN OF PROOF FOR DECISION Misdemeanors’’ (emphasis added) strongly power rests with the people in elections, and suggests, by the interpretive principle it would do incalculable damage to the insti- A. THE OFFENSES ALLEGED DO NOT MEET THE noscitur a sociis,28 that, to be impeachable of- tution of the Presidency. If ‘‘successful,’’ re- CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD OF HIGH CRIMES fenses, high crimes and misdemeanors must moval here ‘‘will leave the Presidency per- AND MISDEMEANORS be of the seriousness of ‘‘Treason’’ and manently disfigured and diminished, at the ‘‘Bribery.’’ mercy as never before of the caprices of any 1. The Senate Has a Constitutional Duty to Our Constitutional structure reaffirms Congress.’’ 31 Confront the Question Whether Impeach- that the standard must be a very high one. The Framers made the President the sole able Offenses Have Been Alleged Ours is a Constitution of separated powers. nationally elected public official (together It is the solemn duty of the Senate to con- In that Constitution, the President does not with the Vice-President), responsible to all sider the question whether the articles state serve at the will of Congress, but as the di- the people. Therefore, when articles of im- rectly elected,29 solitary head of the Execu- an impeachable offense.24 That Constitu- peachment have been exhibited, the Senate tive Branch. The Constitution reflects a confronts this inescapable question: is the tional question has not, in the words of one judgment that a strong Executive, executing alleged misconduct so profoundly serious, so House Manager, ‘‘already been resolved by the law independently of legislative will, is a malevolent to our Constitutional system, the House.’’ 25 To the contrary, that question necessary protection for a free people. that it justifies undoing the people’s deci- now awaits the Senate’s measured consider- These elementary facts of constitutional sion? Is the wrong alleged of a sort that not ation and independent judgment. Indeed, structure underscore the need for a very high only demands removal of the President be- throughout our history, resolving this ques- standard for impeachment. The House Man- fore the ordinary electoral cycle can do its tion has been an essential part of the Sen- agers, in their Brief, suggest that the failure work, but also justifies the national trauma ate’s constitutional obligation to ‘‘try all to remove the President would raise the that accompanies the impeachment trial Impeachments.’’ U.S. Const. Art. § 3, cl.7. In standard for impeachment higher than the process itself? The wrongdoing alleged here the words of John Logan, a House Manager Framers intended. They say that if the Sen- does not remotely meet that standard. in the 1868 proceedings: ate does not remove the President, ‘‘The bar will be so high that only a convicted felon or b. The Framers Believed that Impeachment ‘‘It is the rule that all questions of law or a traitor will need to be concerned.’’ But and Removal Were Appropriate Only for fact are to be decided, in these proceedings, that standard is just a modified version of Offenses Against the System of Govern- by the final vote upon the guilt or innocence the plain language of Article II, Section 4 of ment of the accused. It is also the rule, that in de- the Constitution, which says a President can ‘‘[H]igh Crimes and Misdemeanors’’ refers termining this general issue senators must only be impeached and removed for ‘‘Trea- to nothing short of Presidential actions that consider the sufficiency or insufficiency in law son, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Mis- are ‘‘great and dangerous offenses’’ or ‘‘at- or in fact of every article of accusation.’’26 demeanors.’’ The Framers wanted a high bar. tempts to subvert the Constitution.’’ 32 Im- It was not the intention of the Framers that peachment was never intended to be a rem- We respectfully suggest that the articles ex- the President should be subject to the will of edy for private wrongs. It was intended to be hibited here do not state wrongdoing that the dominant legislative party. As Alexander a method of removing a President whose con- constitutes impeachable offenses under our Hamilton said in a warning against the tinued presence in the Office would cause Constitution. politicization of impeachment: ‘‘There will grave danger to the Nation and our Constitu- always be the greater danger that the deci- tional system of government.33 Thus, ‘‘in all sion will be regulated more by comparative but the most extreme instances, impeach- 21 Associated Press (March 25, 1998). 22 ‘‘This whole proceeding will fall on its face if it’s strength of parties than by the real dem- ment should be limited to abuse of public of- not perceived by the American people to be fair.’’ Fi- onstrations of innocence or guilt.’’ Federal- fice, not private misconduct unrelated to nancial Times (Sept. 12, 1998). ist 65. Our system of government does not public office.’’ 34 23 ‘‘The next House Speaker, Robert Livingston, permit Congress to unseat the President Impeachment was designed to be a means said the coming impeachment debate should allow merely because it disagrees with his behav- of redressing wrongful public conduct. As lawmakers to make a choice between ousting Presi- ior or his policies. The Framers’ decisive re- scholar and Justice James Wilson wrote, dent Clinton and imposing a lesser penalty such as jection of parliamentary government is one ‘‘our President . . . is amendable to [the censure. The Louisiana Republican said the House reason they caused the phrase ‘‘Treason, can’t duck a vote on articles of impeachment if re- laws] in his private character as a citizen, ported next month by its Judiciary Committee. But Bribery or other high Crimes and Mis- and in his public character by impeach- an ‘alternative measure is possible’ he said, and the demeanors’’ to appear in the Constitution ment.’’ 35 As such, impeachment is limited to GOP leadership should ‘let everybody have a chance itself. They chose to specify those categories certain forms of wrongdoing. Alexander to vote on the option of their choice.’ ’’ Wall Street of offenses subject to the impeachment Journal (Nov. 23, 1998). power, rather than leave that judgment to 24 In the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, the unfettered whim of the legislature. 30 Statement of Historians in Defense of the Con- the President’s counsel answered (to at least one ar- stitution (Oct. 28, 1998) (‘‘Statement of Historians’’); ticle) that the matters alleged ‘‘do not charge or al- see also Schmitt, ‘‘Scholars and Historians Assail lege the commission of any act whatever by this re- 27 For a more complete discussion of the Standards Clinton Impeachment Inquiry,’’ The New York Times spondent, in his office of President of the United for Impeachment, please see Submission by Counsel (Oct. 19, 1998) at A18. States, nor the omission by this respondent of any for President Clinton to the House Judiciary of the 31 Statement of Historians. act of official obligation or duty in his office of United States House of Representatives at 24–43 (De- 32 George Mason, 2 Farrand, The Records of the Fed- President of the United States.’’ 1 Trial of Andrew cember 8, 1998); Memorandum Regarding Standards of eral Convention of 1787 550 (Rev. ed. 1966). Johnson (1868) (‘‘TAJ’’) 53. Impeachment (October 2, 1998); and Impeachment of 33 As the 1975 Watergate staff report concluded 25 See Statement of Rep. Bill McCollum: ‘‘[A]re William Jefferson, President of the United States, Re- ‘‘Impeachment is the first step in remedial process— these impeachable offenses, which I think has al- port of the Committee on the Judiciary to Accom- removal from office and possible disqualification ready been resolved by the House. I think constitu- pany H. Res. 611, H. Rpt. 105–830, 105th Cong., 2d from holding future office. The purpose of impeach- tionally that’s our job to do.’’ Fox News Sunday Sess. at 332–39 (citing Minority Report). References ment is not personal punishment; its function is pri- (January 3, 1999). to pages 2–203 of the Committee Report will be cited marily to maintain constitutional government. . . . 26 Closing argument of Manager John H. Logan, 2 hereinafter as ‘‘Committee Report.’’ References to In an impeachment proceeding a President is called TAJ 18 (emphasis added). See also Office of Senate pages 329–406 of the Committee Report will be cited to account for abusing powers that only a President Legal Counsel, Memorandum on Impeachment Issues hereinafter as ‘‘Minority Report.’’ possesses.’’ Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Im- at 25–26 (Oct. 7, 1988) (‘‘Because the Senate acts as 28 ‘‘ ‘It is known from its associates’ . . . the mean- peachment, Report by the Staff of the Impeachment In- both judge and jury in an impeachment trial, the ing of a word is or may be known from the accom- quiry, House Comm. on Judiciary, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. Senate’s conviction on a particular article of im- panying words.’’ Black’s Law Dictionary 1209 (4th ed. at 24 (1974) (‘‘Nixon Impeachment Inquiry’’). peachment reflects the Senate’s judgment not only 1968). 34 Minority Report at 337. that the accused engaged in the misconduct under- 29 Of course, that election takes place through the 35 2 Elliot, The Debate in the Several State Conven- lying the article but also that the article stated an mediating activity of the Electoral College. See U.S. tions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution impeachable offense’’). Const. Art. II, § 1, cl. 2–3 and Amend. XII. 480 (reprint of 2d ed.) January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S195 Hamilton described the subject of the Sen- turns for those years under penalty of per- 4. The Views of Prominent Historians and Legal ate’s impeachment jurisdiction as ‘‘those of- jury,45 and there was reason to believe that Scholars Confirm that Impeachable Offenses fenses which proceed from the misconduct of the underlying facts would have supported a Are not Present public men, or in other words from the abuse criminal prosecution against President a. No Impeachable Offense Has Been Stated or violation of some public trust. They are of Nixon himself.46 Here a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate Specifying the applicable standard for im- There is strong agreement among chiefly to injuries done to the society itself.’’ 36 peachment, the majority staff concluded consititutional scholars and historians that the articles do not charge impeachable of- The Framers ‘‘intended that a president be that ‘‘[b]ecause impeachment of a President fenses. As Professor Michael Gerhardt sum- removable from office for the commission of is a grave step for the nation, it is to be marized in his recent testimony before a great offenses against the Constitution.’’ 37 predicated only upon conduct seriously in- Impeachment therefore addresses public compatible with either the constitutional subcommitte of the House of Representa- wrongdoing, whether denominated a ‘‘politi- form and principles of our government or the tives, there is ‘‘widespread recognition [of] a paradigmatic case for impeachment.’’52 In cal crime [ ] against the state,’’ 38 or ‘‘an proper performance of constitutional duties such a case, ‘‘there must be a nexus between act of malfeasance or abuse of office,’’ 39 or a of the president office.’’ 47 ‘‘great offense [ ] against the federal gov- the misconduct of an impeachable official and 53 ernment.’’ 40 Ordinary civil and criminal And the minority views of many Repub- the latter’s official duties.’’ wrongs can be addressed through ordinary lican members were in substantial agree- There is no such nexus here. Indeed the al- judicial processes. And ordinary political ment: ‘‘the framers . . . were concerned with legations are so far removed from official wrongs can be addressed at the ballot box preserving the government from being over- wrongdoing that their assertion here threat- and by public opinion. Impeachment is re- thrown by the treachery or corruption of one ens to weaken significantly the Presidency served for the most serious public mis- man. . . . [I]t is our judgment, based upon itself. As the more than 400 prominent histo- conduct, those aggravated abuses of execu- this constitutional history, that the Framers rians and constitutional scholars warned in tive power that, given the President’s four- of the United States Constitution intended their public statement: ‘‘[t]he theory of im- year term, might otherwise go unchecked. that the President should be removable by peachment underlying these efforts is un- 3. Past Precedents Confirm that Allegations of the legislative branch only for serious mis- precedented in our history . . . [and is] are extremely ominous for the future of our po- Dishonesty Do Not Alone State Impeachable conduct dangerous to the system of govern- litical insitutions. If carried forward, [the Offenses ment established by the Constitution.’’ 48 current processes] will leave the Presidency Because impeachment of a President nul- The legal principle that impeachable of- lifies the popular will of the people, as evi- permanently disfigured and diminished, at dence by an election, it must be used with fenses required misconduct dangerous to our the mercy as never before of the caprices of 54 great circumspection. As applicable prece- system of government provided one basis for any Congress. dents establish, it should not be used to pun- the Committee’s rejection of the fraudulent- Similarly, in a letter to the House of Rep- ish private misconduct. tax-return charge. As Congressman Hogan resentatives, an extraordinary group of 430 (R-Md.) put the matter, the Constitution’s legal scholars argued together that these of- a. The Fraudulent Tax Return Allegation fenses, even if proven true, did not rise to Against President Nixon phrase ‘‘high crime signified a crime against the system of government, not merely a seri- the level of an impeachable offense.55 The Five articles of impeachment were pro- ous crime,’’49 As noted, the tax-fraud charge, gist of these scholarly objections is that the posed against then-President Nixon by the alleged wrongdoing is insufficiently con- Judiciary Committee of the House of Rep- involving an act which did not demonstrate public misconduct, was rejected by an over- nected to the exercise of public office. Be- resentatives in 1974. Three were approved cause the articles charge wrongdoing of an whelming (and bipartisan) 26-12 margin.50 and two were not. The approved articles al- essentially private nature, any harm such leged official wrongdoing. Article I charged b. The Financial Misdealing Allegation behavior poses is too removed from our sys- President Nixon with ‘‘using the powers of Against Alexander Hamilton tem of government to justify unseating the his high office [to] engage [ ] . . . in a President. Numerous scholars, opining long course of conduct or plan designed to delay, In 1792, Congress investigated Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton for alleged fi- before the current controversy, have empha- impede and obstruct’’ the Watergate inves- sized the necessary connection of impeach- 41 nancial misdealings with a convicted swin- tigation. Article II described the President able wrongs to threats against the state as engaging in ‘‘repeated and continuing dler. Hamilton had made payments to the itself. They have found that impeachment abuse of the powers of the Presidency in dis- swindler and had urged his wife (Hamilton’s should be reserved for: regard of the fundamental principle of the paramour) to burn incriminating correspond- ∑ ‘‘offenses against the government’’;56 rule of law in our system of government’’ ence. Members of Congress investigated the ∑ ‘‘political crime against the state’’; 57 thereby ‘‘us[ing] his power as President to matter and it came to the attention of Presi- ∑ ‘‘serious assaults on the integrity of the violate the Constitution and the law of the dent Washington and future Presidents processes of government’’; 58 land.’’ 42 Article III charged the President Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. ∑ ‘‘wrongdoing convincingly established with refusing to comply with Judiciary Com- [and] so egregious that [the President’s] con- mittee subpoenas in frustration of a power This private matter was not deemed wor- tinuation in office is intolerable’’;59 necessary to ‘‘preserve the integrity of the thy of removing Mr. Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury.51 Even when it eventually ∑ ‘‘malfeasance or abuse of office,’’60 bear- impeachment process itself and the ability of ing a ‘‘functional relationship’’ to public of- Congress to act as the ultimate safeguard became public, it was no barrier to Hamil- fice; 61 43 ton’s appointment to high position in the against improper Presidential conduct.’’ ‘‘great offense[s] against the federal gov- On article not approved by the House Judi- United States Army. Although not insignifi- ∑ ernment’’; 62 ciary Committee charged that President cant, Hamilton’s behavior was essentially ∑ ‘‘acts which, like treason and bribery, Nixon both ‘‘knowingly and fraudulently private. It was certain not regarded as im- undermine the integrity of government.’’ 63 failed to report certain income and claimed peachable. deductions [for 1969–72] on his Federal in- The articles contain nothing approximating come tax returns which were not authorized that level of wrongdoing. Indeed the House by law.’’ 44 The President had signed his re- proper tax deductions, and to have manufactured Managers themselves acknowledge that ‘‘the (either personally or through his agents) false docu- President’s [alleged] perjury and obstruction ments to support the deductions taken. 36 The Federalist No. 65 at 331 (Gary Wills ed. 1982). 45 Given the underlying facts, that act might have As one of the most respected of the early commenta- provided the basis for multiple criminal charges; 52 Statement of Professor Michael J. Gerhardt Be- tors explained, the impeachment ‘‘power partakes of conviction on, for example, the tax evasion charge, fore the House Subcommittee on the Constitution of a political character, as it respects injuries to the could have subjected President Nixon to a 5-year the House Judiciary Committee Regarding the society in its political character.’’ Story, Com- prison term. Background and History of Impeachment (November mentaries on the Constitution, Sec. 744. (reprint of 1st 46 See Nixon Report at 344 (‘‘the Committee was told 9, 1998) at 13 (‘‘Subcommittee Hearings’’). ed. 1833). by a criminal fraud tax expert that on the evidence 53Ibid. (emphasis added). 37 John Labovitz, Presidential Impeachment 94 (1978). presented to the Committee, if the President were 54 Statement of Historians. 38 Raoul Berger, Impeachment 61 (1973). an ordinary taxpayer, the government would seek to 55 See Letter of 430 Law Professors to Messrs. Ging- 39 Rotunda, An Essay on the Constitutional Param- send him to jail’’) (Statement of Additional Views of rich, Gephardt, Hyde and Conyers (released Nov. 6, eters of Federal Impeachment, 76 Ky. L.J. 707, 724 (1987/ Mr. Mezvinsky, et al.) 1998). 1988). 47 Nixon Impeachment Inquiry at 26 (emphasis 56 Labovitx, Presidential Impeachment at 26. 40 Gerhardt, The Constitutional Limits to Impeach- added). 57 Berger, Impeachment at 61. ment and Its Alternatives, 68 Tex. L. Rev. 1, 85 (1989). 48 Nixon Report at 364–365 (Minority Views of 58 Charles L. Black, Jr. Impeachment: A Handbook 41 Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of the Messrs. Hutchinson, Smith, Sandman, Wiggins, Den- 38-39 (1974). United States, Report of the Comm. on the Judiciary, nis, Mayne, Lott, Moorhead, Maraziti and Latta). 59 Labovitz Presidential Impeachment at 110. 93rd Cong., 2d Sess, H. Rep. 93–1305 (Aug. 20, 1974) 49 Id. (quoting with approval conclusion of Nixon 60 Rotunda, 76 Ky. L.J. at 726. (hereinafter ‘‘Nixon Report’’) at 133. Impeachment Inquiry). 61 Ibid. 42 Nixon Report at 180. 50 Nixon Report at 220. 62 Gerhardt, 68 Tex. L. Rev. at 85. 43 Id. 212–13. 51 See generally Rosenfeld, ‘‘Founding Fathers 63 Committee on Federal Legislation of the Bar 44 Id. at 220. The President was alleged to have Didn’t Flinch,’’ The Los Angeles Times (September 18, Ass’n of the City of New York, The Law of Presi- failed to report certain income, to have taken im- 1980). dential Impeachment 18 (1974). S196 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 do not directly involve his official con- to the qualitative differences among dif- gravity sufficient to foreclose effective per- duct.’’ 64 ferent allegations of perjury and the very formance of the Presidential office. b. To Make Impeachable Offenses of These Al- basic differences between federal judges and Impeachment scholar John Labovitz, writ- legations would Forever Lower the Bar in the President. ing of the judicial impeachment cases pre- a Way Inimical to the Presidency and to First, the impeachment and removal of a dating Watergate, observed that: Our Government of Separated powers Federal judge, while a very solemn task, im- ‘‘For both legal and practical reasons, th[e] These articles allege (1) sexual mis- plicates very different considerations than [judicial impeachment] cases did not nec- behavior, (2) statements about sexual mis- the impeachment of a president. Federal essarily affect the grounds for impeachment behavior and (3) attempts to conceal the fact judges are appointed without public approval of a president. The practical reason was that of sexual misbehavior. These kinds of wrongs and enjoy life tenure without public account- it seemed inappropriate to determine the fate of are simply not subjects fit for impeachment. ability. Consequently, they hold their offices an elected chief executive on the basis of law de- To remove a President on this basis would under our Constitution only ‘‘during good veloped in proceedings directed at petty mis- lower the impeachment bar to an unprece- behavior.’’ Under our system, impeachment conduct by obscure judges. The legal reason dented level and create a devastating prece- is the only way to remove a Federal judge was that the Constitution provides that dent. As Professor Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., from office—even a Federal judge sitting in judges serve during good behavior. . . . [T]he addressing this problem, has testified: jail.69 By contrast, a president is elected by [good behavior] clause made a difference in ‘‘Lowering the bar for impeachment cre- the Nation to a term, limited to a specified judicial impeachments, confounding the ap- ates a novel . . . revolutionary theory of im- number of years, and he faces accountability plication of these cases to presidential im- peachment, [and] . . . would send us on an in the form of elections. peachment’’.73 adventure with ominous implications for the Second, whether an allegedly perjurious Thus, the judicial precedents relied upon by separation of powers that the Constitution statement rises to the level of an impeach- the House Managers have only ‘‘limited force established as the basis of our political able offense depends necessarily on the par- when applied to the impeachment of a Presi- order. It would permanently weaken the ticulars of that statement, and the relation dent.’’74 Presidency.’’ 65 of those statements to the fulfillment of offi- The most telling rejoinder to the House’s The lowering of the bar that Professor cial responsibilities. In the impeachment of argument comes from President Ford. His Schlesinger described must stop here. Pro- Judge Harry Claiborne, the accused had been definition of impeachable offenses, offered as fessor Jack Rakove made a similar point convicted of filing false income tax returns.70 a congressman in 1970 in connection with an when he stated that ‘‘Impeachment [is] a As a judge, Claiborne was charged with the effort to impeach Associate Justice William remedy to be deployed only in . . . unequivo- responsibility of hearing tax-evasion cases. O. Douglas—that it is, in essence, ‘‘whatever cal cases where . . . the insult to the con- Once convicted, he simply could not perform the majority of the House of Representatives stitutional system is grave.’’ 66 Indeed, he his official functions because his personal considers it to be’’—has been cited. Almost said, there ‘‘would have to be a high degree probity had been impaired such that he could never noted is the more important aspect of of consensus on both sides of the aisle in not longer be an arbiter of others’ oaths. His then-Congressman Ford’s statement—that, Congress and in both Houses to proceed.’’ 67 wrongdoing bore a direct connection to the in contrast to the life-tenure of judges, be- Bipartisan consensus was, of course, ut- performance of his judicial tasks. The in- cause presidents can be removed by the elec- terly lacking in the House of Representa- quiry into President Nixon disclosed similar torate, ‘‘to remove them in midterm . . . tives. No civil officer—no President, no wrongdoing, but the House Judiciary Com- would indeed require crimes of the mag- judge, no cabinet member—has ever been im- mittee refused to approve an article of im- nitude of treason and bribery.’’75 peached by so narrow a margin as supported peachment against the President on that B. THE STANDARD OF PROOF the articles exhibited here.68 The closeness basis. The case of Judge Walter Nixon is Beyond the question of what constitutes an and partisan division of the vote reflect the similar. He was convicted of making perjuri- impeachable offense, each Senator must con- constitutionally dubious nature of the ous statements concerning his intervention in front the question of what standard the evi- charges. a judicial proceeding, which is to say, employ- When articles are based on sexual wrong- dence must meet to justify a vote of ing the power and prestige of his office to ob- ‘‘guilty.’’ The Senate has, of course, ad- doing, and when they have passed only by tain advantage for a party.71 Although the the narrowest, partisan margin, the future of dressed this issue before—most recently in proceeding at issue was not in his court, his the trials of Judge Claiborne and Judge our constitutional politics is in the balance. use of the judicial office for the private gain The very stability of our Constitutional gov- Hastings. We recognize that the Senate of a party to a judicial proceeding directly chose in the Claiborne proceedings, and re- ernment may depend upon the Senate’s re- implicated his official functions. Finally, sponse to these articles. Nothing about this affirmed in the Hastings trial, not to impose Judge Alcee Hastings was impeached and re- itself any single standard of proof but, rath- case justifies removal of a twice-elected moved for making perjurious statements at President, because no ‘‘high Crimes and Mis- er, to leave that judgment to the conscience his trial for conspiring to fix cases in his own of each senator. Many Senators here today demeanors’’ are alleged. 72 court. As with Judges Claiborne and Nixon, were present for the debate on this issue and 5. Comparisons to Impeachment of Judges Are Judge Hastings’ perjurious statements were chose a standard by which to test the evi- Wrong immediately and incurably detrimental to dence. For many Senators, however, the The House Managers suggest that perjury the performance of his official duties. The al- issue is a new one. And none previously has per se is an impeachable offense because (1) legations against the President, which (as had to face the issue in the special context of several federal judges have been impeached the Managers acknowledge) ‘‘do not directly a Presidential impeachment. and removed for perjury, and (2) those prece- involve his official conduct,’’ House Br. at We argued before the House Judiciary dents control this case. See House Br. at 95– 109, simply do not involve wrongdoing of Committee that it must treat a vote to im- 105. That notion is erroneous. It is blind both peach as, in effect, a vote to remove the 69 Former House Judiciary Committee Chairman President from office and that a decision of 64 House Br. at 109. Peter Rodino, during a recent judicial impeachment such moment ought not to be based on any- 65 Subcommittee Hearings (Written Statement of Ar- proceeding, cogently explained the unique position thing less than ‘‘clear and convincing’’ evi- thur Schlesinger, Tr. at 2). that Federal judges hold in our Constitutional sys- dence. That standard is higher than the 66 Subcommittee Hearings (Written Statement of tem: ‘‘preponderance of the evidence’’ test appli- Professor Jack Rakove at 4). ‘‘The judges of our Federal courts occupy a unique cable to the ordinary civil case but lower 67 Subcommittee Hearings (Oral Testimony of Profes- position of trust and responsibility in our govern- sor Rakove). ment: They are the only members of any branch than the beyond a reasonable doubt test ap- 68 The present articles were approved by margins of that hold their office for life; they are purposely in- plicable to a criminal case. Nonetheless, we 228–206 (Article I) and 221–212 (Article II). All prior sulated from the immediate pressures and shifting felt that the clear and convincing standard resolutions were approved by substantially wider currents of the body politic. But with the special pre- was consistent with the grave responsibility margins in the House of Representatives. See Im- rogative of judicial independence comes the most exact- of triggering a process that might result in peachments of the following civil officers: Judge ing standard of public and private conduct . . . The the removal of a president. In fact, it had John Pickering (1803) (45–8; Justice Samuel Chase high standard of behavior for judges is inscribed in been the standard agreed upon by both Wa- (1804) (73–32; Judge James Peck (1830) 143–49; Judge article III of the Constitution, which provides that West Humphreys (1862) (no vote available, but reso- judges ‘‘shall hold offices during good behavior. tergate Committee majority and minority lution of impeachment voted ‘‘without division,’’ see . . .’’ (132 Cong. Rec. H4712 (July 22, 1986) (impeach- counsel (as well as counsel for President 3 Hinds Precedents of the House of Representatives ment of Judge Harry E. Claiborne) (emphasis added). Nixon) twenty-four years ago. § 2386); President Andrew Johnson (1868) (128–47; 70 Proceedings of the United States Senate in the Certainly no lesser standard should be ap- Judge James Belknap (1876) (unanimous); Judge Impeachment Trial of Harry E. Claiborne, 99th plied in the Senate. Indeed, we submit that Charles Swayne (1903) (unanimous); Judge Robert Cong., 2d Sess., S. Doc. 99–48 at 291–98 (1986) (‘‘Clai- the gravity of the decision the Senate must Archbald (1912) (223–1); Judge George English (1925) borne Proceedings’’). (306–62); Judge Harold Louderback (1932) (183––143); 71 Proceedings of the United States Senate in the Judge Halsted Ritter (1933) (181–146); Judge Harry Impeachment Trial of Walter L. Nixon, Jr., 101st 73 Labovitz, Presidential Impeachment at 92–93 (em- Claiborne (1986) (406–0); Judge Walter L. Nixon, Jr. Cong., 1st Sess., S. Doc. 101–22 at 430–440 (1989) phasis added). (1988) (417–0); Judge Alcee L. Hastings (1988) (413–3). (‘‘Judge Nixon Proceedings’’). 74 Office of Senate Legal Counsel, Memorandum on The impeachment resolution against Senator Wil- 72 See Proceedings of the United States Senate in Impeachment Issues at 26 (Oct. 7, 1988) (summarizing liam Bount in 1797 was by voice vote and so no spe- the Impeachment Trial of Alcee L. Hastings, 101st view of some commentators). cific count was recorded. Cong., 1st Sess., S. Doc. 101–18 (1989). 75 116 Cong. Rec. 11912, 11913, (1970). January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S197 reach should lead each Senator to go further found guilty of perjury before a grand jury, crime, or, if only one witness testifies to the and ask whether the House has established a prosecutor most prove all elements of the facts constituting the alleged perjury, that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. offense. there be substantial corroborating proof to Both lawyers and laymen too often treat In the criminal law context, § 1623 requires establish guilt.’’ See Transcript of ‘‘Prosecu- the standard of proof as meaningless legal proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the fol- torial Standards for Obstruction of Justice jargon with no application to the real world lowing elements: that an accused (1) while and Perjury’’ Hearing (Dec. 9, 1998). The of difficult decisions. But it is much more under oath (2) knowingly (3) made a false other prosecutors on the panel agreed. Mr. than that. In our system of justice, it is the statement as to (4) material facts. The ‘‘ma- Richard J. Davis, who served as an Assistant guidepost that shows the way through the teriality’’ element is fundamental: it means United States Attorney for the Southern labyrinth of conflicting evidence. It tells the that testimony given to a grand jury may be District of New York and as a Task Force factfinder to look within and ask: ‘‘Would I found perjurious only if it had a tendency to Leader for the Watergate Special Prosecu- make the most important decisions of my influence, impede, or hamper the grand tion Force, testified that ‘‘it is virtually un- life based on the degree of certainty I have jury’s investigation. See, e.g., United States v. heard of to bring a perjury prosecution based about these facts?’’ In the unique legal-polit- Reilly, 33 F.3d 1396, 1419 (3d Cir. 1994); United solely on the conflicting testimony of two ical setting of an impeachment trial, it pro- States v. Barrett, 111 F.3d 947, 953 (D.C. Cir. people.’’ Id. A review of the perjury alleged tects against partisan overreaching, and it 1997). If an answer provided to a grand jury here thus requires both careful scrutiny of assures the public that this grave decision has no impact on the grand jury’s investiga- the materiality of any alleged falsehood and has been made with care. In sum, it is a dis- tion, or if it relates to a subject that the vigilance against conviction merely on an ciplining force to carry into the delibera- grand jury is not considering, it is incapable ‘‘oath against an oath.’’ Weiler, 323 U.S. at tions. as a matter of law of being perjurious. Thus, 609. alleged false testimony concerning details This point is given added weight by the B. STRUCTURE OF THE ALLEGATIONS language of the Constitution. Article I, sec- that a grand jury is not investigating cannot Article I charges that the President com- tion 3, clause 6 of the United States Con- as a matter of law constitute perjury, since mitted perjury when he testified before the stitution gives to the Senate ‘‘the Power to such testimony by definition is immaterial. grand jury on August 17, 1998. It alleges he try all Impeachments. . . . and no Person See, e.g., United States v. Lasater, 535 F.2d ‘‘willfully provided perjurious, false and mis- shall be convicted without the Concurrence of 1041, 1048 (8th Cir. 1976) (where defendant ad- leading testimony to the grand jury concern- two thirds of the Members present.’’ (Empha- mitted signing letter and testified to its pur- ing ‘‘one or more of the following: (1) the na- sis added.) Use of the words ‘‘try’’ and ‘‘con- pose, his denial of actually writing letter ture and details of his relationship with a victed’’ strongly suggests that an impeach- was not material to grand jury investigation subordinate Government employee; (2) prior ment trial is akin to a criminal proceeding and was incapable of supporting perjury perjurious, false and misleading testimony and that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt charge); United States v. Pyle, 156 F.2d 852, 856 he gave in a Federal civil rights action standard of criminal proceedings should be (D.C. Cir. 1946) (details such as whether de- brought against him; (3) prior false and mis- used. This position was enunciated in the Mi- fendant ‘‘paid the rent on her Washington leading statements he allowed his attorney nority Views contained in the Report of the apartment, as she testified that she did’’ to make to a Federal judge in that civil House Judiciary Committee on the impeach- were ‘‘not pertinent to the issue being rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to ment proceedings against President Nixon tried;’’ therefore, ‘‘the false statement at- influence the testimony of witnesses and to (H.Rep. 93–1305 at 377–381) and has been es- tributed to [defendant] was in no way mate- impede the discovery of evidence in that poused as the correct standard by such Sen- rial in the case in which she made it and did civil rights action.’’ As noted above, the arti- ators as Robert Taft, Jr., Sam Ervin, Strom not constitute perjury within the meaning of cle does not provide guidance on the particu- Thurmond and John Stennis.76 the statute.’’) In other words, mere falsity— Even if the clear and convincing standard even knowing falsity—is not perjury if the lar statements alleged to be perjurious, false nonetheless is appropriate for judicial im- statement at issue is not ‘‘material’’ to the and misleading. But by reference to the dif- peachments, it does not follow that it should matter under consideration. ferent views in the House Committee Report, be applied where the Presidency itself is at An additional ‘‘element’’ of perjury pros- the presentation of House Majority Counsel stake. With judges, the Senate must balance ecutions, at least as a matter of prosecu- David Schippers, the OIC Referral, and the its concern for the independence of the judi- torial practice, is that a perjury conviction Trial Memorandum of the House Managers, ciary against the recognition that, because cannot rest solely on the testimony of one we have attempted to identify certain state- judges hold life-time tenure, impeachment is witness. In United States v. Weiler, 323 U.S. ments from which members of the House the only available means to protect the pub- 606, 608–09 (1945), the Supreme Court observed might have chosen. Subpart (1) alleges that the President com- lic against those who are corrupt. On the that the ‘‘special rule which bars conviction mitted perjury before the grand jury about other hand, when a President is on trial, the for perjury solely upon the evidence of a sin- the details of his relationship with Ms. balance to be struck is quite different. Here gle witness is deeply rooted in past cen- Lewinsky—including apparently such insig- the Senate is asked, in effect, to overturn turies.’’ While § 1623 does not literally incor- nificant matters as mis-remembering the the results of an election held two years ago porate the so-called ‘‘two-witness’’ rule, the precise month on which certain inappropri- in which the American people selected the case law makes clear that perjury prosecu- ate physical contact started, understating as head of one of the three coordinate branches tions under this statute require a high de- ‘‘occasional’’ his infrequent inappropriate of government. It is asked to take this ac- gree of proof, and that prosecutors should physical and telephone contacts with Ms. tion in circumstances where there is no sug- not, as a matter of reason and practicality, Lewinsky over a period of many months, gestion of corruption or misuse of office—or try to bring perjury prosecutions based sole- characterizing their relationship as starting any other conduct that places our system of ly on the testimony of a single witness. As as a friendship, and touching Ms. Lewinsky government at risk in the two remaining the Supreme Court has cautioned, perjury in certain ways and for certain purposes dur- years of the President’s term, when once cases should not rest merely upon ‘‘an oath ing their intimate encounters. again the people will judge who they wish to against an oath.’’ Id. at 609. Indeed, that is exactly the point that expe- Subpart (2) of Article I alleges that the lead them. In this setting, the evidence rienced former federal prosecutors made to President made perjurious, false and mis- should be tested by the most stringent the House Judiciary Committee. A panel of leading statements to the grand jury when standard we know—proof beyond a reason- former federal prosecutors, some Republican, he testified about certain responses he had able doubt. Only then can the American peo- testified that they would not charge perjury given in the Jones civil deposition. The House ple be confident that this most serious of based upon the facts in this case. For exam- Managers erroneously suggest that in the constitutional decisions has been given the ple, Mr. Thomas Sullivan, a former United grand jury President Clinton was asked careful consideration it deserves. States Attorney for the Northern District of about and reaffirmed his entire deposition IV. THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ACQUITTED ON Illinois, told the Committee that ‘‘the evi- testimony, including his deposition testi- ARTICLE I dence set out in the Starr report would not mony about whether he had been alone with The evidence does not support the allega- be prosecuted as a criminal case by a respon- Ms. Lewinsky. See House Br. at 2, 60. That is tions of Article I. sible federal prosecutor.’’ See Transcript of demonstrably false. Those statements that A. APPLICABLE LAW ‘‘Prosecutorial Standards for Obstruction of the President did in fact make in the grand Article I alleges perjury, along with false Justice and Perjury’’ Hearing (Dec. 9, 1998); jury, by way of explaining his deposition tes- and misleading statements, before a federal see generally Minority Report at 340–47. As timony, were truthful. Moreover, to the ex- grand jury. Perjury is a statutory crime that Mr. Sullivan emphasized, ‘‘because perjury tent this subpart repeats allegations of Arti- is set forth in the United States Code at 18 and obstruction charges often arise from pri- cle II of the original proposed articles of im- U.S.C. § 1623.77 Before an accused may be vate dealings with few observers, the courts peachment, the full House of Representatives have required either two witnesses who testi- has explicitly considered and specifically re- fied directly to the facts establishing the jected those charges, and their consideration 76 Claiborne Proceedings at 106–107. would violate the impeachment procedures 77 Section 1623 provides in relevant part: ‘‘(a) Whoever under oath . . . in any proceeding be- .. . knowing the same to contain any false material mandated by the Constitution. fore or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the declaration, shall be fined under this title or impris- Subparts (3) and (4) allege that the Presi- United States knowingly makes any false material oned not more than five years, or both.’’ (18 U.S.C. dent lied in the grand jury when he testified declaration or makes or uses any other information § 1623(a) (1994)). about certain activities in late 1997 and early S198 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 1998. They are based on statements about casional telephone conversations with Ms. dent’s very painful public admission of inap- conduct that the House Managers claim con- Lewinsky that included inappropriate sexual propriate conduct. stitutes obstruction of justice under Article banter. In any event, the charges are totally with- II and in many respects track Article II. ‘‘I regret that what began as a friendship out merit. The Committee Report takes Compare Article I (3) (perjury in the grand came to include this conduct, and I take full issue with the terms ‘‘on certain occasions’’ jury concerning alleged ‘‘prior false and mis- responsibility for my actions. and ‘‘occasional,’’ but neither phrase implies leading statements he allowed his attorney ‘‘While I will provide the grand jury what- a definite or maximum number. ‘‘On certain to make to a Federal judge’’) with Article II ever other information I can, because of pri- occasions’’—the phrase introducing discus- (5) (obstructing justice by ‘‘allow[ing] his at- vacy considerations affecting my family, sion of the physical contacts—has virtually torney to make false and misleading state- myself, and others, and in an effort to pre- no meaning other than ‘‘it sometimes hap- ments to a Federal judge) and compare Arti- serve the dignity of the office I hold, this is pened.’’ It is unfathomable what objective cle I (4) (perjury in the grand jury concern- all I will say about the specifics of these par- interpretation the Majority gives to this ing alleged ‘‘corrupt efforts to influence tes- ticular matters. phrase to suggest that it could be false. An timony of witnesses and to impede the dis- ‘‘I will try to answer, to the best of my attack on the phrase ‘‘occasional’’—the covery of evidence’’) with Article II (3), (6), ability, other questions including questions phrase introducing discussion of the inappro- (7) (obstructing justice when he (3) ‘‘engaged about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; priate telephone contacts—is little different. in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to questions about my understanding of the Dictionaries define ‘‘occasional’’ to mean conceal evidence,’’ i.e., gifts; (6) ‘‘corruptly term ‘sexual relations’, as I understood it to ‘‘occurring at irregular or infrequent inter- influence[d] the testimony’’ of Betty Currie; be denied at my January 17th, 1998 deposi- vals’’ or ‘‘now and then.’’ 79 It is a measure of (7) ‘‘made false and misleading statements to tion; and questions concerning alleged sub- the Committee Report’s extraordinary over- potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury ornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, reaching to suggest that the eleven occa- proceeding in order to corruptly influence and intimidation of witnesses.’’ sions of intimate contact alleged by the the testimony of those witnesses’’). These App. at 460–62. The President occasionally re- House Majority over well more than a year perjury allegations are without merit both ferred back to this statement—but only did not occur, by any objective reading, ‘‘on because the obstruction charges upon which when asked very specific questions about his certain occasions.’’ And since even the OIC they are based are wrong and because the physical relationship with Ms. Lewinsky— Referral acknowledges that the inappropri- statements that President Clinton made in and he otherwise responded fully to four ate telephone contact occurred not ‘‘at least the grand jury about these charges are true. hours of interrogation about his relationship 17 times’’ (as the Committee Report and the Because of the close parallel, and for sake of with Ms. Lewinsky, his answers in the civil Managers suggest, Committee Report at 8; brevity in this submission, we have dealt deposition, and his conduct surrounding the House Br. at 11) but between 10 and 15 times comprehensively with these overlapping alle- Jones deposition. over a 23-month period,80 ‘‘occasional’’ would gations in the next section addressing Arti- The articles are silent on precisely what surely seem not just a reasonable description cle II (obstruction of justice), and address statements the President made about his re- but the correct one. them only briefly in this section. lationship with Ms. Lewinsky that were al- Finally, these squabbles are utterly imma- C. RESPONSE TO THE PARTICULAR ALLEGATIONS legedly perjurious. But between the House terial. Even if the President and Ms. IN ARTICLE I Brief and the Committee Report, both draft- Lewinsky disagreed as to the precise number The president testified truthfully before ed by the Managers, it appears there are of such encounters, it is of no consequence the grand jury. There must be no mistake three aspects of this prepared statement that whatsoever to anything, given his admission about what the President said. He admitted are alleged to be false and misleading be- of their relationship. This is precisely the to the grand jury that he had engaged in an cause Ms. Lewinsky’s recollection differs— kind of disagreement that the law does not inappropriate intimate relationship with Ms. albeit with respect to certain very specific, intend to capture as perjury. Lewinsky over a period of many months. He utterly immaterial matters: first, when the The date of the first intimate encounter is admitted to the grand jury that he had been President admitted that inappropriate con- also totally immaterial. Having acknowl- alone with Ms. Lewinsky. He admitted to the duct occurred ‘‘on certain occasions in early edged the relationship, the President had no grand jury that he had mislead his family, 1996 and once in 1997,’’ he allegedly commit- conceivable motive to misstate the date on his friends and staff, and the entire Nation ted perjury because in the Managers’ view, which it began. The Managers assert that about the nature of that relationship. No one the first instance of inappropriate conduct the President committed perjury when he who heard the President’s August 17 speech apparently occurred a few months prior to testified about when the relationship began, or watched the President’s videotaped grand ‘‘early 1996,’’ see House Br. at 53; second, but they offer no rationale for why he would jury testimony had any doubt that he had when the President admitted to inappropri- have done so.81 The President had already admitted to an ongoing physical relationship ate conduct ‘‘on certain occasions in early 1996 made a painful admission. Any misstatement with Ms. Lewinsky. and once in 1997,’’ he allegedly committed The article makes general allegations about when the intimate relationship began perjury because, according to the House (if there was a misstatement) cannot justify about his testimony but does not specify al- Committee, there were eleven total sexual leged false statements, so direct rebuttal is a charge of perjury, let alone the removal of encounters and the term ‘‘on certain occa- the President from office. As Chairman Hyde impossible. In light of this uncertainty, we sions’’ implied something other than eleven. set forth below responses to the allegations himself stated in reference to this latter al- see Committee Report at 34; and third, when legation, ‘‘It doesn’t strike me as a terribly that have been made by the House Managers, the President admitted that he ‘‘had occa- the House Committee, and the OIC, even sional telephone conversations with Ms. though they were not adopted in the article, Lewinsky that included sexual banter,’’ he 79 Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1997) p. in an effort to try to respond comprehen- allegedly committed perjury because, ac- 803; see also Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary sively to the charges. cording to the House Committee (although (1988) p. 812 (‘‘occurring from time to time; infre- 1. The President denies that he made materially quent’’); Chambers English Dictionary (1988 ed.) p. 992 not Ms. Lewinsky), seventeen conversations (‘‘occurring infrequently, irregularly, now and false or misleading statements to the grand may have included sexually explicit con- then’’); The American Heritage Dictionary (2d Coll. jury about ‘‘the nature and details of his re- versation, ibid. Apart from the fact that the ed.) (‘‘occurring from time to time’’); Webster’s New lationship’’ with Monica Lewinsky record itself refutes some of the allegations World Dictionary (3d Coll. ed.) p. 937 (‘‘of irregular oc- (a) Early in his grand jury testimony, the (for example, seven of the seventeen calls currence; happening now and then; infrequent’’). President specifically acknowleded that he were only ‘‘possible,’’ according even to the 80 The OIC chart of contacts between Ms. Lewinsky had had a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky OIC, App. at 116–26, and Ms. Lewinsky re- and the President identifies ten phone conversations ‘‘including phone sex’’ and seven phone conversa- that involved ‘‘improper intimate contact.’’ called fewer than seventeen, App. at 744), tions ‘‘possibly’’ including phone sex. App. at 116–26. App. at 461. He described how the relation- simply to state them is to reveal their utter 81 The Committee Report did not adopt the base- ship began and how it ended early in 1997— immateriality. 78 less surmise of the OIC Referral, i.e., that the Presi- long before any public attention or scrutiny. The President categorically denies that his dent lied about the starting date of his relationship In response to the first question about Ms. prepared statement was perjurious, false and because Ms. Lewinsky was still an intern at the Lewinsky, the President read the following misleading in any respect. He offered his time, whereas she later became a paid employee. For statement: written statement to focus the questioning good reason. The only support offered by the Refer- ral for this conjecture is a comment Ms. Lewinsky ‘‘When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on in a manner that would allow the OIC to ob- attributes to the President in which he purportedly certain occasions in early 1996 and once in tain the information it needed without un- said that her pink ‘‘intern pass’’ ‘‘might be a prob- early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was duly dwelling on the salacious details of his lem.’’ Referral at 149–50. But even Ms. Lewinsky in- wrong. These encounters did not consist of relationship. It preceded almost four hours dicated that the President was not referring to her sexual intercourse. They did not constitute of follow-up questions about the relation- intern status, but rather was noting that, as an in- sexual relations as I understood that term to ship. It is utterly remarkable that the Man- tern with a pink ‘‘intern pass,’’ she had only limited agers now find fault even with the Presi- access to the West Wing of the White House. App. at be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposi- 1567 (Lewinsky FBI 302 8/24/98). Moreover, Ms. tion. But they did involve inappropriate inti- Lewinsky had in fact become an employee by late mate contact. 78 Even the OIC Referral did not allege perjury 1995, so even under the OIC theory the President ‘‘These inappropriate encounteres ended, based on these latter two theories and mentioned could have acknowledged such intimate contact in at my insistence, in early 1997. I also had oc- the first only briefly. 1995. January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S199 serious count.’’ Remarks of Chairman Hyde 2. The President denies that he made perjurious, grand jury how he was trying to be literally at Perjury Hearing of December 1, 1998. false and misleading statements to the truthful in the Jones deposition without pro- (b) The Managers also assert that the grand jury about testimony he gave in the viding information about his relationship President lied when, after admitting that he Jones case with Ms. Lewinsky. The President had en- had an inappropriate sexual relationship First, it is important to understand that deavored to navigate the deposition without having to make embarrassing admissions with Ms. Lewinsky, he maintained that he the allegation of Article I that the President about his inappropriate, albeit consensual, did not touch Ms. Lewinsky in a manner that ‘‘willfully provided false and misleading tes- relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. And to do met the definition used in the Jones deposi- timony to the grand jury concerning this, the President walked as close to the tion. See House Br. at 54. The President ad- . . . prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in’’ the Jones deposition is line between (a) truthful but evasive or non- mits that he engaged in appropriate physical responsive testimony and (b) false testimony contact with Ms. Lewinsky, but has testified premised on a misunderstanding of the Presi- dent’s grand jury testimony. The President as he could without crossing it. He sought, as that he did not engage in activity that met he explained to the grand jury, to give an- was not asked to, and he did not, reaffirm his the convoluted and truncated definition he swers that were literally accurate, even if, as 82 entire Jones deposition testimony during his was presented in the Jones deposition. a result, they were evasive and thus mislead- grand jury appearance. For example, con- It is important to note that this Jones defi- ing. We repeat: what is at issue here is not trary to popular myth and the undocu- nition was not of the President’s making. It the underlying statements made by the mented assertion of the House Managers, was one provided to him by the Jones’ lawyers President in the deposition, but the Presi- House Br. at 2, the President was never even for their questioning of him. Under that defi- dent’s explanations in the grand jury of his asked in the grand jury about his answer to nition, oral sex performed by Ms. Lewinsky effort to walk a fine line. Anyone who reads the deposition question whether he and Ms. on the President would not constitute sexual or watches that deposition knows the Presi- Lewinsky had been ‘‘together alone in the relations, while touching certain areas of dent was in fact trying to do precisely what Oval Office.’’ Dep. at 52–53,85 and he therefore Ms. Lewinsky’s body with the intent to he has admitted—to give the lawyers grudg- neither reaffirmed it nor even addressed it. arouse her would meet the definition. The ing, unresponsive or even misleading answers In fact, in the grand jury he was asked only President testified in the grand jury that be- without actually lying. However successful about a small handful of his answers in the lieved that oral sex performed on him fell or unsuccessful he might have been, there is deposition. As is demonstrated below, his ex- outside the Jones definition. App. at 544.83 As no evidence that controverts the fact that planation of these answers were not re- strange as this may sound, a totally reason- this was indeed the President’s intention. affirmations or in any respect evasive or able reading of the definition supports that An examination of the statements that the misleading—they were completely truthful, conclusion, as many commentators have President actually did make in the grand and they do not support a perjury allegation. agreed.84 jury about his deposition testimony further The extent to which this allegation of the demonstrates the lack of merit in this arti- This claim comes down to an oath against House Majority misses the mark is dramati- cle. In the grand jury, the President only was an oath about immaterial details concerning cally apparent when it is compared with the asked about three areas of his deposition tes- an acknowledged wrongful relationship. OIC’s Referral. The OIC did not charge that timony that were covered in the failed im- the President’s statements about his prior peachment article alleging perjury in the deposition testimony were perjurious (apart 87 82 At the deposition, the Jones attorneys presented civil deposition. The first topic was the na- a broad, three-part definition of the term ‘‘sexual re- from the charge discussed above concerning ture of any intimate contact with Ms. lations’’ to be used by them in the questioning. the nature and details of his relationship Lewinsky and has already been addressed Judge Wright ruled that two parts of the definition with Ms. Lewinsky).86 See OIC Ref. at 145. It above. were ‘‘too broad’’ and eliminated them. Dep. at 22. would be remarkable to contemplate charges The second topic was the President’s testi- The President, therefore, was presented with the fol- beyond those brought by the OIC, particu- mony about his knowledge of gifts he ex- lowing definition (as he understood it to have been larly in the context of a perjury claim where changed with Ms. Lewinsky. In his grand amended by the Court): the OIC chose what to ask the President and Definition of Sexual Relations— jury testimony, the President had the fol- For the purposes of this deposition, a person en- itself conducted the grand jury session. lowing exchange with the OIC: gages in ‘‘sexual relations’’ when the person know- The House Managers point to a single Q: When you testified in the Paula Jones ingly engages in or causes— statement made by President Clinton in the case, this was only two and a half weeks (1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, grand jury to justify their contention that after you had given her these six gifts, you inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an in- every statement from his civil deposition is were asked, at page 75 in your deposition, tent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any now fair game. House Br. at 60. Specifically, lines 2 through 5, ‘‘Well, have you ever given person; the House Managers rely on President Clin- (2) contact between any part of the person’s body or an any gifts to Monica Lewinsky?’’ And you an- object and the genitals and anus of another person; or ton’s explanation in the grand jury of his swered, ‘‘I don’t recall.’’ (3) contact between the genitals or anus of the person state of mind during the Jones deposition: And you were correct. You pointed out and any part of another person’s body. ‘‘My goal in this deposition was to be truth- that you actually asked them, for prompt- ‘‘Contact’’ means intentional touching, either directly or ful, but not particularly helpful . . . I was ing, ‘‘Do you know what they were?’’ through clothing. determined to walk through the mine field of A: I think what I meant there was I don’t 83 The Managers erroneously suggest that the this deposition without violating the law, recall what they were, not that I don’t recall President’s explanation of his understanding of the and I believe I did.’’ App. at 532. In addition whether I had given them. And then if you Jones deposition definition of ‘‘sexual relations’’ is a see, they did give me these specifics, and I recent fabrication rather than an accurate account to being a true statement of his belief as to of his view at the time of the deposition. House Br. his legal position, this single remark plainly gave them quite a good explanation here. I at 54–55. To support this contention, the Managers, was not intended as and was not a broad re- remembered very clearly what the facts were among other meritless arguments, point to a docu- affirmation of the accuracy of all the state- about The Black Dog. . . . ment produced by the White House entitled ‘‘Janu- ments the President made during the Jones App. at 502–03. The President’s explanation ary 24, 1998 Talking Points,’’ stating that oral sex deposition. Indeed, given that he told the that he could not recall the exact gifts that would constitute a sexual relationship for the Presi- grand jury that he had an intimate relation- he had given Ms. Lewinsky and that he af- dent. Id. at 55. This document, however, was not cre- ated, reviewed or approved by the President and did ship with Ms. Lewinsky during which he was firmatively sought prompting from the Jones not represent his views. It is irrelevant to the issue alone with her, no one who heard the grand lawyers is entirely consistent with his depo- at hand for the additional reason that it does not jury testimony could have understood it to sition testimony. This record plainly does speak by its own terms to the meaning of the con- be the unequivocal reaffirmation that is al- not support a charge of perjury. torted definition of ‘‘sexual relations’’ used in the leged. The third and last topic was the Presi- Jones deposition. The Managers charge that the President dent’s deposition testimony that Ms. 84 See, e.g., Perjury Hearing of December 1, 1998 did not really mean it when he told the Lewinsky’s affidavit statement denying hav- (Statement of Professor Stephen A. Saltzburg at 2) ing a sexual relationship with the President (‘‘That definition defined certain forms of sexual was correct: contact as sexual relations but, for reasons known 85 The only questions the OIC asked the President only to the Jones lawyers, limited the definition to about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky did not ref- Q: And you indicated that it [Ms. contact with any person for the purpose of gratifi- erence the deposition at all. Instead, the OIC asked Lewinsky’s affidavit statement that she had cation.’’); MSNBC Internight, August 12, 1998 (Cyn- the President to elaborate on his acknowledgement no sexual relationship with him] was abso- thia Alksne) (‘‘[W]hen the definition finally was put in his prepared statement before the grand jury that lutely correct. before the president, it did not include the receipt of he had been alone with Ms. Lewinsky, App. at 481, A: I did. . . . I believe at the time that she oral sex’’); ‘‘DeLay Urges a Wait For Starr’s Re- and to explain why he made a statement, ‘‘I was filled out this affidavit, if she believed that port,’’ The Washington Times (August 31, 1998) (‘‘The never alone with her’’ to Ms. Currie on January 18th. definition of sexual relations, used by lawyers for See, e.g., App. at 583. Paula Jones when they questioned the president, 86 Specifically, the Referral alleges that the Presi- 87 The proposed article of impeachment alleging was loosely worded and may not have included oral dent lied when he testified (1) that ‘‘he believed that perjury in the civil deposition, like the two that are sex’’); ‘‘Legally Accurate,’’ The National Law Journal oral sex was not covered by any of the terms and before the Senate, did not identity any specific in- (August 31, 1998) (‘‘Given the narrowness of the definitions for sexual activity used at the Jones dep- stances of false testimony, but we have made our court-approved definition in [the Jones] case, Mr. osition’’; (2) that their physical contact was more comparison with the Committee Report’s elabo- Clinton indeed may not have perjured himself back limited than Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony suggests; ration of the deposition perjury article as it un- then if, say, he received oral sex but did not recip- and (3) that their intimate relationship began in doubtedly represents the largest universe of alleged rocate sexually’’). early 1996 and not late 1995. Id. at 148–49. perjurious statements. S200 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 the definition of sexual relationship was two The House Brief takes issue with President when he explained to the grand jury that he people having intercourse, then this is accu- Clinton’s statement that he was ‘‘not paying was trying to ‘‘refresh’’ his recollection rate. And I believe that this is the definition a great deal of attention to this exchange’’ when he spoke with Betty Currie on January that most ordinary Americans would give because, it alleges, the ‘‘videotape [of the 18, 1998 about his relationship with Ms. it. . . . deposition] shows the President looking di- Lewinsky. House Br. at 65. The House Man- App. at 473. The President’s grand jury testi- rectly at Mr. Bennett, paying close attention agers completely ignore the numerous state- mony was truthful. As Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. to his argument to Judge Wright.’’ Ibid. ments that Ms. Currie makes in her testi- Tripp discussed long before any of this mat- While it is true that the videotape shows the mony that support the President’s assertion ter was public, this was in fact Ms. President staring in what is presumably Mr. that he was merely trying to gather informa- Lewinsky’s definition of ‘‘sex’’ and appar- Bennett’s direction, there is no evidence tion. for example, Ms. Currie stated in her ently the President’s as well. See Supp. at whatsoever that he was indeed ‘‘paying close first interview with the OIC that ‘‘Clinton 2664 (10/3/97 Tape); see also App. at 1558 attention’’ to the lengthy exchange. Notably then mentioned some of the questions he was (Lewinsky FBI 302 8/19/98). There is no evi- absent from the videotape is any action on asked at his deposition. Currie advised the dence whatever that the President did not the part of the President that could be read way Clinton phrased the queries, they were believe this definition of sexual relations, as affirming Mr. Bennett’s statement, such both statements and questions at the same and his belief finds support in dictionary as a nod of the head, or any other activity time.’’ Supp. at 534 (Currie FBI 302 1/24/98). definitions, the courts and commentators.88 that could be used to distinguish between a Ms. Currie’s final grand jury testimony on Moreover, the record establishes that Ms. fixed stare and true attention to the com- this issue also supports the President’ expla- Lewinsky shared this view.89 Since the Presi- plicated sparring of counsel. The President nation of his questioning: was a witness in a difficult and complex dep- dent’s grand jury testimony about his under- Q: Now, back again to the four statements osition and, as he testified, he was ‘‘focus- standing is corroborated both by dictionaries that you testified the President made to you sing on [his] answers to the questions.’’ App. and by his prior statements to Ms. that were presented as statements, did you at 477. It is a safe bet that the common law Lewinsky, it simply cannot be labeled feel pressured when he told you those state- has never seen a perjury charge based on so ‘‘wrong’’ or, more seriously, ‘‘perjurious.’’ ments? little.90 The President did not testify falsely and A: None whatsoever. perjuriously in the grand jury about his civil 4. The President denies that he made perjurious, Q: What did you think, or what was going deposition testimony. false and misleading statements to the through your mind about what he was doing? 3. The President denies that he made perjurious, grand jury when he denied attempting ‘‘to A: At that time I felt that he was—I want to false and misleading statements to the influence the testimony of witnesses and to use the word shocked or surprised that this was grand jury about the statements of his at- impede the discovery of evidence’’ in the an issue, and he was just talking. torney to Judge Wright during the Jones Jones case Q: That was your impression that he want- deposition The general language of the final proviso ed you to say—because he would end each of It is remarkable that Article I contains al- of Article I, according to the House Man- the statements with ‘‘Right?,’’ with a ques- legations such as this one that even the OIC, agers, is meant to signify a wide range of al- tion. which conducted the President’s grand jury legations, see House Br. at 60–69, although A: I do not remember that he wanted me to appearance, chose not to include in the Re- none were thought sufficiently credible to be say ‘‘Right.’’ He would say ‘‘Right’’ and I could ferral (presumably because there was no included in the OIC Referral. These allega- have said, ‘‘Wrong.’’ ‘‘substantial and credible information’’ to tions were not even included in the summary Q: But he would end each of those ques- support the claim). Subpart (3) appears to al- of the Starr evidence presented to the Com- tions with a ‘‘Right?’’ and you could either lege that the President lied in his grand jury mittee on October 5, 1998, by House Majority say whether it was true or not true? testimony when he characterized his state of Counsel Schippers. They are nothing more A: Correct. mind in his civil deposition as his lawyer de- than an effort to inflate the perjury allega- Q: Did you feel any pressure to agree with scribed the Lewinsky affidavit as meaning tions by converting every statement that the your boss? ‘‘there is no sex of any kind in any manner, President made about the subject matter of A: None. Article II into a new count for perjury. As shape or form.’’ Dep. at 53–54. Specifically, Supp. at 668 (Currie GJ 7/22/98) (emphasis the discussion of Article II establishes, the the House Managers appear to base their per- added). President did not attempt to obstruct jus- jury claim on President Clinton’s grand jury Ms. Currie’s testimony supports the Presi- tice. Thus, his explanations of his state- statement that ‘‘I’m not even sure I paid at- dent’s assertion that he was looking for in- ments in the grand jury were truthful. tention to what he [Mr. Bennett] was say- formation as a result of his deposition. There ing.’’ House Br. at 62. The House Brief asserts that the President committed perjury with respect to three is no basis to doubt the President’s expla- areas of his grand jury testimony about the nation that his expectation of a media on- 88 As one court has stated, ‘‘[i]n common parlance obstruction allegations. These claims are ad- slaught prompted the conversation. See App. the terms ‘sexual intercourse’ and ‘sexual relations’ at 583. Indeed, neither the testimony of Ms. are often used interchangeably.’’ J.Y. v. D.A, 381 dressed thoroughly in the next section along with the corresponding Article II obstruction Currie nor that of the President—the only N.E.2d 1270, 1273 (Ind. App. 1978). Dictionary defini- two participants in this conversation—con- tions make the same point: claims, and they are addressed in a short ∑ Webster’s Third New International Dictionary form here. The first claim is that the Presi- ceivably supports the inference that he had (1st ed. 1981) at 2082, defines ‘‘sexual relations’’ as dent committed perjury ‘‘when he testified any other intent. The House Managers’ con- ‘‘coitus;’’ before the grand jury that he recalled telling tention that the President’s explanation to ∑ Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1st Ms. Lewinsky that if Ms. Jones’ lawyers re- the grand jury was perjurious totally dis- ed. 1996) at 1229, defines ‘‘sexual relations’’ as ‘‘sex- quested the gifts exchanged between Ms. regards the testimony of the only two wit- ual intercourse; coitus;’’ Lewinsky and the President, she should pro- nesses with first-hand knowledge and has no ∑ Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th basis in fact or in the evidence. ed. 1997) at 1074, defines ‘‘sexual relations’’ as ‘‘co- vide them.’’ House Br. at 63. The House Man- itus;’’ agers contest the truthfulness of this state- Finally, the House Managers contend that ∑ Black’s Law Dictionary (Abridged 6th ed. 1991) ment by asserting that the President was re- President Clinton ‘‘lied about his attempts at 560, defines ‘‘intercourse’’ as ‘‘sexual relations;’’ sponsible for Ms. Lewinsky’s transfer of gifts to influence the testimony of some of his top and to Ms. Currie in late December. In other aides.’’ House Br. at 68. The basis for this ∑ Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary words, if the obstruction claim is true, they charge appears to be the President’s testi- (2d ed. 1996) at 1775, defines ‘‘sexual relations’’ as allege, this statement is not true. As is laid mony that, although he said misleading ‘‘sexual intercourse; coitus.’’ things to his aides about his relationship 89 Ms. Lewinsky took the position early on that out in greater detail in the next section, the her contact with the President did not constitute House Manager’s view of this matter ignores with Ms. Lewinsky, he tried to say things ‘‘sex’’ and reaffirmed that position even after she a wealth of evidence establishing that the that were true. Id. at 69. Once again, the had received immunity and began cooperating with idea to conceal some of the gifts she had re- record does not even approach a case for per- the OIC. For example, in one of the conversations ceived originated with, and was executed by, jury. The President acknowledged that he surreptitiously taped by Ms. Tripp, Ms. Lewinsky Ms. Lewinsky. See e.g., Supp. at 557 (Currie misled; he tried, however, not to lie. It is a explained to Ms. Tripp that she ‘‘didn’t have sex’’ GJ 1/27/98); Supp. at 531 (Currie FBI 302 1/24/ mystery how the Managers could try to dis- with the President because ‘‘[h]aving sex is having prove this simple statement of intent. intercourse.’’ Supp. at 2664; see also Supp. at 1066 98); Supp. at 582 (Currie GJ 5/6/98); App. at (grand jury testimony of Ms. Neysa Erbland stated 1122 (Lewinsky GJ 8/20/98); see also App. at V. THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ACQUITTED ON that Ms. Lewinsky had said that the President and 1481 (‘‘LEWINSKY . . . suggested to the ARTICLE II she ‘‘didn’t have sex’’). Ms. Lewinsky reaffirmed this President that Betty Currie hold the gifts’’) The evidence does not support the allega- position even after receiving immunity, stating in (Lewinsky FBI 302 8/1/98). tions of Article II. an FBI interview that ‘‘her use of the term ‘having Second, the House Managers contend that sex’ means having intercourse. . . .’’ App. at 1558 the President provided perjurious testimony A. APPLICABLE LAW (Lewinsky FBI 302 8/19/98). Likewise, in her original Article II alleges obstruction of justice, a proffer to the OIC, she wrote, ‘‘Ms. L[ewinsky] was comfortable signing the affidavit with regard to the 90 This allegation is nearly identical to the allega- statutory crime that is set forth in 18 U.S.C. ‘sexual relationship’ because she could justify to tion of Article II(5), and, for the sake of brevity, it § 1503, the ‘‘Omnibus Obstruction Provision.’’ herself that she and the Pres[ident] did not have sex- is addressed at greater length in the response to Ar- In the criminal law context, § 1503 requires ual intercourse.’’ App. at 718 (2/1/98 Proffer). ticle II, below. proof of the following elements: (1) that January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S201 there existed a pending judicial proceeding; legations are unsupported. Our discussion lished that she was not relevant to the Jones (2) that the accused knew of the proceeding; here of the details of these charges will, as case:94 and (3) that the defendant acted ‘‘corruptly’’ well, serve in part as our response to the al- ∑ ‘‘But I’m just telling you that it’s cer- with the specific intent to obstruct or inter- legations in Article I (4). tainly true what she says here, that we fere with the proceeding or due administra- C. RESPONSE TO THE PARTICULAR ALLEGATIONS didn’t have—there was no employment, no tion of justice. See, e.g., United States v. IN ARTICLE II benefit in exchange, there was nothing hav- Bucey, 876 F.2d 1297, 1314 (7th Cir. 1989). False 1. The President denies that on or about Decem- ing to do with sexual harassment. And if she statements alone cannot sustain a convic- ber 17, 1997, he ‘‘corruptly encouraged’’ defined sexual relationship in the way I tion under § 1503. See United States v. Thomas, Monica Lewinsky ‘‘to execute a sworn affi- think most Americans do, meaning inter- 91 916 F.2d 647, 652 (11th Cir. 1990). davit in that proceeding that he knew to be course, then she told the truth.’’ App. at 474. B. STRUCTURE OF THE ALLEGATIONS perjurious, false and misleading’’ ∑ ‘‘You know, I believed then, I believe now, that Monica Lewinsky could have Article II exhibited by the House of Rep- Article II (1) alleges that the President sworn out an honest affidavit, that under resentatives alleges that the President ‘‘has ‘‘corruptly encouraged’’ Monica Lewinsky reasonable circumstances, and without the prevented, obstructed, and impeded the ad- ‘‘to execute a sworn affidavit in that pro- benefit of what Linda Tripp did to her, would ministration of justice, and has to that end ceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false have given her a chance not to be a witness engaged personally, and through his subordi- and misleading.’’ The House Managers allege in this case.’’ App. at 521. nates and agents, in a course of conduct or that during a December 17 phone conversa- ‘‘I believed then, I believe today, that scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, tion, Ms. Lewinsky asked the President what ∑ she could execute an affidavit which, under and conceal the existence of evidence and she could do if she were subpoenaed in the reasonable circumstances with fair-minded, testimony’’ in the Jones case. The Article al- Jones case and that the President responded, nonpolitically-oriented people, would result leges that the President did so by engaging ‘‘Well, maybe you can sign an affidavit.’’ in her being relieved of the burden to be put in ‘‘one or more of the following acts’’: the House Br. at 22. This admitted statement by through the kind of testimony that, thanks President (1) corruptly encouraged Ms. the President of totally lawful conduct is the to Linda Tripp’s work with you and with the Lewinsky ‘‘to execute a sworn affidavit . . . Managers’ entire factual basis for the allega- Jones lawyers, she would have been put that he knew to be perjurious, false and mis- tion in Article II (1). leading’’; (2) ‘‘corruptly encouraged Ms. The Managers do not allege that the Presi- through. I don’t think that’s dishonest. I Lewinsky to give perjurious, false, and mis- dent ever suggested to Ms. Lewinsky she don’t think that’s illegal.’’ App. at 529. leading testimony if and when called to tes- should file a false affidavit or otherwise told ∑ ‘‘But I also will tell you that I felt quite tify personally’’ in the Jones case; (3) ‘‘cor- her what to say in the affidavit. Indeed they comfortable that she could have executed a ruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported could not, because Ms. Lewinsky has repeat- truthful affidavit, which would not have dis- a scheme to conceal evidence that had been edly and forcefully denied any such sugges- closed the embarrassing details of the rela- subpoenaed’’ in the Jones case, namely gifts tions: tionship that we had had, which had been given by him to Ms. Lewinsky; (4) ‘‘intensi- ∑ ‘‘Neither the Pres[ident] nor Mr. Jordan over for many, many months by the time fied and succeeded in an effort to secure job (or anyone on their behalf) asked or encour- this incident occurred.’’ App. at 568–69. assistance’’ for Ms. Lewinsky between De- aged Ms. L[ewinsky] to lie.’’ App. at 718 (2/1/ ∑ ‘‘I’ve already told you that I felt strong- cember 7, 1997 and January 14, 1998, ‘‘in order 98 Proffer). ly that she could issue, that she could exe- to corruptly prevent [her] truthful testi- ∑ ‘‘[N]o one ever asked me to lie and I was cute an affidavit that would be factually mony’’ in the Jones case; (5) ‘‘corruptly al- never promised a job for my silence.’’ App. at truthful, that might get her out of having to lowed his attorney to make false and mis- 1161 (Lewinsky GJ 8/20/98). testify. . . . And did I hope she’d be able to leading statements’’ to Judge Susan Webber ∑ ‘‘Neither the President nor Jordan ever get out of testifying on an affidavit? Abso- Wright at the Jones deposition; (6) ‘‘related a told Lewinsky that she had to lie.’’ App. at lutely. Did I want her to execute a false affi- false and misleading account of events’’ in- 1398 (Lewinsky FBI 302 7/27/98). davit? No, I did not.’’ App. at 571. volving Ms. Lewinsky to Betty Currie, a ‘‘po- ∑ ‘‘Neither the President nor anyone ever The Jones case involved allegations of a non- tential witness’’ in the Jones case, ‘‘in order directed Lewinsky to say anything or to consensual sexual solicitation. Ms. to corruptly influence’’ her testimony; and lie. .. .’’ App. at 1400 (Lewinsky FBI 302 7/27/ Lewinsky’s relationship with the President (7) made false and misleading statements to 98). was consensual, and she knew nothing about certain members of his staff who were ‘‘po- ∑ ‘‘I think I told [Linda Tripp] that—you the factual allegations of the Jones case. tential’’ grand jury witnesses, in order to know at various times the President and Mr. Ms. Lewinsky similarly recognized that an corruptly influence their testimony. Jordan had told me I have to lie. That wasn’t affidavit need not be false in order to accom- As noted above, this article essentially du- true.’’ App. at 942 (Lewinsky GJ 8/6/98). plish the purpose of avoiding a deposition: plicates some of the perjury allegations of In an attempt to compensate for the total ∑ LEWINSKY told TRIPP that the purpose Article I (4): Article II alleges particular acts lack of evidence supporting their theory,93 of the affidavit was to avoid being deposed. of obstruction while Article I (4) alleges that the Managers offer their view that ‘‘both LEWINSKY advised that one does this by giv- the President lied in the grand jury when he parties knew the affidavit would have to be ing a portion of the whole story, so the attor- discussed those allegations.92 Both sets of al- false and misleading in order to accomplish neys do not think you have anything of rel- the desired result.’’ House Br. at 22; see also evance to their case. App. at 1420 (Lewinsky 91 18 U.S.C. § 1512 covers witness tampering. It is Committee Report at 65 (the President FBI 302 7/29/98) (emphasis added). clear that the allegations in Article II could not sat- ‘‘knew [the affidavit] would have to be false ∑ LEWINSKY advised the goal of an affida- isfy the elements of § 1512. That provision requires for Ms. Lewinsky to avoid testifying’’). But vit is to be as benign as possible, so as to proof that a defendant knowingly engaged in intimi- there is no evidence to support such bald avoid being deposed. App. at 1421 (Lewinsky dation, physical force, threats, misleading conduct, conjecture, and in fact the opposite is true. or corrupt persuasion with intent to influence, FBI 302 7/29/98) (emphasis added). Both Ms. Lewinsky and the President testi- ∑ I thought that signing an affidavit could delay, or prevent testimony or cause any person to fied that, given the particular claims in the withhold objects or documents from an official pro- range from anywhere—the point of it would ceeding. It is clear from the case law that ‘‘mislead- Jones case, they thought a truthful, limited be to deter or to prevent me from being de- ing conduct’’ as contemplated by § 1512 does not affidavit might establish that Ms. Lewinsky posed and so that that could range from any- cover scenarios where an accused urged a witness to had nothing relevant to offer. The President where between maybe just somehow mention- give false testimony without resorting to coercive explained to the grand jury why he believed ing, you know, innocuous things or going as or deceptive conduct. See, e.g., United States v. that Ms. Lewinsky would execute a truthful far as maybe having to deny any kind of a Kulczyk, 931 F.2d 542, 547 (9th Cir. 1991) (reversing but limited affidavit that would have estab- conviction under § 1512 because ‘‘there is simply no relationship. App. at 842 (Lewinsky GJ 8/6/98) support for the argument that [defendant] did any- (emphasis added). thing other than ask the witnesses to lie’’); United testimony’’; (3) ‘‘engaged in, encouraged, or sup- The Committee Report argued that Ms. States v. King, 762 F.2d 232, 237 (2d Cir. 1985) (‘‘Since ported a scheme to conceal evidence’’; (6) ‘‘corruptly Lewinsky must have known that the Presi- the only allegation in the indictment as to the influence[d] the testimony’’ of Betty Currie). Com- dent wanted her to lie because he never told means by which [defendant] induced [a witness] to pare also Article I (3) (perjury in the grand jury con- her to fully detail their relationship in her withhold testimony was that [the defendant] misled cerning alleged ‘‘prior false and misleading state- [the witness], and since the evidence failed totally ments he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal affidavit and because an affidavit fully de- to support any inference that [the witness] was, or judge’’) with Article II (5) (obstructing justice by tailing the ‘‘true nature’’ of their relation- even could have been, misled, the conduct proven by ‘‘allow[ing] his attorney to make false and mislead- ship would have been damaging to him in the the government was not within the terms of ing statements to a Federal judge). Jones case. Committee Report at 65. The § 1512.’’). Deceit is thus the gravamen of an obstruc- 93 The myth that the President told Ms. Lewinsky Managers wisely appear to have abandoned tion of justice charge that is predicated on witness to lie in her affidavit springs not from the evidence tampering. but from the surreptitiously recorded Tripp tapes. 92 Compare Article I (4) (perjury in the grand jury But as Ms. Lewinsky explained to the grand jury, 94 Indeed, the Committee Report alleges without concerning alleged ‘‘corrupt efforts to influence tes- many of the statements she made to Ms. Tripp—in- support that the President lied to the grand jury timony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of cluding on this subject—were not true: ‘‘I think I when he indicated his belief that Ms. Lewinsky could evidence’’) with Article II (1)–(3), (6) (obstructing told [Linda Tripp] that—you know at various times indeed have filed a truthful but limited affidavit justice when he (1) ‘‘encouraged witness . . . to exe- the President and Mr. Jordan had told me I have to that might have gotten her out of testifying in the cute a [false] sworn affidavit’’; (2) ‘‘encouraged a lie. That wasn’t true.’’ App. at 942 (Lewinsky GJ 8/6/ Jones case. Article I (4). This claim fails for the rea- witness . . . to give perjurious, false and misleading 98). sons discussed in the text. S202 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 this argument.95 Ms. Lewinsky plainly was ∑ ‘‘[N]o one ever asked me to lie and I was context at some point in the past,’’ although under no obligation to volunteer to the never promised a job for my silence.’’ App. at he had no specific memory of that conversa- Jones lawyers every last detail about her re- 1161 (Lewinsky GJ 8/20/98). tion. App. at 569. The President also stated lationship with the President—and the fail- ∑ ‘‘Neither the President nor Jordan ever in his grand jury testimony that he did not ure of the President to instruct her to do so told Lewinsky that she had to lie.’’ App. at recall saying anything like that in connec- is neither wrong nor an obstruction of jus- 1398 (Lewinsky FBI 302 7/27/98). tion with Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony in the tice. A limited, truthful affidavit might have ∑ ‘‘Neither the President nor anyone ever Jones case: established that Ms. Lewinsky was not rel- directed Lewinsky to say anything or to lie. Q. And in that conversation, or in any con- evant to the Jones case. The suggestion that .. . App. at 1400 (Lewinsky FBI 302 7/27/98). versation in which you informed her she was perhaps Ms. Lewinsky could submit an affi- ∑ ‘‘I think I told [Linda Tripp] that—you on the witness list, did you tell her, you davit in lieu of a deposition, as the President know at various times the President and Mr. know, you can always say that you were knew other potential deponents in the Jones Jordan had told me I have to lie. That wasn’t coming to see Betty or bringing me letters? case had attempted to do, in order to avoid true.’’ App. at 942 (Lewinsky GJ 8/6/98) (em- Did you tell her anything like that? the expense, burden, and humiliation of tes- phasis added). A. I don’t remember. She was coming to tifying in the Jones case was entirely proper. The Managers allege that the President see Betty. I can tell you this. I absolutely The notion that the President of the United called Ms. Lewinsky on December 17 to in- never asked her to lie. States could face removal from office not be- form her that she had been listed as a poten- App. at 568. Ms. Lewinsky does not testify cause he told Monica Lewinsky to lie, or en- tial witness in the Jones case, and that dur- that this discussion was had in reference to couraged her to do so, but because he did not ing this conversation, he ‘‘sort of said, ‘You testimony she may or may not have been affirmatively instruct her to disclose every know, you can always say you were coming detail of their relationship to the Jones law- to see Betty or that you were bringing me called to give personally, and the Managers’ yers is simply not supportable. letters.’ ’’ House Br. at 22; App. at 843 implication is directly contradicted by Ms. Moreover, there is significant evidence in (Lewinsky GJ 8/6/98). Other than the fact Lewinsky’s statement that she and the the record that, at the time she executed the that Ms. Lewinsky recalls this statement President did not discuss her deposition tes- affidavit, Ms. Lewinsky honestly believed being made in the same conversation in timony in that conversation. See App. at 712 that her denial of a sexual relationship was which she learned that her name was on the (2/1/98 Proffer) (‘‘To the best of Ms. accurate given what she believed to be the Jones witness list, the Managers cite no evi- L[ewinsky’s] memory, she does not believe definition of a ‘‘sexual relationship’’: dence whatsoever that supports their claim they discussed [in the December 17 conversa- ∑ ‘‘I never even came close to sleeping with that the President encouraged her to make tion] the content of any deposition that Ms. [the President] . . . We didn’t have sex . . . such statements ‘‘if and when called to tes- L[ewinsky] might be involved in at a later Having sex is having intercourse. That’s how tify personally in the Jones case.’’ They date.’’). In support of this allegation, the Managers most people would—’’ Supp. at 2664 claim simply that Ms. Lewinsky had dis- 96 also cite Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony that she (Lewinsky-Tripp tape 10/3/97). cussed such explanations for her visits with told the President she would deny the rela- ∑ ‘‘Ms. L[ewinsky] was comfortable signing the President in the past. Unremarkably, the tionship and that the President made some the affidavit with regard to the sexual rela- President and Ms. Lewinsky had been con- encouraging comment. House Br. at 23. Ms. tionship because she could justify to herself cerned about concealing their improper rela- Lewinsky never stated that she told the that she and the Pres[ident] did not have tionship from others while it was ongoing. sexual intercourse.’’ App. at 718 (2/1/98 Prof- Ms. Lewinsky’s own testimony and prof- President any such thing on December 17, or fer). fered statements undercut their case: at any other time after she had been identi- ∑ ‘‘Lewinsky said that her use of the term ∑ When asked what should be said if anyone fied as a witness. Indeed, Ms. Lewinsky testi- ‘having sex’ means having intercourse. . . .’’ questioned Ms. Lewinsky about her being with fied that that discussion did not take place App. at 1558 (Lewinsky FBI 302 8/19/98). the President, he said she should say she was after she learned she was a witness in the The allegation contained in Article II(1) is bringing him letters (when she worked in Jones case: totally unsupported by evidence. It is the Legislative Affairs) or visiting Betty Currie Q: It is possible that you also had these product of a baseless hypothesis, and it (after she left the WH). There is truth to discussions [about denying the relationship] should be rejected. both of these statements. . . . [This] oc- after you learned that you were a witness in 2. The President denies that on or about Decem- curred prior to the subpoena in the Paula the Paula Jones case? ber 17, 1997, he ‘‘corruptly encouraged’’ Jones case. App. at 709 and 718 (2/1/98 Proffer) A: I don’t believe so. No. Monica Lewinsky ‘‘to give perjurious, false (emphasis added). Q: Can you exclude that possibility? and misleading testimony if and when ∑ After Ms. Lewinsky was informed, by the A: I pretty much can. I really don’t remem- called to testify personally’’ in the Jones Pres[ident], that she was identified as a pos- ber it. I mean, it would be very surprising for litigation sible witness in the Jones case, the me to be confronted with something that Article II (2) alleges that the President en- Pres[ident] and Ms. L[ewinsky] discussed would show me different, but I—it was 2:30 in couraged Ms. Lewinsky to give false testi- what she should do. The President told her the—I mean, the conversation I’m thinking mony if and when she was called to testify he was not sure she would be subpoenaed, but of mainly would have been December 17th, personally in the Jones litigation. Again, Ms. in the event that she was, she should contact which was—— Lewinsky repeatedly denied that anyone told Ms. Currie. When asked what to do if she was Q: The telephone call. her or encouraged her to lie: subpoenaed, the Pres[ident] suggested she A: Right. And it was—you know, 2:00, 2:30 ∑ ‘‘Neither the Pres[ident] nor Mr. Jordan could sign an affidavit to try to satisfy their in the morning. I remember the gist of it and (or anyone on their behalf) asked or encour- inquiry and not be deposed. In general, Ms. I—I really don’t think so. aged Ms. L[ewinsky] to lie.’’ App. at 718 (2/1/ L[ewinsky] should say she visited the WH to App. at 1119–20 (Lewinsky GJ 8/20/98) (empha- 98 Proffer). see Ms. Currie and, on occasion when work- sis added). ing at the WH, she brought him letters when Moreover, Ms. Lewinsky has stated several 95 The Committee Report argued that Ms. no one else was around. Neither of those times that neither of these so-called ‘‘cover Lewinsky ‘‘contextually understood that the Presi- statements untrue. App. at 712 (2/1/98 Proffer) stories’’ was untrue. In her handwritten prof- dent wanted her to lie’’ because he never told her to (emphasis added). fer, Ms. Lewinsky stated that she asked the file an affidavit fully detailing the ‘‘true nature’’ of ∑ To the best of Ms. L[ewinsky]’s memory, President what to say if anyone asked her their relationship. Committee Report at 65. The only she does not believe they discussed the content about her visits to the Oval Office and he support cited for this ‘‘contextual understanding’’ of any deposition that Ms. L[ewinsky] might said that she could say ‘‘she was bringing obstruction theory advanced by the Committee Re- him letters (when she worked in Legislative port was a reference back to the OIC Referral. The be involved in at a later date. App. at 712 (2/ OIC Referral, in turn, advanced the same theory, cit- 1/98 Proffer) (emphasis added). Affairs) or visiting Betty Currie (after she ing only the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky that, while ∑ LEWINSKY advised, though they did not left the White House).’’ App. at 709 the President never encouraged her to lie, he re- discuss the issue in specific relation to the (Lewinsky 2/1/98 Proffer). Ms. Lewinsky ex- mained silent about what she should do or say, and JONES matter, she and CLINTON had dis- pressly stated: ‘‘There is truth to both of these by such silence, ‘‘I knew what that meant.’’ App. at cussed what to say when asked about statements.’’ Id. (emphasis added); see also 954 (Lewinsky GJ 8/6/98) (cited in Referral at 174). It LEWINSKY’s visits to the White House. App. App. at 712 (2/1/98 Proffer) (‘‘[n]either of those is extraordinary that the President of the United statements [was] untrue.’’) (emphasis added). States could face removal from office not because he at 1466 (Lewinsky FBI 302 7/31/98) (emphasis told Ms. Lewinsky to lie, or said anything of the added). Indeed, Ms. Lewinsky testified to the grand sort, but instead because he stayed silent—and Ms. Ms. Lewinsky’s statements indicate that jury that she did in fact bring papers to the Lewinsky thought she ‘‘knew what that meant.’’ she asked the President what to say if ‘‘any- President and that on some occasions, she 96 A friend of Ms. Lewinsky’s also testified that, one’’ asked about her visits, that the Presi- visited the Oval Office only to see Ms. based on her close relationship with her, she be- dent said ‘‘in general’’ she could give such an Currie: lieved that Ms. Lewinsky did not lie in her affidavit explanation, and that they ‘‘did not discuss Q: Did you actually bring [the President] based on her understanding that when Ms. Lewinsky the issue in specific relation to the Jones referred to ‘‘sex’’ she meant intercourse. Supp. at papers at all? 4597 (6/23/98 grand jury testimony of Ms. Dale matter.’’ A: Yes. Young). See also Supp. at 1066 (grand jury testimony This is consistent with the President’s tes- Q: All right. Tell us a little about that. of Ms. Neysa Erbland stating that Ms. Lewinsky had timony that he and Ms. Lewinsky ‘‘might A: It varied. Sometimes it was just actual said that the President and she ‘‘didn’t have sex’’). have talked about what to do in a non-legal copies of letters. . . . January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S203 App. at 774–75 (Lewinsky GJ 8/6/98). some Ms. Lewinsky essentially recalled that ∑ ‘‘The President wouldn’t have brought up ‘‘I saw Betty on every time that I was there the President gave no response, but the Betty’s name, because he really didn’t—he . . . most of the time my purpose was to see House Managers, like the Committee Report really didn’t discuss it . . .’’ App. at 1122 the President, but there were some times and the OIC Referral, cite only the account (Lewinsky GJ 8/20/98) (emphasis added). when I did just go see Betty but the Presi- most favorable to their case, failing even to ∑ ‘‘A JUROR: You had said that the Presi- dent wasn’t in the office.’’ take note of the other inconsistent recollec- dent had called you initially to come get tions. But the important fact about Ms. your Christmas gift, you had gone there, you App. at 775 (Lewinsky GJ 8/6/98). The Man- Lewinsky’s various descriptions of this con- had a talk, et cetera, and there was no—you agers assert that those stories were mislead- versation is that, at the very most, the Presi- expressed concern, the President didn’t really ing. House Br. at 23; see also Committee Re- dent stated ‘‘I don’t know’’ or ‘‘Let me think say anything.’’ App. at 1126 (Lewinsky GJ 8/ port at 66 (delivering documents to the about it’’ when Ms. Lewinsky raised the 20/98) (emphasis added).98 President was a ‘‘ruse that had no legitimate issue of the gifts. Even by the account most Thus, the evidence establishes that there business purpose.’’). In other words, while unfavorable to the President, the record is was essentially no discussion of gifts. That the so-called ‘‘cover stories’’ were literally clear and unambiguous that the President December 28 meeting provides no evidence of true, such explanations might have been never initiated any discussion about the gifts any ‘‘scheme . . . designed to . . . conceal misleading. But literal truth is a critical nor did he tell or even suggest to Ms. Lewinsky the existence’’ of any gifts. issue in perjury and obstruction cases, as is that she should conceal the gifts. b. Ms. Currie’s Supposed Involvement in Con- Ms. Lewinsky’s belief that the statements Indeed, on several occasions, Ms. cealing Gifts were, in fact, literally true. Lewinsky’s accounts of the President’s reac- Because the record is devoid of any evi- The allegation contained in Article II (2) is tion depict the President as not even ac- dence of obstruction by the President at his unsupported by the evidence and should be knowledging her suggestion. Among those December 28 meeting with Monica Lewinsky, rejected. versions, ignored by the Committee Report Article II (3) necessarily depends on the 3. The President denies that he ‘‘corruptly en- and the Managers, are the following: added assumption that, after the December gaged in, encouraged, or supported a ∑ ‘‘And he—I don’t remember his response. 28 meeting, the President must have in- scheme to conceal evidence’’—gifts he had I think it was something like, ‘I don’t structed his secretary, Ms. Betty Currie, to given to Monica Lewinsky—in the Jones know,’’’ or ‘Hmm,’ or—there really was no re- sponse.’’ App. at 1122 (Lewinsky GJ 8/20/98) retrieve the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky, there- case by consummating the obstruction of justice. This allegation charges that the President (emphasis added). ‘‘[The President] either or As the following discussion will dem- participated in a scheme to conceal certain ∑ did not respond responded ‘I don’t know.’ LEWINSKY is not onstrate, the record is devoid of any direct gifts he had given to Monica Lewinsky. It sure exactly what was said, but she is certain evidence that the President discussed this apparently centers on two events allegedly that whatever CLINTON said, she did not subject with Ms. Currie. At most, it con- occurring in December 1997: (a) a conversa- have a clear image in her mind of what to do flicted on the question of whether Ms. Currie tion between the President and Ms. next.’’ App. at 1566 (Lewinsky FBI 302 8/24/98) or Ms. Lewinsky initiated the gift retrieval. Lewinsky in which the two allegedly dis- (emphasis added). We begin with what is certain. The record cussed the gifts the President had given Ms. is undisputed that Ms. Currie picked up a Lewinsky, and (b) Ms. Currie’s receipt of a box containing gifts from Ms. Lewinsky and box of gifts from Ms. Lewinsky and storage given her and suggested to the President that placed them under her bed at home. The pri- of them under her bed. The evidence does not BETTY CURRIE hold the gifts. The President said mary factual dispute, therefore, is which of support the charge. something like, ‘I don’t know,’ or ‘I’ll think about it.’ The President did not tell LEWINSKY what to the two initiated the pick-up. According to a. Ms. Lewinsky’s December 28 Meeting with do with the gifts at that time.’’ App. at 1481. the logic of the Committee Report, if Ms. the President 4. Grand Jury (8/6/98): ‘‘[A]t some point I said to Currie initiated the retrieval, she must have Monica Lewinsky met with the President him, ‘Well, you know, should I—maybe I should put been so instructed by the President. Com- the gifts away outside my house somewhere or give on December 28, 1997, sometime shortly after mittee Report at 69 (‘‘there is no reason for them to someone, maybe Betty.’ And he sort of her to do so unless instructed by the Presi- 8:00 a.m. to pick up Christmas presents. App. said—I think he responded, ‘I don’t know’ or ‘Let me at 868 (Lewinsky GJ 8/6/98). According to Ms. dent’’). think about that.’ And left that topic.’’ App. at 872. But the facts are otherwise. Both Ms. Lewinsky, she raised the subject of gifts she 5. FBI 302 (8/13/97): ‘‘During their December 28, 1997 Currie and the President have denied ever had received from the President in relation meeting, CLINTON did not specifically mention having any such conversation wherein the to the Jones subpoena, and this was the first which gifts to get rid of.’’ App. at 1549. President instructed Ms. Currie to retrieve and only time that this subject arose. App. 6. Grand Jury (8/20/98): ‘‘It was December 28th and I was there to get my Christmas gifts from him. . . the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky. App. at 502 at 1130 (Lewinsky GJ 8/20/98); App. at 1338 And we spent maybe about five minutes or so, not (President Clinton GJ 8/17/98); Supp. at 581 (Lewinsky Depo. 8/26/98). very long, talking about the case. And I said to him, (Currie GJ 5/6/98). In other words, the only The House Trial Brief and the Committee ‘Well, do you think’ . . . And at one point, I said, two parties who could have direct knowledge Report quote one version of Ms. Lewinsky’s ‘Well do you think I should—’ I don’t think I said of such an instruction by the President have description of that December 28 conversa- ‘get rid of,’ I said, ‘But do you think I should put denied it took place. tion: away or maybe give to Betty or give someone the gifts?’ And he—I don’t remember his response. I In the face of this direct evidence that the ‘‘[A]t some point I said to him, ‘Well, you think it was something like, ‘I don’t know,’ or President did not ask Ms. Currie to pick up know, should I—maybe I should put the gifts ‘Hmm,’ or—there really was no response.’’ App. at these gifts, the Committee Report’s obstruc- away outside my house somewhere or give 1121–22. tion theory hinges on the inference that Ms. them to someone, maybe Betty.’ And he sort 7. Grand Jury (8/20/98): ‘‘A JUROR: Now, did you Currie called Ms. Lewinsky and must have of said—I think he responded, ‘I don’t know’ bring up Betty’s name [at the December 28 meeting done so at the direction of the President. To during which gifts were supposedly discussed] or did or ‘Let me think about that.’ And left that be sure, Ms. Lewinsky has stated on several topic.’’ App. at 872 (Lewinsky GJ 8/6/98). the President bring up Betty’s name? THE WIT- NESS: I think I brought it up. The President occasions that Ms. Currie initiated a call to In fairness, the Senate should be aware wouldn’t have brought up Betty’s name because he her to inquire about retrieving something. that Ms. Lewinsky has addressed this crucial really didn’t—he really didn’t discuss it. . .’’ App. at The Managers and the Committee Report exchange with prosecutors on at least ten 1122. cited the following passage from Ms. different occasions, which we lay out in the 8. Grand Jury (8/20/98): ‘‘A JUROR: You had said Lewinsky’s grand jury testimony: margin for review.97 The accounts varied—in that the President had called you initially to come get your Christmas gift, you had gone there, you Q: What did [Betty Currie] say? had a talk, et cetera, and there was no—you ex- A: She said, ‘‘I understand you have some- 97 Those statements, from earliest to latest in pressed concern, the President really didn’t say any- thing to give me.’’ Or, ‘‘The President said time: thing.’’ App. at 1126. you have something to give me.’’ Along 1. Proffer (2/1/98): ‘‘Ms. L then asked if she should 9. FBI 302 (8/24/98): ‘‘LEWINSKY advised that those lines. . . . put away (outside her home) the gifts he had given CLINTON was sitting in the rocking chair in the Q: When she said something along the lines her or, maybe, give them so someone else.’’ App. at Study. LEWINSKY asked CLINTON what she should of ‘‘I understand you have something to give 715. do with the gifts CLINTON had given her and he ei- me,’’ or ‘‘The President says you have some- 2. FBI 302 (7/27/98): ‘‘LEWINSKY expressed her con- ther did not respond or responded ‘I don’t know.’ cern about the gifts that the President had given LEWINSKY is not sure exactly what was said, but thing for me,’’ what did you understand her LEWINSKY and specifically the hat pin that had she is certain that whatever CLINTON said, she did to mean? been subpoenaed by PAULA JONES. The President not have a clear image in her mind of what to do A: The gifts. seemed to know what the JONES subpoena called next.’’ App. at 1566. App. at 874 (Lewinsky GJ 8/6/98). See also App. for in advance and did not seem surprised about the 10. FBI 302 (9/3/98): ‘‘On December 28, 1997, in a con- at 715 (2/1/98 Proffer) (‘‘Ms. Currie called Ms. hat pin. The President asked LEWINSKY is she had versation between LEWINSKY and the President, L later that afternoon and said that the told anyone about the hat pin and LEWINSKY de- the hat pin given to Lewinsky by the President was Pres. had told her Ms. L wanted her to hold nied that she had, but may have said that she gave specifically discussed. They also discussed the gen- onto something for her.’’). some of the gifts to FRANK CARTER. . . . eral subject of the gifts the President had given LEWINSKY asked the President if she should give Lewinsky. However, they did not discuss other spe- the gifts to someone and the President replied ‘I cific gifts called for by the PAULA JONES sub- 98 Here a grand juror is restating Ms. Lewinsky’s don’t know.’ ’’ App. at 1395. poena. LEWINSKY got the impression that the earlier testimony, with which Ms. Lewinsky ap- 3. FBI 302 (8/1/98): ‘‘LEWINSKY said that she was President knew what was on the subpoena.’’ App. at peared to agree (she did not dispute the accuracy of concerned about the gifts that the President had 1590. the grand juror’s recapitulation). S204 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 However, Ms. Lewinsky acknowledged that she did not discuss the fact that she had a at 554 (Currie GJ 1/27/98) (many calls around it was she who first raised the prospect of box of Ms. Lewinsky’s belongings under her Christmas-time). They often called or paged Ms. Currie’s involvement in holding the bed. Supp. at 705 (Currie GJ 7/22/98).) each other to discuss a host of topics, includ- gifts: To support its theory that Ms. Currie initi- ing Ms. Lewinsky’s pending job search, Ms. A JUROR: Now, did you bring up Betty’s ated a call to Ms. Lewinsky, the House Man- Currie’s mother’s illness, and her contacts name or did the President bring up Betty’s agers place great reliance on a cell phone with Mr. Jordan. There is simply no reason name? record of Ms. Currie, calling it ‘‘key evidence to believe this call was anything other than [MS. LEWINSKY]: I think I brought it up. that Ms. Currie’s fuzzy recollection is one of the many calls and exchanges of pages The President wouldn’t have brought up Bet- wrong’’ and which ‘‘conclusively proves’’ that these two shared during the period. that ‘‘the President directed Ms. Currie to ty’s name because he really didn’t—he really c. The Obstruction-by-Gift-Concealment pick up the gifts.’’ House Br. at 33. There is didn’t discuss it. Charge Is at Odds With the President’s record of a one-minute call on December 28, App. at 1122 (Lewinsky GJ 8/20/98). And con- Actions 1998 from Ms. Currie’s cell phone to Ms. trary to the Committee Report’s suggestion Lewinsky’s home at 3:32 p.m. Even assuming Ultimately, and irrespective of the absence that Lewinsky’s memory of these events has Ms. Lewinsky is correct that Ms. Currie of evidence implicating the President in Ms. been ‘‘consistent and unequivocal’’ and she picked up the gifts on December 28, her own Lewinsky’s gift concealment, the charge has ‘‘recited the same facts in February, testimony refutes the possibility that the fails because it is inconsistent with other July, and August,’’ Committee Report at 69, Managers’ mysterious 3:32 p.m. telephone events of the very same day. There is abso- Ms. Lewinsky herself acknowledged at her call could have been the initial contact by lutely no dispute that the President gave Ms. last grand jury appearance that her memory Ms. Currie to retrieve the gifts. To the con- Lewinsky numerous additional gifts during of the crucial conversation is less than crys- trary, the timing and duration of the call their December 28 meeting. It must therefore tal clear: strongly suggest just the opposite. It is un- be assumed that on the very day the Presi- A JUROR: . . . Do you remember Betty disputed that Ms. Lewinsky entered the dent and Ms. Lewinsky were conspiring to Currie saying that the President had told her White House on the morning of December 28 hide the gifts he had already given to her, to call? at 8:16 a.m. App. at 111 (White House entry the President added to the pile. No stretch of [MS. LEWINSKY]: Right now. I don’t. I records). While no exit time for Ms. logic will support such an outlandish theory. don’t remember. . . . Lewinsky was recorded because she inadvert- From the beginning, this inherent con- App. at 1141 (Lewinsky GJ 8/20/98). ently left her visitor badge in the White tradiction has puzzled investigators. If there Moreover, Ms. Currie has repeatedly and House, she has testified that the visit lasted were a plot to conceal these gifts, why did unvaryingly stated that it was Ms. Lewinsky around an hour. App. at 870–72 (Lewinsky GJ the President give Ms. Lewinsky several who contacted Ms. Currie about the gifts, 8/6/98). Consistent with this timing, records more gifts at the very moment the conceal- not the other way around. A few examples also indicate that the President left the Oval ment plan was allegedly hatched? The House include: Office at 9:52 a.m., thus placing Ms. Managers OIC prosecutors, grand jurors, and ∑ ‘‘LEWINSKY called CURRIE and advised Lewinsky’s exit around 9:30 to 9:45 a.m. App. even Ms. Lewinsky hopelessly searched for she had to return all gifts CLINTON had at 111. Ms. Lewinsky has indicated on several an answer to that essential question: given LEWINSKY as there was talk going occasions that her discussion with Betty Q: Although, Ms. Lewinsky, I think what is around about the gifts.’’ Supp. at 531 (Currie Currie occurred just ‘‘several hours’’ after sort of—it seems a little odd and, I guess real- FBI 302 1/24/98); she left. App. at 875 (Lewinsky GJ 8/6/98); ly the grand jurors wanted your impression ∑ ‘‘Monica said she was getting concerned, App. at 1395 (Lewinsky FBI 302 7/27/98). Ms. of it, was on the same day that you’re discuss- and she wanted to give me the stuff the Lewinsky three times placed the timing of ing basically getting the gifts to Betty to conceal President had given her—or give me a box of the actual gift exchange with Ms. Currie ‘‘at them, he’s giving you a new set of gifts. stuff. It was a box of stuff.’’ Supp. at 557 about 2:00 p.m.’’ App at 1127 (Lewinsky GJ 8/ A: You know, I have come recently to look (Currie GJ 1/27/98); 20/98); App. at 1396 (Lewinsky FBI 302 7/27/98); at that as sort of a strange situation, I think, ∑ Q: . . . Just tell us for a moment how App. at 1482 (Lewinsky FBI 302 8/1/98). This, in the course of the past few weeks. . .. this issue first arose and what you did about in light of undisputed documentary evidence App. at 887–88 (Lewinsky GJ 8/6/98) (emphasis it and what Ms. Lewinsky told you. and Ms. Lewinsky’s own testimony, it be- added). See House Br. at 34. ∑ A: The best I remember it first arose comes clear that the 3:32 p.m. telephone The Committee Report fails to resolve this with a conversation. I don’t know if it was record relied upon by the Committee Report significant flaw in its theory.100 The report over the telephone or in person. I don’t in fact is unlikely to reflect a call placed to admits that Ms. Lewinsky ‘‘can’t answer’’ know. She asked me if I would pick up a box. initiate the pick-up. why the President would in one breath give She said Isikoff had been inquiring about Apart from this conspicuous timing defect, her gifts and in the next hatch a plan to take gifts.’’ Supp. at 582 (Currie GJ 5/6/98); there is another, independent reason to con- them back. But it cites only to Ms. ∑ ‘‘The best I remember she said that she clude that the 3:32 p.m. telephone call could Lewinsky’s understanding of the relation- wanted me to hold these gifts—hold this— not have been the conversation Ms. ship’s pattern of concealment and how she she may have said gifts, I’m sure she said Lewinsky describes. The 3:32 p.m. call is doc- contemplated it must apply to the gifts. It gifts, box of gifts—I don’t remember—be- umented to have lasted no longer than one creates the erroneous impression that the cause people were asking questions. And I minute, and because such calls are rounded President gave Ms. Lewinsky instructions to said, ‘Fine.’ ’’ Supp. at 581 (Currie GJ 5/6/98); up to the nearest minute, it quite conceiv- conceal the gifts in the December 28 meeting ∑ ‘‘The best I remember is Monica calls me ably could have been much shorter in dura- by quoting her testimony that ‘‘from every- and asks me if she can give me some gifts, if tion. It is difficult to imagine that the con- thing he said to me’’ she would conceal the I’d pick up some gifts for her.’’ Supp. at 706 versation reflected in Ms. Lewinsky’s state- gifts. But we know that Ms. Lewinsky has (Currie GJ 7/22/98). ments could have taken place in less than The Committee Report attempts to por- one minute. Both Ms. Currie and Ms. 100 Incredibly, not only does the Committee Report tray Ms. Currie’s memory as faulty on the Lewinsky have described the various matters fail to offer a sensible answer to this perplexity, but key issue of whether Ms. Lewinsky initiated that were discussed in their initial conversa- without any factual or logical support it accuses the the gift retrieval by unfairly referencing Ms. tion: not only was this the first time the President of lying to the grand jury when he testi- Currie’s answer to a completely different ques- topic of returning gifts was discussed, which fied that he was not particularly concerned about tion. Ms. Currie was asked whether she had quite likely generated some discussion be- the gifts he had given Ms. Lewinsky and thus had no discussed with the President Ms. Lewinsky’s tween the two, but they also had to discuss compunction about giving her additional gifts on ‘‘turning over to [her]’’ the gift he had given and arrange a convenient plan for Ms. Currie December 28. Article I (4). For whatever reason, nei- ther the Committee Report nor the OIC Referral ac- 99 her. Ms. Currie indicated that she could re- to make the pick-up. knowledges the most reasonable explanation for member no such occasion. ‘‘If Monica said What, then, to make of this call so heavily these events: as the President has testified repeat- [Ms. Currie] talked to the President about relied upon by the House Managers? The edly, he was not concerned about the gifts he had it,’’ she was then asked, ‘‘would that not be record is replete with references that Ms. given Ms. Lewinsky. true?’’ Then, only on the limited question of Currie and Ms. Lewinsky communicated very ∑ ‘‘I was never hung up about this gift issue. whether Ms. Currie ever talked to the Presi- frequently, especially during this December Maybe it’s because I have a different experience. dent about the gifts—wholly separate from 1997–January 1998 time period. See, e.g., Supp. But, you know, the President gets hundreds of gifts a year, maybe more. I have always given a lot of the issue of who made the initial contact— gifts to people, especially if they give me gifts. And did Ms. Currie courteously defer, ‘‘Then she 99 The OIC Referral, which took great pains to this was no big deal to me.’’ App. at 495. may remember better than I. I don’t remem- point out every allegedly incriminating piece of evi- ∑ ‘‘this gift business . . . didn’t bother me.’’ App. ber.’’ Supp. at 584 (Currie GJ 5/6/98). Iron- dence, made no reference to this telephone record, at 496. ically, it is the substance of this very allega- perhaps because the OIC knew it tended not to cor- ∑ ‘‘I wasn’t troubled by this gift issue.’’ App. at tion—regarding conversations between Ms. roborate Ms. Lewinsky’s time line. In its place, the 497. Currie and the President—that Ms. Lewinsky Referral rested its corroboration hopes in the fol- ∑ ‘‘I have always given a lot of people gifts. I have lowing bizarre analysis: ‘‘More generally, the person always been given gifts. I do not think there is any- told the grand jury she could not recall. (In making the extra effort (in this case, Ms. Currie) is thing improper about a man giving a woman a gift, later testimony, referring to a conversation ordinarily the person requesting the favor.’’ Referral or a woman giving a man a gift, that necessarily she had with the President on January 21, at 170. Wisely, the House Managers chose not to pur- connotes an improper relationship. So, it didn’t Ms. Currie testified that she was ‘‘sure’’ that sue this groundless speculation. bother me.’’ App. at 498. January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S205 repeatedly testified that no such discussion a. The Complete Absence of Direct Evidence Podesta asked U.N. Ambassador Bill Rich- ever occurred. Her reliance on ‘‘everything he Supporting This Charge ardson to consider Ms. Lewinsky for a posi- said to me’’ must, therefore, reflect her own It is hard to overstate the importance of tion at the U.N. Supp. at 3404 (Richardson GJ plan to implement discussions the two had the fact that—by the House Managers’, the 4/3/98). Ms. Currie testified that she was act- had about concealing the relationship long Committee Report’s and the OIC’s own admis- ing on her own in this effort. Supp. at 592 before her role in the Jones litigation. sion—there is not one single piece of direct (Currie GJ 5/6/98). What this passage confirms is that Ms. evidence to support this charge. Not one. In- Third, around October 6, Ms. Tripp told Ms. Lewinsky had very much in her mind that deed, just the contrary is true. Both Ms. Lewinsky that an acquaintance in the White she would do what she could to conceal the Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan have repeatedly House reported that it was unlikely Ms. relationship—a modus operandi she herself testified that there was never an explicit or Lewinsky would ever be re-employed at the acknowledged well pre-dated the Jones litiga- implicit agreement, suggestion, or implica- White House. After this disclosure, Ms. tion. That she took such steps does not mean tion that Ms. Lewinsky would be rewarded Lewinsky ‘‘was mostly resolved to look for a that the President knew of or participated in with a job for her silence or false testimony. job in the private sector in New York.’’ App. them. Indeed, it appears that the entire gift- One need look no further than their own tes- at 1543–44 (Lewinsky FBI 302) 8/13/98; see also concealment plan arose not from any plan timony: App. at 1460 (Lewinsky FBI 302 7/31/98) (re- suggested by the President—which the Com- Lewsinky: ‘‘[N]o one ever asked me to lie marks by the Linda Tripp acquaintance were mittee Report so desperately struggles to and I was never promised a job for my si- the ‘‘straw that broke the camel’s back’’). maintain—but rather more innocently from lence.’’ App. at 1161 (Lewinsky GJ 8/20/98); Fourth, sometime prior to October 9, 1997, the actions of a young woman taking steps ‘‘There was no agreement with the Presi- Ms. Tripp and Ms. Lewinsky discussed the she thought were best.101 dent, JORDAN, or anyone else that prospect of enlisting Mr. Vernon Jordan to In any event, the record evidence is abun- LEWINSKY had to sign the Jones affidavit assist Ms. Lewinsky in obtaining a private dantly clear that the President has not ob- before getting a job in New York. sector job in New York. App. at 822–24 structed justice by any plan or scheme to LEWINSKY never demanded a job from Jor- (Lewinsky GJ 8/6/98); see also App. at 1079 conceal gifts he had given to Ms. Lewinsky, dan in exchange for a favorable affidavit. (Lewinsky GJ 8/20/98) (‘‘I don’t remember and logic and reason fully undercut any such Nether the President nor JORDAN ever told . . . if [enlisting Jordan] was my idea or theory. LEWINSKY that she had to lie.’’ App. at 1398 Linda’s idea. And I know that that came up in discussions with her, I believe, before I 4. The President denies that he obstructed jus- (Lewinsky FBI 302 7/27/98). discussed it with the President’’). On either tice in connection with Monica Lewinsky’s Jordan: ‘‘As far as I was concerned, [the October 9 or 11, Ms. Lewinsky conveyed to efforts to obtain a job in New York in an ef- job and the affidavit] were two very separate the President this idea of asking Mr. Jordan fort to ‘‘corruptly prevent’’ her ‘‘truthful matters.’’ Supp. at 1737 (Jordan GJ 3/5/98). for assistance. Id. testimony’’ in the Jones case ‘‘Unequivocally, indubitably, no’’—in re- sponse to the question whether the job Fifth, in mid-October, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky Again, in the absence of specifics in Article search and the affidavit were in any way purchased a book on jobs in New York. App. II itself, we look to the Committee Report connected. Supp. at 1827 (Jordan GJ 5/5/98).103 at 1462 (Lewinsky FBI 302 7/31/98). Ms. for guidance on the actual charges. The Com- This is the direct evidence. The House Lewinsky completed and sent to Betty mittee Report would like to portray this Managers’ circumstantial ‘‘chain of events’’ Currie at the White House a packet of jobs- claim in as sinister a light as possible, and it case, House Br. 39–41, cannot overcome the related materials on October 15 or 16. Supp. alleges that the President of the United hurdle the direct evidence presents. at 735 (Lewinsky Tripp tape of 10/15/97 con- States employed his close friend Vernon Jor- versation). dan to get Monica Lewinsky a job in New b. Background of Ms. Lewinsky’s New York Sixth, on October 31, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky York to influence her testimony or perhaps Job Search interviewed for a position with Ambassador get her away from the Jones lawyers. To By its terms, Article II(4) would have the Bill Richardson at the United Nations in reach this conclusion, and without the bene- Senate evaluate Ms. Lewinsky’s job search New York. Ambassador Richardson was ‘‘im- fit of a single piece of direct evidence to sup- by considering only the circumstances pressed’’ with Ms. Lewinsky and, on Novem- port the charge, it ignores the direct testi- ‘‘[b]eginning on or about December 7, 1977.’’ ber 3, offered her a position, which she ulti- mony of several witnesses, assigns diabolical Article II(4). Although barely mentioned in mately rejected. Supp. at 3411 (Richardson purposes to a series of innocuous events, and the Committee Report’s ‘‘explanation’’ of GJ 4/30/98); Supp. at 3731 (Sutphen GJ 5/27/98). then claims that ‘‘[i]t is logical to infer from Article II(4), the significant events occurring Ms. Currie informed the President that Ms. this chain of events’’ that the job efforts before December 7, 1997 cannot simply be ig- Lewinsky had received a job offer at the U.N. ‘‘were motivated to influence the testimony nored because they are inconsistent with the Supp. at 592 (Currie GJ 5/6/98). Ambassador of’’ Ms. Lewinsky. Committee Report at 71. Majority’s theory. Without reciting every Richardson never spoke to the President or Again, the evidence contradicts the infer- detail, the undisputed record establishes Mr. Jordan about Ms. Lewinsky, and he tes- ences the Committee Report strives to draw. that the following facts occurred long before tified emphatically and repeatedly that no Ms. Lewinsky’s New York job search began Ms. Lewinsky was involved in the Jones case: one pressured him to hire her. Supp. at 3422– on her own initiative long before her involve- First, Ms. Lewinsky had contemplated 23 (Richardson GJ 4/30/98); Supp. at 3418 ment in the Jones case. By her own forceful looking for a job in New York as early as (same); Supp. at 3429 (same). testimony, her job search had no connection July 1997. App. at 1414 (Lewinsky FBI 302 7/ Seventh, as of late October or November, to the Jones case. 29/98) (July 3 letter ‘‘first time [Lewinsky] Ms. Lewinsky had told Mr. Kenneth Bacon, Mr. Jordan agreed to help Ms. Lewinsky mentioned the possibility of moving to New her boss at the Pentagon, that she wanted to not at the direction of the President but York’’); App. at 787–788 (On July 4, 1997, Ms. leave the Pentagon and move to New York. upon the request of Betty Currie, Mr. Jor- Lewinsky wrote the President a letter de- In a series of conversations, she enlisted his dan’s long-time friend. And bizarrely, the scribing her interest in a job ‘‘in New York assistance in obtaining a private sector job idea to involve Mr. Jordan (which arose well at the United Nations’’); Committee Report in New York. Supp. at 11 (Kenneth Bacon before Ms. Lewinsky became a possible Jones at 10 (‘‘Ms. Lewinsky had been searching for FBI 302 2/26/98). In response, Mr. Bacon con- witness) came not from the President but ap- a highly paid job in New York since the pre- tacted Howard Paster, CEO of the public re- parently emanated from Ms. Tripp. In short, vious July.’’) She conveyed that prospect to lations firm Hill & Knowlton about Ms. the facts directly frustrate the House Major- a friend on September 2, 1997. App. at 2811 Lewinsky. Id. ity’s theory.102 (Lewinsky e-mail). Eighth, in November, Ms. Lewinsky gave Second, in early October, at the request of notice to the Pentagon that she would be Ms. Currie, then-Deputy Chief of Staff John leaving her Pentagon job at year’s end. Supp. 101 As the President has stated about this poten- tiality, ‘‘I didn’t then, I don’t now see this [the gifts] at 116 (Clifford Bernath GJ 5/21/98). as a problem. And if she thought it was a problem, ceeded in an effort to secure job assistance’’ for Ms. Ninth, Ms. Lewinsky apparently had a pre- I think it—it must have been from a, really a mis- Lewinsky ‘‘at a time when the truthful testimony of liminary meeting with Mr. Jordan on No- apprehension of the circumstances. I certainly never [Ms. Lewinsky] would have been harmful to him,’’ vember 5, 1997 to discuss her job search. Dur- encouraged her not to, to comply lawfully with a Article II (5) (emphasis added)—thereby admitting ing this twenty-minute meeting, Ms. subpoena.’’ App. at 497–98 (emphasis added.) that the initial effort was motivated by appropriate Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan discussed a list of 102 This allegation has gone through several concerns. potential employers she had compiled. App. iterations. As initially referred to the House of Rep- 103 The only person who suggested any such quid resentatives, the charge was that the President pro quo was Ms. Tripp, who repeatedly urged Ms. at 1464–65 (Lewinsky FBI 302 7/31/98). In that ‘‘help[ed] Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at Lewinsky to demand such linkage. App. at 1493 meeting, Ms. Lewinsky never informed Mr. a time when she would have been a witness against (Lewinsky FBI 302 8/2/98 (‘‘TRIPP told LEWINSKY Jordan of any time constraints on her need him’’ in the Jones case. OIC Referral at 181. Faced not to sign the affidavit until LEWINSKY had a for job assistance. Supp. at 2647 (Lewinsky- with the significant evidence that Ms. Lewinsky’s job.’’). To appease Linda Tripp’s repeated demands Tripp Tape of 11/8/97 conversation). Mr. Jor- job efforts had originated long before she became in- on this point, Ms. Lewinsky ultimately told Ms. dan had to leave town the next day. App. at volved in the Jones case and were in fact entirely un- Tripp that she had told Mr. Jordan she wouldn’t sign 1465 (Lewinsky FBI 302 Form 7/31/98). Ms. related to the Jones case, the Judiciary Committee the affidavit until she had a job. But as she later Majority was forced to recraft this claim. Instead of emphasized to the grand jury, ‘‘That was definitely Lewinsky had a follow-up telephone con- implying a complete connection between the job a lie, based on something Linda had made me prom- versation with Mr. Jordan around Thanks- search and the Jones ligitation, the article now ise her on January 9th.’’ App. at 1134 (Lewinsky GJ giving wherein he advised her that he was oddly charges that the President intensified and suc- 8/20/98). ‘‘working on her job search’’ and instructed S206 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 her to call him again ‘‘around the first week New York companies on Ms. Lewinsky’s be- curred after Mr. Jordan learned of Judge of December.’’ App. at 1465 (Lewinsky FBI half. Jordan telephoned President Clinton to Wright’s order. 302 7/31/98); see also App. at 825 (Lewinsky GJ keep him informed of the efforts to get Ms. Although the Committee Report claims 8/6/98) (‘‘And so Betty arranged for me to Lewinsky a job.’’ Committee Report at 70. that a heightened sense of urgency attached speak with [Jordan] again and I spoke with ‘‘Something happened that changed the in December which ‘‘intensified’’ the job him when I was in Los Angeles before—right priority assigned to the job search. On the search efforts, it ignores the sworn testi- before Thanksgiving.’’) 104 Inexplicably, the morning of December 11, 1997, Judge Susan mony of Mr. Jordan denying any such inten- Committee Report, the presentation by its Webber Wright ordered President Clinton to sification: ‘‘Oh, no. I do not recall any chief counsel, and the Starr Referral all provide information regarding any state or heightened sense of urgency [in December]. choose to ignore this key piece of testi- federal employee with whom he had, pro- What I do recall is that I dealt with it when mony—that contact resumed in early De- posed, or sought sexual relations. To keep I had time to do it.’’ Supp. at 1811 (Jordan GJ cember because Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Jor- Ms. Lewinsky satisfied was now of critical 5/5/98).107 dan agreed (in November) that it would. See importance.’’ Committee Report at 11. The ‘‘heightened urgency’’ theory also is Committee Report at 10 (‘‘Ms. Lewinsky had The unmistakable intention of this nar- undermined by the simple fact that Mr. Jor- no further contacts with Mr. Jordan at that rative is to suggest that, after the President dan indisputably placed no pressure on any time [early November to mid December].’’); learned Ms. Lewinsky’s name was on the wit- company to give Ms. Lewinsky a job and sug- Schippers Dec. 10, 1998 Presentation at 38 ness list on December 6, he (1) contacted Mr. gested no date by which Ms. Lewinsky had to (‘‘Vernon Jordan, who, by the way, had done Jordan on December 7 to engage his assist- be hired. The first person Mr. Jordan con- nothing from early November to mid-Decem- ance for Ms. Lewinsky, and only then did Mr. tacted, Mr. Georgescu of Young & Rubicam/ ber.’’); Referral at 182 (‘‘Ms. Lewinsky had no Jordan agree to meet with Ms. Lewinsky, Burson-Marsteller, told investigators that contact with . . . Mr. Jordan for another and further, that (2) Mr. Jordan met with Mr. Jordan did not engage in a ‘‘sales pitch’’ for Lewinsky. Supp. at 1222 (Georgescu FBI month [after November 5].’’). Ms. Lewinsky on December 11 and took con- In sum, the record is clear that Ms. crete steps to help Ms. Lewinsky only after 302 3/25/98). Mr. Georgescu told Mr. Jordan that the company ‘‘would take a look at [Ms. Lewinsky decided on her own to seek a job in and as a result of Judge Wright’s December Lewinsky] in the usual way,’’ Supp. at 1219 New York many months before her involve- 11 order. Both suggestions are demonstrably (Georgescu FBI 302 1/29/98), and that once the ment in the Jones case. She had asked her false. initial interview was set up, Ms. Lewinsky Pentagon boss to help, as well as Ms. Currie, The President had nothing to do with ar- would be ‘‘on [her] own from that point.’’ who arranged indirectly for Ms. Lewinsky to ranging the December 11 meeting between Supp. at 1222 (Georgescu FBI 302 3/25/98). The interview with Ambassador Richardson at Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky. As the record executive who interviewed Ms. Lewinsky at the United Nations. Mr. Jordan became in- indicates, after receiving a request from Ms. Burson-Marsteller stated that Ms. volved in the job search at the request of Ms. Currie on December 5 that he meet with Ms. Lewinsky’s recruitment process went ‘‘by Currie (apparently at the suggestion of Ms. Lewinsky, and telling Ms. Currie to have Ms. Lewinsky call him, Ms. Lewinsky called Mr. the book’’ and, ‘‘while somewhat acceler- Tripp) and, notwithstanding his travels in ated,’’ the process ‘‘went through the normal November, Supp. at 1811 (Jordan GJ 5/5/98), Jordan on December 8. Supp. at 1705 (Jordan GJ 3/3/98). As noted above, that call had been steps.’’ Supp. at 111 (Berk FBI 302 3/31/98). kept in contact with Ms. Lewinsky with At American Express, Mr. Jordan con- plans to reconvene early in December. presaged by a conversation between Mr. Jor- dan and Ms. Lewinsky around Thanksgiving tacted Ms. Ursula Fairbairn, who stated that c. The Committee Report’s Circumstantial in which Jordan told her ‘‘he was working on Mr. Jordan exerted ‘‘no . . . pressure’’ to hire Case her job search’’ and asked her to contact him Lewinsky. Supp. at 1087 (Fairbairn FBI 302 2/ Article II ignores this background and again ‘‘around the first week of December.’’ 4/98). Indeed, she considered it ‘‘not unusual merely alleges that efforts to aid Ms. App. at 1465 (Lewinsky FBI 302 7/31/98). In the for board members’’ like Mr. Jordan to rec- Lewinsky’s job search ‘‘intensified and suc- December 8 call, the two arranged for Ms. ommend talented people for employment and ceeded’’ in December 1997. While not adopted Lewinsky to come to Mr. Jordan’s office on noted that Mr. Jordan had recently rec- ommended another person just a few months in the article, the House Brief, the Commit- December 11; on the same day, Ms. Lewinsky earlier. Id. The person who interviewed Ms. tee Report, and the accompanying final pres- sent Mr. Jordan via courier a copy of her re- Lewinsky stated that he felt ‘‘absolutely no entation by Majority Counsel Schippers offer sume. Supp. at 1705 (Jordan GJ 3/3/98). At the pressure’’ to hire her and indeed told her she some guidance as to the meaning of the ac- time of that contact, Mr. Jordan did not did not have the qualifications necessary for tual charge. They cite three events—Mr. Jor- even know that Ms. Lewinsky knew Presi- the position. Supp. at 3521 (Schick FBI 302 1/ dan’s December 11 meeting with Ms. dent Clinton. Id. Lewinsky to discuss job prospects in New In the intervening period before Ms. 29/98). Perhaps most telling of the absence of York, Ms. Lewinsky’s execution of her Jones Lewinsky’s December 11 meeting with Mr. pressure applied by Mr. Jordan is the fact affidavit, and her receipt of a job—in an ef- Jordan, the President met with Mr. Jordan that neither Young & Rubicam/Burson- fort to portray Ms. Lewinsky’s job search as on December 7. As the Committee Report ac- Marsteller or American Express offered Ms. sinister. But the full record easily dispels knowledges, that meeting had nothing to do Lewinsky a job. any suggestion that there were any obstruc- with Ms. Lewinsky. Committee Report at 11. Similarly, at MacAndrews & Forbes/ tive or improper acts. Yet the House Managers’ Brief, like the Revlon, where Ms. Lewinsky ultimately was (1) Monica Lewinsky’s December 11 Committee Report before it, states that ‘‘the offered a job (see below), Mr. Jordan initially sudden interest [in helping Ms. Lewinsky ob- meeting with Vernon Jordan contacted Mr. Halperin, who has stated that tain a job] was inspired by a court order en- it was not unusual for Mr. Jordan to make The House Managers and the Committee tered on December 11, 1997’’ in the Jones an employment recommendation. Supp. at Report suggest that Mr. Jordan took action case.106 House Br. at 21. No evidence supports 1281 (Halperin FBI 302 1/26/98). Moreover, he on Ms. Lewinsky’s job search request only that supposition. The December 11 meeting emphasized that Mr. Jordan did not ‘‘ask after, and because, Ms. Lewinsky’s name ap- had been scheduled on December 8. Neither [him] to work on any particular timetable,’’ peared on the witness list on December 5 and the OIC Referral nor the Committee Report Supp. at 1294 (Halperin GJ 4/23/98), and that only after, and because, Judge Wright or- nor the Managers’ Brief cites any evidence ‘‘there was no implied time constraint or re- dered the President to answer certain ques- that the President or Mr. Jordan had any quirement for fast action.’’ Supp. at 1286 tions about ‘‘other women’’ on December 11. knowledge of the contents of that Order at (Halperin FBI 3/27/98.) the time of the December 11 meeting. See House Br. at 21. Consider the Committee (2) The January job interviews and the Mr. Jordan met with Ms. Lewinsky shortly Report portrayal: Revlon employment offer after 1:00 p.m. on December 11. Supp. at 1863 ‘‘[T]he effort to obtain a job for Monica The Committee Report attempts to Lewinsky in New York intensified after the (Akin Gump visitor log); Supp. at 1809 (Jor- dan GJ 5/5/98). In anticipation of that meet- conflate separate and unrelated acts—the President learned, on December 6, 1997, that signing of the affidavit and the Revlon job Monica Lewinsky was listed on the witness ing, Mr. Jordan had made several calls to prospective employers about Ms. Lewinsky. offer—to sustain its otherwise unsustainable list for the case Jones v. Clinton.105 obstruction theory. The Committee Report’s On December 7, 1997, President Clinton met Supp. at 1807–09 (Jordan GJ 5/5/98). Mr. Jor- dan spoke about Ms. Lewinsky with Mr. description of these events is deftly mislead- with Vernon Jordan at the White House. Ms. ing: Lewinsky met with Mr. Jordan on December Peter Georgescu of Young & Rubicam at 9:45 a.m. that morning, and with Mr. Richard ‘‘The next day, January 7, Monica 11 to discuss specific job contacts in New Lewinsky signed the false affidavit. She York. Mr. Jordan then made calls to certain Halperin of Revlon around 1:00 p.m., imme- diately before meeting with Ms. Lewinsky. showed the executed copy to Mr. Jordan that Supp. at 1807–09 (Jordan GJ 5/5/98). Again, same day. She did this so that Mr. Jordan 104 Mr. Jordan was then out of the country from there is no evidence that any of this oc- could report to President Clinton that it had the day after Thanksgiving until December 4. Supp. been signed and another mission had been at 1804 (Jordan GJ 5/5/98). accomplished. 105 Committee Report at 70. That portrayal flatly 106 That Order authorized Paula Jones’ attorneys contradicts the Committee Report’s earlier state- to obtain discovery relating to certain government ment that on December 6 ‘‘there was still no ur- employees ‘‘with whom the President had sexual re- 107 Mr. Jordan explained that not much activity oc- gency to help Lewinsky.’’ Committee Report at 10– lations, proposed sexual relations, or sought to have curred in November because ‘‘I was traveling.’’ 11. sexual relations.’’ House Br. at 21. Supp. at 1811 (Jordan GJ 9/5/98). January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S207 On January 8, Ms. Lewinsky had an inter- en the supposed relevance of the Jordan call the merits. She did not even know that Mr. view arranged by Mr. Jordan with to Mr. Perelman. In other words, under this Perelman had expressed any interest in Ms. MacAndrews & Forbes in New York. The theory, Ms. Lewinsky had no prospect of a Lewinsky or that Mr. Jordan had spoken to interview went poorly. Afterwards, Ms. job at MacAndrews & Forbes/Revlon until Mr. Perelman the day before. As amply dem- Lewinsky called Mr. Jordan and informed Mr. Jordan resurrected her chances with Mr. onstrated, the House Managers’ Jordan- him. Mr. Jordan, who had done nothing from Perelman. Perelman intervention theory just doesn’t early November to mid-December, then Unfortunately, like so much other ‘‘evi- hold water. called the chief executive officer of dence’’ in the obstruction case, the facts do d. Conclusion not bear out this sinister theory. Mr. Durnan MacAndrews & Forbes, Ron Perelman, to From the preceding discussion of the fac- had no similar impression that his interview ‘‘make things happen, if they could happen.’’ tual record, two conclusions are inescapable. with Ms. Lewinsky had gone ‘‘poorly.’’ In fact, Mr. Jordan called Ms. Lewinsky back and First, there is simply no direct evidence to just the opposite was true: he was ‘‘im- told her not to worry. That evening, support the job-for-silence obstruction the- pressed’’ with Ms. Lewinsky and thought MacAndrews & Forbes called Ms. Lewinsky ory. From her initial proffer to the last min- that she would ‘‘fit in’’ with MacAndrews & and told her that she would be given more utes of her grand jury appearance, the testi- Forbes but ‘‘there was nothing available at interviews the next morning. mony of Ms. Lewinsky has been clear and that time which suited her interests.’’ Supp. The next morning, Ms. Lewinsky received consistent: she was never asked or encour- at 1054 (Durnan FBI 302 3/27/98). Mr. Durnan her reward for signing the false affidavit. aged to lie or promised a job for her silence therefore decided to forward Ms. Lewinsky’s After a series of interviews with or for a favorable affidavit. Mr. Jordan has resume to Ms. Allyn Seidman of Revlon. MacAndrews & Forbes personnel, she was in- been equally unequivocal on this point. Sec- After the interview, he called Ms. Seidman formally offered a job. Committee Report at ond, the ‘‘chain of events’’ circumstantial and left her a voicemail message about his 18 (citations omitted). case upon which this obstruction allegation interview with Ms. Lewinsky and explained must rest falls apart after inspection of the By this portrayal, the Committee Report that, while there was no current opening at full evidentiary record. Ms. Lewinsky’s job suggests two conclusions: first, that Ms. MacAndrews & Forbes, ‘‘perhaps there was search began on her own volition and long Lewinsky was ‘‘reward[ed]’’ with a job for something available at Revlon.’’ Id. her signing of the affidavit; second, that the In the meantime, Mr. Jordan had called before she was ever a witness in the Jones only reason Ms. Lewinsky was given a sec- Mr. Perelman about Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. case. Mr. Jordan’s assistance originated with a request from Ms. Currie, which had no con- ond interview and ultimately hired at Perelman described this conversation as nection to events in the Jones litigation. No Revlon was Mr. Jordan’s intervention with ‘‘very low key and casual.’’ Supp. at 3273 pressure was applied to anyone at any time. Mr. Perelman. Once again, both conclusions (Perelman FBI 302 1/26/98). Mr. Jordan ‘‘made And Ms. Lewinsky’s ultimate hiring had ab- are demonstrably false. no specific requests and did not request’’ him solutely no connection to her signing of the Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky have testi- ‘‘to intervene’’; nonetheless, Mr. Perelman affidavit in the Jones case. Viewed on this fied under oath that there was no causal con- agreed to ‘‘look into it.’’ Id. Later that day, unambiguous record, the job-search allega- nection between the job search and the affi- Mr. Durnan spoke to Mr. Perelman, who tions are plainly unsupportable. davit. The only person to draw (or, actually, mentioned that he had received a call from recommend) any such linkage was Ms. Tripp. Mr. Jordan about a job candidate. Mr. 5. The President denies that he ‘‘corruptly al- The factual record easily debunks the second Perelman told Mr. Durnan ‘‘let’s see what we lowed his attorney to make false and mis- insinuation—that Ms. Lewinsky was hired as can do,’’ Supp. at 3276 (Perelman FBI 302 3/27/ leading statements to a Federal judge’’ con- a direct result of Mr. Jordan’s call to Mr. 98), but Mr. Durnan never concluded that cerning Monica Lewinsky’s affidavit Perelman. One fact is virtually dispositive: hiring Ms. Lewinsky was ‘‘mandatory.’’ Article II (5) charges that the President en- the Revlon executive who scheduled Ms. Supp. at 1055 (Durnan FBI 302 3/27/98). Mr. gaged in an obstruction of justice because he Lewinsky’s January 9 interview and decided Perelman later called Mr. Jordan and said ‘‘did not say anything’’ during his Jones dep- to hire her that same day never even knew they would do what they could; Mr. Jordan osition when his attorney cited the about Mr. Jordan’s call to Mr. Perelman, or expressed no urgency to Mr. Perelman. Supp. Lewinsky affidavit to Judge Wright and stat- any interest Mr. Perelman might have in Ms. at 3276 (Perelman FBI 302 3/27/98). ed that ‘‘there is no sex of any kind in any Lewinsky, and thus could not have been act- By the time Mr. Durnan had discussed Ms. manner, shape, or form.’’ Committee Report ing in furtherance of such a plan. Lewinsky with Mr. Perelman, he had already at 72. The rationale underlying this charge of Ms. Lewinsky initially interviewed with forwarded her resume to Ms. Seidman at obstruction of justice hinges on an odd com- Mr. Halperin of MacAndrews & Forbes Revlon. Supp. at 1049–50 (Durnan FBI 302 1/26/ bination of a bizarrely heightened legal obli- (Revlon’s parent company) on December 18, 98). After speaking with Mr. Perelman, Mr. gation, a disregard of the actual record testi- 1997. (Mr. Jordan had spoken with Mr. Durnan spoke with Ms. Seidman, following mony, and a good does of amateur psychol- Halperin on December 11.) Prior to inter- up on the voicemail message he had left ear- ogy. This claim is factually and legally base- viewing Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Halperin for- lier that day. Supp. at 1055 (Durnan FBI 302 less. warded a copy of her resume to Mr. Jaymie 3/27/98). Upon speaking to Ms. Seidman about The law, of course, imposes no obligation Durnan, also of MacAndrews & Forbes, for Ms. Lewinsky, however, Mr. Durnan did not on a client to monitor every statement and his consideration. Supp. at 1286–87 (Halperin tell Ms. Seidman that CEO Perelman has ex- representation made by his or her lawyer. FBI 302 3/27/98). Following his interview of pressed any interest in Ms. Lewinsky. Id. Rath- Particularly in the confines of an ongoing civil deposition, where clients are routinely Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Halperin thought that she er, he simply said that if she liked Ms. counseled to focus on the questions posed of would likely be ‘‘shipped to Revlon’’ for con- Lewinsky, she should hire her. Supp. at 1050 them and their responses and ignore all dis- sideration. Id. (Durnan FBI 302 1/26/98). Mr. Durnan received Ms. Lewinsky’s re- For her part, Ms. Seidman has testified tractions, it is totally inappropriate to try sume from Mr. Halperin in mid-December that she had no idea that Mr. Perelman had to remove a President from office because of and, after reviewing it, decided to interview expressed interest in Ms. Lewinsky: a statement by his attorney. Indeed, the President forcefully explained to the grand Ms. Lewinsky after the first of the year. (He Q: Did [Mr. Durnan] indicate to you that was going on vocation the last two weeks of jury that he was not focusing on the ex- he had spoken to anyone else within change between lawyers but instead con- December). Supp. at 1053 (Durnan FBI 302 3/ MacAndrews or Revlon about Monica 27/98). When he returned from vacation, his centrating on his own testimony: Lewinsky? ‘‘I’m not even sure I paid much attention assistant scheduled an interview with Ms. ∑ A: Not that I recall, no. to what he was saying. I was thinking, I was Lewinsky for January 7, 1998, but, because of Q: Do you have knowledge as to whether or ready to get on with my testimony here and scheduling problems, he rescheduled the not Mr. Perelman spoke with anyone either they were having these constant discussions interview for the next day, January 8, 1998. on the MacAndrews & Forbes side or the all through the deposition.’’ App. at 476; Supp. at 1049 (Durnan FBI 302 1/26/98). Mr. Revlon side about Monica Lewinsky? ∑ ‘‘I was not paying a great deal of atten- A: No. Durnan’s decision to interview Ms. Lewinsky tion to this exchange. I was focusing on my was made independently of the decision by Supp. at 3642 (Seidman Depo. 4/23/98). Rather, own testimony.’’ App. at 510; Mr. Halperin to interview her. Indeed, only Ms. Seidman’s consideration of Ms. ∑ ‘‘I’m quite sure that I didn’t follow all when Mr. Durnan interviewed Ms. Lewinsky Lewinsky proceeded on the merits. Indeed, the interchanges between the lawyers all in January did he discover that she had had as a result of the interview, Ms. Seidman that carefully.’’ App. at 510; a December interview with Mr. Halperin. Id. concluded that Ms. Lewinsky was ‘‘bright, ∑ ‘‘I am not even sure that when Mr. Ben- It was this interview with Mr. Durnan that articulate and polished,’’ Supp. at 3635 nett made that statement that I was con- Ms. Lewinsky later described as having gone (Seidman FBI 302 1/26/98), and ‘‘a talented, centrating on the exact words he used.’’ App. poorly in her view. App. at 926 (Lewinsky GJ enthusiastic, bright young woman’’ who at 511; 8/6/98). The House Managers (‘‘[t]he interview would be a ‘‘good fit in [her] department.’’ ∑ ‘‘When I was in there, I didn’t think went poorly,’’ House Br. at 38), the Commit- Supp. at 3643 (Seidman Depo. 4/23/98). She de- about my lawyers. I was, frankly, thinking tee Report (‘‘The interview went poorly’’, id. cided after the interview to hire Ms. about myself and my testimony and trying at 21), and the OIC Referral (‘‘The interview Lewinsky, and thereafter called Mr. Durnan to answer the questions.’’ App. at 512; went poorly,’’ id. at 184) all emphasize only ‘‘and told him I thought she was great,’’ Id. ∑ ‘‘I didn’t pay any attention to this col- Ms. Lewinsky’s impression of the job inter- In sum, Ms. Seidman made the decision to loquy that went on. I was waiting for my in- view—for obvious reasons: it tends to height- grant an interview and hire Ms. Lewinsky on structions as a witness to go forward. I was S208 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 worried about my own testimony.’’ App. at came a witness—the OIC investigation—no What, then, to make of this conversation if 513. one asserts the President could have known there was no effort to influence Ms. Currie’s The Committee Report ignores the Presi- it existed at that time. testimony? Well, to understand fully the dy- dent’s repeated and consistent description of At the time of the January 18 conversa- namic, one must remove the memory of all his state of mind during the deposition ex- tion.109 Ms. Currie was not a witness in the that has transpired since January 21 and change. Instead, the Committee Report and Jones case, as even Mr. Starr acknowledged: place oneself in the President’s position majority counsel’s final presentation under- ‘‘The evidence is not that she was on the wit- after the Jones deposition. The President had take a novel exercise in video psychology, ness list, and we have never said that she just faced unexpectedly detailed questions claiming that by studying the President’s fa- was.’’ Transcript of November 19, 1998 Testi- about Ms. Lewinsky. The questions ad- cial expressions and by noting that he was mony at 192. dressed, at times, minute details and at ‘‘looking in Mr. Bennett’s direction’ during Nor was there any reason to suspect Ms. other times contained bizarre inaccuracies the exchange, it necessarily follows that the Currie would play any role in the Jones case. about the relationship. As the President can- President was in fact listening to and con- The discovery period was, at the time of this didly admitted in his grand jury testimony, centrating on every single word uttered by conversation, in its final days, and a deposi- he had long thought the day would come his attorney 108 and knowingly made a deci- tion of Ms. Currie scheduled and completed when his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky sion not to correct his attorney. within that deadline would have been highly would become public: The futility of such an exercise is mani- unlikely. fest. It is especially unsettling when set ‘‘I formed an opinion early in 1996, once I Just as the President could not have in- got into this unfortunate and wrong conduct, against the President’s adamant denials that tended to influence the testimony of ‘‘wit- he harbored any contemporaneous or mean- that when it stopped, which I knew I’d have ness’’ Betty Currie because she was neither to do and which I should have done long be- ingful realization of his attorney’s colloquy an actual nor a prospective witness, so too is with the Judge. The theory is factually flim- fore I did, that she would talk about it. Not be- it equally clear that the President never sy, legally unfounded, and should be re- cause Monica Lewinsky is a bad person. pressured Ms. Currie to alter her recollec- jected. She’s basically a good girl. She’s a good tion. Such lack of real or perceived pressure young woman with a good heart and a good 6. The President denies that he obstructed jus- also fatally undercuts this charge. Despite tice by relating ‘‘false and misleading state- mind. . . . But I knew that the minute there the prosecutor’s best efforts to coax Ms. was no longer any contact, she would talk ments’’ to ‘‘a potential witness,’’ Betty Currie into saying she was pressured to agree Currie, ‘‘in order to corruptly influence about this. She would have to. She couldn’t with the President’s statements, Ms. Currie help it. It was, it was part of her psyche.’’ [her] testimony’’ adamantly denied any such pressure. As she App. at 575–76 (emphasis added). Now, with There is no dispute that the President met testified: the questioning about Ms. Lewinsky in the with his secretary, Ms. Currie, on the day Q: Now, back again to the four statements after his deposition and discussed ques- Jones case and the publication of the first Jones that you testified the President made to you tions he had been asked about Ms. Lewinsky. internet report article about Ms. Lewinsky, that were presented as statements, did you The Managers cast this conversation in the the President knew that a media storm was feel pressured when he told you those state- most sinister light possible and alleges that about to erupt. And erupt it did. ments? the President attempted to influence the tes- So it was hardly surprising that the Presi- A: None whatsoever. timony of a ‘‘witness’’ by pressuring Ms. dent reached out to Ms. Currie at this time. Q: What did you think, or what was going Currie to agree with an inaccurate version of He was trying to gather all available infor- through your mind about what he was doing? facts about Ms. Lewinsky. The Managers mation and assess the political and personal A: At the time I felt that he was—I want to claim that ‘‘the President essentially admit- consequences that this revelation would soon use the word shocked or surprised that this ted to making these statements when he have. Though he did not confide fully in Ms. knew they were not true.’’ House Br. at 47. was an issue, and he was just talking. Currie, he knew Ms. Currie was Ms. That is totally false. The President admitted * * * * * Lewinsky’s main contact and thus could nothing of the sort and the Managers cite Q: That was your impression, that he want- have additional relevant information to help nothing in support. The President has ada- ed you to say—because he would end each of him assess and respond to the impending mantly denied that he had any intention to the statements with ‘‘Right?’’, with a ques- media scrutiny. As the President testified: influence Ms. Currie’s recollection of events tion. ‘‘I do not remember how many times I or her testimony in any manner. The ab- A: I do not remember that he wanted me to talked to Betty Currie or when. I don’t. I sence of any such intention is further for- say ‘‘Right.’’ He would say ‘‘Right’’ and I can’t possibly remember that. I do remem- tified by the undisputed factual record estab- could have said. ‘‘Wrong.’’ ber, when I first heard about this story lishing that to the President’s knowledge, Q: But he would end each of those ques- breaking, trying to ascertain what the facts Ms. Currie was neither an actual nor con- tions with a ‘‘Right?’’ and you could either were, trying to ascertain what Betty’s per- templated witness in the Jones litigation at say whether it was true or not true? ception was. I remember that I was highly the time of the conversation. And critically, A: Correct. agitated, understandably, I think.’’ Ms. Currie testified that, during the con- Q: Did you feel any pressure to agree with App. at 593. And further, ‘‘[W]hat I was try- versation, she did not perceive any pressure your boss? ing to determine was whether my recollec- ‘‘whatsoever’’ to agree with any statement A: None. tion was right and that she was always in made by the President. Supp. at 668 (Currie GJ 7/22/98). Ms. Currie ex- the office complex when Monica was there. The President’s actions could not as a mat- plained that she felt no pressure because she . . . I thought what would happen is that it ter of law support this allegation. To ob- basically agreed with the President’s state- would break in the press, and I was trying to struct a proceeding or tamper with a wit- ments: get the facts down.’’ App. at 507–08 (emphasis ness, there must be both a known proceeding added). As the President concluded: ‘‘I was and a known witness. In the proceeding that Q: You testified with respect to the state- not trying to get Betty Currie to say some- the President certainly knew about—the ments as the President made them, and, in thing that was untruthful. I was trying to Jones case—Ms. Currie was neither an actual particular, the four statements that we’ve get as much information as quickly as I nor prospective witness. As for the only pro- already discussed. You felt at the time that could.’’ App. at 508. ceeding in which Ms. Currie ultimately be- they were technically accurate? Is that a fair assessment of your testimony? Ms. Currie’s grand jury testimony confirms A: That’s a fair assessment. the President’s ‘‘agitated’’ state of mind and 108 It is upon this same fanciful methodology that Q: But you suggested that at the time. information-gathering purpose for the dis- the Committee Report premises the allegation of Have you changed your opinion about it in cussion. She testified that the President ap- Article I (3) that the President lied to the grand jury peared, in her words, to be ‘‘shocked or sur- in providing these responses. Citing the President’s retrospect? oft-criticized response about Mr. Bennett’s use of A: I have not changed my opinion, no. prised that this was an issue, and he was just talking.’’ Supp. at 668 (Currie GJ 7/22/98). She the present tense in his statement ‘‘there is no sex Supp. at 667 (Currie GJ 7/22/98); see also Supp. described the President’s remarks as ‘‘both of any’’ (‘‘It depends on what the meaning of the at 534 (Currie FBI 302 1/24/98) (‘‘Currie advised word ‘is’ is.’’ App. at 510), the Committee Report statements and questions at the same time.’’ that she responded ‘‘right’’ to each of the claims that such parsing contradicts the President’s Supp. at 534 (Currie FBI 302 1/24/98). statements because as far as she knew, the claim that he was not paying close attention to the Finally, the inference that the President statements were basically right.’’); Supp. at exchange. But contrary to the Committee Report’s intended to influence Ms. Currie’s testimony suggestion, the President’s response to this question 665 (Currie GJ 7/22/98) (‘‘I said ‘Right’ to him before she ever became a witness is firmly did not purport to describe the President’s contem- because I thought they were correct, ‘Right, undercut by the advice the President gave to poraneous thinking at the deposition, but rather you were never really alone with Monica, her when she ultimately did become a wit- only in retrospect whether he agreed with the ques- right’ ’’). tioner that it was ‘‘an utterly false statement.’’ Id. ness in the OIC investigation: The President later emphasized that he ‘‘wasn’t try- ‘‘And then I remember when I knew she ing to give . . . a cute answer’’ in his earlier expla- 109 Ms. Currie remembers a second conversation nation, but rather only that the average person similar in substance a few days after the January 18 was going to have to testify to the grand thinking in the present tense would likely consider discussion, but still in advance of the public disclo- jury, and I, I felt terrible because she had that Mr. Bennett’s statement was accurate since the sure of this matter on January 21, 1998. Supp. at 561 been through this loss of her sister, this hor- relationship had ended long ago. App. at 513. (Currie GJ 1/27/98). rible accident Christmas that killed her January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S209 brother, and her mother was in the hospital. knowledge or observations. Nor is there any tifying the charges to be addressed in this I was trying to do—to make her understand evidence that the President knew any of Trial Memorandum highlights just how that I didn’t want her to, to be untruthful to these aides would ultimately be witnesses in flawed the articles are.113 the grand jury. And if her memory was dif- the grand jury when he spoke with them. The result is a pair of articles whose struc- ferent than mine, it was fine, just go in there None was under subpoena at the time the de- ture does not permit a constitutionally and tell them what she thought. So, that’s nials took place and none had any independ- sound vote to convict. If they were counts in all I remember.’’ ent knowledge of any sexual activity be- an indictment, these articles would not sur- App. at 593; see also App. at 508 (‘‘I think Ms. tween the President and Ms. Lewinsky. In- vive a motion to dismiss. Under the unique Currie would also testify that I explicitly deed, the only evidence these witnesses could circumstances of an impeachment trial, they told her, once I realized you were involved in offer on this score was the hearsay repetition should fail: the Jones case—you, the Office of Independ- of the same public denials that the members A. THE ARTICLES ARE BOTH UNFAIRLY COMPLEX ent Counsel—and that she might have to be of the grand jury likely heard on their home AND LACKING IN SPECIFICITY called as a witness, that she should just go in television sets. Under the strained theory of A cursory review of the articles dem- there and tell the truth, tell what she knew, this article, every person who heard the onstrates that they each allege multiple and and be perfectly truthful.’’).110 President’s public denial could have been unspecified acts of wrongdoing. In sum, neither the testimony of Ms. called to the grand jury to create still addi- 1. The Structure of Article I Currie nor that of the President—the only tional obstructions of justice. Article I accuses the President of numer- two participants in this conversation—sup- To bolster this otherwise unsupportable ous different wrongful actions. The introduc- ports the inference that the conversation charge, the Managers point to an excerpt of tory paragraph charges the President with had an insidious purpose. The undisputed the President’s testimony wherein he ac- (i) violating his constitutional oath faith- evidence shows that Ms. Currie was neither knowledged that, to the extent he shared fully to execute his office and defend the an actual nor contemplated witness in the with anyone any details of the facts of his re- Jones case. And when Ms. Currie did ulti- lationship with Ms. Lewinsky, they could 113 The House Managers cannot constitutionally mately become a witness in the Starr inves- conceivably be called before the grand jury— unbundle the charges in the articles or provide the tigation, the President told her to tell the which for the sake of his friends the Presi- missing specifics. This is because the Constitution truth, which she did. dent wanted to avoid: provides that only the House of Representatives can 7. The President denies that he obstructed jus- ‘‘I think I was quite careful what I said amend articles of impeachment, and judicial prece- tice when he relayed allegedly ‘‘false and after [January 21]. I may have said some- dent demonstrates that unduly vague indictments thing to all of these people to that effect [de- cannot be cured by a prosecutor providing a bill of misleading statements’’ to his aides particulars. Only the charging body—here, the This final allegation of Article II should be nying an improper relationship], but I’ll House—can particularize an impermissibly vague rejected out of hand. The President has ad- also—whenever anybody asked me any de- charge. mitted misleading his family, his staff, and tails, I said, look, I don’t want you to be a Indeed, Senate precedent confirms that the entire the Nation about his relationship with Ms. witness or I turn you into a witness or give House must grant particulars when articles of im- peachment are not sufficiently specific for a fair Lewinsky, and he has expressed his profound you information that could get you in trou- ble. I just wouldn’t talk. I, by and large, trial. During the 1933 impeachment trial of Judge regret for such conduct. But this Article as- Harold Louderback, counsel for the Judge filed a serts that the President should be impeached didn’t talk to people about this.’’ motion to make the original Article V, the omnibus and removed from office because he failed to App. at 647. The point was not that the Presi- or ‘‘catchall’’ article, more definite. 77 Cong Rec. be candid with his friends and aides about dent believed these people would be wit- 1852, 1854 (1933). The House Managers unanimously the nature of his relationship with Ms. nesses and so decided to mislead them, but consented to the motion, which they considered to rather that he decided to provide as little in- be akin to a motion for a bill of particulars, and the Lewinsky. These allegedly impeachable deni- full House amended Article V to provide the re- als took place in the immediate aftermath of formation as possible (consistent with his quested specifics. Id. Thereafter, the Clerk of the the Lewinsky publicity—at the very time the perceived obligation to address their legiti- House informed the Senate that the House had President was denying any improper rela- mate concerns) in order to keep them from adopted an amendment to Article V. Id. Judge tionship with Ms. Lewinsky in nearly iden- becoming witnesses solely because of what Louderback was then tried on the amended article. tical terms on national television. Having he told them. Judge Louderback was subsequently acquitted on all made this announcement to the whole coun- In conclusion, this Article fails as a matter five articles. Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, of law and as a matter of common sense. It President of the United States, Report by Staff of try on television, it is simply absurd to be- the Impeachment Inquiry, House Comm. on the Ju- lieve that he was somehow attempting cor- should be soundly rejected. diciary, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., Appendix B at 55 (Feb. ruptly to influence the testimony of aides VI. THE STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES OF THE 1974). when he told them virtually the same thing ARTICLES PRECLUDE A CONSTITUTIONALLY The power to define and approve articles of im- at the same time.111 Rather, the evidence SOUND VOTE peachment is vested by the Constitution exclusively demonstrates that the President spoke with in the House of Representatives. U.S. Const. Art I, The Constitution prescribes a strict and § 2, cl. 5. It follows that any alteration of an Article these individuals regarding the allegations exacting standard for the removal of a popu- of Impeachment can be performed only by the because of the longstanding professional and larly elected President. Because each of the House. The House cannot delegate (and has not dele- personal relationships he shared with them two articles charges multiple unspecified gated) to the Managers the authority to amend or and the corresponding responsibility he felt wrongs, each is unconstitutionally flawed in alter the Articles, and Senate precedent dem- to address their concerns once the allega- two independent respects. onstrates that only the House (not the Managers tions were aired. The Managers point to no First, by charging multiple wrongs in one unilaterally) can effect an amendment to articles of impeachment. evidence—for there is none—that the Presi- article, the House of Representatives has Case law is consistent with this precedent. When dent spoke to these individuals for any other made it impossible for the Senate to comply indictments are unconstitutionally vague, they can- reason, and certainly not that he spoke with with the Constitutional mandate that any not be cured by a prosecutor’s provision of a bill of them intending to obstruct any proceed- conviction be by the concurrence of two- particulars, because only the charging body can ing.112 They simply assert that since he knew thirds of the members. Since Senate Rules elaborate upon vague charges. As the Supreme Court there was an investigation, his intent had to require that an entire article be voted as a noted in Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 771 (1962): be that they relate his remarks to the inves- unit, sixty-seven Senators could conceivably ‘‘It is argued that any deficiency in the indict- tigators and grand jurors. House Br. at 80. vote to convict while in wide disagreement ments in these cases could have been cured by bills However, there is no allegation that the as to the alleged wrong committed—for ex- of particulars. But it is a settled rule that a bill of President attempted to influence these ample, they could completely disagree on particular cannot save an invalid indictment . . . To aides’ testimony about their own personal what statement they believe is false—in di- allow the prosecutor, or the court, to make a subse- rect violation of the Constitutional require- quent guess as to what was in the minds of the grand jury at the time they returned the indictment would 110 Only groundless speculation and unfounded in- ments of ‘‘Concurrence’’ and due process. deprive the defendant of a basic protection which ferences support the Committee Report’s mirror al- Second, by charging perjury without iden- the guaranty of the intervention of a grand jury was legation of Article I (4) that the President lied to tifying a single allegedly perjurious state- designed to secure. For a defendant could then be the grand jury when he described his motivation in ment, and charging obstruction of justice convicted on the basis of facts not found by, and per- discussing these matters with Ms. Currie. That alle- without identifying a single allegedly ob- haps not even presented to, the grand jury which in- gation should be rejected for the same reasons dis- structive action by the President, the House dicted him. This underlying principle is reflected by cussed more fully in the text of this section. of Representatives has failed to inform the the settled rule in the federal courts that an indict- 111 As the Supreme Court has held, to constitute ment may not be amended except by resubmission obstruction of justice such actions must be taken Senate either of the statements it agreed to the grand jury. . . .’’ ‘’with an intent to influence judicial or grand jury were perjurious (if it agreed), or of the actual See also Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 214, 216 proceedings.’’ United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 592, conduct by the President that it agreed con- (1960) quoting Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887) (‘‘If it 599 (1995). stituted obstruction of justice (again, if it lies within the province of a court to charging part 112 The Committee Reports’s allegation under Arti- agreed). The result is that the President does to an indictment to suit its own notions of what it cle I (4) that the President committed perjury before not have the most basic notice of the charges ought to have been or what they grand jury would the grand jury when, in the course of admitting that against him required by due process and fun- probably have made it if their attention had been he misled his close aides, he stated that he endeav- called to suggested changes, the great importance ored to say to his aides ‘‘things that were true,’’ damental fairness. He is not in a position to which the common law attaches to an indictment by App. at 557–60, without disclosing the full nature of defend against anything other than a moving a grand jury . . . may be frittered away until its the relationship is simply bizarre. target. The guesswork involved even in iden- value is almost destroyed.’’). S210 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 Constitution; (ii) violating his constitutional graph charges the President with (i) violat- must be ‘‘Concurrence,’’ which is to say gen- duty to take care that the laws be faithfully ing his constitutional oath faithfully to exe- uine, reliably manifested, agreement, among executed; (iii) willfully corrupting and ma- cute his office and defend the Constitution those voting to convict. Both the commit- nipulating the judicial process; and (iv) im- and (ii) violating his constitutional duty to ting of this task to the Senate and the two- peding the administration of justice. take care that the laws be faithfully exe- thirds requirement are important constitu- The second paragraph charges the Presi- cuted by (iii) preventing, obstructing and im- tional safeguards reflecting the Framers’ in- dent with (a) perjurious, (b) false, and (c) peding the administration of justice by en- tent that conviction not come easily. Con- misleading testimony to the grand jury con- gaging (personally and through subordinates viction demands real and objectively verifi- cerning ‘‘one or more’’ of four different sub- and agents) in a scheme designed to delay, able agreement among a substantial super- ject areas: impede, cover up, and conceal the existence majority. (1) the nature and details of this relation- of evidence and testimony related to a Fed- Indeed, the two-thirds supermajority re- ship with a subordinate government em- eral civil rights action. quirement is a crucial constitutional safe- ployee; The second paragraph specifies the various guard. Supermajority provisions are con- (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading ways in which the violations in the first stitutional exceptions 115 to the presumption testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights paragraph are said to have occurred. It that decisions by legislative bodies shall be action brought against him; states that the harm was effectuated by made by majority rule.116 These exceptions (3) prior false and misleading statements ‘‘means’’ that are not expressly defined or serve exceptional ends. The two-thirds con- he allowed his attorney to make to a federal delimited, but rather are said to include currence rule serves the indispensable pur- judge in that action; ‘‘one or more’’ of seven ‘‘acts’’ attributed to pose of protecting the people who chose the (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the tes- the President: President by election. By giving a ‘‘veto’’ to timony of witnesses and to impede the dis- (1) corruptly encouraging a witness to exe- a minority of Senators, the Framers sought covery of evidence in that civil rights action. cute a perjurious, false and misleading affi- to ensure the rights of an electoral major- The third paragraph alleges that, as a con- davit; ity—and to safeguard the people in their sequence of the foregoing, the President has, (2) corruptly encouraging a witness to give choice of Executive. Only the Senate and to the manifest injury of the people of the perjurious, false and misleading testimony if only the requirement of a two-thirds concur- United States: called to testify; rence could provide that assurance. ∑ undermined the integrity of his office; (3) corruptly engaging in, encouraging or The ‘‘Concurrence’’ required is agreement ∑ brought disrepute on the Presidency; supporting a scheme to conceal evidence; that the charges stated in specific articles ∑ betrayed his trust as President; and (4) intensifying and succeeding in an effort have in fact been proved, and the language of ∑ acted in a manner subversive of the rule to secure job assistance to a witness in order those articles is therefore critical. Since the of law and justice. to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony House of Representatives is vested with the It is imperative to note that although Ar- of that witness at a time when that witness’s ‘‘sole Power of Impeachment,’’ U.S. Const. ticle I alleges ‘‘perjurious, false and mislead- truthful testimony would have been harmful; Art. I, § 2, cl. 5, the form of those articles ing’’ testimony concerning ‘‘one or more’’ of (5) allowing his attorney to make false and cannot be altered by the Senate. And Rule four general subject areas, it does not iden- misleading statements to a federal judge in XXIII of the Rules of Procedure and Practice tify the particular sworn statements by the order to prevent relevant questioning; in the Senate when Sitting on Impeachment President that were allegedly ‘‘perjurious,’’ (6) relating a false and misleading account Trials (‘‘Senate Rules’’) provides that ‘‘[a]n (and therefore potentially illegal), or ‘‘false’’ of events to a potential witness in a civil article of impeachment shall not be divisible or ‘‘misleading’’ (and therefore not unlaw- rights action in order to corruptly influence for the purpose of voting thereon at any time ful). In fact, contrary to the most basic rules the testimony of that person; during the trial.’’ of fairness and due process, Article I does not (7) making false and misleading state- It follows that each Senator may vote on identify a single specific statement that is at ments to potential witnesses in a Federal an article only in its totality. By the express issue. grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly terms of Article I, a Senator may vote for In sum, Article I appears to charge the influence their testimony and causing the impeachment if he or she finds that there President with four general forms of wrong- grand jury to receive false and misleading was perjurious, false and misleading testi- doing (violations of two oaths, manipulation information. mony in any ‘‘one or more’’ of four topic of legal process, impeding justice), involving The third paragraph alleges that, as a re- areas. But that prospect creates the very three (perjurious, false, misleading) distinct sult of the foregoing, the President has, to real possibility that ‘‘conviction’’ could types of statements, concerning different the manifest injury of the people of the occur even though fewer than two-thirds of subjects (relationship to Ms. Lewinsky, prior United States: the Senators actually agree that any par- deposition testimony, prior statements of his ∑ undermined the integrity of his office; ticular false statement was made.117 Put dif- attorney, obstruction of justice),114 resulting ∑ brought disrepute on the Presidency; ferently, the article’s structure presents the in four species of harms either to the Presi- ∑ betrayed his trust as President; and possibility that the President could be con- dency (undermining its integrity, bringing it ∑ acted in a manner subversive of the rule victed on Article I even though he would into disrepute) or to the people (acting in a of law and justice. have been acquitted if separate votes were manner subversive of the rule of law and to As with the first article, Article II does not taken on individual allegedly perjurious the manifest injury of the people). And it al- set forth a single specific act alleged to have statements. To illustrate the point, consider leges all of this without identifying a single, been performed by the President. Instead, it that it would be possible for conviction to re- specific perjurious, false or misleading state- alleges general ‘‘encourage[ment]’’ to exe- sult even with as few as seventeen Senators ment. cute a false affidavit, provide misleading tes- agreeing that any single statement was per- Absent a clear statement of which state- timony, and conceal subpoenaed evidence. jurious, because seventeen votes for one ments are alleged to have been perjurious, This Article also includes general allega- statement in each of four categories would and which specific acts are alleged to have tions that the President undertook to ‘‘cor- yield 68 votes, one more than necessary to been undertaken with the purpose of ob- ruptly influence’’ and/or ‘‘corruptly prevent’’ convict. The problem is even worse if Sen- structing the administration of justice, it is the testimony of potential witnesses and ators agree that there is a single perjurious impossible to prepare a defense. It is a fun- that he ‘‘engaged in . . . or supported’’ a statement but completely disagree as to damental tenet of our jurisprudence that an scheme to conceal evidence. Again, the Sen- which statement within the 176 pages of accused must be afforded notice of the spe- ate and the President have been left to guess transcript they believe is perjurious. Such an cific charges against which he must defend. at the charges (if any) actually agreed upon outcome would plainly violate the Constitu- Neither the Referral of the Office of the Inde- by the House. tion’s requirement that there be conviction pendent Counsel, nor the Committee Report B. CONVICTION ON THESE ARTICLES WOULD VIO- only when a two-thirds majority agrees. of the Judiciary Committee, nor the House LATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT The very same flaw renders Article II un- Managers’ Trial Memorandum was adopted THAT TWO-THIRDS OF THE SENATE REACH constitutional as well. That Article alleges a by the House, and none of them can provide AGREEMENT THAT SPECIFIC WRONGDOING HAS BEEN PROVEN the necessary particulars. It is impossible to 115 See e.g., U.S. Const. Art. I, § 7, cl. 2 (two thirds know whether the different statements and 1. The Articles Bundle Together Disparate Alle- vote required to override Presidential veto); U.S. acts charged in the Referral, or the Report, gations in Violation of the Constitution’s Const. Art. II, § 2, cl. 2 (two thirds required for ratifi- or the Trial Memorandum, or all, or none, Requirements of Concurrence and Due Proc- cation of treaties); U.S. Const. Art. V (two thirds re- are what the House had in mind when it ess quired to propose constitutional amendments); U.S. passed the Articles. Const. Art. I, § 5, cl. 2 (two thirds required to expel a. The Articles Violate the Constitution’s members of Congress). 2. The Structure of Article II Two-Thirds Concurrence Requirement 116 Madison referred to majority voting as ‘‘the Article II accuses the President of a vari- Article I, section 3 of the Constitution pro- fundamental principal of free government.’’ Federal- ety of wrongful acts. The introductory para- vides that ‘‘no person shall be convicted [on ist No. 58 at 248 (G. Wills ed. 1982). 117 There remains the additional problem that the articles of impeachment] without the Con- articles allege not specific perjurious statements, 114 It appears that each of these topic areas in- currence of two thirds of the Members but perjury within a topic area. Perjury as to a cat- cludes various, unspecified allegedly perjurious, present.’’ U.S. Const. Art. I, § 3, cl. 6. The egory (rather than as to specific statements) is an false and misleading statements. Constitution’s requirement is plain. These incomprehensible notion. January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S211 scheme of wrongdoing effected through ‘‘The House is telling us that it’s OK to ment among the entire jury, see United States ‘‘means’’ including ‘‘one or more’’ of seven convict Judge Nixon on Article III even if we v. Fawley, 137 F.3d 458, 470 (7th Cir. 1998), factually and logically discrete ‘‘acts.’’ That have different visions of what he did wrong. Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (1991) (plural- compound structure is fraught with the po- But that’s not fair to Judge Nixon, to the Sen- ity), in the impeachment context, that re- tential to confuse. For example, the Article ate, or to the American people. Let’s say we do quirement of genuine agreement must be ex- alleges both concealment of gifts on Decem- convict on Article III. The American people— pressed by a two-thirds supermajority. But ber 28, 1997, and false statements to aides in to say nothing of history—would never know the underlying due process principles is the late January 1998. These two allegations in- exactly which of Judge Nixon’s statements were same in both settings. This basic principle is volve completely different types of behavior. regarded as untrue. They’d have to guess. bottomed on two fundamental notions: (1) They are alleged to have occurred in dif- What’s more, this ambiguity would prevent us that there be genuine agreement—mutuality ferent months. They involved different per- from being totally accountable to the voters for of understanding—among those voting to sons. And they are alleged to have ob- our decision.’’ 124 convict, and (2) that the unanimous verdict structed justice in different legal proceed- As noted, the Senate acquitted Judge Nixon be understood (by the accused and by the ings. In light of Senate Rule XXIII’s prohibi- on the omnibus article—very possible be- public) to have been the product of genuine tion on dividing articles, the combination of cause of the constitutional and related due agreement. such patently different types of alleged process and fairness concerns articulated by This principle is given shape in the crimi- wrongdoing in a single article creates the Senator Kohl and others.125 nal law in the well-recognized prohibition on manifest possibility that votes for convic- The constitutional problems identified by ‘‘duplicitous’’ charges. ‘‘Duplicity is the tion on this article would not reflect any those Senators are significant when a single joining in a single count of two or more dis- two-third agreement whatsoever. federal judge (one of roughly 1000) is im- tinct and separate offenses.’’ United States v. The extraordinary problem posed by such peached. But when the Chief Executive and UCO Oil, 546 F.2d 833, 835 (9th Cir. 1976.) In compound articles is well-recognized and was sole head of one entire branch of our govern- the law of criminal pleading, a single count illustrated by the proceedings in the im- ment stands accused, those infirmities are that charges two or more separate offenses is peachment of Judge Walter Nixon. Article III momentous. Fairness and the appearance of duplicitous. See United States v. Parker, 991 of the Nixon proceedings, like the articles fairness require that the basis for any action F.2d 1493, 1497–98 (9th Cir. 1993); United States here, was phrased in the disjunctive and this body might take be clear and specific. v. Hawkes, 753 F.2d 355, 357 (4th Cir. 1985).127 charged multiple false statements as grounds The Constitution clearly forbids conviction A duplicitous charge in an indictment vio- for impeachment. Judge Nixon moved to dis- unless two thirds of the Senate concurs in a lates the due process principle that ‘‘the req- miss Article III on a number of grounds, in- judgment. Any such judgment would be uisite specificity of the charge may not be cluding on the basis of its compound struc- meaningless in the absence of a finding that compromised by the joining of separate of- ture.118 Although that motion was defeated specific, identifiable, wrongful conduct has fenses.’’ Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 633 in the full Senate by a vote of 34–63,119 the 34 in fact occurred. No such conclusion is pos- (1991) (plurality). More specifically, a duplicitous charge Senators who voted to dismiss were a suffi- sible under either article as drafted. poses the acute danger of conviction by a cient number to block conviction on Article b. Conviction on the Articles Would Violate less-than-unanimous jury; some jurors may III. Due Process Protections that Forbid Com- Judge Nixon (although convicted on the find the defendant guilty of one charge but pound Charges in a Single Accusation not guilty of a second, while other jurors first two articles) was ultimately acquitted Even apart from the Constitution’s clear find him guilty of a second charge but not on Article III by a vote of 57 (guilty) to 40 requirement of ‘‘Concurrence’’ in Article I, the first. See United States v. Saleh, 875 F.2d (not guilty).120 Senator Biden, who voted not section 3, the fundamental principles of fair- 535, 537 (6th Cir. 1989); United States v. Stan- guilty on the article, stated that the struc- ness and due process that underlie our Con- ley, 597 F.2d 866, 871 (4th Cir. 1979); Bins v. ture of the article made it ‘‘possible . . . for stitution and permeate our procedural and United States, 331 F.2d 390, 393 (5th Cir. Judge Nixon to be convicted under article III substantive law compel the same outcome. 1964).128 Our federal system of justice simply even though two-thirds of the members In particular, the requirement that there be does not permit conviction by less than present did not agree that he made any one genuine agreement by the deciding body be- unanimous agreement concerning a single, of the false statements.’’ 121 Senator Mur- fore an accused is denied life, liberty or prop- identified charge. See United States v. Fawley, kowski concurred: ‘‘I don’t appreciate the erty is a cornerstone of our jurisprudence.126 137 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 1998) (conviction re- omnibus nature of article III, and I agree While in the federal criminal context due quires unanimous agreement as to particular with the argument that the article could process requires that there be genuine agree- statements); United States v. Holley, 942 F.2d easily be used to convict Judge Nixon by less 916, 929 (5th Cir. 1991) (reversal required than the super majority vote required by the 124 where no instruction was given to ensure 122 Statement of Senator Herbert H. Kohl, id. at 449 Constitution.’’ Id. at 464. And Senator Dole that all jurors concur in conclusion that at stated that ‘‘Article III is redundant, com- (emphasis added). Senator Kohl did not believe that the constitutional question concerning two-thirds least one particular statement was false); see plex and unnecessarily confusing. . . . It al- concurrence had to be answered in the Judge Nixon also United States v. Gipson, 553 F.2d 453, 458– leges that Judge Nixon committed five dif- proceedings because he believed that the bundling 59 (5th Cir. 1977) (right to unanimous verdict ferent offenses in connection with each of problem created an unfairness (in effect, a due proc- violated by instruction authorizing convic- ess violation) that precluded conviction. Id. fourteen separate events, a total of seventy tion if jury found defendant committed any charges. . . . [I]t was virtually impossible 125 See also Constitutional Grounds for Presidential one of six acts proscribed by statute).129 The for Judge Nixon and his attorney’s to pre- Impeachment: Modern Precedents, Report by the Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry, Comm. on Judici- protection against conviction by less than pare an adequate defense.’’ 123 ary, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. at 12 (1998) (discussing Sen. full agreement by the factfinders is en- In his written statement filed after the Kohl’s position). shrined in Rule 31(a) of the Federal Rules of voting was completed, Senator Kohl pointed 126 Judicial precedent is persuasive here on these Criminal Procedure which dictates that out the dangers posed by combining multiple due process and fairness questions. Indeed, in prior ‘‘[t]he verdict shall be unanimous.’’ 130 accusations in a single article: impeachment trials, the Senate has been guided by ‘‘Article III is phrased in the disjunctive. It decisions of the courts, because they reflect cumu- 127 says that Judge Nixon concealed his con- lative wisdom concerning fairness and the search for See also Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, justice. During the impeachment trial of Judge Rule 8(a): ‘‘Two or more offenses may be charged in versations through ‘one or more’ of 14 false Alcee L. Hastings, Senator Specter stated: the same indictment or information in a separate statements. ‘‘[T]he impeachment process relies in significant count for each offense if the offenses charged . . . are ‘‘This wording presents a variety of prob- measure on decisions of the court and the opinion of of the same or similar charter or are based on the lems. First of all, it means that Judge Nixon judges . . . [T]he decisions and interpretations of same act or transaction or on two or more acts or can be convicted even if two thirds of the the courts should be highly instructive to us. In our transactions connected together or constituting Senate does not agree on which of his par- system of Government, it has been the courts that parts of a common scheme or plan.’’ (emphasis ticular statements were false. ... through the years have been called upon to con- added). strue, define and apply the provisions of our Con- 128 Each of the four categories charged here actu- stitution. Their decisions reflect our values and our ally comprises multiple allegedly perjurious state- 118 See Report of the Senate Impeachment Trial evolving notions of justice . . . Although we are a ments. Thus, the dangers of duplicitousness are in- Committee on the Articles of Impeachment Against branch of Government coequal with the judiciary, creased exponentially. Judge Walter L. Nixon, Jr., Hearings Before the Sen- and by the Constitution vested with the ‘sole’ power 129 The Supreme Court has stated that ate Impeachment Trial Committee, 101st Cong., 1st to try impeachments, I believe that the words and ‘‘[u]nanimity in jury verdicts is required where the Sess. at 257, 281–84 (1989). reasoning of judges who have struggled with the Sixth and Seventh Amendments apply.’’ Andres v. 119 Judge Nixon Proceedings at 430–32. meaning and application of the Constitution and its United States, 333 U.S. 740, 748 (1948); Apodaca v. Or- 120 Id. at 435–36. provisions ought to be given great heed because that egon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972) (same). 121 Statement of Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., id. jurisprudence embodies the values of fairness and 130 That rule gives expression to a criminal defend- at 459. justice that ought to be the polestar of our own de- ant’s due process right to a unanimous verdict. See 122 See also Statement of Senator Bailey, Impeach- terminations.’’ (S. Doc. 101–18, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. United States v. Fawley, 137 F.2d 458, 4771 (7th Cir. ment of Judge Harold Louderback, 77 Cong. Rec. 4238 at 740–41.) 1988). Because the Constitution does not tolerate the (May 26, 1933) (respondent should be tried on individ- (As Senator Specter observed, judicial rules have risk of a less than unanimous verdict in the crimi- ual articles and not on all of them assembled into been developed and refined over the years to assure nal setting, ‘‘where the complexity of a case or other one article). that court proceedings are fair, and that an accused factors create the potential for confusion as to the 123 Statement of Senator Robert Dole, Judge Nixon is assured the necessary tools to prepare a proper de- Proceedings at 457. fense, including proper notice. Continued S212 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 Thus, where the charging instrument al- The Supreme Court explained that dismissal the basis of its allegations,132 (2) it therefore leges multiple types of wrongdoing, the una- is the only appropriate remedy for an unduly does not specify which of the President’s nimity requirement ‘‘means more than a vague indictment, because only the charging statements to the grand jury were allegedly conclusory agreement that the defendant has body can elaborate upon vague charges: ‘‘perjurious,’’ which were allegedly ‘‘false,’’ violated the statute in question; there is a re- ‘‘To allow the prosecutor, or the court, to and which were allegedly ‘‘misleading,’’ and quirement of substantial agreement as to the make a subsequent guess as to what was in (3) it does not even specify the subject matter principal factual elements underlying a speci- the minds of the grand jury at the time they of any alleged perjurious statement. fied offense.’’ United States v. Ferris, 719 F.2d returned the indictment would deprive the The first defect is fatal, because it is axio- 1405, 1407 (9th Cir. 1983) (emphasis added). Ac- defendant of a basic protection which the matic that if the precise perjurious state- cordingly, although there need not be una- guaranty of the intervention of a grand jury ments are not identified in the indictment, a nimity as to every bit of underlying evi- was designed to secure. For a defendant defendant cannot possibly prepare his de- fense properly. See, e.g., Slawik, 548 F.2d 75, dence, due process ‘‘does require unanimous could then be convicted on the basis of facts 83–84 (3d Cir. 1977). Indeed, in past impeach- agreement as to the nature of the defend- not found by, and perhaps not even presented ment trails in the Senate where articles of ant’s violation, not simply that a violation to, the grant jury which indicted him. This impeachment alleged the making of false has occurred.’’ McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 underlying principle is reflected by the set- statements, the false statements were speci- U.S. 433, 449 n.5 (1990) (Blackmun, J., concur- tled rule in the federal courts that an indict- fied in the Articles. For example, in the im- ring). Such agreement is necessary to fulfill ment may not be amended except by resub- peachment trial of Alcee L. Hastings, Arti- the demands of fairness and rationality that mission to the grand jury . . .’’ cles of Impeachment II–XIV specified the inform the requirement of due process. See Id. at 771. See also Stirone v. United States, 361 exact statements that formed the bases of 131 Schad, 501 U.S. at 637. U.S. 212, 216 (1960); see also United States v. the false statement allegations against Where multiple accusations are combined Lattimore, 215 F.2d 847 (D.C. Cir. 1954) (perjury Judge Hastings.133 Similarly, in the impeach- in a single charge, neither the accused nor count too vague to be valid cannot be cured ment trial of Walter L. Nixon, Jr., Articles the factfinder can know precisely what that even by bill of particulars); United States v. of Impeachment I–III specified the exact charge means. When the factfinder body can- Tonelli, 557 F.2d 194, 200 (3d Cir. 1978) statements that formed the bases of their not agree upon the meaning of the charge, it (vacating perjury conviction where ‘‘the in- false statement allegations.134 In this case, cannot reach genuine agreement that convic- dictment . . . did not ‘set forth the precise Article I falls far short of specificity stand- tion is warranted. These structural defi- falsehood[s] alleged’ ’’). ards provided in previous impeachment ciencies preclude a constitutionally sound Under the relevant case law, the two exhib- trials in the Senate. vote on the articles. ited Articles present paradigmatic examples As to the second vagueness defect, there is C. CONVICTION ON THESE ARTICLES WOULD VIO- of charges drafted too vaguely to enable the a significant legal difference between, on the LATE DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS PROHIBITING accused to meet the accusations fairly. More one hand, statements under oath which are VAGUE AND NONSPECIFIC ACCUSATIONS than a century ago, the Supreme Court stat- ‘‘perjurious,’’ and those, on the other hand, which are simply ‘‘false’’ or misleading.’’ 1. The Law of Due Process Forbids Vague and ed that ‘‘[i]t is an elementary principle of Only the former could form the basis of a Nonspecific Charges criminal pleading, that where the definition of an offence, whether it be at common law criminal charge. The Supreme Court has em- Impermissibly vague indictments must be or by statute, includes generic terms, it is phatically held that ‘‘misleading’’ state- dismissed, because they ‘‘fail[] to suffi- not sufficient that the indictment shall ments alone cannot form the basis of a ciently apprise the defendant ‘of what he charge the offence in the same generic terms prejury charge. In Bronston v. United States, must be prepared to meet.’ ’’ United States v. as in the definition; but it must state the 409 U.S. 352 (1973), the Court held that lit- Russell, 369 U.S. 749, 764 (1962) (internal species—it must descend to particulars.’’ erally true statements are by definition non- quotation omitted). In Russell, the indict- United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 558 perjurious, and ‘‘it is no answer to say that ment at issue failed to specify the subject (1875). The Court has more recently empha- here the jury found that [the defendant] in- matter about which the defendant had alleg- sized the fundamental ‘‘vice’’ of nonspecific tended to mislead his examiner,’’ since ‘‘[a] edly refused to answer questions before a indictments: that they ‘‘fail[] to sufficiently jury should not be permitted to enage in con- Congressional subcommittee. Instead, the in- apprise the defendant ‘of what he must be jecture whether an unresponsive answer. . . was intended to mislead or divert the exam- dictment stated only that the questions to prepared to meet.’ ’’ Russell, 369 U.S. at 764. which the answers were refused ‘‘were perti- The Supreme Court emphasized in Russell iner.’’ Id. at 358–60 (emphasis added). The nent to the question then under inquiry’’ by that specificity is important not only for the Court emphasized that ‘‘the perjury statute the Subcommittee. Id. at 752. The Court held defendant, who needs particulars to prepare is not to be loosely construed, nor the statue invoked simply because a wily witness suc- that because the indictment did not provide a defense, but also for the decision-maker, ceeds in derailing the questioner so long as sufficient specificity, it was unduly vague ‘‘so it may decide whether [the facts] are suf- the witness speakes the literal truth.’’ Id. and therefore had to be dismissed. Id. at 773. ficient in law to support a conviction, if one Thus, specification of the exact statements should be had.’’ Id. at 768 (internal citation alleged to be prejurious is required, because legal theory or factual basis which sustains a de- and quotation marks omitted). An unspecific ‘‘to hold otherwise would permit the trial fendant’s conviction, a specific unanimity instruc- indictment creates a ‘‘moving target’’ for tion is required.’’ United States v. Jackson, 879 F.2d jury to inject its inferences into the grand the defendant exposing the defendant to a jury’s indictment, and would allow defend- 85, 88 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing United States v. Beros, 833 risk of surprise through a change in the pros- F.2d 455, 460 (3d Cir. 1987)). Such instructions are re- ants to be convicted for immaterial false- quired where the government charges several crimi- ecutor’s theory. ‘‘It enables his conviction to hoods or for ‘intent to mislead’ or ‘perjury nal acts, any of which alone could have supported rest on one point and the affirmance of the by implication,’ which Bronston specifically the offense charged, because of the need to provide conviction to rest on another. It gives the prohibited.’’ Slawik, 538 F.2d at 83–84 (em- sufficient guidance to assure that all members of prosecution free hand on appeal to fill in the phasis added). Thus, if the House meant that the jury were unanimous on the same act or acts of gaps of proof by surmise and conjecture.’’ certain statements were misleading but lit- illegality. Id. at 88. As the Seventh Circuit recently Russell, 369 U.S. at 766. Ultimately, an erally truthful, they might be subject to a concluded in a case alleging multiple false state- unspecific indictment creates a risk that ‘‘a ments, ‘‘the jury should have been advised that in defendant could . . . be convicted on the order to have convicted [the defendant], they had to 132 One of the cardinal rules of perjury cases is that unanimously agree that a particular statement con- basis of facts not found by, and perhaps not ‘‘[a] conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1623 may not stand tained in the indictment was falsely made.’’ Fawley, even presented to, the grand jury which in- where the indictment fails to set forth the precise 137 F.2d at 470. dicted him.’’ Id. at 770. falsehood alleged and the factual basis of its falsity 131 In our federal criminal process, a duplicitous 2. The Allegations of Both Articles Are Uncon- with sufficient clarity to permit a jury to determine pleading problem may sometimes be cured by in- stitutionally Vague its verity and to allow meaningful judicial review of structions to the jury requiring unanimous agree- the materiality of those falsehoods.’’ United States v. ment on a single statement, see Fawley, supra, but Article I alleges that in his August 17, 1998 Slawik, 548 F.2d 75, 83–84 (3d Cir. 1977). Courts have that option is not present here. Not only do the Sen- grand jury testimony, President Clinton pro- vacated convictions for perjury in instances where ate Rules not provide for the equivalent of jury in- vided ‘‘perjurious, false and misleading’’ tes- ‘‘the indictment . . . did not ‘set forth the precise structions, they expressly rule out the prospect of timony to the grand jury concerning ‘‘one or falsehood(s) alleged.’’ Tonelli, 577 F.2d at 200. subdividing an article of impeachment for purposes more’’ of four subject areas. Article I does 133 Proceedings of the United States Senate in the of voting. See Senate Impeachment Rule XXIII. Nor not, however, set forth a single specific Impeachment Trial Alcee L. Hastings, 101st Cong., is the duplicitousness problem presented here cured 1st. Sess., S. Doc. 101–18 at 4–7 (1989). See, e.g., Id. at by any specific enumeration of elements necessary statement by the President upon which its 2 (Article II alleging that the false statement was to be found by the factfinder. See, e.g., Santarpio v. various allegations are predicated. The Arti- ‘‘that Judge Hastings and Wiliam Borders, of Wash- United States, 560 F.2d 448 (1st Cir. 1977) (duplicitous cle haphazardly intermingles alleged crimi- ington, D.C., never made any agreement to solicit a charge harmless because indictments adequately set nal conduct with totally lawful conduct, and bribe from defendants in United States v. Romano, a out the elements of the federal crime; appellants its abstract generalizations provide no guid- case tried before Judge Hastings’’). were not misled or prejudiced). Article I does not ance as to actual alleged perjurious state- 134 Proceedings of the United States Senate in the enumerate specific elements to be found by the Impeachment Trial of Walter L. Nixon, Jr., 101st factfinder. To the contrary, the Article combines ments. Cong., 1st Sess., S. Doc. 101–22 at 430–32 (1989). See, multiple types of wrong, allegedly performed by dif- Aritcle I thus violates the most fundamen- e.g., Id., at 432 (Article I alleging that the false ferent types of statements, the different types oc- tal requirement of perjury indictments. It is statement was ‘‘Forrest County District Attorney curring in multiple subject matter areas, and all fatally vague in three distinct respects: (1) it Paul Holmes never discussed the Drew Fairchild having a range of allegedly harmful effects. does not identify any statements that form case with Judge Nixon.’’). January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S213 motion to dismiss on the ground that the of- The President cannot properly defend wrongdoing has been proven. The Senate fense was not impeachable. against Article II without knowing, at a must also assure the people, through the sole The same is true for allegedly ‘‘false’’ an- minimum, which specific acts of obstruction collective act the Senate is required to take, swers, because it is clear that mere ‘‘false’’ and/or concealment he is alleged to have per- that its decision has a readily discernible answers given under oath, without more, are formed, and which ‘‘potential witnesses’’ he and unequivocal meaning. not criminal. 18 U.S.C. § 1623, the statute pro- is alleged to have attempted to influence. As matters stand, the Senate will vote on scribing perjury before a federal grand jury, For example, it is clear that, in order to vio- two highly complex Articles of Impeach- requires additional elements beyond falsity, late the federal omnibus obstruction of jus- ment. Its vote will not be shaped by narrow- including the defendant’s specific intent to tice statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1503, an accuser must ing instructions. Its rules preclude a vote on testify falsely and the statement’s material- prove that there was a pending judicial pro- divisible parts of the articles. There will be ity to the proceeding. A defense to a perjury ceeding, that the defendant knew of the pro- no judicial review, no correction of error, charge is therefore tied directly to the spe- ceeding, and that the defendant acted ‘‘cor- and no possibility of retrial. The Senate’s de- cific statement alleged to have been perjuri- ruptly’’ with the specific intent to obstruct cision will be as conclusive as any known to ous. Did the defendant know the particular or interfere with the proceeding or due ad- our law—judicially, politically, historically, 135 answer was false? Was it material? ministration of justice. See, e.g., United States and most literally, irrevocable. Article I’s third vagueness defect is that it Under such circumstances, the Senate’s v. Bucey, 876 F.2d 1297, 1314 (7th Cir. 1989); does not specify the subject matter of the al- judgment must speak clearly and intelligi- United States v. Smith, 729 F. Supp. 1380, 1383– leged perjurious statements. Instead, it sim- bly. That cannot happen if the Senate votes 84 (D.D.C. 1990). Without knowing which ‘‘po- ply alleges that the unspecified statements for conviction on these articles. Their com- tential witnesses’’ he is alleged to have at- by the President to the grand jury were con- pound structure and lack of specificity make cerning ‘‘one or more’’ of four enumerated tempted to influence, and the precise man- genuine agreement as to specific wrongs im- areas. The ‘‘one or more’’ language under- ner in which he is alleged to have attempted possible, and those factors completely pre- scores the reality that the President—and, to obstruct justice, the President cannot pre- vent the electorate from understanding why critically, the Senate—cannot possibly know pare a defense that would address the ele- the Senate as a whole voted as it did. As for- what the House majority had in mind, since ments of the offense with which he has been mulated, these articles satisfy neither the it may have failed even to agree on the sub- charged—that he had no intent to obstruct, plain requirement of the Constitution nor ject matter of the alleged perjury. The para- that there was no pending proceeding, or the rightful expectations of the American mount importance of this issue may be seen that the person involved was not a potential people. The articles cannot support a con- by reference to court decisions holding that witness. stitutionally sound vote for conviction. It follows that the requisite vote of two- a jury has to ‘‘unanimously agree that a par- VII. THE NEED FOR DISCOVERY ticular statement contained in the indictment thirds of the Senate required by the Con- The Senate need not address the issue of was falsely made.’’ United States v. Fawley, stitution cannot possibly be obtained if there discovery at this time, but because the issue 137 F.3d 458, 471 (7th Cir. 1998) (emphasis are no specific statements whatsoever alleged added); see also discussion of unanimity re- to be perjurious, false or misleading in Arti- may arise at a later date, it is appropriate to quirement in Section VI.B, supra. cle I or no specific acts of obstruction al- remark here on its present status. Senate Article II is also unconstitutionally vague. leged in Article II. Different Senators might Resolution 16 provides that the record for It alleges that the President ‘‘obstructed and decide that different statements or different purposes of the presentation by the House impeded the administration of justice * * * acts were unlawful without any concurrence Managers and the President is the public in a course of conduct or scheme designed to by two-thirds of the Senate as to any par- record established in the House of Represent- 136 delay, impede, cover up and conceal’’ unspec- ticular statement or act. Such a scenario is atives. Since this record was created by the House itself and is ostensibly the basis ified evidence and testimony in the Jones antithetical to the Constitution’s due proc- for the House’s impeachment vote, and be- case. It sets forth seven instances in which ess guarantee of notice of specific and defi- cause this evidence has been publicly identi- the President allegedly ‘‘encouraged’’ false nite charges and it threatens conviction fied and available for scrutiny, comment, testimony or the concealment of evidence, or upon vague and uncertain grounds. As cur- and rebuttal, it is both logical and fair that ‘‘corruptly influenced’’ or ‘‘corruptly pre- rently framed, neither Article I nor Article this be the basis for any action by the Sen- vented’’ various other testimony, also un- II provides a sufficient basis for the Presi- ate. Moreover, Senate Resolution 16 explic- specified. In fact, not only does Article II fail dent to prepare a defense to the unspecified itly prohibits the President and the House to identify a single specific act performed by charges upon which the Senate may vote, or Managers from filing at this time any ‘‘mo- the President in this alleged scheme to ob- an adequate basis for actual adjudication. struct justice, it does not even identify the tions to subpoena witnesses or to present D. THE SENATE’S JUDGMENT WILL BE FINAL AND ‘‘potential witnesses’’ whose testimony the any evidence not in the record.’’ THAT JUDGMENT MUST SPEAK CLEARLY AND President allegedly sought to ‘‘corruptly in- In the event, however, that the Senate INTELLIGIBLY fluence.’’ should later decide, pursuant to the provi- An American impeachment trial is not a sions of Senate Resolution 16, to allow the parliamentary inquiry into fitness for office. House Managers to expand the record in 135 Not surprisingly, courts have specifically held It is not a vote of no confidence. It is not a some way, our position should be absolutely that because of these additional elements (the lack mechanism whereby a legislative majority clear. At such time, the President would of which may undermine a perjury prosecution), a have an urgent need for the discovery of rel- defendant must know exactly which statements are may oust a President from a rival party on alleged to form the basis of a perjury indictment to political grounds. To the contrary, because evant evidence, because at no point in these test whether the requisite elements are present. See, the President has a limited term of office proceedings has he been able to subpoena e.g., United States v. Lattimore, 215 F.2d 847, 850 (D.C. and can be turned out in the course of ordi- documents or summon and cross-examine Cir. 1954) (‘‘The accused is entitled under the Con- nary electoral processes, a Presidential im- witnesses. He would need to use the compul- stitution to be advised as to every element in re- peachment trial is a constitutional measure sory process authorized by Senate Impeach- spect to which it is necessary for him to prepare a of last resort designed to protect the Repub- ment Rules V and VI137 to obtain documen- defense’’). For example, because of the intent re- tary evidence and witness depositions. While quirement, one potential defense to a perjury pros- lic. ecution is that the question to which the allegedly This Senate is therefore vested with an ex- perjurious statement was addressed was fundamen- tremely grave Constitutional task: a deci- 136 S. Res. 16 defined the record for the presen- tally ambiguous, as courts have held that fundamen- sion whether to remove the President for the tations as ‘‘those publicly available materials that tally ambiguous questions cannot as a matter of law protection of the people themselves. In the have been submitted to or produced by the House produce perjurious answers. See, e.g., Tonelli, 577 F.2d Senate’s hands there rests not only the fate Judiciary Committee, including transcripts of pub- at 199; United States v. Wall, 371 F.2d 398 (6th Cir. of one man, but the integrity of our Con- lic hearings or mark-ups and any materials printed 1967). A separate defense to a perjury prosecution is by the House of Representatives or House Judiciary that the statement alleged to have been perjurious stitution and our democratic process. Committee pursuant to House Resolutions 525 and was not material to the proceeding. Thus, ‘‘false’’ Fidelity to the Constitution and fidelity to 581.’’ statements alone are not perjurious if they were not the electorate must converge in the im- 137 Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate material to the proceeding. By not specifying which peachment trial vote. If the Senate is to give When Sitting on Impeachment Trials (Senate Man- statements are alleged to be ‘‘false’’ or ‘‘mislead- meaning to the Constitution’s command, any ual 99–2, as revised by S. Res. 479 (Aug. 16, 1986)). ing,’’ Article I precludes the President from prepar- vote on removal must be a vote on one or There is ample precedent for liberal discovery in ing a materiality defense, and it also fails to distin- more specifically and separately identified Senate impeachment trials. For example, in the guish allegedly criminal conduct from purely lawful trial of Judge Alcee Hastings, the Senate issued nu- conduct. As one court explained, ‘‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’’ as set merous orders addressing a range of pretrial issues ‘‘It is to be observed that * * * it is not sufficient forth in properly drafted impeachment arti- over several months including: to constitute the offense that the oath shall be cles approved by the House. If the people are ∑ requiring the parties to provide witness lists merely false, but that it must be false in some ‘ma- to have their twice-elected President re- along with a description of the general nature of the terial matter.’ Applying that definition to the facts moved by an act of the Senate, that act must testimony that was expected from each witness stated in either count of this indictment, and it be intelligible. It must be explainable and months in advance of the scheduled evidentiary would seem that there is an entire lack in any essen- justifiable to the people who first chose the hearing; tial sense to disclose that the particulars as to ∑ requiring the House Managers to turn over ex- which the oath is alleged to have been false were President and then chose him again. The culpatory materials, certain prior statements of material in the essential sense required for purposes Senate must ensure that it has satisfied the witnesses, and documents and other tangible evi- of an indictment for this offense.’’ (United States v. Constitution’s requirement of a genuine two- dence they intended to introduce into evidence; Cameron, 282 F. 684, 692 (D. Ariz. 1922).). thirds concurrence that specific, identified Continued S214 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 the President has access to some of the leader who, with the Vice-President, is elect- The Senate has an obligation to turn away grand jury transcripts and FBI interview ed by all the citizens of this country.138 an unwise and unwarranted misuse of the memoranda of witnesses called by the OIC, The need for discovery does not turn on the awesome power of impeachment. If the Sen- the President’s own lawyers were not enti- number of witnesses the House Managers ate removes this President for a wrongful re- tled to be present when these witnesses were may be authorized to depose.139 If the House lationship he hoped to keep private, for what examined. The grand jury has historically Managers call a single witness, that will ini- will the House ask the Senate to remove the been the engine of the prosecution, and it tiate a process that leaves the President po- next President, and the next? Our Framers was used in that fashion in this case. The tentially unprepared and unable to defend wisely gave us a constitutional system of OIC sought discovery of evidence with the adequately without proper discovery. The se- checks and balances, with three co-equal single goal of documenting facts that it be- quence of discovery is critical. The President branches. Removing this President on these lieved were prejudicial to the President. It first needs to obtain and review relevant doc- facts would substantially alter the delicate did not examine witnesses with a view to- umentary evidence not now in his posses- constitutional balance, and move us closer ward establishing there was no justification sion. He then needs to be able to depose po- to a quasi-parliamentary system, in which for impeachment; it did not follow up obvi- tentially helpful witnesses, whose identity the President is elected to office by the ous leads when they might result in evidence may only emerge from the documents and choice of people, but continues in office only from the depositions themselves. Obviously, helpful to the President; and it did not seek at the pleasure of Congress. he also needs to depose potential witnesses out and document exculpatory evidence. It In weighing the evidence and assessing the identified by the House Managers. Only at did not undertake to disclose exculpatory in- facts, we ask that Senators consider not only that point will the President be able intel- formation it might have identified. ligently to designate his own trial witnesses. the intent of the Framers but also the will Nor did the House of Representatives af- This is both a logical procedure and one and interests of the people. It is the citizens ford the President any discovery mecha- which is the product of long experience de- of these United States who will be affected nisms to secure evidence that might be help- signed to maximize the search for truth and by and stand in judgment of this process. It ful in his defense. Indeed, the House called minimize unfair surprise. There is no con- is not simply the President—but the vote the no fact witnesses at all, and at the few depo- ceivable reason it should not be followed American people rendered in schools, church sitions it conducted, counsel for the Presi- here—if the evidentiary record is opened. halls and other civic centers all across the dent were excluded. Moreover, the House Indeed, it is simply impossible to ascertain land twenty-six months ago—that is hanging made available only a selected portion of the how a witness designated by the House Man- in the balance. evidence it received from the OIC. While it agers could fairly be rebutted without a full Respectfully submitted. published five volumes of the OIC materials examination of the available evidence. It is David E. Kendall Charles F.C. Ruff (two volumes of appendices and three vol- also the case that many sorts of helpful evi- Nicole K. Seligman Gregory B. Craig umes of supplements), it withheld a great dence and testimony emerge in the discovery Emmet T. Flood Bruce R. Lindsey amount of evidence, and it denied counsel for process that may at first blush appear irrele- Max Stier Cheryl D. Mills the President access to this material. It is vant or tangential. In any event, the normal Alicia L. Marti Lanny A. Breuer unclear what the criterion was for selecting adversarial process is the best guarantor of Williams & Connolly Office of the White evidence to include in the published vol- the truth. The President needs discovery 725 12th Street, N.W. House Counsel umes, but there does not appear to have been here not simply to obtain evidence to Washington, D.C. The White House an attempt to include all evidence that may present a trial but also in order to make an 20005 Washington, D.C. have been relevant to the President’s de- informed judgment about what to introduce 20502 fense. The President has not had access to a in response to the Managers’ expanded case. great deal of evidence in the possession of The President’s counsel must be able to January 13, 1999. (for example) the House of Representatives make a properly knowledgeable decision and the OIC which may be exculpatory or about what evidence may be relevant and [In the Senate of the United States Sitting relevant to the credibility of witnesses on helpful to the President’s defense, both in as a Court of Impeachment] whom the OIC and the House Managers rely. cross-examination and during the Presi- Should the Senate decide to authorize the dent’s own case. In re Impeachment of President William Jef- House Managers to call witnesses or expand The consequences of an impeachment trial ferson Clinton the record, the President would be faced with are immeasurably grave: The removal of a REPLICATION OF THE HOUSE OF REP- a critical need for the discovery of evidence twice-elected President. Particularly given RESENTATIVES TO THE ANSWER OF useful to his defense—evidence which would what is at stake, fundamental fairness dic- PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON routinely be available to any civil litigant tates that the President be given at least the CLINTON TO THE ARTICLES OF IM- involved in a garden-variety automobile ac- same right as an ordinary litigant to obtain PEACHMENT evidence necessary for his defense, particu- cident case. The House Managers have had in The House of Representatives, through its their possession or had access at the OIC to larly when a great deal of that evidence is presently in the hands of his accusers, the Managers and counsel, replies to the Answer significant amounts of non-public evidence, of President William Jefferson Clinton to the and they have frequently stated their inten- OIC and the House Managers. The Senate has wisely elected to proceed on the public Articles of Impeachment (‘‘Answer’’), as fol- tion to make use of such evidence. Obvi- lows: ously, in order to defend against such tac- record established by the House of Rep- tics, counsel for the President are entitled to resentatives, and this provides a wholly ade- PREAMBLE discovery and a fair opportunity to test the quate basis for Senate decision-making. In The House of Representatives denies each veracity and reliability of this ‘‘evidence,’’ the event the Senate should choose to ex- and every material allegation in the Pre- using compulsory process as necessary to ob- pand this record, affording the President amble to the Answer, including the sections tain testimony and documents. Trial by sur- adequate discovery is absolutely essential. entitled ‘‘The Charges in the Articles Do Not prise obviously has no place in the Senate of VIII. CONCLUSION Constitute High Crimes or Misdemeanors’’ the United States where the issues in the As the Senate considers these Articles of and ‘‘The President Did Not Commit Perjury balance is the removal of the one political Impeachment and listens to the arguments, or Obstruct Justice.’’ With respect to the al- individual Senators are standing in the place legations in the Preamble, the House of Rep- of the Framers of the Constitution, who resentatives further states that each and ∑ requiring the production from the House Man- agers of other documents in the interest of allowing prayed that the power of impeachment and every allegation in Articles I and II is true the Senate to develop ‘‘a record that fully illumi- removal of a President would be invoked and that Articles I and II properly state im- nates the matters that it must consider in rendering only in the gravest of circumstances, when peachable offenses, are not subject to a mo- a judgment;’’ the stability of our system of government tion to dismiss, and should be considered and ∑ setting a briefing schedule for stipulations of hung in the balance—to protect the Republic adjudicated by the Senate sitting as a Court facts and documents; itself from efforts to subvert our Constitu- of Impeachment. ∑ setting a number of pretrial conferences; tional system. ∑ designating a date for final pretrial statements; ARTICLE I and The House of Representatives denies each ∑ permitting a number of pre-trial depositions. 138 In another context, the Supreme Court has ob- and every allegation in the Answer to Arti- ∑ Report of the Senate Impeachment Trial Com- served that ‘‘the ends of justice will best be served mittee on the Articles of Impeachment Against by a system of liberal discovery which gives both cle I that denies the acts, knowledge, intent, Judge Alcee L. Hastings, Hearings Before the Senate parties the maximum possible amount of informa- or wrongful conduct charged against Presi- Impeachment Trial Committee, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. tion from which to prepare their cases and thereby dent William Jefferson Clinton. With respect at 281, 286–87, 342–43, 606–07, 740. reduces the possibility of surprise at trial.’’ Wardius to the allegations in the Answer to Article I, The need for discovery in this case is in fact great- v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 473 (1973). the House of Representatives further states er than in prior impeachment proceedings. In all 139 It is not sufficient that counsel for the Presi- that each and every allegation in Article I is other impeachment trials, there were either sub- dent have the right to depose the witnesses called by true and that Article I properly states an im- stantive investigations by the House or prior judi- the Managers, essential as that right is. The testi- cial proceedings in which the accused had a full op- mony of a single witness may have to be refuted in- peachable offense, is not subject to a motion portunity to develop the evidentiary record and directly, circumstantially, or by a number of wit- to dismiss, and should be considered and ad- cross-examine witnesses. See Id. at 163–64 (pretrial nesses; it is often necessary to depose several wit- judicated by the Senate sitting as a Court of memorandum of Judge Hastings). nesses in order to identify the one or two best. Impeachment. January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S215

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ARTICLE I THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ARTICLE II issues President Clinton raises are addressed The House of Representatives denies each The House of Representatives denies each in detail in the Trial Memorandum of the and every material allegation in this pur- and every material allegation in this pur- House. ported defense. The House of Representatives ported defense. The House of Representatives A complete and impartial review of the further states that Article I properly states further states that Article II properly states evidence reveals that the President did in an impeachable offense, is not subject to a an impeachable offense, is not subject to a fact commit perjury before the grand jury motion to dismiss, and should be considered motion to dismiss, and should be considered and that he obstructed justice during the and adjudicated by the Senate sitting as a and adjudicated by the Senate sitting as a Jones litigation and the grand jury investiga- Court of Impeachment. The House of Rep- Court of Impeachment. The House of Rep- tion as alleged in the articles of impeach- resentatives further states that the offense resentatives further states that Article II ment passed by the House of Representa- stated in Article I warrants the conviction, does not charge multiple offenses in one arti- tives. The House believes a review of the complete record, including the full grand removal from office, and disqualification cle. jury and deposition testimony of the key from holding further office of President Wil- CONCLUSION OF THE HOUSE OF witnesses in this case, will establish that. liam Jefferson Clinton. REPRESENTATIVES The evidence which President Clinton SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ARTICLE I The House of Representatives further claims demonstrates that he did not commit The House of Representatives denies each states that it denies each and every material the offenses outlined in the Articles of Im- and every material allegation in this pur- allegation of the Answer not specifically ad- peachment are cited in Sections IV and V of ported defense. The House of Representatives mitted in this Replication. By providing this his Memorandum. Regarding Article I, Presi- further states that Article I properly states Replication to the Answer, the House of Rep- dent Clinton maintains that his testimony an impeachable offense, is not subject to a resentatives waives none of its rights in this before the grand jury was entirely truthful. motion to dismiss, and should be considered proceeding. Wherefore, the House of Rep- At the outset of his argument, he states that and adjudicated by the Senate sitting as a resentatives states that both of the Articles he told the truth about the nature and de- Court of Impeachment. The House of Rep- of Impeachment warrant the conviction, re- tails of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, resentatives further states that Article I is moval from office, and disqualification from and he insists that any false impressions not unconstitutionally vague, and it pro- holding further office of President William that his deposition testimony might have vides President William Jefferson Clinton Jefferson Clinton. Both of the Articles created were remedied by his admission of adequate notice of the offense charged should be considered and adjudicated by the ‘‘improper intimate contact’’ with Ms. against him. Senate. Lewinsky. However, his subsequent testi- mony demonstrates that this admission is THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ARTICLE I Respectfully submitted, The United States House of Representa- narrowly tailored to mean that Ms. The House of Representatives denies each tives. Lewinsky had ‘‘sexual relations’’ with him, and every material allegation in this pur- HENRY J. HYDE, but he did not have ‘‘sexual relations’’ with ported defense. The House of Representatives F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, her, as he understood the term to be defined. further states that Article I properly states JR., In other words, he admitted only what he an impeachable offense, is not subject to a BILL MCCOLLUM, knew could be conclusively established motion to dismiss, and should be considered GEORGE W. GEKAS, through scientific tests. He denied what the and adjudicated by the Senate sitting as a CHARLES T. CANADY, testimony of Ms. Lewinsky, the testimony of Court of Impeachment. The House of Rep- STEPHEN E. BUYER, a number of her confidantes, and common resentatives further states that Article I ED BRYANT, sense proves: that while she engaged in sex- does not charge multiple offenses in one arti- STEVE CHABOT, ual relations with him, he engaged in sexual cle. BOB BARR, relations with her, regardless of how Presi- ARTICLE II ASA HUTCHINSON, dent Clinton attempts to redefine the term. Following this pattern, President Clinton The House of Representatives denies each CHRIS CANNON, discounts substantial evidence as well as and every allegation in the Answer to Arti- JAMES E. ROGAN, common sense when he maintains that he cle II that denies the acts, knowledge, in- LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, Managers on the Part of the House. testified truthfully in the grand jury about, tent, or wrongful conduct charged against among other things, his prior deposition tes- THOMAS E. MOONEY, President William Jefferson Clinton. With timony, his attorney’s statements to Judge General Counsel. respect to the allegations in the Answer to Wright during his deposition, and his intent Article II, the House of Representatives fur- DAVID P. SCHIPPERS, in providing a series of false statements to ther states that each and every allegation in Chief Investigative Counsel. his secretary after his deposition. Again, a Article II is true and that Article II properly complete review of the record and witness states an impeachable offense, is not subject [In the Senate of the United States Sitting testimony reveals that President Clinton to a motion to dismiss, and should be consid- as a Court of Impeachment] committed perjury numerous times in his ered and adjudicated by the Senate sitting as grand jury testimony. a Court of Impeachment. In re Impeachment of President William Jef- ferson Clinton In regard to Article II, President Clinton FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ARTICLE II extracts numerous items of evidence from REPLY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE The House of Representatives denies each the record and analyzes them in isolation in OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE TRIAL and every material allegation in this pur- an effort to provide innocent explanations MEMORANDUM OF PRESIDENT WIL- ported defense. The House of Representatives for the substantial amount of circumstantial LIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON further states that Article II properly states evidence proving his guilt. Yet when the an impeachable offense, is not subject to a I. INTRODUCTION record is viewed in its entirely, including the motion to dismiss, and should be considered The President’s Trial Memorandum con- portions of President Clinton’s deposition and adjudicated by the Senate sitting as a tains numerous factual inaccuracies and testimony concerning Ms. Lewinsky and his Court of Impeachment. The House of Rep- misstatements of the governing law and the grant jury testimony, it demonstrates that resentatives further states that the offense Senate’s precedents. These errors have large- President Clinton took a number of actions stated in Article II warrants the conviction, ly been addressed in the Trial Memorandum designed to prevent Paula Jones’s attorneys, removal from office, and disqualification of the House of Representatives filed with the federal district court, and a federal grand from holding further office of President Wil- the Senate on January 11, 1999, and given the jury from learning the truth. These actions liam Jefferson Clinton. 24-hour period to file this reply, the House are described in detail in the Trial Memoran- cannot possibly address them all here. The dum of the House. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ARTICLE II To the extent that President Clinton’s House of Representatives will address them The House of Representatives denies each Trial Memorandum raises issues of credibil- further in its oral presentation to the Sen- and every material allegation in this pur- ity, those issues are best resolved by live tes- ate, and it reserves the right to address these ported defense. The House of Representatives timony subject to cross-examination. The matters further in the briefing of any rel- further states that Article II properly states Senate, weighing the evidence in its en- evant motions. However, President Clinton an impeachable offense, is not subject to a tirety, will make an independent assessment has raised some new issues in his Trial motion to dismiss, and should be considered of the facts as they are presented, and a de- Memorandum, and the House of Representa- and adjudicated by the Senate sitting as a tailed, point-by-point argument of these tives hereby replies to those issues. Court of Impeachment. The House of Rep- matters is best resolved on the Senate floor. resentatives further states that Article II is II. FACTS The House is confident that a thorough fac- not unconstitutionally vague, and it pro- The President’s Trial Memorandum out- tual analysis will not only refute President vides President William Jefferson Clinton lines what he claims are facts showing that Clinton’s contentions, but will prove the adequate notice of the offense charged he did not commit perjury before the grand very serious charges contained in the arti- against him. jury and did not obstruct justice. The factual cles. S216 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999

III. THE ARTICLES PROPERLY STATE REMOVAL that strikes at the heart of the justice sys- stated the view that tax fraud would not be OFFENSES tem will result in removal will serve to an impeachable offense. That minority view A. THE OFFENSES ALLEGED ARE HIGH CRIMES strengthen the Presidency, not weaken it. is illustrated by the comments of Rep. AND MISDEMEANORS b. Impeachment and Removal Are Appropriate Waldie that in the tax fraud article there 1. The Senate Has Never Exercised Its Power To for High Crimes and Misdemeanors Re- was ‘‘not an abuse of power sufficient to war- Dismiss an Article of Impeachment Except gardless of Whether They Are Offenses rant impeachment. . . .’’ Debate on Article of When the Official Impeached Has Resigned Against the System of Government Impeachment 1974: Hearings of the Comm. on the Judiciary Pursuant H. Res. 803, 93rd Cong., President Clinton argues that impeach- The House acknowledges that the Senate 2nd Sess., at 548 (1974) (Statement of Rep. ment may only be used to redress wrongful has the power to dismiss an article of im- Waldie). Similar views were expressed by public misconduct. The point is academic. peachment on the ground that it does not Rep. Hogan and Rep. Mayne. Rep. Railsback Perjury and obstruction of justice as set state a removable offense. Beyond that, how- took the position that there was ‘‘a serious forth in the articles are, by definition, public ever, President Clinton completely ignores question,’’ id. at 524 (Statement of Rep. misconduct. See generally House Trial Memo- the Senate’s precedents concerning the use Railsback), whether misconduct of the Presi- randum at 107–12. Indeed, it is precisely their of that power. In the fifteen cases in which dent in connection with his taxes would be public nature that makes them offenses— the House has forwarded articles of impeach- impeachable. acts that are not crimes when committed ment to the Senate, the Senate has never Other members who opposed the tax fraud granted a dispositive motion to preclude a outside the judicial realm become crimes when they enter that realm. Lying to one’s article based their opposition on somewhat trial on the articles with one exception. In different grounds. Rep. Thornton based his the 1926 case of Judge George English, the spouse about an extramarital affair, al- though immoral, is not a crime. Telling the opposition to the tax fraud article on the Senate granted a motion to adjourn after ‘‘view that these charges may be reached in Judge English resigned from office making a same lie under oath in a judicial proceeding is a crime. Hiding gifts given to an adulter- due course in the regular process of law.’’ Id. trial moot on the issue of removal. See Im- at 549 (Statement of Rep. Thornton). Rep. peachment of George W. English, U.S. Dis- ous lover to conceal the affair, although im- moral, is not a crime. When those gifts be- Butler stated his view that the tax fraud ar- trict Judge, Eastern District of Illinois, 68 ticle should be rejected on prudential Cong. Rec. 347–48 (1926). The Senate also come potential evidence in a judicial pro- ceeding, the same act becomes a crime. One grounds: ‘‘Sound judgment would indicate granted a motion to adjourn in the 1868 trial that we not add this article to the trial bur- of President Andrew Johnson, but only after who has committed these kinds of crimes that corrupt the judicial system simply is den we already have.’’ Id. at 550 (Statement a full trial and votes to acquit on three arti- of Rep. Butler). cles. III Cannon’s Precedents of the House of not fit to serve as the nation’s chief law en- The record is clear, however, that the over- Representatives § 2443. forcement officer. whelming majority of those who expressed a In addition, the Senate has never granted a Apart from that, the notion that high view in the debate in opposition to the tax motion to dismiss or strike an article of im- crimes and misdemeanors encompass only fraud article based their opposition on the peachment. However, in the 1936 case of public misconduct will not bear scrutiny. insufficiency of the evidence, and not on the Judge Halsted Ritter, the House managers Numerous ‘‘private’’ crimes would obviously view that tax fraud, if proven, would not be themselves moved to strike two counts of a require the removal of a President. For ex- an impeachable offense. multi-count article to simplify the trial, and ample, if he killed his wife in a domestic dis- the motion was granted. 80 Cong. Rec. 4898– pute or molested a child, no one would seri- The comments of then-Rep. Wayne Owens 99 (April 3, 1936). However, the remainder of ously argue that he could not be removed. in the debate in 1974 directly contradict the the article was fully considered, and Judge All of these acts violate the President’s view that Mr. Owens has expressed in recent Ritter was convicted on that article. The unique responsibility to take care that the testimony before the House Judiciary Com- House managers in the 1986 Judge Harry laws be faithfully executed. mittee. Although Mr. Owens in 1974 ex- pressed his ‘‘belief’’ that President Nixon Claiborne case made the only motion for 3. President Clinton Cites Precedents That Do was guilty of misconduct in connection with summary judgment in the history of im- Not Apply Rather Than Relying on the Sen- his taxes, he clearly stated his conclusion peachment. Hearings of the Senate Impeach- ate’s Own Precedents Clearly Establishing that ‘‘on the evidence available’’ Mr. Nixon’s ment Trial Committee (Judge Harry Claiborne), Perjury as a Removable Offense offenses were not impeachable. Id. at 549 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 145 (1986). They did so on a. President Clinton Continues To Misrepre- the basis that Judge Claiborne had already (Statement of Rep. Owens). Mr. Owens spoke sent the Fraudulent Tax Return Allega- of the need for ‘‘hard evidence’’ and dis- been convicted of the charges in a criminal tion Against President Nixon trial. Id. The Senate postponed a decision on cussed his unavailing efforts to obtain addi- the motion and never ruled on it, but it ulti- In his trial memorandum, President Clin- tional evidence that would tie ‘‘the Presi- mately convicted Judge Claiborne. In short, ton argues that the failure in 1974 of the dent to the fraudulent deed’’ or that would the Senate precedents firmly establish that House Judiciary Committee to adopt an arti- otherwise ‘‘close the inferential gap that has the Senate has always fulfilled its respon- cle of impeachment against President Nixon to be closed in order to charge the Presi- sibility to give a full and fair hearing to arti- for tax fraud supports the claim that current dent.’’ Id. He concluded his comments in the cles of impeachment voted by the House of charges against President Clinton do not rise 1974 debate by urging the members of the Representatives. to the level of impeachable and removable Committee ‘‘to reject this article . . . based offenses. President’s Trial Memorandum at on that lack of evidence.’’ Id. 2. The Constitutional Text Sets One Clear 21. The President’s lawyers acknowledge the In addition to Mr. Owens, eleven members Standard for Removal charge in the article against President Nixon of the Committee stated the view that there a. There is Only One Impeachment Standard of ‘‘knowingly and fraudulently failed to re- was not sufficient evidence of tax fraud to The Constitution sets one clear standard port certain income and claimed deductions support the article against President Nixon. for impeachment, conviction, and removal [for 1969–72] on his Federal income tax re- Wiggins: ‘‘fraud . . . is wholly unsupported in from office: the commission of ‘‘Treason, turns which were not authorized by law.’’ Id. the evidence.’’ Id. at 524 (Statement of Rep. Bribery, or other high Crimes and Mis- The President’s lawyers go on to state that Wiggins). McClory: ‘‘no substantial evidence demeanors.’’ U.S. Const. art. II, § 4. The Sen- ‘‘[t]he President had signed his returns for of any tax fraud.’’ Id. at 531 (Statement of ate has repeatedly determined that perjury those years under penalty of perjury,’’ Id., Rep. McClory). Sandman: ‘‘There was abso- is a high crime and misdemeanor. Simple trying to distinguish away the Claiborne im- lutely no intent to defraud here.’’ Id. at 532 logic dictates that obstruction of justice peachment and removal precedent from 1986, (Statement of Rep. Sandman). Lott: ‘‘mere which has the same effect as perjury and and by extension all the judicial impeach- mistakes or negligence by the President in bribery of witnesses must also be a high ments from the 1980s which clearly establish filing his tax returns should clearly not be crime and misdemeanor. Endless repetition perjury as an impeachable and removable of- grounds for impeachment.’’ Id. at 533 (State- of the claim that this standard is a high one fense. ment of Rep. Lott). Maraziti: discussing ab- does not change the standard. President Clinton’s argument that a Presi- sence of evidence of fraud. Id. at 534 (State- President Clinton claims that to remove dent was not and should not be impeached ment of Rep. Maraziti). Dennis: ‘‘no fraud has him on these articles would permanently dis- for tax fraud because it does not involve offi- been found.’’ Id. at 538 (Statement of Rep. figure and diminish the Presidency and cial conduct or abuse of presidential powers Dennis). Cohen: questioning whether ‘‘in fact mangle the system of checks and balances. simply is unfounded based on the 1974 im- there was criminal fraud involved.’’ Id. at 548 President’s Trial Memorandum at 18. Quite peachment proceedings against President (Statement of Rep. Cohen). Hungate: ‘‘I think the contrary, however, it is President Clin- Nixon. Moreover, the fact that the President there is a case here but in my judgment I am ton’s behavior as set forth in the articles and his lawyers make this argument in de- having trouble deciding if it has as yet been that has had these effects. Essentially, Presi- fense of the President is telling. He effec- made.’’ Id. at 553 (statement of Rep. dent Clinton argues that the Presidency and tively claims that a large scale tax cheat Hungate). Latta: only ‘‘bad judgment and the system of checks and balances can only could be a viable chief executive. gross negligence.’’ Id. at 554 (Statement of be saved if we allow the President to commit It is undisputed that the Judiciary Com- Rep. Latta). Fish: ‘‘There is not to be found felonies with impunity. To state that propo- mittee rejected the proposed tax fraud arti- before us evidence that the President acted sition is to refute it. Convicting him and cle against President Nixon by a vote of 26 to wilfully to evade his taxes.’’ Id. at 556 (State- thereby reaffirming that criminal behavior 12. A slim minority of Committee members ment of Rep. Fish). Moorhead: ‘‘there is no January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S217 showing that President Nixon in any way en- Again, the significance of the distinctions diciary, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. at 203 (Comm. gaged in any fraud.’’ Id. at 557 (Statement of are glaringly obvious: it is apparent from the Print 1998) (Testimony of Judge Griffin B. Rep. Moorhead). Hamilton case that the Framers did not re- Bell). The group of those who found the evidence gard private sexual misconduct as an im- President Clinton goes on to state that to insufficient included moderate Democrats peachable offense. It is also apparent that ef- make the offenses alleged against him im- like Rep. Hungate and Rep. Owens, as well as forts to cover up such private behavior out- peachable and removable conduct ‘‘would Republicans like Rep. Fish, Rep. Cohen, and side of a legal setting, including even paying forever lower the bar in a way inimical to Rep. McClory, all of whom supported the im- hush money to induce someone to destroy the Presidency and to our government of peachment of President Nixon. documents, did not meet the standard. Nei- separated powers. These articles allege (1) In light of all these facts, it is not credible ther Hamilton’s high position, nor the fact sexual misbehavior, (2) statements about to assert that the House Judiciary Commit- that his payments to a securities swindler sexual misbehavior and (3) attempts to con- tee in 1974 determined that tax fraud by the created an enormous appearance problem, ceal the fact of sexual misbehavior.’’ Presi- President would not be an impeachable of- were enough to implicate the standard. dent’s Trial Memorandum at 26. While Presi- fense. The failure of the Committee to adopt These wrongs were real, and they were not dent Clinton and his able counsel would like the tax fraud article against President Nixon insubstantial, but to the Framers they were to define the case this way, what is at issue simply does not support the claim of Presi- essentially private and therefore not im- in the articles of impeachment before the dent Clinton’s lawyers that the offenses peachable. David Frum, ‘‘Smearing Alexan- Senate is clear: perjury and obstruction of charged against him do not rise to the level der Hamilton,’’ The Weekly Standard (Oct. 19, justice committed by the President of the of impeachable offenses. 1998) at 14. United States in order to thwart a duly insti- In the Committee debate in 1974 a compel- But the Alexander Hamilton incident tuted civil rights sexual harassment lawsuit ling case was made that tax fraud by a Presi- President Clinton cites actually clarifies the against him as well as a subsequent grand dent—if proven by sufficient evidence— precise point at which personal misconduct jury investigation. While the President may would be an impeachable offense. Rep. becomes a public offense. Hamilton could think such allegations would forever lower Brooks, who later served as chairman of the keep his secret only by a betrayal of public the bar in terms of the conduct we expect Committee, said: responsibilities. Hamilton came to that from our public officials, we must square his ‘‘No man in America can be above the law. point and, at immense personal cost, refused opinion and that of his lawyers with the fact It is our duty to establish now that evidence to cross the line. President Clinton came to that his Justice Department puts people in of specific statutory crimes and constitu- that point and, fully understanding what he prison for similar conduct. While the Presi- tional violations by the President of the was doing, knowingly charged across the dent’s brief again quotes Arthur Schlesinger, United States will subject all Presidents now line. President Clinton’s public acts of per- Jr. for the proposition that we must not and in the future to impeachment. jury and obstruction of justice transformed a ‘‘lower the bar,’’ President’s Trial Memoran- * * * * * personal misconduct into a public offense. dum at 26, Schlesinger held a different view during the impeachment of President Nixon: ‘‘No President is exempt under our U.S. 4. The Views of the Prominent Historians and Constitution and the laws of the United Legal Scholars the President Cites Do Not ‘‘If the Nixon White House escaped the States from accountability for personal mis- Stand Up to Careful Scrutiny. legal consequences of its illegal behavior, why would future Presidents and their asso- deeds any more than he is for official mis- It speaks volumes that the most distin- ciates not suppose themselves entitled to do deeds. And I think that we on this Commit- guished of the 400 historians referred to in what the Nixon White House had done? Only tee in our effort to fairly evaluate the Presi- President Clinton’s trial brief is Arthur condign punishment would restore popular dent’s activities must show the American Schlesinger, Jr. Professor Schlesinger had a faith in the Presidency and deter future people that all men are treated equally different view of impeachment 25 years ago. under the law.’’ Presidents from illegal conduct.’’ President Clinton himself asserts that ‘‘the (Schlesinger at 418.) (Debate on Articles of Impeachment, 1974: Hear- allegations are so far removed from official 5. The President and Federal Judges are Im- ings of the Comm. on the Judiciary Pursuant to wrongdoing that their assertion here threat- peached, Convicted, and Removed From Of- H. Res. 803, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess., at 525, 554.) ens to weaken significantly the Presidency fice Under the Same Standard Professor Charles Black stated it suc- itself.’’ President’s Trial Memorandum at 24. cinctly: ‘‘A large-scale tax cheat is not a via- However, Schlesinger has written that: President Clinton’s argument that Presi- dents are held to a lower standard of behav- ble chief magistrate.’’ Charles Black, Im- ‘‘The genius of impeachment lay in the ior than federal judges completely misreads peachment: A Handbook, (Yale University fact that it could punish the man without the Constitution and the Senate’s prece- Press, 1974) at 42. What is true of tax fraud is the punishing the office. For, in the Presi- also true of a persistent pattern of perjury dents. See generally House Trial Brief at 101– dency as elsewhere, power was ambiguous: 06. The Constitution provides one standard by the President. An incorrigible perjurer is the power to go good meant also the power not a viable chief magistrate. for the impeachment, conviction, and re- to do harm, the power to serve the republic moval from office of ‘‘[t]the President, the b. President Clinton Continues to Misrepre- also the power to demand and defile it.’’ Vice President, and all civil officers of the sent The Allegations Against Alexander (Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., The Imperial Presi- United States.’’ U.S. Const. art II, § 4. It is Hamilton. dency, (Easton Press edit. 1973) (hereinafter the commission of ‘‘Treason, Bribery, or President Clinton continues to try to per- ‘‘Schlesinger’’) at 415.) other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’’ Id. suade the American public that the House of The statement of the 400 historians cited The Senate has already determined that per- Representatives has impeached him for hav- with approval in the President’s trial memo- jury is a high crime and misdemeanor in the ing an extramarital affair. See Answer of randum makes the following statement: cases of Judge Nixon, Judge Hastings, and President William Jefferson Clinton to the Arti- ‘‘[t]he Framers explicitly reserved that step Judge Claiborne. cles of Impeachment at 1 (‘‘The charges in the for high crimes and misdemeanors in the ex- President Clinton argues that the standard two Articles of Impeachment do not permit ercise of executive power.’’ Statement of differs because judges have life tenure where- the conviction and removal from office of a Historians in Defense of the Constitution, as Presidents are accountable to the voters duly elected President. The President has ac- The New York Times (Oct. 30, 1998) at A15. The at elections. That argument fails on several knowledged conduct with Ms. Lewinsky that 400 historians then believe that commission grounds. The differing tenures are set forth was improper.’’) (emphasis added). In doing of a murder or rape by the President of the in the Constitution, and there is simply no so, the President’s lawyers refer to an inci- United States in his personal capacity is not textual support for the idea that they affect dent involving then Secretary of the Treas- subject to the impeachment power of Article the impeachment standard at all. If electoral ury Alexander Hamilton being blackmailed II, Section 4. accountability were a sufficient means of by the husband of a woman named Maria President Clinton in his trial memorandum remedying presidential misconduct, the Reynolds with whom he was having an adul- asserts that this case does not fit the para- framers would not have explicitly included terous affair. However, the President’s law- digmatic case for impeachment. President’s the President in the impeachment clause. Fi- yers omit the relevant distinguishing facts Trial Memorandum at 24. However, none of nally, even if this argument were otherwise even as they cast aspersions upon Alexander his predecessors ever faced overwhelming valid, it does not apply to President Clinton Hamilton: none of Hamilton’s ‘‘efforts’’ to evidence of repeatedly lying under oath be- because he will never face the voters again. cover up his affair involved the violation of fore a federal court and grand jury and oth- U.S. Const. amend. XXII. Indeed, all of the any laws, let alone felonies. Indeed, the fact erwise seeking to obstruct justice to benefit conduct charged in the Articles occurred of the matter is that Hamilton was the vic- himself—directly contradicting his oath to after the 1996 election. tim of the crime of extortion. ‘‘take care that the laws are faithfully exe- Then President Clinton rejects the Sen- Never did Hamilton raise his right hand to cuted.’’ But as former Attorney General ate’s own precedents showing that perjury is take a sacred oath and then willfully betray Griffin Bell, who served under President a high crime and misdemeanor in the three that oath and the rule of law to commit per- Carter, said before the House Judiciary Com- judicial impeachments of the 1980s arguing jury. Never did Alexander Hamilton obstruct mittee recently, ‘‘[a] President cannot faith- that all of the lying involved there con- justice by tampering with witnesses, urging fully execute the laws if he himself is break- cerned the judges’ official duties. That is potential witnesses to sign false affidavits, ing them.’’ Background and History of Im- true with respect to Judge Hastings, but or attempt to conceal evidence from a Fed- peachment: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on completely false with respect to Judge Clai- eral criminal grand jury. the Constitution of the House Comm. on the Ju- borne and Judge Nixon. Judge Claiborne was S218 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 impeached and convicted for lying on his in- trials. ‘‘In the final analysis the question is Moreover, the result of conviction in an come tax returns, an entirely personal mat- one which historically has been answered by impeachment trial is removal from office, ter. President Clinton tries to explain this individual Senators guided by their own con- not punishment. As the House argued in the away by saying: ‘‘Once convicted, [Judge sciences.’’ Congressional Research Service Claiborne trial, the reasonable standard was Claiborne] simply could not perform his offi- Report for Congress, Standard of Proof in designed to protect criminal defendants who cial functions because his personal probity Senate Impeachment Proceedings, Thomas risked ‘‘forfeitures of life, liberty and prop- had been impaired such that he could not B. Ripy, Legislative Attorney, American erty’’ (quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 longer be an arbiter of others’ oaths.’’ Presi- Law Division (January 7, 1999). U.S. 160, 174 (1949)). This standard is inappro- dent’s Trial Memorandum at 29. The same is President Clinton argues that the impeach- priate here because the Constitution limits true of President Clinton. He ultimately di- ment trial is similar to a criminal trial and the consequences of a Senate impeachment rects the Department of Justice which must that the appropriate standard should there- trial to removal from office and disqualifica- decide whether people are prosecuted for fore be ‘‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ That tion from holding office in the future, explic- lying. If he has committed perjury and ob- argument is not new: it has been made in the itly preserving the option for a subsequent structed justice, how can he be the arbiter of past, and the Senate has rejected it, as in- criminal trial in the courts. U.S. Const. art. other’s oaths? As Professor Jonathan Turley deed, President Clinton acknowledges. He as- II, § 3, cl. 6. put it: serts, however, that the impeachment trial of a President should proceed under special In addition, as the House argued in the ‘‘As Chief Executive the President stands procedures that do not apply to the trial of Claiborne trial, the criminal standard is in- as the ultimate authority over the Justice other civil officers. His arguments are appropriate because impeachment is, by its Department and the Administration’s en- unpersuasive. nature, a proceeding where the public inter- forcement policies. It is unclear how pros- est weighs more heavily than the interest of ecutors can legitimately threaten, let alone 1. The Senate has Never Adopted the Criminal Standard of ‘‘Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’’ the individual defendant. Gray & Reams, The prosecute, citizens who have committed per- Congressional Impeachment Process and the jury or obstruction of justice under cir- or Any Other Standard of Proof for Im- peachment Trials. Judiciary: Documents and Materials on the cumstances nearly identical to the Presi- Removal of Federal District Judge Harry E. The Senate has never adopted the standard dent’s. Such inherent conflict will be even Claiborne, Volume 5, Document 41, X (1987). of ‘‘beyond a reasonable doubt’’ in any im- greater in the military cases and the Presi- During the course of the floor debate on this dent’s role as Commander-in-Chief.’’ peachment trial in U.S. history. In fact, the Senate has chosen not to impose a standard motion in the Claiborne trial, Representa- (Background and History of Impeachment: tive Kastenmeier argued for the House that Hearings Before the Subcomm. on the Constitu- at all, preferring to leave to the conscience of each senator the decision of how best to the use of the criminal standard was inap- tion of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th propriate where the public interest in remov- Cong., 2d Sess. at 274 (Comm. Print 1998) judge the facts presented. In the impeachment trial of Judge Harry ing corrupt officials was a significant factor. (Testimony of Professor Jonathan Turley).) Claiborne, counsel for the respondent moved 132 Cong. Rec. S15489–S15490 (daily ed. Octo- In the same vein, President Clinton claims ber 7, 1986). that Judge Nixon ‘‘employ[ed] the power and to designate ‘‘beyond a reasonable doubt’’ as the standard of proof for conviction. Gray & prestige of his office to obtain advantage for 3. A President Who Is Impeached Should Not Reams, The Congressional Impeachment a party.’’ President’s Trial Brief at 29. In Receive Special Procedural Benefits That Process and the Judiciary: Documents and fact, Judge Nixon intervened in a state Do Not Apply in the Impeachment Trials of Materials on the Removal of Federal District criminal case in which he had no official Other Civil Officers. Judge Harry E. Claiborne, Volume 5, Docu- role. His ability to persuade the prosecutor ment 41, X (1987). The Senate overwhelm- President Clinton argues that he should be to drop the case rested on his friendship with ingly rejected the motion by a vote of 17–75. exempted from the weight of historical prac- the state prosecutor—not his official posi- In the floor debate on the motion, House tice and precedent and be given a special tion. President Clinton argues that it was Manager Kastenmeier emphasized that the rule on the standard of proof. This argument Judge Nixon’s intervention in a judicial pro- Senate has historically allowed each member is based on fallacious assertions, the first of ceeding that ties it to his official position. to exercise his personal judgment in these which is that different constitutional stand- The same is true of President Clinton. He in- cases. 132 Cong. Rec. S15489–S15490 (daily ed. ards apply to the impeachment of judges and tervened in two judicial proceedings and his October 7, 1986). presidents. See above at 14–16 and House actions had the same effect as Judge Nix- The question of the appropriate standard Trial Memorandum at 101–06. on’s—to defeat a just result. of proof was also raised in the trial of Judge As the person who ultimately directs the President Clinton also employs inflam- Alcee Hastings. In the Senate Impeachment matory rhetoric to suggest that a presi- Justice Department—the federal govern- Trial Committee, Senator Rudman said in dential impeachment trial ought to be treat- ment’s prosecutorial authority—the Presi- response to a question about the historical ed differently, explaining that the criminal dent must follow his constitutional duty to practice regarding the standard of proof that take care that the laws are faithfully exe- there has been no specific standard, ‘‘you are standard is needed because ‘‘the Presidency cuted. U.S. Const. art II, § 3. His special con- not going to find it. It is what is in the mind itself is at stake’’ and because conviction stitutional duty is at least as high, if not of every Senator. . . . I think it is what ev- would ‘‘overturn the results of an election.’’ higher, than the judge’s. Indeed, President erybody decides for themselves.’’ Report of President’s Trial Memorandum at 32–33. The Clinton acknowledged as much early in his the Senate Impeachment Trial Committee on the presidency is, of course, not at stake, though Administration when controversy arose Articles Against Judge Alcee Hastings: Hearings the tenure of its current office holder may about the nomination of Zoe Baird and the before the Senate Impeachment Trial Committee be. The 25th Amendment to the Constitution potential nomination of Judge Kimba Wood (Part 1) 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 73–75, (discus- ensures that impeachment and removal of a to be Attorney General. Questions were sion involving Senator Lieberman and Sen- President would not overturn an election be- raised about whether they had properly com- ator Rudman). cause it is the elected Vice President who would replace the President not the losing plied with laws relating to their hiring of 2. The Criminal Standard of Proof is Inappro- presidential candidate. household help. At that time, President Clin- priate for Impeachment Trials. ton said the Attorney General ‘‘should be Finally, President Clinton argues that the held to a higher standard than other Cabinet President Clinton argues that an impeach- ment trial is akin to a criminal trial and evidence should be tested by the most strin- members on matters of this kind [i.e. strict- that, therefore, the criminal standard should gent standard because ‘‘there is no sugges- ly complying with the law].’’ Remarks of apply. That assertion is, of course, at direct tion of corruption or misuse of office—or any President Clinton with Reporters Prior to a odds with his apparent opposition to the other conduct that places our system of gov- Meeting with Economic Advisers, February presentation of evidence through witnesses, ernment at risk in the two remaining years 8, 1993, 29 Weekly Compilation of Presi- another normal criminal trial procedure. of the President’s term.’’ President’s Trial dential Documents 160. If the Attorney Gen- The Senate Rules Committee rejected this Memorandum at 33. While the President eral is held to a higher standard of compli- analogy in 1974, stating, ‘‘an impeachment might be expected to argue that he did not ance with the law, then her superior, Presi- trial is not a criminal trial,’’ and advocating act corruptly, he cannot credibly assert that dent Clinton, must be also. a clear and convincing evidence standard. ‘‘there is no suggestion of corruption,’’ be- B. THE INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCES OF SENATORS Executive Session Hearings, U.S. Senate cause ‘‘corrupt’’ conduct is precisely what he DETERMINES THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN IM- Committee on Rules and Administration, is charged with in the articles of impeach- PEACHMENT TRIALS. ‘‘Senate Rules and Precedents Applicable to ment. Though not persuasive as an argu- The Constitution does not discuss the Impeachment Trials’’ 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. ment, this statement is significant in what standard of proof for impeachment trials. It (August 5–6, 1974). Indeed, it is undisputed it concedes—that corruption is among the simply states that ‘‘the Senate shall have that impeachable offenses need not be crimi- ‘‘conduct that places our system of govern- the Power to try all Impeachments.’’ U.S. nal offenses. See Submission by Counsel for ment at risk.’’ President’s Trial Memoran- Const., Art I, Sec. 3, clause 5. Because the President Clinton to the Committee on the Judi- dum at 33. Having acknowledged this, Presi- Constitution is silent on the matter, it is ap- ciary of the United States House of Representa- dent Clinton cannot be heard to complain propriate to look at the past practice of the tives, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. at 14 (Comm. Print that the House has failed to charge him with Senate. Historically, the Senate has never Ser. No. 16 1998) (‘‘Impeachable acts need not conduct which rises to the level of an im- set a standard of proof for impeachment be criminal acts.’’) peachable offense. January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S219

IV. THE STRUCTURE OF THE ARTICLES IS number of impeachable misdeeds. The House the CIA, and did not list each prospective de- PROPER AND SUFFICIENT Judiciary Committee’s committee report re- fendant and what they were promised. A. THE ARTICLES ARE NOT quires 20 pages just to list the most glaring In like fashion, the articles of impeach- UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE instances of the president’s perjurious, false, ment against President Clinton charge him President Clinton’s trial memorandum ar- and misleading testimony before a federal with providing perjurious, false, and mis- gues that the two articles of impeachment grand jury and it requires 13 pages just to leading testimony concerning four subjects, are unfairly complex. To the contrary, the list the most glaring incidents in the presi- such as an his relationship with a subordi- articles present the misdeeds of President dent’s course of conduct designed to prevent, nate government employee, and engaging in Clinton and their consequences in as trans- obstruct, and impede the administration of a course of conduct designed to prevent, ob- parent and understandable a manner as pos- justice. The House believes that President struct, and impede the administration of jus- Clinton’s attorneys have reviewed the com- sible. tice, such course including four generals acts The first article of impeachment charges mittee report. They know exactly what he is such as an effort to secure job assistance for that President Clinton violated his enumer- being charged with, as is acknowledged in that employee. An argument can be made ated constitutional responsibilities by will- the president’s trial memorandum. The that the articles of impeachment against fully corrupting and manipulating the judi- memorandum states in its introduction that President Clinton were drafted with more cial process. He did this by providing perjuri- ‘‘[t]ake away the elaborate trappings of the specificity than those against President ous, false and misleading testimony to a Articles and the high-flying rhetoric that ac- Nixon. Unless President Clinton is arguing companied them, and we see clearly that the grand jury in regard to one or more of four that the Senate should have dismissed the House of Representatives asks the Senate to matters. The deleterious consequences his first article of impeachment against Presi- remove the President from office because he actions had for the people of the United dent Nixon (had the president not resigned), .. .’’ President’s Trial Memorandum at 2. In States are then described. The second article he has little ground to complain about the addition, in the House proceedings, the charges that President Clinton violated his articles against himself. In short, President President filed three documents: a Prelimi- enumerated constitutional responsibilities Clinton knows exactly what the charges are, nary Memorandum, an Initial Response, and by a course of conduct that prevented, ob- and the Senate should now require him to a Submission by Counsel. The first two docu- structed, and impeded the administration of account for his behavior. ments were printed together and ran to 57 justice. One or more of seven listed acts con- pages. Preliminary Memorandum of the Presi- B. THE ARTICLES DO NOT IMPROPERLY CHARGE stitute the particulars of President Clinton’s dent of the United States Concerning Referral of MULTIPLE OFFENSES IN ONE ARTICLE. course of conduct. As in the first article, the the Office of the Independent Counsel and Ini- President Clinton argues unpersuasively deleterious consequences his actions had for tial Response of the President of the United that the articles of impeachment are ‘‘un- the people of the United States are then de- States to Referral of the Office of the Independ- constitutionally flawed’’ in two respects. scribed. ent Counsel, 105th Cong., 2d Sess., H. Doc. No. First, he argues that ‘‘by charging multiple To do as President Clinton requests would 105–317 (1998). The third was printed and ran wrongs in one article, the House of Rep- require separating out into a unique article to 404 pages. Submission by Counsel for Presi- resentatives has made it impossible for the of impeachment each possible combination dent Clinton to the Committee on the Judiciary Senate to comply with the Constitutional of (a) a particular violation of his duties, (b) of the United States House of Representatives, mandate that any conviction be by the con- a particular wrongful act, and (c) a particu- 105th Cong., 2d Sess. (Comm. Print Ser. No. currence of two-thirds of the members.’’ lar consequence of his actions. This would 16 1998). He was also given 30 hours to present President’s Trial Memorandum at 101. Sec- require 48 different articles in the case of the his case before the House Committee on the ond, he argues that the articles do not pro- first article and 84 in the case of the second. Judiciary, during which he called numerous vide him ‘‘the most basic notice of the Such a multiplicity of articles is not re- witnesses. The Committee repeatedly asked charges against him required by due process quired and would assist no one. Of course, if President Clinton to provide it with any ex- and fundamental fairness.’’ Id. Both argu- the president had violated fewer presidential culpatory evidence, an offer which he never ments are factually deficient, ignore Senate duties, committed fewer misdeeds, and been accepted. Now President Clinton’s Trial precedent and procedure, and are constitu- responsible for fewer harmful consequences Memorandum to the Senate runs to 130 tionally flawed. to the American people, the articles could pages. Clearly, President Clinton has not suf- The articles of impeachment allege that have been drafted more simply. fered from any lack of specificity in the arti- The trial memorandum then makes the the President made ‘‘one or more’’ ‘‘perjuri- cles of impeachment. ous, false and misleading statements to the contention that the two articles of impeach- If he had, he would have availed himself of ment are impermissibly vague and lacking in grand jury’’ and committed ‘‘one or more’’ the opportunity to file a motion for a bill of acts in which he obstructed justice. H. Res. specificity in that they do not meet the particulars. He had that opportunity on Jan- standards of a criminal indictment. This 611, 105th Cong. 2nd Sess. (1998). The articles uary 11, 1999, and he waived it. He should not of impeachment are modeled after those contention clearly misses the mark. Im- now be heard to claim that he does not know peachment is a political and not a criminal adopted by the House Committee on the Ju- what the charges are. diciary against President Nixon and were proceeding, designed, as recognized by Jus- Unlike the judicial impeachments of the tice Joseph Story, the Constitution’s great- drafted with the rules of the Senate in mind. 1980s, President Clinton has not committed a Senate Rules specifically contemplate that est nineteenth century interpreter, ‘‘not . .. handful of specific misdeeds that can easily to punish an offender’’ by threatening depri- the House may draft articles of impeach- be listed in separate articles of impeach- ment in this manner and prior rulings of the vation of his life or liberty, but to ‘‘secure ment. In order to encompass the whole me- the state’’ by ‘‘divest[ing] him of his politi- Senate have held that such drafting is not lange of misdeeds that caused the House of deficient and will not sustain a motion to cal capacity’’. J. Story, Commentaries on the Representatives to impeach President Clin- Constitution (R. Rotunda & J. Nowak eds., dismiss. ton, the Judiciary Committee looked to the In 1986, the United States Senate amended 1987) § 803. Justice Story thus found the anal- only analogous case—that of President ogy to an indictment to be invalid: the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Sen- Nixon. In 1974, the Committee was also faced ate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials. S. ‘‘The articles . . . need not, and indeed do with drafting articles of impeachment of a Res. 479, 99th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1986). As part not, pursue the strict form and accuracy of reasonable length against a president who of the reform, Rules XXIII, which deals gen- an indictment. They are sometimes quite had committed a long series of improper acts erally with voting the final question, was general in the form of the allegations; but al- designed to achieve an illicit end. amended to clarify the articles of impeach- ways contain, or ought to contain, so much The first article of impeachment against ment are not divisible. Rule XXIII provides certainty, as to enable the party to put him- President Nixon charged that in order to in relevant part that: self upon the proper defense, and also, in cover up an unlawful entry into the head- case of an acquittal, to avail himself of it, as quarters of the Democratic National Com- ‘‘An article of impeachment shall not be a bar to another impeachment.’’ mittee and to delay, impede, and obstruct divisible for the purpose of voting thereon at (Id. at § 806). the consequent investigation (and for certain any time during the trial. Once voting has In explaining the impeachment process to other purposes), he engaged in a series of commenced on an article of impeachment, the citizens of New York in Federalist No. 65, acts such as ‘‘making or causing to be made voting shall be continued until voting has Alexander Hamilton stated in more general false or misleading statements to lawfully been completed on all articles of impeach- terms that impeachment ‘‘can never be tied authorized investigative officers’’, ‘‘endeav- ment unless the Senate adjourns for period down by such strict rules, either in the delin- oring to misuse the Central Intelligence not to exceed one day or adjourns sine die.’’ eation of the offense by the prosecutors or in Agency’’, and ‘‘endeavoring to cause prospec- The Senate Committee on Rules and Ad- the construction of it by the judges, as in tive defendants and individuals duly tried ministration, after thoroughly reviewing the common cases serve to limit the discretion and convicted, to expect favored treatment impeachment rules, prior articles of im- of courts in favor of personal security.’’ The and consideration to return for their silence peachments, and prior Senate trials, decided Federalist No. 65, at 398 (Clinton Rossiter ed., or false testimony.’’ Impeachment of Richard that articles of impeachment should not be 1961). M. Nixon, President of the United States, H. divisible. In drafting the amendment to Rule Can the president legitimately argue that Rept. No. 93–1305, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1974). XXIII providing that articles of impeach- he is unable to put on a proper defense? The article did not list each false or mislead- ment not be divided, the Senate was aware President Clinton has committed a great ing statement, did not list each misuse of that the House may combine multiple counts S220 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 of impeachable conduct in one article of im- before the Comm. on Standing Rules and Ad- ‘‘This is by no means unfair to Judge peachment. The Committee report explains ministration, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess. at 116 Nixon, for even if you might differ on which the Senate’s position: (August 5th and 6th, 1974) (emphasis added).) particular statements are lies, the bottom ‘‘The portion of the amendment effectively In addition to implicitly recognizing that line is that two-thirds of you will have enjoining the divisions of an article into sep- articles of impeachment may contain mul- agreed that he concealed information, ren- arate specifications is proposed to permit tiple specifications of impeachable offenses, dering him unfit for office. That is what the the most judicious and efficacious handling the Senate has convicted a number of judges Constitution requires.’’ on such ‘‘omnibus’’ articles, including of the final question both as a general man- (Id. at 26751.) ner and, in particular, with respect to the Judges Archbald, Ritter, and Claiborne. In the case of Judge Nixon, the Senate acquit- Given the clear Senate precedent permit- form of the articles that proposed the im- ting articles of impeachment containing peachment of President Richard M. Nixon. ted on the article, but refused to dismiss it. The most recent example, that of Judge multiple specifications of impeachable of- The latter did not follow the more familiar Nixon in 1989, is instructive. Judge Walter L. fenses, the President’s attack on the con- pattern of embodying an impeachable offense Nixon filed a motion to dismiss on the struction of the articles is an attack on Sen- in an individual article but, in respect to the grounds that Article III was duplicative, ate rules and precedent. The President’s con- first and second of those articles, set out among other things. Senator Fowler, the cerns, if assumed to be valid, could be ad- broadly based charges alleging constitu- chairman of the committee appointed to dressed simply by permitting a division of tional improprieties followed by a recital of take evidence in the impeachment trial of the question. Under the standing rules of the transactions illustrative or supportive of Judge Nixon explained the reasons for deny- Senate, any Senator may have the same di- such charges. The wording of Articles I and ing Nixon’s motion to refer the motion to vided if ‘‘the question in debate contains sev- II expressly provided that a conviction could dismiss to the full Senate: eral propositions.’’ Senate Rule XV. A ques- be had thereunder if supported by ‘‘one or ‘‘To the extent that the motion rests on tion is divisible if it contains two or more more of the’’ enumerated specifications. The separate and distinct propositions. The Sen- general review of the Committee at that the House’s inclusion of fourteen distinct al- legations of false statements in one article, ate, however, has made an affirmative deci- time was expressed by Senators Byrd and sion to dispense with the regular order which Allen, both of whom felt that division of the we believe that Article III states an intelligi- ble and adequately discrete charge of an im- governs bills, resolutions, and amendments articles in question into potentially 14 sepa- peachable offense by alleging that Judge thereto, and instead adopted a different pro- rately voted specifications might ‘‘be time Nixon concealed information concerning sev- cedure not permitting the division of articles consuming and confusing, and a matter eral conversations in which he had engaged of impeachment. The Senate has not acted which could create great chaos and division, by making ‘‘one or more’’ false statements unconstitutionally in the past regarding bitterness, and ill will * * *.’’ Accordingly, it to a grand jury. The House has substantial prior impeachments, and is not on a course was agreed to write into the proposed rules lan- discretion in determining how to aggregate to do so in the trial of President Clinton. guage which would allow each Senator to vote related alleged acts of misconduct in fram- The claim that President Clinton is not on to convict under either the first or second arti- ing Articles of Impeachment and has histori- notice regarding the charges is ludicrous. cles if he were convinced that the person im- cally frequently chosen to aggregate mul- The Lewinsky matter is arguably the most peached was ‘‘guilty’’ or one or more of the enu- tiple factual allegations in a single impeach- reported and scrutinized story of 1998 and merated specifications.’’ ment article. The House’s itemization of the possibly of 1999. The facts of the case are Amending the Rules of Procedure and Practice fourteen particular statements whose know- contained in numerous documents, state- in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment ing falsity it is alleging serves to give Judge ments, reports, and filings. Specifically, Trials, Report of the Comm. on Rules and Ad- Nixon fair notice of the contours of the President Clinton has had the following doc- ministration, S. Rept. 99–401, 99th Cong., 2nd charge against him without reducing the in- uments, among others, containing the facts Sess., at 8 (1986) (emphasis added). Because telligibility of the article’s essential accusa- and specifics of the case: (1) Referral from the Senate was aware that multiple speci- tion that Judge Nixon knowingly concealed Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr in Con- fications of impeachment conduct may be material information from the government’s formity with the Requirements of Title 28, contained in an article of impeachment, the law enforcement agents. Because the Com- United States Code, Section 595(c), H. Doc. 105– Senate’s rules implicitly countenance such mittee believes that evidentiary proceedings 310, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1998); (2) Investiga- drafting. may fairly be conducted on Article III as it tory Powers of the Comm. on the Judiciary with The issue regarding whether articles of im- is presently drafted, Judge Nixon’s motion to Respect to its Impeachment Inquiry, H. Rept. peachment are divisible is not new to the refer his motion to dismiss Article III to the 105–795, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess. (October 7, Senate. In fact, the Senate’s Committee on Senate at this time is denied.’’ 1998); (3) Impeachment of William Jefferson Rules and Administration reviewed the Sen- (135 Cong. Rec. 19635–36 (September 6, 1989).) Clinton, President of the United States, 105th ate’s impeachment procedures in 1974 to pre- The full Senate eventually rejected Judge Cong., 2nd Sess., H.R. Rept. 105–830 (Dec. 16, pare for a possible trial of President Richard Nixon’s motion to dismiss by a vote of 34 to 1998); and (4) Trial Memorandum of the United Nixon. The Committee passed the exact same 63. Mr. Manager Cardin persuasively summed States House of Representatives. If all of these language as the Committee did in 1986 pro- up the argument against the motion to dis- reports and the thousands of pages of docu- hibiting the division of an article of im- miss as follows: ments are not enough, President Clinton will peachment. Because President Nixon re- ‘‘Judge Nixon argues, in his brief, that you have the opportunity to review the presen- signed, the full Senate never considered the must find all 14 statements to be false to tation of the Managers on the Part of the amendments. vote guilty on article III. But that is untrue. House for up to twenty-four hours. Senator Jacob K. Javits of New York sub- Read the article closely. The question posed V. PRESIDENT CLINTON COMPLETELY MIS- mitted a statement to the Committee in 1974 by article III is, did Judge Nixon conceal in- STATES THE RECORD AS TO THE DISCOVERY addressing the divisibility issue and advised formation? Did he conceal information, first PROCEDURES THAT WERE AVAILABLE TO HIM that Rule XXIII be amended to prohibit the by one or more false or misleading state- IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES division of an article of impeachment. His ments in his interview, and then by one or comments, as follows, are instructive: more false and misleading statements in his President Clinton’s trial memorandum ‘‘Rule XXIII provides for the yeas and nays grand jury testimony? claimed to the Senate that, should it decide to be taken on each article separately but ‘‘You need not find all 14 statements to be ‘‘to allow the House managers to expand the does not set any order for a vote when there false. The House is unanimously convinced record in some way . . . the President would are several articles. In the [President] John- that all 14 are complete and utter lies. We have an urgent need for the discovery of rel- son trial, this was done by order of the Sen- hope you will agree. But after considering evant evidence, because at no point in these ate and several votes were taken on the the evidence, perhaps you will conclude that proceedings has been able to subpoena docu- order. This procedure, setting a vote for final only 12 of the statements are false. It really ments or summon or cross-examine witnesses.’’ consideration, should be stated in the rules. does not matter. Just one intentionally false President’s Trial Memorandum at 125 (em- Also the rule is silent about the division of and misleading statement in the interview, phasis added). The President also states that any article. In the Johnson trial a division or one in the grand jury, should be enough. ‘‘the House of Representatives [did not] af- was requested and the Chief Justice at- Because if you conclude that Judge Nixon ford the President any discovery mecha- tempted to devise one, but could not, and the concealed information, whether by 1 false nisms to secure evidence that might be help- article as a whole was submitted for a vote statement or 14, he should be removed from ful in his defense.’’ Id. to the Senate. I believe articles should not be the bench. You should vote guilty on article We will not address every discovery issue divided because this raises a further question of III. here since those issues will be resolved in the whether a two-thirds vote is required on each ‘‘And you need not necessarily agree on coming days; however, the Senate should part of an article and whether the House action which statements are false, if you reach the know that these claims are absolutely false. on the construction of a particular article can conclusion that he concealed information. If In fact, the President’s own brief refutes his be changed without further action by the two-thirds of the Senators present believe claims. ‘‘The Committee allowed the Presi- House. Thus the rule should provide for no Judge Nixon lied, regardless of how each in- dent’s lawyers two days in which to present division of an article by the Senate.’’ dividual Senator reached that conclusion, he a defense. The White House presented four (Senate Rules and Precedents Applicable to Im- will properly be removed from office. panels of distinguished expert wit- peachment Trials, Executive Session Hearings * * * * * nesses. . . .’’ White House Counsel Charles January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S221 F.C. Ruff presented argument to the Com- no intention that the proceedings tion, a scholar with an international mittee on behalf of the President. . . .’’ Id. should be in any way interrupted when reputation, the center of a warm and at 13. I do so. affectionate family life which he cher- The House Committee on the Judiciary re- peatedly asked the President’s attorneys to The Presiding Officer notes the pres- ished, went to his death rather than supply any exculpatory evidence to the Com- ence in the Senate Chamber of the take an oath in vain. mittee, both orally and in writing. They managers on the part of the House of Members of the Senate, what you do never did. When, at the last minute, the Representatives and counsel for the over the next few weeks will forever af- President’s counsel requested witnesses, the President of the United States. fect the meaning of those two words ‘‘I Committee invited to testify every witness Pursuant to the provisions of Senate do.’’ You are now stewards of the oath. they requested. Aside from this, President Resolution 16, the managers for the Its significance in public service and Clinton nor his attorneys never asked to House of Representatives have 24 hours our cherished system of justice will ‘‘subpoena documents’’ or ‘‘summon or cross- never be the same after this. Depending examine witnesses.’’ If President Clinton’s to make the presentation of their case. The Senate will now hear you. on what you decide, it will either be argument is that the Committee did not pro- strengthened in its power to achieve vide his staff a stack of blank subpoenas, The Presiding Officer recognizes Mr. that is correct. However, neither the House Manager HYDE to begin the presen- justice or it will go the way of so much of Representatives, nor the Senate, has the tation of the case for the House of Rep- of our moral infrastructure and become ability to ‘‘turn over’’ its constitutionally resentatives. a mere convention, full of sound and based subpoena power to the executive Mr. Manager HYDE. Mr. Chief Jus- fury, signifying nothing. branch. tice, distinguished counsel for the The House of Representatives has President Clinton’s attorneys never asked named myself and 12 other Members as to do the things they now claim they never President, and Senators. We are brought together on this sol- Managers of its case. I have the honor had the ability to do. In fact, when minority of introducing those distinguished members of the Committee publicly asked emn and historic occasion to perform important duties assigned to us by the Members and explaining how we will that Judge Starr be called as a witness, make our initial presentation. The gen- Judge Starr was called. In fact, President Constitution. Clinton’s attorney and minority counsel We want you to know how much we tleman from Wisconsin, Representative questioned Judge Starr for over two hours. respect you and this institution and JIM SENSENBRENNER, will begin the presentation with an overview of the Every Member of the Committee questioned how grateful we are for your guidance case. Representative SENSENBRENNER is him for at least five minutes each. Judge and your cooperation. Starr was a witness, and he was cross-exam- the ranking Republican member of the With your permission, we the man- ined by David Kendall, President Clinton’s House Judiciary Committee, and has agers of the House are here to set forth private attorney. President Clinton’s claims served for 20 years. In 1989, Representa- the evidence in support of two articles are just not accurate. tive SENSENBRENNER was a House man- President Clinton’s attorneys raise the of impeachment against President Wil- ager in the impeachment trial of Judge issue of fairness. They are entitled to their liam Jefferson Clinton. You are seated Walter L. Nixon who was convicted on own opinion about the House’s proceedings, in this historic Chamber not to embark but they are not entitled to rewrite history. two articles of impeachment for mak- on some great legislative debate, which ing false and misleading statements be- The truth is that the Committee’s subpoena these stately walls have so often wit- power could have been used to subpoena doc- fore a federal grand jury. uments or witnesses on behalf of the Presi- nessed, but to listen to the evidence, as Following Representative SENSEN- dent if they had so requested. They did not. those who must sit in judgment. BRENNER will be a team of managers All they requested, is that lawyers, law pro- To guide you in this grave duty, you who will make a presentation of the fessors, and historians testify before the have taken an oath of impartiality. relevant facts of this case. From the Committee. In short, President Clinton’s With the simple words ‘‘I do,’’ you have very outset of this ordeal, there has statements about what happened in the pledged to put aside personal bias and been a great deal of speculation and House completely misstate what occurred. partisan interest and to do ‘‘impartial misinformation about the facts. That VI. CONCLUSION justice.’’ Your willingness to take up has been unfortunate for everyone in- For the reasons stated herein and in the this calling has once again reminded Trial Memorandum of the United States volved. We believe that a full presen- the world of the unique brilliance of tation of the facts and the law by the House of Representatives, the House respect- America’s constitutional system of fully submits that the articles properly state House managers—will be helpful. impeachable offenses, that the Senate should Government. We are here, Mr. Chief Representative ED BRYANT, from proceed to a full trial on the articles, and Justice and distinguished Senators, as Tennessee was a United States Attor- that after trial, the Senate should vote to advocates for the rule of law, for equal ney from the Western District of Ten- convict President William Jefferson Clinton, justice under the law and for the sanc- nessee. As a captain in the Army, Rep- remove him from office, and disqualify him tity of the oath. resentative BRYANT served in the Judge from holding further office. The oath. In many ways the case you Advocate General Corps and taught at Respectfully submitted, will consider in the coming days is the United States Military Academy at The United States about those two words ‘‘I do,’’ pro- West Point. Representative BRYANT House of Representatives. nounced at two Presidential inaugura- will explain the background of the HENRY J. HYDE, tions by a person whose spoken words events that led to the illegal actions of F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, have singular importance to our Na- the President. Following Representa- Jr., tion and to the great globe itself. tive BRYANT, Representative ASA BILL MCCOLLUM, More than 450 years ago, Sir Thomas GEORGE W. GEKAS, HUTCHINSON from Arkansas will give a CHARLES T. CANADY, More, former Lord Chancellor of Eng- presentation of the factual basis for ar- STEPHEN E. BUYER, land, was imprisoned in the Tower of ticle II, obstruction of justice. Rep- ED BRYANT, London because he had, in the name of resentative HUTCHINSON is a former STEVE CHABOT, conscience, defied the absolute power United States Attorney for the West- BOB BARR, of the King. As the playwright Robert ern District of Arkansas. Next, you ASA HUTCHINSON, Bolt tells it, More was visited by his will hear from Representative JIM CHRIS CANNON, family, who tried to persuade him to ROGAN of California. Representative JAMES E. ROGAN, speak the words of the oath that would LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, ROGAN is a former California State Managers on the Part of the House. save his life, even while, in his mind judge and Los Angeles County Deputy and heart, he held firm to his convic- THOMAS E. MOONEY, District Attorney. Representative General Counsel. tion that the King was in error. More ROGAN will give a presentation of the DAVID P. SCHIPPERS, refused. As he told his daughter, Mar- factual basis for article I, grand jury Chief Investigative Counsel. garet, ‘‘When a man takes an oath, perjury. This should conclude our pres- Dated: January 14, 1999. Meg, he’s holding his own self in his entation for today. The CHIEF JUSTICE. I would like to hands. Like water. And if he opens his Tomorrow, Representative BILL inform Members of the Senate and the fingers then—he needn’t hope to find MCCOLLUM of Florida will tie all of the parties in this case of my need to stand himself again . . .’’ Sir Thomas More, facts together and give a factual sum- on occasion to stretch my back. I have the most brilliant lawyer of his genera- mation. Representative MCCOLLUM is S222 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 the Chairman of the Subcommittee on tion of justice and constitutional law, which is contrary to his constitutional Crime, a former Naval Reserve Com- Mr. ROGAN and myself will give you a public responsibility to ensure the laws mander and member of the Judge Ad- final summation and closing to our ini- be faithfully executed. It is not about vocate General Corps. tial presentation. the President’s affair with a subordi- Following the presentation of the Mr. SENSENBRENNER. nate employee, an affair that was both facts, a team of managers will present The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Manager inappropriate and immoral. Mr. Clin- the law of perjury and the law of ob- SENSENBRENNER is recognized. ton has recognized that this relation- struction of justice and how it applies Mr. Manager SENSENBRENNER. Mr. ship was wrong. I give him credit for to the articles of impeachment before Chief Justice, distinguished counsel to that. But he has not owned up to the you. While the Senate has made it the President, and Senators, in his false testimony, the stonewalling and clear that a crime is not essential to third annual message to Congress on legal hairsplitting, and obstructing the impeachment and removal from office, December 7, 1903, President Theodore courts from finding the truth. In doing these managers will explain how egre- Roosevelt said: so, he has turned his affair into a pub- gious and criminal the conduct alleged No man is above the law and no man is lic wrong. And for these actions, he in the articles of impeachment is. This below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission must be held accountable through the team includes Representative GEORGE when we require him to obey it. Obedience to only constitutional means the country GEKAS of Pennsylvania, Representative the law is demanded as a right; not asked as has available—the difficult and painful STEVE CHABOT of Ohio, Representative a favor. process of impeachment. BOB BARR of Georgia, and Representa- We are here today because President Impeachment is one of the checks the tive CHRIS CANNON of Utah. Represent- William Jefferson Clinton decided to Framers gave to Congress to protect ative GEKAS is the Chairman of the put himself above the law, not once, the American people from a corrupt or Subcommittee on Commercial and Ad- not twice, but repeatedly. He put him- tyrannical executive or judicial branch ministrative Law. And in 1989, Rep- self above the law when he engaged in of Government. Because the procedure resentative GEKAS served as a manager a multifaceted scheme to obstruct jus- is cumbersome and because a two- of the impeachment trial of Judge tice during the Federal civil rights thirds vote in the Senate is required to Alcee Hastings who the Senate con- case of Paula Corbin Jones versus Wil- remove an official following an im- victed on eight articles for making liam Jefferson Clinton, et. al. He put peachment trial, safeguards are there false and misleading statements under himself above the law when he made to stop Congress from increasing its oath and one article of conspiracy to perjurious, false and misleading state- powers at the expense-of the other two engage in a bribery. Representative ments under oath during his grand jury branches. The process is long. It is dif- GEKAS is a former assistant district at- testimony on August 17, 1998. In both ficult. It is unpleasant. But, above all, torney. Representative CHABOT serves instances, he unlawfully attempted to on the Subcommittee on Crime and has it is necessary to maintain the public’s prevent the judicial branch of Govern- experience as a criminal defense law- trust in the conduct of their elected of- ment—a coequal branch—from per- ficials—elected officials, such as myself yer. Representative BARR is a former forming its constitutional duty to ad- United States Attorney for the North- and yourselves, who through our oaths minister equal justice under law. ern District of Georgia, where he spe- of office have a duty to follow the law, The United States House of Rep- cialized in public corruption. He also fulfill our constitutional responsibil- resentatives has determined that the has experience as a criminal defense ities, and protect our Republic from President’s false and misleading testi- attorney. Representative CANNON has public wrongdoing. had experience as the Deputy Associate mony to the grand jury and his ob- The Framers of the Constitution en- Solicitor General of the Department of struction of justice in the Jones law- visioned a separate and distinct process the Interior and as a practicing attor- suit are high crimes and misdemeanors in the House and in the Senate. They ney. That should conclude our presen- within the meaning of the Constitu- did not expect the House and Senate to tation for Friday. tion. Should the Senate conduct a fair conduct virtually identical proceedings On Saturday, three managers will and impartial trial which allows each with the only difference being that make a presentation on Constitutional side to present its best case, then the conviction in the Senate requires a law as it relates to this case. There has American public can be confident that two-thirds vote. That is why the Con- been a great deal of argument about justice has been served, regardless of stitution reserves the sole power of im- whether the conduct alleged in the ar- the outcome. peachment to the House of Representa- ticles rises to the level of removable of- We hear much about how important tives and the sole power to try all im- fenses. This team’s analysis of the the rule of law is to our Nation and to peachments to the Senate. History precedents of the Senate and applica- our system of government. Some have demonstrates different processes were tion of the facts of this case will make commented this expression is trite. adopted to reflect very different roles. it clear that the Senate has established But, whether expressed by these three In the case of President Andrew the conduct alleged in the articles to words, or others, the primacy of law Johnson, no hearings were held or wit- be removable offenses. In this presen- over the rule of individuals is what dis- nesses called by the House on the tation you will hear from Representa- tinguishes the United States from most President’s decision to remove Sec- tive CHARLES CANADY of Florida, Rep- other countries and why our Constitu- retary of War Stanton from office. The resentative STEVE BUYER of Indiana tion is as alive today as it was 210 House first approved a general article and Representative LINDSEY GRAHAM of years ago. of impeachment that simply stated South Carolina. Representative CAN- The Framers of the Constitution de- that President Johnson was impeached ADY is the Chairman of the Sub- vised an elaborate system of checks for high crimes and misdemeanors. committee on the Constitution and one and balances to ensure our liberties by Five days later, a special House com- of the leading voices on constitutional making sure that no person, institu- mittee drew up specific articles. Eleven law in the House. Representative tion, or branch of Government became articles were passed by the House, all BUYER served in the United States so powerful that a tyranny could ever but two of which were based upon Army as a member of the Judge Advo- be established in the United States of President Johnson’s alleged violation cate General Corps where he was as- America. of the Tenure of Office Act by his ac- signed as Special Assistant to the We are the trustees of that sacred tions in removing Secretary of War United States Attorney in Virginia. He legacy and whether the rule of law and Stanton. The trial was then conducted also served as a deputy to the Indiana faith in our Nation emerges stronger with witnesses in the Senate. Attorney General. Representative than ever, or are diminished irrep- In the case of President Nixon, the GRAHAM served in the Air Force as a arably, depends upon the collective de- House Judiciary Committee passed member of the Judge Advocate General cision of the message each Senator three articles of impeachment based Corps and as a South Carolina Assist- chooses to send forth in the days not upon their own investigation, but ant Attorney. ahead. upon the evidence gathered by the Following the presentation of the The evidence you will hear relates Ervin Committee, the Patman Com- facts, the law of perjury and obstruc- solely to the President’s misconduct, mittee, the Joint Tax Committee and January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S223 material from the special prosecutor who have business before them, and to work, denied merit pay raises, and fi- and various court proceedings. Nine the country as a whole. That terrible nally forced to quit. The court ruled witnesses were called at the end of the message is that we as a nation have set she had the right to obtain evidence impeachment inquiry, five of them at a lower standard for lying under oath showing other women including Miss the request of the White House, and for Presidents than for judges. Should Lewinsky, got jobs, promotions, and their testimony was not at the center not the leader of our country be held to raises after submitting to Mr. Clinton, of the impeachment articles. at least as high a standard as the and whether other women suffered job In the Judge Walter Nixon impeach- judges he appoints? Should not the detriments after refusing similar ad- ment in 1989, a trial with live witnesses President be obliged to tell the truth vances. was held even after the Senate rejected when under oath, just as every citizen When someone lies about an affair by less than a two-thirds vote a defense must? Should not our laws be enforced and tries to hide the fact, they violate motion to dismiss one article of im- equally? Your decision in this proceed- the trust their spouse and family put peachment on the grounds that it did ing will answer these questions and set in them. But when they lie about it not constitute an impeachable offense. the standard of conduct of public offi- during a legal proceeding and obstruct The House managers submit wit- cials in town halls and courtrooms ev- the parties from obtaining evidence, nesses are essential to give heightened erywhere and the Oval Office for gen- they prevent the courts from admin- credence to whatever judgment the erations. istering justice. Senate chooses to make on each of the Justice is never served by the placing That is an offense against the public, articles of impeachment against Presi- of any public official above the law. made even worse when a poor or power- dent Clinton. The framers rejected the British law of, less person seeks the protections of our The matter of how this proceeding ‘‘The King can do no wrong’’, when civil rights from the rich or powerful. will be conducted remains somewhat they wrote our basic law in 1787. Any When an American citizen claims his unsettled. Senate impeachment prece- law is only as good as its enforcement, or her civil rights have been violated, dent has been to hold a trial. And, in and the enforcement of the law against we must take those claims seriously. every impeachment case, the Senate the President was left to Congress Our civil rights laws have remade our has heard from live witnesses. Should through the impeachment process. society for the better. The law gives the President’s counsel dispute the A Senate conviction of the President the same protections to the child de- facts as laid out by the House of Rep- in this matter will reaffirm the irref- nied entry to a school or college based resentatives, the Senate will need to utable fact that even the President of upon race as to an employee claiming hear from live witnesses in order to the United States has no license to lie discrimination at work. Once a hole is reach a proper and fair judgment as to under oath. Deceiving the courts is an punched in civil rights protections for the truthful facts of this case. offense against the public. It prevents some, those protections are not worth The House concluded the President the courts from administering justice as much for all. Many in the Senate made perjurious, false and misleading and citizens from receiving justice. have spent their lives advancing indi- statements before the grand jury, Every American has the right to go to vidual rights. Their successful efforts have made America a better place. In which the House believes constitutes a court for redress of wrongs, as well as my opinion, this is no time to abandon high crime and misdemeanor. Our en- the right to a jury trial. The jury finds that struggle—no matter the public tire legal system is based upon the the facts. The citizens on the jury can- courts being able to find the truth. mood or the political consequence. not correctly find the facts absent Some have said that the false testi- That’s why witnesses must raise their truthful testimony. That’s why it’s mony given by the President relating right hand and swear to tell the truth, vital that the Senate protect the sanc- to sex should be excused, since as the the whole truth, and nothing but the tity of the oath to obtain truthful tes- argument goes, ‘‘Everyone lies about truth. That’s why there are criminal timony, not just during judicial pro- sex.’’ I would ask the Senate to stop to penalties for perjury and making false ceedings but also during legislative think about the consequences of adopt- statements under oath. The need for proceedings as well. ing that attitude. Our sexual harass- obtaining truthful testimony in court Witnesses before Congress, whether ment laws would become unenforceable is so important that the Federal sen- presidential nominees seeking Senate since every sexual harassment lawsuit tencing guidelines have the same pen- confirmation to high posts in the exec- is about sex, and much of domestic vio- alties for perjury as for bribery. utive or judicial branches, federal lence litigation is at least partly about The Constitution specifically names agency heads testifying during inves- sex. If defendants in these types of bribery as an impeachable offense. Per- tigative hearings, or witnesses at legis- suits are allowed to lie about sex, jus- jury is the twin brother of bribery. By lative hearings giving their opinions on tice cannot be done, and many victims, making the penalty for perjury the bills are sworn to tell the truth. Erod- mostly women, will be denied justice. same as that for bribery, Congress has ing the oath to tell the truth means Mr. Chief Justice, the House has acknowledged that both crimes are that Congress loses some of its ability adopted two articles of impeachment equally serious. It follows that perjury to base its decisions upon truthful tes- against President William Jefferson and making false statements under timony. Lowering the standard of the Clinton. Each meets the standard of oath, which is a form of perjury, be truthfulness of sworn testimony will ‘‘high crimes and misdemeanors’’ and considered among the ‘‘high crimes and create a cancer that will keep the leg- each is amply supported by the evi- misdemeanors’’ the Framers intended islative branch from discharging its dence. to be grounds for impeachment. constitutional functions as well. Article 1 impeaches the President for The three judicial impeachments of Mr. Chief Justice, we are here today ‘‘perjurious, false and misleading’’ tes- the 1980’s were all about lies told by a because William Jefferson Clinton de- timony during his August 17, 1998, ap- federal judge. Judge Claiborne was re- cided to use all means possible—both pearance before a grand jury of the moved from office for lying on his in- legal and illegal—to subvert the truth United States in four areas. come tax returns. Judge Hastings was about his conduct relevant to the fed- First, the nature and details of his removed for lying under oath during a eral civil rights suit brought against relationship with a subordinate govern- trial, and Judge Nixon was removed for President Clinton by Mrs. Paula Jones. ment employee. making false statements to a grand Defendants in civil lawsuits cannot Second, prior perjurious, false and jury. In each case, the Senate showed pick and choose which laws and rules misleading testimony he gave in a fed- no leniency to judges who lie. Their of procedure they will follow and which eral civil rights action brought against misconduct was deemed impeachable they will not. That’s for the trial judge him. and more than 2/3rds of the Senate to decide, whether the defendant be Third, prior false and misleading voted to convict. President or pauper. statements he allowed his attorney to If the Senate is convinced that Presi- In this case, a citizen claimed her make to a federal judge in that federal dent Clinton lied under oath and does civil rights were violated when she re- civil rights lawsuit. not remove him from office, the wrong fused then Governor Clinton’s advances Fourth, his corrupt efforts to influ- message is given to our courts, those and was subsequently harassed at ence the testimony of witnesses and to S224 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 impede the discovery of evidence in Second, the evidence will show that Third, the President made false and that civil rights action. the President piled perjury upon per- misleading statements to the grand The evidence will clearly show that jury when he provided perjurious, false jury by reciting a false account of the President Clinton’s false testimony to and misleading testimony to the grand facts regarding his interactions with the grand jury was not a single or iso- jury concerning prior perjurious, false Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Currie, who was lated instance which could be excused and misleading testimony given in Ms. a potential witness against him in Ms. as a mistake, but rather a comprehen- Paula Jones’ case. Jones’ case. sive and calculated plan to prevent the On two occasions, the President tes- The record reflects the President grand jury from getting the accurate tified to the grand jury that his deposi- tried to coach Ms. Currie to recite in- testimony in order to do its job. Fur- tion testimony was the truth, the accurate answers to possible questions thermore, it is important to dispel the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, should she be called as a witness. The notion that the President’s false testi- and that he was required to give a com- evidence will show the President testi- mony before the grand jury simply re- plete answer to each question asked of fied to the grand jury that he was try- lates to details of the relationship be- him during the deposition. That means ing to figure out what the facts were, tween President Clinton and Miss he brought to the grand jury his un- but in reality the conversation with Lewinsky. These charges only make up truthful answers to questions at the Ms. Currie consisted of a number of a small part of Article 1. The fact is, deposition. very false and misleading statements. the evidence will show that President Third, the evidence will show the Finally, the President made perjuri- Clinton made numerous perjurious, President provided perjurious, false ous, false and misleading statements to false and misleading statements re- and misleading testimony to a Federal aides regarding his relationship with garding his efforts to obstruct justice. grand jury regarding his attorney’s use Ms. Lewinsky. In his grand jury testi- Before describing what the evidence of an affidavit he knew to be false dur- mony, the President tried to have it in support of Article 1 shows, it is also ing the deposition in Ms. Paula Jones’ both ways on this issue. He testified important to clearly demonstrate that case before Federal Judge Susan that his statements to aides were both the Senate has already decided that Webber Wright. true and misleading—true and mislead- making false statements under oath to The President denied that he even ing. a federal grand jury is an impeachable paid attention to Mr. Bennett’s use of The evidence will show that he met offense. the affidavit. The evidence will show with four aides who would later be The last impeachment decided by the he made this denial because his failure called to testify before the grand jury. Senate, that of United States District to stop his attorney from utilizing a They included Mr. Sidney Blumenthal, Judge Walter L. Nixon, Jr., of the false affidavit at a deposition would Mr. John Podesta, Mr. Erskine Bowles, United States District Court for the constitute obstruction of justice. The and Mr. Harold Ickes. Each of them re- Southern District of Mississippi, in- evidence will also show the President lated to the grand jury the untruths volved the Judge’s making false state- did not admit that Mr. Bennett’s state- they had been told by the President. I ments under oath to a federal grand ment was false because to do so would have recited this long catalogue of jury, precisely the same charges con- be to admit that he had perjured him- false statements to show that the tained in Article 1 against President self earlier that day during the grand President’s false statements to the Clinton. Following an unanimous 417 to jury testimony, as well as at the depo- grand jury were neither few in number 0 vote in the House, the Senate con- sition. nor isolated, but rather pervaded his ducted a full trial and removed Judge Fourth, the evidence will show that entire testimony. Nixon from office on the two articles the President provided perjurious, false There can be no question that the charging false statements to a grand and misleading testimony to the grand President’s false statements to the jury by votes of 89 to 8 and 78 to 19. The jury concerning his corrupt efforts to grand jury were material to the subject Senate was clear that the specific mis- influence the testimony of witnesses of the inquiry. Grand juries are utilized conduct, that is, making false state- and to impede the discovery of evi- to obtain sworn testimony from wit- ments to a grand jury, which was the dence in Ms. Paula Jones’ civil rights nesses to determine whether a crime basis for the Judge’s impeachment, action. has been committed. The Attorney warranted his removal from office and The evidence will show that these General and the Special Division of the the Senate proceeded to do just that. statements related to at least four United States Court of Appeals for the These votes, a little more than nine areas: District of Columbia Circuit appointed years ago on November 3, 1989, set a First, his false statements relating to an independent counsel pursuant to clear standard that lying to a grand gifts exchanged between the President law and added areas of inquiry because jury is grounds for removal from office. and Ms. Lewinsky. The subpoena they believed there was evidence that To set a different standard in this trial served on Ms. Lewinsky in the Jones the President may have committed is to say that the standard for judicial case required her to produce each and crimes. Grand jury testimony relevant truthfulness during grand jury testi- every gift she had received from the to the criminal probe is always mate- mony is higher than that of presi- President. These gifts were not turned rial to the issue of whether someone dential truthfulness. over as required by the subpoena, but has committed a crime. That result would be absurd. The ended up under Ms. Betty Currie’s bed Based upon the precedent in the truth is the truth and a lie is a lie. in a sealed container. The President de- Judge Nixon impeachment, the law, There cannot be different levels of the nied under oath that he directed Ms. the facts, and the evidence, if you find truth for judges than for presidents. Currie to get the gifts, but the evidence the President made perjurious, false The President’s perjurious, false and will show that Ms. Currie did call Ms. and misleading statements under oath misleading statements regarding his Lewinsky about them and that there to the grand jury, I respectfully submit relationship with Ms. Lewinsky began was no reason for her doing so unless that your duty will be to find William early in his grand jury testimony. directed by the President. Jefferson Clinton guilty with respect These statements included parts of the Second, the President made perjuri- to article I and to remove him from of- prepared statement the President read ous, false and misleading statements to fice. at the beginning of his testimony. He the grand jury regarding his knowledge Article II impeaches William Jeffer- referred or reverted to his statement at that the Lewinsky affidavit submitted son Clinton for preventing, obstructing least 19 times during the course of his at the deposition was untrue. The evi- and impeding the administration of testimony. dence will show that the President tes- justice in the Jones case by either di- Further, the evidence will show the tified falsely on this issue on at least rectly or through subordinates and President made other false statements three separate occasions during his agents engaging in a scheme to delay, to the grand jury regarding the nature grand jury testimony. He also provided impede, cover up, and conceal the ex- and details of his relationship with Ms. false testimony on whether he encour- istence of evidence and testimony re- Lewinsky at times when he did not aged Ms. Lewinsky to file a false affi- lating to Ms. Jones’ Federal civil refer to his prepared statement. davit. rights action. January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S225 As in the case of article I, the Presi- an official proceeding * * * (or) cause attorney, Robert Bennett, subse- dent’s direct and indirect actions were or induce any person to * * * withhold quently acknowledged such false and not isolated mistakes, but were multi- testimony, or withhold a record, docu- misleading statements in a commu- faceted actions specifically designed to ment, or other object from an official nication to Judge Wright. prevent Ms. Paula Jones from having proceeding * * *.’’ The evidence will show the Presi- her day in court. The evidence will show that Presi- dent’s actions clearly violate the sec- While the Senate determined in the dent Clinton’s actions constituted ob- ond federal criminal obstruction stat- Judge Nixon trial that the making of struction of justice in seven specific in- ute. false statements to a Federal grand stances as alleged in Article II. Para- Sixth, Article II alleges that on or jury warranted conviction and removal graph one alleges that on or about De- about January 18, 20, and 21, 1998, the from office, no impeachment on an ob- cember 17, 1997, the President encour- President related a false and mislead- struction of justice charge has ever aged Miss Lewinsky, who would be sub- ing account of events relevant to Mrs. reached the Senate. poenaed as a witness in Mrs. Jones’ Jones’ civil rights suit to Ms. Betty Therefore, this article is a matter of case two days later, to execute a sworn Currie, a potential witness in the pro- first impression. However, the im- affidavit that he knew would be per- ceeding, in order to corruptly influence peachment inquiry of the House Judici- jurious, false, and misleading. her testimony. The evidence will show that Presi- ary Committee into the conduct of The evidence will show the Presi- dent Clinton attempted to influence President Richard Nixon, as well as the dent’s actions violated both federal the testimony of Ms. Betty Currie, his relevant Federal criminal statutes, criminal obstruction statutes. personal secretary, by coaching her to clearly show President Clinton’s ac- Second, Article II alleges that on or recite inaccurate answers to possible about that same day, the President tions to be within the definition of questions that might be asked of her if corruptly encouraged Miss Lewinsky to ‘‘high crimes and misdemeanors’’ con- called to testify in Mrs. Paula Jones’ give perjurious, false, and misleading tained in the Constitution. case. The President did this shortly The first article of impeachment testimony if and when called to testify after he had been deposed in the civil against President Nixon approved by personally in that proceeding. Miss action. the Judiciary Committee charged Mr. Lewinsky, on the witness list at that During the deposition, he frequently Nixon with ‘‘engag(ing) personally and time, could have been expected to be referred to Ms. Currie and it was log- through his subordinates and agents in required to give live testimony in the ical that based upon his testimony, Ms. a course of conduct or plan designed to Jones case and in fact she was subse- Currie would be called as a witness. delay, impede and obstruct the inves- quently subpoenaed for a deposition in The evidence will show that two tigation of such unlawful entry; to that case. hours after the completion of the depo- cover up, conceal and protect those re- The evidence will show the Presi- sition, the President called Ms. Currie sponsible and to conceal the existence dent’s actions violated both federal to ask her to come to the office the and scope of other unlawful activities.’’ criminal obstruction statutes. next day, which was a Sunday. The article charged that the imple- Third, Article II alleges on or about When Ms. Currie testified to the mentation of the plan included nine December 28, 1997, the President cor- grand jury, she acknowledged the separate areas of misconduct. Included ruptly engaged in, encouraged, or sup- President made a series of leading among these were, one, making or ported a scheme to conceal evidence statements or questions and concluded causing to be made false and mislead- which had been subpoenaed in Mrs. that the President wanted her to agree ing statements to investigative officers Jones’ civil rights case. He did so by with him. and employees of the United States; asking Ms. Betty Currie to retrieve evi- The evidence will show the Presi- two, withholding relevant and material dence from Miss Lewinsky that had dent’s actions violated both statutes, evidence from such persons; three, ap- been subpoenaed in the case of Jones v. but most particularly section 1512. proving, condoning, acquiescing in and Clinton. In United States v. Rodolitz 786 F2d 77 counseling witnesses with respect to The evidence will show the Presi- at 82 (2nd Cir 1986) cert. Den. 479 US 826 the giving of false and misleading dent’s actions violated the second fed- (1986), the United States Court of Ap- statements to such persons as well as eral criminal obstruction statute. peals for the 2nd Circuit said, in judicial and congressional proceed- Fourth, Article II alleges that begin- The most obvious example of a sec. 1512 ings. ning on or about December 7, 1997, and violation may be the situation where a de- continuing through and including Jan- fendant tells a potential witness a false story History shows us that President Nix- as if the story were true, intending that the on’s resignation was the only act that uary 14, 1998, the President intensified witness believes the story and testify to it prevented the Senate from voting on and succeeded in an effort to secure job before the grand jury. this article, and that the President’s assistance to Miss Lewinsky in order If the President’s actions do not fit conviction and removal from office to corruptly prevent her truthful testi- this example, I’m at a loss to know were all but certain. mony in the Jones case at a time when what actions do. There are two sections of the Federal her truthful testimony would have Seventh, and last, Article II alleges Criminal Code placing penalties on been harmful to him. on or about January 21, 23, and 26, 1998, those who obstruct justice. Title 18, While Miss Lewinsky had sought em- the President made false and mislead- United States Code, section 1503, pun- ployment in New York City long before ing statements to potential witnesses ishes ‘‘(whoever * * * corruptly, or by the dates in question, helping her find in a federal grand jury proceeding in threats or force * * * obstructs, or im- a suitable job was clearly a low prior- order to corruptly influence this testi- pedes or endeavors to influence, ob- ity for the President and his associates mony of those witnesses. The articles struct or impede the due administra- until it became obvious she would be- further alleges these false and mislead- tion of justice.’’ come a witness in the Jones case. The ing statements were repeated by the The courts have held that this sec- evidence will clearly show an inten- witnesses to the grand jury, causing tion relates to pending judicial process, sification of that effort after her name the grand jury to receive false and mis- which can be a civil action. Ms. Jones’ appeared on the witness list. This ef- leading information. case fits that definition at the time of fort was ultimately successful and the The evidence will show that these the President’s actions as alleged in ar- evidence will show that the President’s statements were made to presidential ticle II, as does the Office of Independ- actions violated both federal obstruc- aides Mr. Sidney Blumenthal, Mr. Er- ent Counsel’s investigation. tion statutes. skine Bowles, Mr. John Podesta and Title 18, United States Code, section Fifth, Article II alleges on January Mr. Harold Ickes. They all testified to 1512, punishes, ‘‘Whoever * * * cor- 17, 1998, the President corruptly al- the grand jury. By his own admission ruptly persuades another person, or at- lowed his attorney to make false and seven months later, on August 17, 1998, tempts to do so, or engages in mislead- misleading statements to Judge Wright during his sworn grand jury testimony, ing conduct toward another person, characterizing the Lewinsky affidavit the President said that he told a num- with intent to * * * influence, delay or in order to prevent questioning deemed ber of aides that he did not have an af- prevent the testimony of any person in relevant by the judge. The President’s fair with Ms. Lewinsky and did not S226 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 have sex with her. He told one aide, Mr. simply by telling the truth and accept- As elected officials, our opinions are Sidney Blumenthal, that Miss Monica ing the consequences of his prior mis- frequently shaped by constituents tell- Lewinsky came on to him and he takes. At least six times since Decem- ing us their own stories. Let me tell rebuffed her. President Clinton also ad- ber 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton you one related to me about the poi- mitted that he knew these aides might could have told the truth and suffered sonous results of allowing false state- be called before the grand jury as wit- the consequences. Instead he chose lies, ments under oath to go unpunished. nesses. The evidence will show they perjury, and deception. He could have Last October while the Starr report were called; they related the Presi- told the truth when he first learned was being hotly debated, one circuit dent’s false statements to the grand that Ms. Lewinsky would be a witness court judge for Dodge County, Wiscon- jury; and that by the time the Presi- in the Ms. Jones’ case. He could have sin approached me on the street in dent made his admission to the grand told the truth at his civil deposition. Mayville, Wisconsin. He said that some jury, the damage had already been He could have told the truth to Betty citizens had business in his court and done. Currie. He could have told the truth suggested that one of them take the This is a classic violation of 18 U.S.C. when the news media first broke the witness stand and be put under oath to Section 1512. story of his affair. He could have told tell the truth. The citizen then asked if The seven specific, allegations of ob- the truth to his aides and cabinet. He he could tell the truth, ‘‘just like the struction of justice contained in Arti- could have told the truth to the Amer- President.’’ cle II were designed to prevent the ju- ican people. Instead, he shook his fin- How many people who have to come dicial branch of government, a separate ger at each and every American and to court to testify under oath about and coequal branch, from doing its said, ‘‘I want you to listen to me,’’ and matters they would like to keep to work in Ms. Paula Jones’ lawsuit. proceeded to tell a straight-faced lie to themselves think about what that citi- Based upon the allegation of Article 1 the American people. Finally, he had zen asked Judge John Storck? And, against President Nixon in 1974, as well one more opportunity to tell the truth. how will the courts be able to admin- as repeated and calculated violations He could have told the truth to the ister the, ‘‘equal justice under law’’ we of two key criminal obstruction stat- grand jury. Had he told the truth last all hold so dear if we do not enforce the utes, William Jefferson Clinton com- January, there would have been no sanctity of that oath even against the mitted an impeachable offense. independent counsel investigation of President of the United States? In Article II, the evidence is conclu- this matter, no grand jury appearance, When each of us is elected or chosen sive that President Clinton put himself no impeachment inquiry and no House to serve in public office, we make a above the law in obstructing justice, compact with the people of the United not once, not just a few times, but as a approval of articles of impeachment. And, we would not be here today fulfill- States of America to conduct ourselves part of a extensive scheme to prevent in an honorable manner, hopefully set- Ms. Jones from obtaining the evidence ing a painful but essential constitu- tional duty. Instead, he chose lies and ting a higher standard for ourselves she thought she needed to prove her than we expect of others. That should civil rights claims. deception, despite warnings from mean we are careful to obey all the Complying with the law is the duty friends, aides, and members of the laws we make, execute and interpret. of all parties to lawsuits and those who House and Senate that failure to tell There is more than truth in the are required to give truthful testi- the truth would have grave con- words, ‘‘A public office is a public mony. A defendant in a federal civil sequences. trust.’’ rights action does not have the luxury When the case against him was being When someone breaks that trust, he to choose what evidence the court may heard by the House Judiciary Commit- or she must be held accountable and consider. He must abide by the law and tee, he sent his lawyers, who did not suffer the consequences for the breach. the rules of procedure. William Jeffer- present any new evidence to rebut the If there is no accountability, that son Clinton tried to say that the law facts and evidence sent to the House by means that a President can set himself did not apply to him during his term of the Independent Counsel. Rather, they above the law for four years, a Senator office in civil cases were concerned. He disputed the Committee’s interpreta- properly lost that argument in the Su- tion of the evidence by relying on tor- for six, a Representative for two, and a preme Court in a unanimous decision. tured, convoluted, and unreasonable in- judge for life. that, Mr. Chief Justice, Even though the Supreme Court de- terpretations of the President’s words poses a far greater threat to the lib- cided that the President wasn’t above and actions. erties guaranteed to the American peo- the law and that Ms. Jones’ case could During his presentation to the House ple by the Constitution that anything proceed, William Jefferson Clinton de- Judiciary Committee, the President’s imaginable. cided—and decided alone—to act as if very able lawyer, Charles Ruff, was For the past 11 months, the toughest the Supreme Court had never acted and asked directly, ‘‘Did the President questions I’ve had to answer have come that Judge Wright’s orders didn’t apply lie?’’ during his sworn grand jury testi- from parents who want to know what to him. What he did was criminal time mony. to tell their children about what Presi- and time again. These criminal acts Mr. Ruff could have answered that dent Clinton did. were in direct conflict with the Presi- question directly. He did not, and his Every parent tries to teach their dent’s obligation to take care the laws failure to do so speaks a thousand children to know the difference be- be faithfully executed. words. tween right and wrong, to always tell Based upon the repeated violations of Is there not something sacred when a the truth, and when they make mis- federal criminal law, its effect upon witness in a judicial proceeding raises takes, to take responsibility for them the courts to find the truth, and the his or her right hand and swears before and to face the consequences of their President’s duty to take care that the God and the public to tell the truth, actions. laws be faithfully executed, if you find the whole truth, and nothing but the President Clinton’s actions at every that the President did indeed obstruct truth? Do we want to tell the country step since he knew Ms. Lewinsky would the administration of justice through that its leader gets a pass when he is be a witness in Mrs. Jones’ case have his acts, I respectfully submit your required to give testimony under oath? been completely opposite to the values duty will be to find William Jefferson Should we not be concerned about the parents hope to teach their children. Clinton guilty with respect to Article effect of allowing perjurious, false, and But being a poor example isn’t II and to remove him from office. misleading statements by the Presi- grounds for impeachment. Undermin- It is truly sad when the leader of the dent to go unpunished on the truthful- ing the rule of law is. Frustrating the greatest nation in the world gets ness of anyone’s testimony in future courts’ ability to administer justice caught up in a series of events where judicial or legislative proceedings? turns private misconduct into an at- one inappropriate and criminal act What do we tell the approximately 115 tack upon the ability of one of the leads to another, and another and an- people now in federal prison for the three branches of our government to other. crime of perjury? impartially administer justice. This is Even sadder is that the President The answers to all these questions a direct attack upon the rule of law in himself could have stopped this process ought to be obvious. our country and a very public wrong January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S227 that goes to the constitutional work- must earn and re-earn the trust of the gress, in the courts, and on the streets ings of our government and its ability people with every thing they do. and in the buses and at the lunch to protect the civil rights of even the Whenever an elected official stum- counters. weakest American. bles, that trust is eroded and public The Senate can follow the legacy of What is on trial here is the truth and cynicism goes up. The more cynicism those who brought President Nixon to the rule of law. Failure to bring Presi- that exists about government, its insti- justice during Watergate in the belief dent Clinton to account for his serial tutions, and those chosen to serve in that no President can place himself lying under oath and preventing the them, the more difficult the job is for above the law. courts from administering equal jus- those who are serving. The Senate can follow the legacy of tice under law will cause a cancer to be That’s why it is important, yes vital, Theodore Roosevelt who lived and gov- present in our society for generations. that when a cancer exists in the body erned by the principle that no man is Those parents who have asked the politic, our job—our duty—is to excise above the law. questions should be able to tell their it. If we fail in our duty, I fear the dif- Within the walls of the Capitol and children that even if you are the Presi- ficult and dedicated work done by throughout this great country there dent of the United States, if you lie thousands of honorable men and rages an impassioned and divisive de- when sworn to tell the truth, the whole women elected to serve not just here in bate over the future of this presidency. truth and nothing but the truth, you Washington, but in our State capitals, This Senate now finds itself in the will face the consequences of that ac- city halls, courthouses and school midst of the tempest. An already im- tion even when you won’t accept the board rooms will be swept away in a mense and agonizing duty is made even responsibility for it. sea of public cynicism. We must not more so because the whims of public How those parents will answer those allow the beacon of America to grow opinion polls, the popularity and questions is up to the United States dim, or the American dream to dis- unpopularity of individuals, even ques- Senate. appear with each waking morning. tions over the strength of our econ- While how today’s parents answer In 1974, the Congress did its painful omy, risk subsuming the true nature of those questions is important, equally public duty when the President of the this grave and unwelcome task. important is what parents tell their United States broke the public trust. We have all anguished over the se- children in the generations to come During the last decade, both Houses quence of events that have led us to about the history of our country and impeached and removed three Federal this, the conclusive stage in the proc- what has set our government in the judges who broke their trust with the ess. We have all identified in our own United States of America apart from people. minds where it could have, and should the rest of the world. During the last 10 years, the House of have stopped. But we have ended up Above the President’s dais in this Representatives disciplined two Speak- here, before the Senate of the United Senate chamber appears our national ers for breaking the rules and their States, where you, the Senators, will motto. ‘‘E pluribus unum’’—‘‘out of trust with the public. have to render judgment based upon many, one.’’ When that motto was And, less than 6 years ago, this hon- the facts. adopted more than two hundred years orable Senate did the same to a senior A scientist in search of the basic na- ago, the First Congress referred to how Senator whose accomplishments were ture of a substance begins by boiling thirteen separate colonies turned widely praised. away what is not of the essence. Simi- themselves into one, united nation. In each case, Congress did the right larly, the Senate will sift through the As the decades have gone by, that thing to help restore the vital trust layers of debris that shroud the truth. motto has taken an additional mean- upon which our Government depends. The residue of this painful and divisive ing. People of all nationalities, faiths, It wasn’t easy, nor was it always popu- process is bitter, even poisonous at creeds, and values have come to our lar, but Congress did the right thing. times. But beneath it lies the answer. shores, shed their allegiances to their Now, this honorable Senate must do The evidence will show that at its core, old countries and achieved their the right thing. It must listen to the the question over the President’s guilt dreams to become Americans. evidence; it must determine whether and the need for his conviction will be They came here to flee religious per- William Jefferson Clinton repeatedly clear. Because at its core, the issues in- secution, to escape corrupt, tyrannical broke our criminal laws and thus broke volved are basic questions of right ver- and oppressive governments, and to his trust with the people—a trust con- sus wrong—deceptive, criminal behav- leave behind the economic stagnation tained in the Presidential oath put into ior versus honesty, integrity and re- and endless wars of their homelands. the Constitution by the Framers—an spect for the law. They came here to be able to practice oath that no other Federal official The President engaged in a conspir- their faiths as they saw fit—free of must take—an oath to insure that the acy of crimes to prevent justice from government dictates and to be able to laws be faithfully executed. being served. These are impeachable of- provide better lives for themselves and How the Senate decides the issues to fenses for which the President should their families by the sweat of their own be presented in this trial will deter- be convicted. Over the course of the brows and the use of their own intel- mine the legacy we pass to future gen- days and weeks to come, we, the House lect. erations of Americans. managers, will endeavor to make this But they also came here because they The Senate can follow the legacy of case. knew America has a system of govern- those who have made America what it May these proceedings be fair and ment where the Constitution and laws is. thorough. May they embody our high- protect individual liberties and human The Senate can follow the legacy of est capacity for truth and mutual re- rights. Everyone—yes, everyone—can those who put their ‘‘lives, fortunes spect. With these principles as our argue that this country has been a bea- and Sacred Honor’’ on the line when guides, we can begin with the full con for individual citizen’s ability to they signed the Declaration of Inde- knowledge our democracy will prevail be what he or she can be. pendence. and that our Nation will emerge a They fled countries where the rulers The Senate can follow the legacy of stronger, better place. ruled at the expense of the people, to the Framers of the Constitution whose Our legacy now must be not to lose America, where the leaders are ex- preamble states that one of its pur- the trust the people should have in our pected to govern for the benefit of the poses is, ‘‘to establish justice.’’ Nation’s leaders. people. The Senate can follow the legacy of Our legacy now must be not to cheap- And, throughout the years, America’s James Madison and the Members of the en the legacies left by our forebearers. leaders have tried to earn the trust of First Congress who wrote and passed a Our legacy must be to do the right the American people, not by their Bill of Rights to protect and preserve thing based upon the evidence. words, but by their actions. the liberties of the American people. For the sake of our country, the Sen- America is a place where government The Senate can follow the legacy of ate must not fail. Thank you. exists by the consent of the governed. those who achieved equal rights for all The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- And, that means our Nation’s leaders Americans during the 1960s in Con- ognizes Mr. Manager BRYANT. S228 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 Mr. Manager BRYANT. Mr. Chief dent of the United States, the House of and then down to such functions as the Justice, Members of the Senate, and Representatives would consider arti- Federal Bureau of Investigation, the my distinguished colleagues from the cles of impeachment. It did and voted Drug Enforcement Administration, Im- bar, I am ED BRYANT, the Representa- to impeach this President. migration, U.S. Marshals Office, Bu- tive from the Seventh District of Ten- But do not let it be argued in these reau of Prisons and so many other very nessee. During this portion of the case, chambers that ‘‘We are not electing important legal functions this Federal I, along with Representative ASA Saints, we are electing Presidents.’’ Government performs. HUTCHINSON of Arkansas, Representa- Rather, let it be said that we are elect- As protectors of our Constitution, tive JAMES ROGAN of California, and ing people who are imperfect and who the U.S. Attorneys and their assistants Representative BILL MCCOLLUM of have made mistakes in life, but who prosecute more than 50,000 cases per Florida, will present the factual ele- are willing to so respect this country year. ments of this case. Our presentation is and the Office of the President that he Through these appointments and his a very broad roadmap with which first or she will now lay aside their own per- administration’s policies, the Presi- I will provide the history and back- sonal shortcomings and have the inner dent establishes the climate in this ground of the parties, followed by Mr. strength to discipline themselves suffi- country for law and order. Each and HUTCHINSON and Mr. ROGAN, who will ciently that they do not break the law every one of these 50,000 cases handled review the articles of impeachment. which they themselves are sworn to up- by his United States Attorneys is de- Mr. MCCOLLUM will close with a sum- hold. pendent upon the parties and witnesses mation of these facts and evidence. Every trial must have a beginning telling the truth under oath. Equally It is our intent to proceed in a chron- and this trial begins on a cold day in as important in these proceedings is ological fashion, although by necessity, January 1993. that justice not be obstructed by tam- there will be some overlap of the facts [Video presentation.] pering with witnesses nor hiding evi- and circumstances arising from what I Mr. Manager BRYANT. I had expected dence. have called ‘‘the four-way intersection a video portion, but all of you heard Quoting from the November 9, 1998 collision’’ of President William Jeffer- the audio portion. As you can hear Constitution Subcommittee testimony son Clinton, Ms. Paula Corbin Jones, from the audio portion—perhaps some of attorney Charles J. Cooper, a Wash- Monica Lewinsky, and the U.S. Con- of you can see—William Jefferson Clin- ington, DC attorney, he states: stitution. ton, placed his left hand on the Bible in The crimes of perjury and obstruction of As a further preface to my remarks, front of his wife, the Chief Justice and justice, like the crimes of treason and brib- ery, are quintessentially offenses against our permit me to say that none of us every American watching that day and system of government, visiting injury imme- present here today in these hallowed affirmatively acknowledged his oath of diately upon society itself, whether or not Chambers relishes doing this job before office. On that every day and again in committed in connection with the exercise us. But we did not choose to be in- January of 1997, the President joined a of official government powers. Before the volved in that reckless misconduct, nor privileged few. He became only the framing of our Constitution and since, our did we make those reasoned and cal- 42nd person in our Nation to make the law has consistently recognized that perjury culated decisions to cover up that mis- commitment to ‘‘faithfully execute’’ primarily and directly injures the body poli- tic, for it subverts the judicial process and conduct which underlies this proceed- the office of the President and to ‘‘pre- this strikes at the heart of the rule of law ing. However, this collision at the serve, protect and defend the Constitu- itself. intersection, if you will, of the Presi- tion.’’ He has the complete executive Professor Gary McDowell, the Direc- dent, Ms. Jones, and Ms. Lewinsky, is power of the Nation vested in him by tor at the Institute for United States not in and of itself enough to bring us virtue of this Constitution. Studies at the University of London, together today. No. Had truth been a As we progress throughout the day, I also testified in the same hearing in witness at this collision, and prevailed, would ask that you be reminded of the reference to the influential writer Wil- we would not be here. But when it was importance of this oath. Before you is liam Paley, and this is also in chart not present, even under an oath to tell a copy of it and certainly available as form for those who would like review it the truth, the whole truth and nothing anyone would like to look at it on later. Paley saw the issue of oaths and but the truth in a judicial matter, the breaks. perjury as one of morality as well as impact of our Constitution must be William Jefferson Clinton is a man of law. Because a witness swears that he felt. Hence, we are together today—to great distinction. He is well-educated will speak the truth, the whole truth do our respective duties. with degrees from Georgetown Univer- and nothing but the truth, a person By voting these articles of impeach- sity and Yale Law School. He has under oath cannot cleverly lie and not ment, the House is not attempting to taught law school courses to aspiring commit perjury. If the witness conceals raise the standard of conduct to perfec- young lawyers. He served as Governor any truth, Paley writes, that relates to tion for our political leadership. Such a and Attorney General for the State of the matter in adjudication, that is as person does not walk the world today. Arkansas, enforcing the laws of that much a violation of the oath, as to tes- Everyone falls short of this mark ev- state. The President now directs our tify a positive falsehood. Shame or em- eryday. great Nation. He sets our agenda and barrassment cannot justify his conceal- But political life is not so much creates national policy in a very public ment of truth, linguistic contortions about how an individual fails, but rath- way—he is in fact a role model for with the words used cannot legiti- er how the person reacts to that fail- many. mately conceal a lie, or if under oath, ure. For example, a person campaign- President Clinton also serves as the perjury. ing for a political office admits wrong- Nation’s chief law enforcement officer. Professor McDowell concludes with a doing in his past and says he will not It is primarily in this capacity that quote from Paley which accurately do that again. Most people accept that the President appoints Federal judges. provides, I believe the essence of a lie commitment. He is elected. Thereafter, Within the executive branch, he se- or perjurious statement. ‘‘It is willful he repeats this wrongdoing and is con- lected Attorney General Janet Reno deceit that makes the lie; and we will- fronted again. What does he do? He and appointed each of the 93 United fully deceive, where our expressions are takes steps to cover up this wrong- States Attorneys who are charged with not true in the sense in which we be- doing by using his workers and his enforcing all Federal, civil and crimi- lieve the hearer apprehends them.’’ friends. He lies under oath in a lawsuit nal law in Federal courthouses from Neither has this United States Sen- which is very important to the person Anchorage, Alaska to Miami, Florida ate been silent on the issue of perjury. he is alleged to have harmed. He then and from San Diego, California to Ban- You have rightfully recognized through takes a political poll as to whether he gor, Maine. previous impeachment proceedings the should tell the truth under oath. The Before you we have another chart unacceptable nature of a high govern- poll indicates the voters would not for- which shows the schematics of the De- ment official lying under oath, even in give him for lying under oath. So he partment of Justice and how it is under matters initially arising from what then denies the truth in a Federal the direct control of the President some would argue here are merely per- grand jury. If this person is the Presi- through his Cabinet, Attorney General sonal. In 1989, many of you present January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S229 today, using the very same standard has committed the same kind of acts me to lie . . .’’ When considered alone, which is section 4 of the Constitution, before or since—in other words, a pat- this statement would seem excul- which is set forth there, for impeaching tern or practice of harassing conduct. patory. In the context of other evi- a federal judge or the President, many The existence of such corroborative dence, however, we see that this one of you actually voted in support of a evidence, or the lack thereof, is likely statement gives a misleading infer- conviction and the removal of a U.S. to be critical in these types of cases. ence. Of course no one said, ‘‘Now, District judge under oath. Both the Equal Employment Oppor- Monica, you go down there and lie.’’ Indeed, truth-telling is the single tunity Commission guidelines and the They didn’t have to. Based upon their most important judicial precept under- Federal Rules of Evidence permit this previous spoken and even unspoken pinning this great system of justice we type of evidence. In short, a defend- words, Ms. Lewinsky knew what was have, a system which permits the ant’s sexual history, at least with re- expected of her. Surely, if the Presi- courthouse doors to be open to all peo- spect to other employees, is ordinarily dent were to come on to the Senate ple, from the most powerful man in discoverable in a sexual harassment floor and give testimony during this America to a young woman from Ar- lawsuit. proceeding, he would not tell you that kansas. To not expect a defendant in this he honestly expected her to tell the On May 6, 1994, Paula Corbin Jones type of litigation to speak the truth truth about their personal relation- attempted to open that courthouse creates, in its worst case, a very real ship. After all, the purpose of her filing door when she filed a Federal sexual danger to the entire area of sexual har- the false affidavit was to avoid testify- harassment lawsuit against President assment law which would be irrep- ing in the Jones case and discussing Clinton. The case arose from a 1991 in- arably damaged and, in its best case, the nature of their relationship. If she cident when she was a State employee sends out a very wrong message. As had told the truth in that affidavit, in- and he was the Governor. Further de- such, the will and intent of Congress stead of lying, she would have been in- tails of the underlying allegations are with regard to providing protection vited to testify immediately, if not against sexual harassment in the work- not important to us today, but Ms. sooner. Jones’ pursuit for the truth is worth a place would be effectively undermined. No. 3, throughout our presentation of The ‘‘pattern and practice’’ witnesses careful study. the facts, especially as it relates to the whom Paula Corbin Jones was entitled The parties first litigated the ques- various illegal acts, I ask you to pay to discover should have included the tion of whether Ms. Jones’ lawsuit particular attention to what I call the name of Monica Lewinsky. But before I would have to be deferred until after big picture. Look at the results of discuss the Ms. Lewinsky matter, I the President left office. The Supreme those various acts as well as who bene- Court unanimously rejected the Presi- want to offer three matters of cause to each of you as jurors in this very im- fited. Please make a mental note now, dent’s contention and allowed the case if you can, and ask yourself always, as to proceed without further delay. portant matter. No. 1, I do not intend to discuss the you look at each one of these illegal Ms. Jones sought and, appropriately, acts that are presented to you: A, What won ‘‘her day in court.’’ Incumbent specific details of the President’s en- counters with Ms. Lewinsky. However, was the result of that illegal act? and, with this victory, however, was the B, Who benefited from that illegal act? reasonable expectation that President I do not want to give the Senate the impression that those encounters are I believe you will find that the evi- Clinton would tell the truth. dence will show that while the Presi- After all, this was the most impor- irrelevant or lack serious legal impli- dent’s ‘‘fingerprints’’ may not be di- tant case in the whole world to Paula cations. In fact, every day in the court- rectly on the evidence proving these il- Corbin Jones. rooms all across America, victims of Notwithstanding this, that fact sexual harassment, of rape, assault, legal acts, the result of the acts usu- didn’t happen, that the President told and abuse must testify, in many public ally inures to the benefit of the Presi- the truth. Even after the President was cases, in order to vindicate their per- dent, and the President alone. Subordi- ordered to stand trial, pursuing the sonal rights and society’s right to be nates and friends alike are drawn into truth for Ms. Jones remained an elu- free of these intolerable acts. this web of deceit. The President is in- sive task. The evidence will indicate The President’s lies about his con- sulated. Crimes are committed. Justice that President Clinton committed per- duct in the Oval Office with Ms. is denied. The rule of law is suspended. jury and orchestrated a variety of ef- Lewinsky also make these unseemly And this President is the beneficiary. Some examples: forts to obstruct justice, all of which— details highly relevant. If you are to No. 1, subpoenaed evidence dis- all of which—had the effect of prevent- accept the President’s version about appears from Ms. Lewinsky’s apart- ing the discovery of truth in the Paula the relationship, you must in effect say ment and reappears under Ms. Currie’s Jones case. to Ms. Lewinsky that she is the one bed. What was the result of that? Who During the discovery phase, Judge who is disregarding the truth. But be- had the benefit of that? Susan Webber Wright of the U.S. Dis- yond this, his denials also directly con- No. 2, Ms. Lewinsky files a false affi- trict Court for the Eastern District tradict Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony, not davit in the Jones case. What is the re- Court of Arkansas ordered the Presi- only directly contradict Ms. sult of filing that false affidavit and dent to answer certain historical ques- Lewinsky’s testimony, but also con- who benefited from that? tions about his sexual relations with tradict eight of her friends and the statements by two professional coun- No. 3, the President’s attorney files either State or Federal employees. the Lewinsky affidavit, not knowing it In part, Judge Wright said: selors with whom she contempora- was false, representing to the Court The Court finds, therefore, that the plain- neously shared details of her relation- tiff is entitled to information regarding any ship. By law, their testimony may that ‘‘there is absolutely no sex of any individuals with whom the President had serve as proper and admissible evidence kind in any manner, shape, or form,’’ sexual relations or proposed or sought to to corroborate her side of this impor- while the President sits in the deposi- have sexual relations and who were during tant story. tion and does not object to that—very the relevant time frame state or federal em- No. 2, the evidence and testimony in silently sits in the deposition. What ployees. this proceeding must be viewed as a was the result of that? And who bene- Judge Wright validated Ms. Jones’ whole; it cannot be compartmentalized. fited from that filing of the affidavit? right to use this accepted line of ques- Please do not be misled into consider- No. 4, and finally, Ms. Lewinsky, tioning in sexual harassment litiga- ing each event in isolation and then after months of job searching in New tion. More often than not, these cases treating it separately. Remember, York City, is offered a job with a For- involve situations where ‘‘he said/she events and words that may seem inno- tune 500 company in New York City said,’’ and they produce issues of credi- cent or even exculpatory in a vacuum within 48 hours of her signing this false bility and are often done in private. Be- may well take on a sinister or even affidavit. Who shared the results of cause of this, they are really difficult criminal connotation when observed in that with Ms. Lewinsky? And who ob- for a victim to prove. the context of the whole plot. tained the benefit of that? Such standard questions are essential For example, we all agree that Ms. Another example occurred in a meet- in establishing whether the defendant Lewinsky testified, ‘‘No one ever told ing between the President and Ms. S230 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 Lewinsky in July—on July 4, 1997, to ed—and that statement, the President about the relationship, he responded be specific—when, as a part of their gave in testimony before the grand approvingly. On the frequent occasions conversation, she mentioned she heard jury about meeting in this relation- that she promised that she would ‘‘al- someone from Newsweek was working ship. And he says, ‘‘I regret that what ways deny’’ the relationship and ‘‘al- on a story about Kathleen Willey. The began as a friendship came to include ways protect him,’’ for example, the President has Ms. Lewinsky back for a this conduct . . .’’ Almost as if it had President responded, in her recollec- visit on July 14, some 10 days later, fol- evolved over a period of time. So there tion, ‘‘That’s good,’’ or something af- lowing his return from an overseas is very clearly a conflict there. firmative. Not ‘‘Don’t deny it.’’ trip. She was questioned about the Wil- As Ms. Lewinsky’s internship was The evidence will establish further ley story, and specifically if Linda ending that year, she did apply and re- that the two of them had, in her words, Tripp had been her source. ceive a paying job with the White ‘‘a mutual understanding’’ that they Important to this point—important House Office of Legislative Affairs. would ‘‘keep this private, so that to this point—the President then asked This position allowed her even more meant deny it and . . . take whatever Ms. Lewinsky to try to persuade Ms. access to the Oval Office area. She re- appropriate steps needed to be taken.’’ Tripp to call White House Legal Coun- mained a White House employee until When she and the President both were sel Bruce Lindsey. The President told April 1996 when she was reassigned to subpoenaed in the Jones case, Ms. her to notify Ms. Currie the following the Pentagon. The proof will show that Lewinksy anticipated that ‘‘as we had day, ‘‘without getting into the details Ms. Evelyn Lieberman, Deputy Chief of on every other occasion and every with her, even mentioning names with Staff at the time, believed that the other instance of this relationship, we her,’’ whether Ms. Lewinsky had ‘‘mis- transfer was necessary because Ms. would deny it.’’ sion accomplished’’ with Linda. And as Lewinsky was so persistent in her ef- In his grand jury testimony, Presi- you will learn from Mr. HUTCHINSON, forts to be near the President. Al- dent Clinton acknowledged that he and who will follow me with his presen- though Ms. Lieberman could not recall Ms. Lewinsky ‘‘might have talked tation, this is very similar to the hearing any rumors linking her and the about what to do in a nonlegal con- method of operation with another job President, she acknowledged the Presi- text’’ to hide their relationship and the President requested be done, which dent was vulnerable to these kinds of that he ‘‘might well have said’’ that in that case succeeded with a ‘‘mission rumors. While Ms. Lewinsky tried to Ms. Lewinsky should tell people she accomplished.’’ I ask you to watch for return to work in the White House, her was bringing letters to him or coming that in Mr. HUTCHINSON’s presentation. absence was appreciated by those on to visit Ms. Currie. He always stated I want to now rewind the clock back the President’s staff who wanted to that ‘‘I never asked Ms. Lewinsky to to November of 1995. We are here in protect him. lie.’’ Washington where Ms. Lewinsky has After she began her job at the Penta- But neither did the President ever been working at the White House since gon in April, there was no further phys- say that they must now tell the truth July of 1995. ical contact with the President under oath; to the contrary, as Ms. As you continue to listen to the evi- through the 1996 election and the re- Lewinsky stated: ‘‘It wasn’t as if the dence, from this point on November 15 mainder of that year. The two commu- President called me and said, ‘You forward, remember that Ms. Lewinsky nicated by telephone and on occasion know, Monica, you’re on the witness and the President were alone in the saw each other at public events. Their list, this is going to be really hard for Oval Office workplace area at least 21 only attempt at a private visit in the us, we’re going to have to tell the truth times. And I have a list of these, in Oval Office was thwarted because Ms. and be humiliated in front of the entire chart form, beginning in November of Lieberman was nearby. On December world about what we’ve done,’ which I 1995, and going through 1996 and into 17, she attended a holiday celebration would have fought him on probably,’’ the early part of 1997, continuing at the White House and had a photo- she said. ‘‘That was different. By not through the year. During that time, graph made shaking hands with the calling me and saying that, you know, they had at least 11 of the so-called sa- President. I knew what that meant,’’ according to lacious encounters there in the work- However, the evidence establishes Monica Lewinsky. place at various times during the day that in 1997, Ms. Lewinsky was more In a related but later incident that and night: Three in 1995, five in 1996, successful in arranging visits to the Mr. HUTCHINSON may refer to, Monica and three in 1997. White House. This was because she Lewinsky testified that President Clin- They also had in excess of 50 tele- used the discreet assistance of Ms. ton telephoned her at home around 2 phone conversations, most of which ap- Currie, the President’s secretary, to o’clock or 3 o’clock one morning on De- pear to have been telephone calls to avoid the likes of Ms. Lieberman. Ms. cember 17, 1997—2:00 or 2:30 a.m. He and from Ms. Lewinsky’s home. And I Currie indicated she did not want to told her that her name was on the list have a schedule of all these telephone know the details of this relationship. of possible witnesses to be called in the calls to show you, the 50-plus telephone Ms. Currie testified on one occasion Paula Jones lawsuit. When asked what calls. Also, they exchanged some 64 when Ms. Lewinksy told her, ‘‘As long to do if she was subpoenaed, the Presi- gifts, with the President receiving 40 of as no one saw us—and no one did—then dent suggested that she could sign an these gives and Ms. Lewinsky receiving nothing happened.’’ Ms. Currie re- affidavit. Ms. Lewinsky indicated that 24 of these gifts. And again we have sponded, ‘‘Don’t want to hear it. Don’t she was 100 percent sure that he had charts that reflect the receipt of both say any more. I don’t want to hear any suggested that she might want to sign sets of gifts. And again these charts more.’’ an affidavit. She understood his advice will be here in the front, always avail- Early on during their secret liaisons, to mean that she might be able to exe- able for your inspection. the two concocted a cover story to use cute an affidavit that would not dis- We also note that their affair began if discovered. Ms. Lewinksy was to say close the true nature of their relation- on November 15th. Interestingly, there she was bringing papers to the Presi- ship. is even a conflict here with the Presi- dent. The evidence will show that When Ms. Lewinsky agreed to that dent. According to Ms. Lewinsky, they statement to be false. The only papers false affidavit, she told the President had never spoken to each other up to that she ever brought were personal by telephone that she would be signing that point. Yet, he asked an unknown messages having nothing to do with it and asked if he wanted to see it be- intern into the Oval Office and kissed her duties or the President’s. The cover fore she signed it. According to Ms. her and then invited her back to return story plays an important role in the Lewinsky, the President responded later that day, when the two engaged later perjuries and the obstruction of that he did not, as he had already seen in the first of the 11 acts of mis- justice. about 15 others. conduct. Ms. Lewinksy stated that the Presi- Concurrent with these events I just The contradiction is in the statement dent did not expressly instruct her to described, the evidence will further that the President relied upon in his lie. He did, however, suggest, indeed, demonstrate that as Ms. Lewinsky at- grand jury testimony that has been ref- the ‘‘misleading’’ cover story. When tempted to return to work at the White erenced earlier—very carefully word- she assured him that she planned to lie House after the 1996 elections, she January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S231 spoke with the President. According to However, the evidence reflects that kansas, the President knows better. I Betty Currie, the President instructed Mr. Jordan took no steps to help Ms. have this statement here extracted out Betty Currie and Marsha Scott, Deputy Lewinsky until early December of that of the President’s Answer to this pro- Director of Personnel, to assist in her year after she appeared on the witness ceeding. return to the White House. In the list in the Jones case. Actually, Mr. 2. Responding to both articles of im- spring of 1997, she met with Ms. Scott. Jordan testified in his grand jury testi- peachment, the President now would She complained in subsequent notes to mony that he had no recollection of have you believe that he ‘‘was not fo- Ms. Scott and the President about no even having met Ms. Lewinsky on No- cusing’’ when his attorney, Bob Ben- progress being made with her getting vember 5. nett, was objecting during the deposi- back to the White House. On July 3rd When he was shown documentary evi- tion and attempting to cut off a very of that year, she dispatched a more for- dence demonstrating that his first important line of questioning of the mal letter to the President—in fact, meeting with Ms. Lewinsky occurred in President by representing to Judge using the salutation, ‘‘Dear Sir,’’—and early November, he acknowledged that Wright that Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit raising a possible threat that she such meeting ‘‘was entirely possible.’’ proved that there is no need to go into might have to tell her parents about You can see that was not to be a high this testimony about the President’s why she no longer had a job at the priority for Mr. Jordan at that time, life. He said that this affidavit proves White House if they don’t get her an- until December. that ‘‘there is absolutely no sex of any other job. She also indicated a possible For many months, Ms. Lewinsky had kind, in any manner, shape or form.’’ interest in a job in New York at the not been able to find a job to her satis- Remember that this is the same Presi- United Nations. The President and Ms. faction—even without the perceived dent who now pleads that he lost his Lewinsky met the next day in what ‘‘help’’ of various people. Then in De- focus during this very important part Ms. Lewinsky characterized as a ‘‘very cember of 1997, something happened of this deposition. This is the very emotional’’ visit, including the Presi- which caused those interested in find- same President who is renowned for his dent scolding her that it was illegal to ing Ms. Lewinsky a job in New York to intelligence and his ability ‘‘to com- threaten the President of the United intensify their search. Within 48 hours partmentalize,’’ to concentrate and States. Their conversation eventually of her signing this false affidavit in the focus on whatever matter is at hand. moved on to other topics, though pri- Paula Jones case, Ms. Lewinsky had And now he comes before this Senate, marily her complaining about his fail- landed a job with a prestigious Fortune to each one of you, in his Answer, by ure to get her a job at the White House. 500 Company. and through his attorneys, and pleads Continuing with Ms. Lewinsky’s ef- It is anticipated that attorneys for that he simply wasn’t paying attention fort to return to work near the Presi- the President will present arguments at this very important point during his dent, there was a July 16th meeting which will contest much of the rela- own deposition. In Tennessee, we have and September 3rd telephone call with tionship with Monica Lewinsky. The a saying for situations like that: ‘‘That Ms. Scott. On the evening of September President has maintained throughout dog won’t hunt.’’ 30, the President advised Ms. Lewinsky the last several months that while 3. In his further response to article I, that he would have Chief of Staff Er- there was no sexual relationship or sex- the President effectively admits guilt skine Bowles help with a job search, ual affair, in fact, there was some type to obstruction. As I read this, his and Bowles later passed this on to John of inappropriate, intimate contact with pleadings refer to the President him- Podesta, although each recalled their her. What has now been dubbed as self, and he states that he, the Presi- involvement occurring earlier in the ‘‘legal gymnastics’’ on the part of the dent, ‘‘truthfully explained to the year. President has made its appearance. grand jury his efforts to answer the A few days later, however, her hopes Other examples followed. Within his questions in the Jones deposition with- of a job at the White House quickly definition of the word ‘‘alone,’’ he de- out disclosing his relationship with Ms. ended. On October 6, she had a con- nies being alone with Ms. Lewinsky at Lewinsky.’’ So he said he did answer versation with Linda Tripp who told any time in the Oval Office. He also the questions in the Jones deposition her that she would never return to the questions the definition of the word in a way so as not to disclose his rela- White House, according to a friend of ‘‘is.’’ ‘‘It depends on what the word ‘is’ tionship with Ms. Lewinsky. At the hers on the staff. Learning this ‘‘sec- means in how you answer a particular bottom of the same page, he denies ondhand’’ was, according to Ms. question.’’ Further, we would expect that he attempted ‘‘to impede the dis- Lewinsky, the ‘‘straw that broke the the President to continue to disavow covery of evidence in the Jones case.’’ camel’s back.’’ She decided to ask the knowledge of why evidence detrimental Think about this with me for a minute. President for a job in New York with to his defense in the Jones case was re- Basically, the purpose of the Jones dep- the United Nations and sent him a let- moved from Ms. Lewinsky’s apartment osition of the President was to secure ter to that effect on October 7. and hidden beneath Ms. Currie’s bed or truthful testimony about these kinds During an October 11 meeting with knowledge of how Ms. Lewinsky found of ‘‘pattern and practice’’ witnesses, the President, he suggested that she herself with an employment offer in and therein discover the likes of give him a list of New York companies New York virtually at the same time Monica Lewinsky. That is the purpose which interested her. She asked if Ver- she finally executed an affidavit in the of being there. The President admitted non Jordan might also help. Five days Jones case. in his Answer that he purposely an- later, she provided the President with Unfortunately, for your search for swered questions so as not to disclose her ‘‘wish list’’ and indicated that she the truth in these proceedings, the his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. was no longer interested in the U.N. President continues today to parse his Said another way, he intentionally an- position, although she did receive an words and use ‘‘legal hairsplitting’’ in swered questions to avoid the discovery offer on November 24th and declined it his defense. I cite for your consider- of one of these female employees with on January 5, 1998. ation his Answer filed with this body whom he was sexually involved. That is After this meeting with the Presi- just days ago. For instance: precisely, folks, what impeding the dis- dent, arrangements were made through 1. Responding in part to the impeach- covery of evidence is. the President and Ms. Currie for Ms. ment article I, the President persists in I ask you, if you get an opportunity, Lewinsky to meet with Mr. Jordan. On a wrongheaded fashion with his legal to look at this very closely. the morning of November 5, 1997, Mr. hairsplitting of the term ‘‘sexual rela- 4. In his answer to article II, the Jordan spoke by telephone with the tions,’’ which permits him to define President ‘‘denies that he encouraged President about 5 minutes and later that term in such a way that in the Monica Lewinsky to execute a false af- met with Ms. Lewinsky for the first particular salacious act we are talking fidavit in the Jones case.’’ When every- time for about 20 minutes. According about here, one person has sex and the thing is said and done, Ms. Lewinsky to Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Jordan told her other person does not. As a graduate of had no motivation, no reason whatso- he had spoken with the President, that one of the finest law schools in Amer- ever to want to commit a crime by she came highly recommended and that ica and as a former law professor and willfully submitting a false affidavit ‘‘We’re in business.’’ attorney general for the State of Ar- with a court of law. She really did not S232 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 need to do this at that point in her life, witnesses. Before now, he has aggres- have sought to achieve in enacting and but this 20-something-year-old young sively sought the opportunity to chal- interpreting the Nations’s sexual har- lady was listening to the most powerful lenge the truth and veracity of wit- assment laws. That is particularly true man in the United States, whom she nesses in these impeachment proceed- when the conduct that is being con- greatly admired, hearing him effec- ings. During the hearings in the House, cealed—sexual relations in the work- tively instruct her to file a false affida- which many believe are analogous to a place between a high official and a vit to avoid having to testify about grand jury proceeding, the President’s young subordinate employee—itself their relationship. And in order to do defenders and his attorneys consist- conflicts with those goals. that, she had to lie about the physical ently complained of the failure to call Second. The second limit was im- aspects of their relationship. According witnesses and the lack of fairness and posed when Judge Wright required dis- to her, the President didn’t even want due process. Almost every day, there closure of the precise information that to see that actual affidavit because he were partisan attacks from the White is in part the subject of this hearing had seen 15 more just like it and as House and its emissaries who were dis- today. A federal judge specifically or- such he knew what it would be. patched throughout the media talk dered the President, on more than one 5. In an additional response to article shows with the same complaints of no occasion, to provide the requested in- II, the President answers and asserts witnesses. formation about relationships with that ‘‘he believed that Ms. Lewinsky And always, our measured response other women, including Ms. Lewinsky. could have filed a limited and truthful was a calm assurance that there would The fact that Judge Wright later deter- affidavit that might have enabled her be witnesses called during the trial mined that the evidence would not be to avoid having to testify in the Jones phase in the Senate. Is there any doubt admissible at trial, and still later case.’’ That is an incredible statement. that our forefathers intended a two- granted judgment in the President’s That is an incredible statement given step impeachment proceeding? favor, does not change the President’s the fact that the President knew first- The House would function as the legal duty at the time he testified. Like every litigant, the President was hand of the extent of their sexual rela- Grand Jury and determine whether to entitled to object to the discovery tionship, and he also knew that the charge—to impeach. Then you, as the questions, and to seek guidance from Jones discovery efforts were specifi- trier of fact, would function as the jury the court if he thought those questions cally after that type of conduct. Even to try the case and weigh the testi- mony of the fact witnesses. In recent were improper. But having failed to with the best of the legal hairsplitting, convince the court that his objections days, some have publically asserted it is still difficult to envision a truth- were well founded, the President was that the House is hypocritical because ful affidavit from Ms. Lewinsky that duty bound to testify truthfully and it didn’t call some of the fact witnesses could have skirted this issue enough to fully. Perjury and attempts to obstruct it now asks to call in the Senate. For avoid testifying. the gathering of evidence can never be And if you really think the President the record, it must be noted that the an acceptable response to a court House Judiciary Committee, out of an had this belief, don’t you think he order, regardless of the eventual course abundance of fairness, did allow the would have accepted Ms. Lewinsky’s or outcome of the litigation. offer to review her affidavit and per- President’s defense team 30 hours in The Supreme Court has spoken force- haps share this bit of wisdom he had which to present any witnesses that fully about perjury and other forms of with her before she signed it and lied? they could have chosen and they could obstruction of justice: ‘‘In this con- After all, in this answer he just filed, have examined. stitutional process of securing a wit- he says he had an out for her, a way for But any allegation of hypocrisy cer- ness’ testimony, perjury simply has no her to have the best of both worlds— tainly appears to miss the point that place whatever. Perjured testimony is not to have to lie and still avoid testi- the writers of our Constitution never an obvious and flagrant affront to the fying in the Jones case. Why didn’t he contemplated two separate trials for an basic concepts of judicial proceedings. share that with her when she gave him impeachment proceeding. But now we Effective restraints against this type of the opportunity if he in fact had such would respectfully suggest is the time egregious offense are therefore impera- an idea? I suggest that perhaps that is for witnesses. tive.’’ a recent idea. All Americans, including the Presi- The insidious effects of perjury occur Even if, for some reason, you don’t dent, are entitled to enjoy a private whether the case is civil or criminal. believe Ms. Lewinsky offered to share family life, free from public or govern- Only a few years ago, the Supreme that affidavit with him, don’t you mental scrutiny. But the privacy con- Court considered a false statement think it still would have been in the cerns raised in this case are subject to made in a civil administrative proceed- President’s best interest to give Ms. limits, three of which I will briefly dis- ing: ‘‘False testimony in a formal pro- Lewinsky his thoughts before she vio- cuss here. ceeding is intolerable. We must neither lated the law with a completely false First. The first limit was imposed reward nor condone such a ‘flagrant af- affidavit? when the President was sued in federal front’ to truth-seeking function of ad- Now, indeed, is the time to stop the court for alleged sexual harassment. versary proceedings * * * Perjury legal gymnastics and hairsplitting and The evidence in such litigation is often should be severely sanctioned in appro- deal with these charges and facts ap- personal. At times, that evidence is priate cases.’’ Stated more simply, propriately. highly embarrassing for both plaintiff ‘‘perjury is an obstruction of justice.’’ As a House manager, I believe I can and defendant. As Judge Wright noted Third. The third limit is unique to speak for all of us out of a sense of fair- at the President’s January 1998 deposi- the President. ‘‘The Presidency is more ness, and again request that we and the tion, ‘‘I have never had a sexual harass- than an executive responsibility. It is President be permitted to call wit- ment case where there was not some the inspiring symbol of all that is high- nesses. I submit that the state of the embarrassment.’’ Nevertheless, Con- est in American purpose and ideals.’’ evidence is such that unless and until gress and the Supreme Court have con- As the head of the Executive Branch, the President has the opportunity to cluded that embarrassment-related the President has the constitutional confront and cross-examine witnesses concerns must give way to the greater duty to ‘‘take Care that the Laws be like Ms. Lewinsky, and himself, to tes- interest in allowing aggrieved parties faithfully executed.’’ The President tify if he desires, there could not be to pursue their claims. Courts have gave his testimony in the Jones case any doubt of his guilt on the facts. A long recognized the difficulties of prov- under oath and in the presence of a fed- reasonable and impartial review of the ing sexual harassment in the work eral judge, a member of a co-equal record as it presently exists demands place, inasmuch as improper or unlaw- branch of government; he then testified nothing less than a guilty verdict. ful behavior often takes place in pri- before a federal grand jury, a body of While it has been the consistent de- vate. To excuse a party who lied or citizens who had themselves taken an fense of the White House to be incon- concealed evidence on the ground that oath to seek the truth. In view of the sistent, it still comes as something of a the evidence covered only ‘‘personal’’ enormous trust and responsibility at- surprise that the President has not or ‘‘private’’ behavior would frustrate tendant to his high Office, the Presi- made a stronger case for the calling of the goals that Congress and the courts dent has a manifest duty to ensure that January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S233 his conduct at all times complies with sented to you, on your tables, a selec- go through the facts of the case, the the law of the land. tion of charts that I will be referring to evidence will show in this case that In sum, perjury and acts that ob- here so everyone will have the advan- there was a scheme that was developed struct justice by any citizen—whether tage of being able to see at least in to obstruct the administration of jus- in a criminal case, a grand jury inves- some fashion the charts to which I will tice, and that is illegal. And the ob- tigation, a congressional hearing, a be referring. And we will have the struction of justice is of great con- civil trial or civil discovery—are pro- charts here as well. sequence and significance to the integ- foundly serious matters. When such This is certainly a humbling experi- rity of our Nation when committed by acts are committed by the President of ence for a smalltown lawyer. I learned anyone, but particularly by the Chief the United States, those acts are to love and to respect the law trying Executive of our land, the President of grounds for conviction and removal cases in the courtrooms of rural Ar- the United States. from his Office. kansas. The scene is different in this Mr. BRYANT took us factually up to a Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair. setting, in this historic Chamber with certain point pertaining to the job The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- the Chief Justice presiding and Sen- search. This is chart No. 1 that you ognizes the majority leader. ators sitting as jurors. But what is at have before you. This puts it in per- Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask stake remains the same. spective a little bit, and just for a brief unanimous consent that there now be a In every case heard in every court- review. You go back in the calendar, recess of the proceedings for 15 min- room across this great country, it is back into October. That is when Ms. utes. the truth, it is justice, it is the law Lewinsky sends the President her wish The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there objec- that are at stake. In this journey on list for a list of jobs. And then shortly tion? Earth, there is nothing of greater con- after that, Ms. Currie faxes Lewinsky Mr. Manager BRYANT. Mr. Chief sequence for us to devote our energies the resume to Ambassador Richardson, Justice, I have just about 1 minute, than to search for the truth, to pursue and Ambassador Richardson gets in- and I will conclude. equal justice and to uphold the law. It volved in the job search. Mr. LOTT. I withhold my request. is for those reasons that I serve as a October 30, the President promised to The CHIEF JUSTICE. Very well. manager. And as you, I hope that I can arrange a meeting between Lewinsky Mr. Manager BRYANT. Thank you. help in some way to bring this matter and Jordan. This was set up in Novem- As I reach the conclusion of my pres- to a conclusion for our country. This ber. It was actually November 5. But entation, the time line is now in De- afternoon I will be discussing the evi- preceding that, there was a job offer at cember of 1997. Following her Novem- dence and the testimony from wit- the United Nations extended to Ms. ber 5th meeting with Mr. Jordan, Ms. nesses that we do hope to call, and dur- Lewinsky. Ms. Lewinsky decided that Lewinsky had no communication with ing my presentation I will be focusing she was not interested in a job at the him or the President for a month. Then on the evidence that demonstrates ob- United Nations, she wanted to go into in early December, the parties in the struction of justice under article II. the private sector. And so that was the Jones case exchanged witness lists and You might wonder, well, why are we purpose on November 5 of the meeting Ms. Lewinsky was scheduled as a po- going to article II before we have cov- between Jordan and Lewinsky. That is tential witness by the Jones’ attor- ered article I on perjury? And the an- when Mr. Jordan says, ‘‘We’re in busi- neys. On or about that same day, Ms. swer is that in a chronological flow, ar- ness.’’ But the facts will show that Lewinsky attempted to make an ticle II, the obstruction facts, precede there was nothing really done in No- uninvited visit to the White House and much of the perjury allegations. And vember, and that is when I will get in later that day, was allowed in by the so, following my presentation, Manager a little bit more to my presentation, President. But it was during this time, ROGAN will present article I on perjury. and then I will get into December when in December of 1997, that some of the The presentation I make will be some things happened there that seams began to unravel for the Presi- based upon the record, the evidence, picked up speed on this issue. dent. the facts that have been accumulated, I will conclude my remarks at this and I want you to know that I am The obstruction, for our purposes, point and thank the Chief Justice and going to be presenting those facts, and started on December 5, 1997, and that is the Members of the Senate for their from time to time I will argue those when the witness list from the Paula careful attention. My colleague from facts. I believe they are well supported Jones case was faxed to the President’s Arkansas, Mr. HUTCHINSON will follow in the record, but I urge each of you, if lawyers. At that point, the wheels of me now or at the end of any recess as you ever find anything that you ques- obstruction started rolling, and they may be necessary. tion, to search the record and verify did not stop until the President suc- cessfully blocked the truth from com- RECESS the facts, because I do not intend to ing out in the civil rights case. Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, my misrepresent anything to this body. In apologies to the manager for the inter- fact, we will be submitting to each of These acts of obstruction included ruption at the end of his remarks. your offices my presentation with an- attempts to improperly influence a I renew my request of unanimous notations to the record, to the grand witness in a civil rights case—that is consent to take a 15-minute recess. jury transcripts which will tie in the Monica Lewinsky—the procurement The CHIEF JUSTICE. In the absence facts that I present to you. Again, I be- and filing of a false affidavit in the of an objection, it is so ordered. lieve and trust that you will find that case; unlawful attempts to influence (Thereupon, the Senate, sitting as a they are well supported. the testimony of a key witness, Betty Court of Impeachment, at 3:07 p.m., re- So let’s start with obstruction of jus- Currie; the willful concealment of evi- cessed until 3:30 p.m.) tice. Later on, there will be a full dis- dence under subpoena in that case, The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority cussion of the law on obstruction of which are the gifts of December 28; and leader is recognized. justice, but for our purposes, it is sim- illegally influencing the testimony of Mr. LOTT. I believe, Mr. Chief Jus- ply any corrupt act or attempt to in- witnesses—that is the aides who testi- tice, we are prepared now to go forward fluence or impede the proper function- fied before the grand jury—before the with the next manager’s presentation. ing of our system of justice. It is a grand jury of the United States. Each The CHIEF JUSTICE. Very well, the criminal offense, a felony, and it has of these areas of obstruction will be Chair recognizes Manager HUTCHINSON. historically been an impeachable of- covered in my presentation today. Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON. Mr. fense. As I said, it began on Friday, Decem- Chief Justice, Senators, I am ASA Let me first say, it is not a crime nor ber 5, when the witness list came from HUTCHINSON, a Member of Congress an impeachable offense to engage in in- the Paula Jones case. Shortly there- from the Third Congressional District appropriate personal conduct. Nor is it after, the President learned that the of Arkansas. I am grateful for this op- a crime to obstruct or conceal personal list included Monica Lewinsky. This portunity, although it comes with deep embarrassing facts or relationships. It had to be startling news to the Presi- regret, to be before you. I do want to might be offensive, but there are no dent, because if the truth about his re- tell you in advance that we have pre- constitutional consequences. But as we lationship with a subordinate employee S234 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 was known, the civil rights case She had been offered a job at the again, back on exhibit 2 on that chart, against him would be strengthened and United Nations, but she wanted to the third item of testimony there; back it might have totally changed the out- work in the private sector. She was not to Mr. Jordan, his grand jury testi- come. having much success, and then in early mony, May 5, 1998. But to compound the problem, less November it was Betty Currie who ar- The question is: than a week later, Judge Wright, Fed- ranged a meeting with Vernon Jordan, But what is also clear is that as of this eral district judge in Arkansas, on De- which was ultimately on November 5. date, December 11th, you are clear that at cember 11, issued an order, and that At this meeting, Ms. Lewinsky met that point you had made a decision that you order directed that the President had would try to make some calls to help get her with Mr. Jordan for about 20 minutes. a job. to answer questions concerning other Now, let’s refer to Mr. Vernon Jor- His answer: relationships that he might have had dan’s grand jury testimony on that There is no question about that. during a particular timeframe with any meeting that occurred on November 5. State or Federal employee. And when I And you have that, and it should be And so what triggered—let’s look at say ‘‘relationships,’’ I am speaking of your chart No. 2, or exhibit 2. the chain of events. The witness list sexual relationships. So Judge Wright As Mr. Jordan testified before the came in. The judge’s order came in. entered the order that is not in your Federal grand jury on March 3, 1998, in That triggered the President to action. And the President triggered Vernon stack, but I have it here. It was filed on reference to the November 5 meeting, Jordan into action. That chain reac- December 11 in the district court in Ar- he testifies: tion here is what moved the job search kansas and directs the President that I have no recollection of an early Novem- he has to answer those questions with- along. ber meeting with Ms. Monica Lewinsky. I Now, if we had Mr. Jordan on the wit- in a timeframe, as Mr. BRYANT said, have absolutely no recollection of it and I which is typical in a civil rights case of have no record of it. ness stand—which I hope to be able to this nature. call Mr. Jordan—you would need to He goes on to testify, at page 76 of probe where his loyalties lie, listen to The White House knew that Monica the grand jury testimony. Question: was on the witness list. The President the tone of his voice, look into his eyes knew that it was likely that she would Is it fair to say that back in November get- and determine the truthfulness of his ting Monica Lewinsky a job on any fast pace statements. You must decide whether be subpoenaed as a witness and that was not any priority of yours? her truthful testimony would hurt his he is telling the truth or withholding His answer: case. information. What did the President do? What he I think that’s fair to say. And so let’s go to exhibit 3 in your had to do was he made sure that Now, let’s stop there for a moment. booklet. Again, recalling Mr. Jordan, Monica Lewinsky was on his team and What happened as a result of this meet- he testifies about that meeting. He tes- under control. And then on December ing? No action followed whatsoever. No tifies, in his March 3, 1998, grand jury 17, the President finally called Ms. job interviews were arranged and there testimony: Lewinsky to let her know she was on were no further contacts with Mr. Jor- I am certain after the 11th that I had a the list. This was a call between 2 a.m. dan. Mr. Jordan made no effort to find conversation with the President and as a part of that conversation I said to him that and 2:30 a.m. in the morning. a job for Ms. Lewinsky for over a Betty Currie had called me about Monica Now, what happened in the time be- month. Indeed, it was so unimportant Lewinsky. And the conversation was that he tween the President learning Monica to him that he ‘‘had no recollection of knew about her situation which was that she Lewinsky was on the list and when he an early November meeting,’’ and, in was pushed out of the White House, that she notified her of that fact on December fact, he testified finding her a job was wanted to go to New York and he thanked 17 is very important. The President, not a priority. And then you will see me for helping her. during that timeframe, talked to his that during this timeframe the Presi- Remember what else happened on friend, his confidante and his problem- dent’s attitude was exactly the same. that day, again, the same day that solver, Vernon Jordan. Mr. Jordan had And so look at the same exhibit 2, Judge Wright ruled that the questions come to the President’s rescue on pre- the last item on that chart, where it about other relationships could be vious occasions. He was instrumental refers to Monica Lewinsky’s grand jury asked by the Jones’ attorneys. in securing consulting contracts for testimony. And there she is referring Now, let’s go back again to Mr. Jor- Mr. Webb Hubbell while Mr. Hubbell to a December 6 meeting with the dan’s testimony. What does he say was under investigation by the inde- President. about the involvement of the President of the United States in regard to these pendent counsel. I think I said that . . . I was supposed to Let me parenthetically go to that get in touch with Mr. Jordan the previous jobs? You look at exhibit 4. That is in point, right before Mr. Hubbell an- week and that things did not work out and your booklet. This is, again, Vernon nounced his resignation from the Jus- that nothing had really happened yet [on the Jordan’s grand jury transcript of June tice Department. job front]. 9, 1998. During that timeframe, there was a And the question was: Now, the question is on a different meeting at the White House in which issue. The question is about why did he Did the President say what he was going to the President, the First Lady and oth- do? tell the White House that Frank ers were present. After that meeting, Carter—Frank Carter was the attorney Vernon Jordan agreed to help obtain fi- The answer: for Monica Lewinsky that Vernon Jor- nancial assistance for Mr. Hubbell. Mr. I think he said he would—you know, this dan arranged and introduced to Monica Jordan then introduced Mr. Hubbell to was sort of typical of him, to sort of say, ‘‘Oh Lewinsky. He was hired. And at what- I’ll talk to him. I’ll get on it.’’ the ‘‘right people.’’ The introduction ever point he was terminated, then was successful, and Mr. Hubbell ob- So you can see from that that it was Vernon Jordan notified the President. tained a $100,000 contract. The ‘‘right not a high priority for the President, So the question relates to that: people’’ that Mr. Jordan contacted hap- either. It was: Sure, I’ll get to that. I Why are you trying to tell someone at the pened to be the same right people for will do that. White House that this has happened, [Carter both Mr. Hubbell and ultimately for It was clear from Monica Lewinsky had been fired]? Monica Lewinsky, which is the parent that nothing was happening. Answer: company of Revlon. So the President But then the President’s attitude Thought they had a right to know. was aware that Mr. Jordan had the suddenly changed. What started out as Question: contacts and the track record to be of a favor for Betty Currie dramatically Why? changed after Ms. Lewinsky became a assistance to the President in delicate And here is the answer that is criti- witness, and the judge’s order was matters. cal for my point: Now let’s go back a little. Monica issued, again, on December 11. And at The President asked me to get Monica Lewinsky had been looking for a good- that time, the President talked person- Lewinsky a job. I got her a lawyer. The paying and high-profile job in New ally—personally—to Mr. Jordan and re- Drudge Report is out and she has new coun- York, since the previous July, as I quested his help in getting Ms. sel. I thought that was information that pointed out. Lewinsky a job. And that would be, they ought to have. . . . January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S235 ‘‘The President asked me to get What happened? Things happened. He that Monica Lewinsky was notified Monica Lewinsky a job.’’ Clear, did, he made things happen. Monica that she was on the witness list. Dur- straightforward testimony; no doubt Lewinsky got a job. The affidavit was ing that conversation, the President about it. signed and the President was informed had a very pointed suggestion for Ms. Then go on down to page 58 of his by Mr. Jordan, through Betty Currie, Lewinsky in a suggestion that left no grand jury testimony of June 9. that the mission was accomplished. doubt about his purpose and the in- The question: The question here is not why did the tended consequences. He did not say Why did you think the President needed to President do a favor for an ex-intern, specifically, ‘‘Go in and lie.’’ This is know that Frank Carter had been replaced? but why did he use the influence of his something that you will hear, and Answer: office to make sure it happened? The Monica Lewinsky testified in her grand Information. He knew that I had gotten answer is that he was willing to ob- jury testimony: ‘‘The President never her a job, he knew that I had gotten her a struct, impede justice by improperly told me to lie.’’ lawyer. Information. He was interested in influencing a witness in order to pro- How do you tell people to lie? You this matter. He is the source of it coming to tect himself in a civil rights case. can tell them the facts that they can my attention in the first place. The next step in the obstruction is use that would, in substance, be a false ‘‘He is the source of it coming to my the false affidavit. This is directly re- statement; or you can say, ‘‘Go in and attention in the first place.’’ Remem- lated to the job mission. The President lie and make up your own false testi- ber he had already met with Betty needed the signature of Monica mony.’’ The President chose to give her Currie. Nothing was happening in the Lewinsky on the false affidavit, and the ideas as to what she could testify November timeframe. Nothing was that was assured by the efforts to se- to that would be false, but he never happening. Vernon Jordan—it was not cure her a job. Again, the President said the words, ‘‘You need to go in and a priority. Then the President of the brought Ms. Lewinsky into the loop on lie.’’ So what he did say to her was, United States called him, and it be- December 17. Over 10 days after the ‘‘You know, you can always say you came a priority. And that is who he witness list was received by the Presi- were coming to see Betty or that you was acting for in trying to get Monica dent, the President was ready to tell were bringing me letters.’’ Lewinsky a job. Monica the news. That, ladies and gentlemen of the At this point we do not know all that That timeframe is important. He gets Senate, is a false representation, is a the President was telling Vernon Jor- the witness list. He could have called false statement that he is telling Ms. dan, but we do know that there were Monica Lewinsky immediately, but he Lewinsky to utter. Remember, at this numerous calls back and forth between needed 7 days because he needed to point the President knows she is a wit- Mr. Jordan and the President. There make sure the job situation was in ness, and what does he do? As evi- were numerous calls being made by Mr. gear. And in fact, the day after, if you denced by the testimony of Monica Jordan on behalf of Monica Lewinsky look back on exhibit 1, you will see Lewinsky, he encourages her to lie, to searching for a job, and that despite that the day after the December 17 say, ‘‘You can always say you were the fact that Monica Lewinsky did not timeframe that she was informed that coming to see Betty or that you were know that she was witnessed—she did she was on the witness list, the next bringing me letters.’’ not know she was a witness—the Presi- day she already had lined up job inter- dent knew that she was a witness dur- views for her. So she felt confident. But It should also be remembered that ing his intensified efforts to get her a she was notified on December 17. Be- the President, when questioned about job. tween 2 and 2:30 a.m., her phone rang. encouraging Monica Lewinsky to lie, Now, the President’s counselors have It was the President of the United has denied these allegations, and there- made a defense that the job search States. The President said that he had fore there is certainly a conflict in the started before Monica Lewinsky was a seen the witness list in the case and testimony. It is our belief that Ms. witness and there was nothing wrong her name was on it. Ms. Lewinsky Lewinsky’s testimony is credible and with that. My response to that is, it is asked what she should do if subpoe- she has the motive to tell the truth be- true there is nothing wrong with a pub- naed, and the President responded, cause of her immunity agreement with lic official, under the right cir- ‘‘Well, maybe you can sign an affida- the independent counsel, where she cumstances, helping someone get a job. vit.’’ gets in trouble only if she lies; whereas And what might have started out being Well, how would this work? Both par- the President has the motive to cover innocent, if you accept that argument, ties knew that the affidavit would need up and to testify falsely. crossed the line—crossed the line— to be false and misleading in order to In order to understand the signifi- whenever it was tied and inter- accomplish the desired result. Clearly, cance of this statement made by the connected with the President’s desire truthful testimony by Monica President, it is necessary to recall the to get a false affidavit from Monica Lewinsky would make her a witness, cover stories that the President and Lewinsky, and whenever the job is out would not keep her away from testify- Ms. Lewinsky had previously concocted there and preparing the false affidavit, ing. Only a false affidavit would avoid in order to deceive those people who you will see that they are totally inter- the deposition. might inquire. It was to deceive those connected, intertwined, interrelated; So look at what I have marked as ex- people that they worked with. The dif- and that is where the line has crossed hibit 4.1, which is just a review of the ference in the initial cover stories, into obstruction. key dates on this job search. Again, though, to protect the President and For example, when the President was November 5 was the first meeting be- Monica from an embarrassing personal waiting on Ms. Lewinsky to sign the tween Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky. In No- relationship, from friends and cowork- false affidavit in the Jones case during vember nothing happened. According ers and the media, now it is in a dif- the critical time in January a problem to Jordan, ‘‘not a high priority.’’ De- ferent arena, with the pending civil developed. The job interviews were un- cember 5, the President receives the rights case and Ms. Lewinsky being on productive, despite the numerous calls witness list. The 11th, things intensify the witness list. by Mr. Jordan. On one particular day, with Judge Wright’s order. The 11th, Despite the legal responsibilities, the Monica called Mr. Jordan and said the the President talks to Mr. Jordan President made the decision to con- interview with Revlon did not go well. about the job for Monica. He gets into tinue the pattern of lying which ulti- Mr. Jordan, what did he do? He picked action. On the 17th, they are ready to mately became an obstruction of the up the phone to the CEO of—the presi- tell Monica that she is on the witness administration of justice. We are still dent of the company, Mr. Perlman, to, list. And then, on the 19th, she is actu- on December 17, when the President as Vernon Jordan testified, ‘‘make ally served with a subpoena. Again, re- called Monica at 2 a.m. on that par- things happen—if they could happen.’’ member, after she was finally notified, ticular day to tell her she was on the That is the request from Mr. Jordan to it was the next day that she had the witness list, to remind her of the cover the CEO of a company, after a job job interviews. stories. Monica Lewinsky testified, interview with Monica Lewinsky did Now, still we will spend some time on when the President brought up the not go well. the December 17 conversation, the day cover story, she understood that the S236 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 two of them would continue their pre- cussed, including her fascination with tinued communication with Monica existing pattern of deception and it be- the President and other such issues. Lewinsky’s attorney, Frank Carter. came clear that the President had no This led Mr. Jordan to ask the Presi- Even though Mr. Jordan testifies at intention of making his relationship dent about his relationship with Ms. one point he never had any substantive with a subordinate Federal employee Lewinsky, and the response by the discussions on the representation with an issue in that civil rights case, no President of the United States was the Mr. Carter, he contradicts himself in matter what the Federal courts told first of many denials to his friends and his March 3 grand jury testimony him he needed to answer. And he used aides. The President stated in his depo- where he states: ‘‘Mr. Carter at some lies, deceit, and deception to carry out sition that he does not recall that point told me—this is after January— that purpose. meeting. But you should remind your- that she had signed the affidavit, that It is interesting to note that the selves of the testimony and the de- he had filed a motion to quash her sub- President, when he was asked by the scription provided by Vernon Jordan poena and that—I mean, there was no grand jury whether he remembered when he said, ‘‘The President has an reason for accountability, but he reas- calling Monica Lewinsky at 2 a.m. on extraordinary memory.’’ In fact, we all sured me that he had things under con- that December 17th day, responded, know that he is world famous for that trol.’’ ‘‘No, sir, I don’t, but it is quite possible memory. Mr. Jordan was aware of the sub- that that happened.’’ When he was Now, the subpoena had been deliv- stance of the drafting of the affidavit, asked whether he encouraged Monica ered, but the testimony of Monica the representation, the motion to Lewinsky to continue the cover stories Lewinsky was not scheduled until Jan- quash, and even had a part in the re- of coming to see Betty or bringing let- uary 23, and the President’s deposition, drafting. This was clearly important to ters, he answered, ‘‘I don’t remember which was even more critical, was not Mr. Jordan and clearly important to exactly what I told her that night.’’ scheduled until January 17. So the the President. This is not a denial, and therefore I President and his team had some time Now, let’s go to the time when the false affidavit was actually signed, believe you should accept the testi- to work. The work was not the business January 5, 1998. These will be exhibits mony of Monica Lewinsky. If you say of the Nation, it was the distraction 7, 8, and 9 in front of you. Let’s go to in your mind, well, I’m not going to be- and self-preservation in the civil rights January 5. This is sort of a summary of lieve her, then you should first give us case. what happened on that day. Ms. the opportunity to present this witness Under the plan, Mr. Jordan would be Lewinsky meets with her attorney, Mr. so that you as jurors can fairly and the buffer; he would obtain an attor- Carter, for an hour. Carter drafts the honestly determine her credibility. ney—Mr. Carter—and that attorney As expected, 2 days later, on Decem- would keep Mr. Jordan informed on the affidavit for Ms. Lewinsky on the depo- ber 19, Ms. Lewinsky received a sub- progress of the representation, includ- sition. In the second paragraph, Ms. poena to testify in the Jones case. This ing reviewing any copy of the affidavit, Lewinsky telephones Betty Currie, sets about an immediate flurry of ac- knowing about the motion to quash, stating that she needs to speak to the tivity. There are a series of telephone and the general progress of the rep- President, that this is about an impor- calls between Ms. Lewinsky, Vernon resentation. All along the way, when tant matter; specifically, that she was Jordan, the President, and his staff. Mr. Jordan gets information, what does anxious about something she needed to You will see this pattern of telephone he do with that? Mr. Jordan keeps the sign—an affidavit. Frank Carter drafts calls repeated and generated at any President informed both about the affi- the affidavit she is concerned about. point in time when it appears that the davit and the prospects of the job in She calls the President. The President truth may be told in the civil rights New York, for which Ms. Lewinsky was returns Ms. Lewinsky’s call. Big question: Should the President case. totally dependent on the help of her return Ms. Lewinsky’s call? He does, Now, let’s look at exhibit 5, which is friends in high places. that day, quickly. Ms. Lewinsky men- the activity on Friday, December 19. Let me go back again. There is noth- tions the affidavit she is signing and This is the day that Monica Lewinsky ing wrong with helping somebody get a offers to show it to the President. That is served with a subpoena. Now, after job. But we all know there is one thing is where he says no, he had seen 15 oth- Mr. Jordan is notified that Monica forbidden in public office: We must avoid quid pro quo, which is: This is for ers. Lewinsky is served with a subpoena, Let’s go to the next day. The next ex- that. But Vernon Jordan testified he what does he do? In the 3:51–3:52 nota- hibit is January 6. On this particular kept the President informed on the sta- tion, Jordan telephones the President day, Ms. Lewinsky picks up the draft and talks to Debra Schiff, his assist- tus of the false affidavit, the job affidavit. At 2:08 to 2:10 p.m., she deliv- ant. The subpoena is issued. Monica search, and the status of Ms. ers that affidavit. To whom? Mr. Jor- calls Jordan and Jordan immediately Lewinsky’s representation. Why? Is dan. That is after she got it. She deliv- calls the President. ‘‘Lewinsky meets this just idle chatter with the Presi- ers it to Jordan. And then, at 3:26 p.m., with Jordan and requests that Jordan dent of the United States, or are these Mr. Jordan telephones Mr. Carter. At notify the President about her sub- matters the President is vitally inter- 3:38, Mr. Jordan telephones Nancy poena’’—this is at 4:47 p.m. ested in and, in fact, coordinated? Mr. Hernreich of the White House. At 3:48, Presumably in the middle of that Jordan answers this question himself he telephones Ms. Lewinsky about the meeting, at 5:01 p.m., the President of on page 25 of his grand jury testimony, draft affidavit, and, at 3:49, you will see the United States telephones Mr. Jor- where he testified, ‘‘I knew the Presi- in red that both agree to delete a por- dan and Jordan notifies the President dent was concerned about the affidavit tion of the affidavit that created some about Ms. Lewinsky’s subpoena. and whether or not it was signed. He implication that maybe she had been Then that is whenever he arranged was obviously.’’ That was his March 5, alone with the President. for Ms. Lewinsky’s attorney—‘‘Jordan 1998, grand jury testimony. The Presi- So Mr. Jordan was very involved in telephones attorney Carter’’—for rep- dent was concerned not just about the drafting the affidavit and the contents resentation, and that night, Vernon affidavit but specifically about wheth- of that. Jordan goes to the White House to er it was signed. And then at 4:19, presumably in re- meet privately with the President on The President knew that Monica sponse to some of the calls by Jordan these particular issues. Lewinsky was going to make a false af- earlier in the day, the President tele- Now, in that meeting—and I am fidavit. He was so certain of the con- phones Mr. Jordan and they have a dis- speaking of the meeting that happened tents that when Monica Lewinsky cussion. And then Mr. Jordan tele- late that night at the White House— asked if he wanted to see it, he told her phones Carter and the conversations go Mr. Jordan told the President again no, that he had seen 15 of them. Be- back and forth. At the end of the day, that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoe- sides, the President had suggested the Mr. Jordan telephones the White naed and related to the President the affidavit himself, and he trusted Mr. House. So the affidavit is still in the substance and details of his meeting Jordan to be certain to keep things drafting process. with Ms. Lewinsky. It wasn’t a casual under control. In fact, that was one of Let’s go to the next day, exhibit 9. consideration; the details were dis- the main purposes of Mr. Jordan’s con- Monica signs the affidavit here. At 10 January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S237 a.m., Ms. Lewinsky signs a false affida- her friend in high places? Now the affi- tion—on January 17. The President fin- vit in Mr. Carter’s office. Then she de- davit has been signed. The job is se- ishes testifying in the deposition livers the signed affidavit to Mr. Jor- cure. Monica Lewinsky is on the team, around 4 p.m. At 5:38 p.m., the Presi- dan. And then what does he do? The and the President of the United States dent telephones Mr. Jordan at home. usual. At 11:58, Mr. Jordan telephones is armed for the deposition. And then, at 7:13, the President tele- the White House. At 5:46, Mr. Jordan So let’s move there. phones Ms. Currie at home. At 7:02, the telephones the White House. At 6:50, Just how important was Monica President places a call to Mr. Jordan’s Mr. Jordan telephones the White House Lewinsky’s false affidavit to the Presi- office. And then, at 7:13, he gets Ms. and tells the President that Ms. dent’s deposition? Let’s look. What did Currie at home finally, and asks her to Lewinsky signed the affidavit. the President’s attorney, Robert Ben- meet with him on Sunday. It is vitally Is this important information for the nett, say about that affidavit to the important that he meet with Ms. President, to know he was vitally in- Federal judge during the deposition? Currie at this point because he knows terested in it? That false affidavit allowed Mr. Ben- his whole operation is coming unglued. The next day, exhibit 10, January 8. nett, the attorney for Mr. Clinton, So the next day, on January 18, After it is signed, what is important when talking about the question of which is exhibit 13, there is a whole the next day? It was the other part of whether the relationship between the flurry of activity here. the arrangement, that she has the job President and Ms. Lewinsky—it al- I am not going to go through all of interview with MacAndrews in New lowed him to assert that ‘‘ . . . there is them. You can see the frantic pace at York. She had that job interview. The absolutely no sex of any kind in any the White House because at 6:11 in the only problem was that it went poorly, manner, shape or form with President morning, the President had some more very poorly. So at 4:48 p.m. on this par- Clinton * * *.’’ bad news. The Drudge Report was re- ticular day, Ms. Lewinsky telephones That is a statement of Robert Ben- leased. And that created a greater flur- Jordan and advises that the New York nett—his representation to the court ry. Then between 11:49 and 2:55 p.m., interview went ‘‘very poorly.’’ about that relationship. It is a rep- two phone calls were made between Mr. What does Mr. Jordan do? He tele- resentation that he had to later, prob- Jordan and the President. phones Ron Perelman, the CEO of ably based upon his own professional Then, at 5 p.m., we see the meetings. Revlon, the subsidiary of MFH, to embarrassment, withdraw, and to cor- That is on the second page. At 5 p.m., make things happen if they could hap- rect that inaccurate part of the record. Ms. Currie meets with the President. pen. What does he do next? Jordan tele- When questioned by his own attorney And the President then tells Ms. Currie phones Ms. Lewinsky, saying, ‘‘I’m in the deposition, the President stated to find Monica Lewinsky. The tele- doing the best I can to help you out.’’ specifically the key paragraph of Ms. phone calls were generated, and there And they set up another interview for Lewinsky’s affidavit was ‘‘absolutely was no success in that. the next day. Jordan telephones the true.’’ Then, that evening the President Paragraph 8 of her affidavit states: White House Counsel’s Office, and, in calls Ms. Currie at home to try once I have never had a sexual relationship with again to see if she had found Monica. the evening, Revlon in New York tele- the President. . . . phones Ms. Lewinsky to set up a fol- But it was on that day that there was If it enters your mind at this point as low-up interview. They said the first that critical meeting on that Sunday to what was meant by ‘‘sexual relation- interview didn’t go well, but because in the Oval Office between Betty Currie ship,’’ please remember that this affi- Mr. Jordan intercedes—and why? Be- and the President of the United States. davit was drafted upon a common un- cause the false affidavit has been For that reason, we need next to hear derstanding of that phrase at that signed and he wants to make sure this from Betty Currie, the President’s per- point, and not based upon any defini- sonal secretary, as to what occurred is carried out. At 9:02 p.m., Ms. tion used in the deposition of the Presi- Lewinsky telephones Jordan about the during that most unusual meeting on dent. Sunday following the deposition. Revlon interview in New York, and pre- I am sure it was the President’s hope sumably it went better on that particu- Betty Currie testified in the grand and belief that the false affidavit used jury that the President said that he lar day. in the deposition to bolster his own Then on January 9—exhibit 11— had just been deposed and that the at- testimony would be the end of the mat- torneys had asked several questions Monica is confirmed that she has the ter. But that was not the case. We job. Lewinsky is offered the Revlon job about Monica Lewinsky. This is a vio- know in life that one lie leads to an- lation of the judge’s gag order. And the in New York, and accepts. other. And so it is when we attempt to Lewinsky telephones Jordan. And President, you know, made some com- thwart the administration of justice— ments that were not in line. But he had then, at 4:14, Jordan notifies Currie, one obstruction leads to another. calls Betty Currie, and says ‘‘Mission some choices to make, and he made the Now we move to another key witness, wrong choices. accomplished,’’ and requests that she Betty Currie. tell the President. Jordan notifies the But let’s look at exhibit 14, which By the time the President concluded covers the series of statements made to President of Lewinsky’s job offer, and his deposition, he knew there were too Ms. Currie. At this point there is the says, ‘‘Thank you, very much, Mr. many details out about his relationship testimony of Betty Currie. She is recit- President.’’ And then, that evening, with Ms. Lewinsky. He knew that the ing to the grand jury each of the state- the President telephones Currie, and so only person who would probably be ments the President made to her after on. But the President is notified that talking was Ms. Lewinsky herself. He the job has been secured, ‘‘mission ac- his grand jury testimony. knew the cover story that he had care- The first: ‘‘I was never really alone complished.’’ fully created and that was converted Let me ask you a question, after I with Monica, right?’’ into false statements in the affidavit Second: ‘‘You were always there have gone through these exhibits. was now in jeopardy and had to be when Monica was there, right?’’ Would Mr. Jordan have pushed for a backed at this point by the key wit- ‘‘Monica came on to me, and I never second interview without cooperation nesses, Monica Lewinsky and Betty touched her, right?’’ on the affidavit? Would Monica Currie. After the deposition, the Presi- I am not going to read each one of Lewinsky have received the support dent needed to do two things: He had to those. You can read them. You have and secured the job if she had said ‘‘I contact Ms. Lewinsky to see if she was heard those as well. don’t want to sign an affidavit; I am still on the team, but he also had to But the President is making those just going to go in there and tell the make sure that his secretary, Betty simple declaratory statements to her. truth; whatever they ask me, I am Currie was lying to protect him. So There are three areas that are cov- going to answer; I am going to tell the let’s look at how the concern became a ered. truth?’’ Does anyone in this room be- frenzied and concerted effort to keep First of all, the President makes a lieve that she would have been granted the holes plugged in the dike. case that he was never alone with the job—if Mr. Jordan had made that Let’s look at exhibits 12 and 13. Monica Lewinsky. call to get that second interview—that What happened on the day the depo- Second, he is making a point to her she would ever have had the help from sition—really the night of the deposi- that ‘‘she was the aggressor, not me.’’ S238 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 The third point he is making, ‘‘I did fice to have the greatest influence on Lewinsky sent packages to him, and he nothing wrong.’’ her future testimony. stated that Betty handled the pack- Those are the basic three points of After Ms. Currie was in the Presi- ages. those five statements that the Presi- dent’s office, he made short, clear, un- At page 72, the President was asked dent made to Betty Currie. derstandable, declarative statements whether he may have assisted in any During Betty Currie’s grand jury tes- telling Ms. Currie what the story was. way with a job search. He said he timony she was asked whether she be- He was not interested in what she thought Betty suggested Vernon Jor- lieved that the President wished her to knew. Why? Because he knew the dan talk to her. agree to the statements. truth, but he did not want Ms. Currie At page 74, he said Monica asked Let’s look at Betty Currie for a sec- to tell the truth. The only way to en- Betty to ask someone to talk to Am- ond. She is the classical reluctant wit- sure that was by telling her what to bassador Richardson. He asserted Betty ness. Where are her loyalties? How say, not asking her what she remem- as a corroborating witness at least six would you examine her testimony? bered. You do not refresh someone’s times in the deposition. Where is she uncomfortable in her tes- memory by telling that person what he There is no question that Ms. Currie timony when she is asked the question? or she remembers, and you certainly do was a prospective witness, and the How does she shift in the chair? Those not make the declarative statements President clearly wanted her to be de- are the kind of ways you have to evalu- to someone regarding factual scenarios posed as a witness as his ‘‘ask Betty’’ ate the truthfulness of the testimony, of which the listener was unaware. testimony demonstrates. where their loyalties lie, and their de- The statements that were made to But there is another fact that, thus meanor. her, Betty Currie could not have any far, has been overlooked, and let me During the questioning she was clear- possible knowledge about as to whether draw your attention to this. ly reluctant. they were ever alone, as to whether she Two days before the President’s depo- She was asked a series of questions, came on to him. No. This was not any sition, Betty Currie receives a call and she finally acknowledges that the attempt for the President to refresh his from Michael Isikoff, a reporter with President was intending for her to recollection. It was witness tampering, Newsweek magazine, inquiring about agree with the statements that were pure and simple. the records, the courier records of gifts made. She says, ‘‘That is correct.’’ And Understanding the seriousness of the going from Ms. Lewinsky to the Presi- that is page 74 of Betty Currie’s grand President’s attempting to influence the dent. jury testimony. testimony of Ms. Currie, his attorneys You’ve got a news reporter for a na- When the President testified in the have tried to argue that those state- tional publication two days before the August 17 grand jury, he was ques- ments could not constitute obstruction President’s deposition talking to the tioned about his intentions when he of justice because she had not been sub- President’s secretary, saying, ‘‘I need made those five statements to Ms. poenaed and the President did not to see the courier records at the White Currie in his office on that Sunday. know that she was a potential witness House.’’ What does Betty Currie do? And the President’s explanation is as at this time. Well, the argument is re- She testified that she probably told the follows to the grand jury: futed by both the law and the facts. President this. Then she tells Bruce The law is clear that a person may be The President: Lindsey, but she also goes to see Ver- convicted of obstructing justice if he non Jordan. Why? Why would the sec- . . . I thought we were going to be deluged corruptly influenced the testimony of a by the press comments. And I was trying to retary go see Vernon Jordan because prospective witness. The witness does refresh my memory about what the facts she had a press inquiry? The reason is, not actually have to give testimony. were. as we see later on, remember, this is The witness does not have to be under Then he goes on to testify: January 15th. What happened on De- any subpoena. The witness does not cember 28th that we will get to a little So, I was not trying to get Betty Currie to have to be on any witness list. And so say something that was untruthful. I was bit later? December 28th Betty Currie the law is clear. trying to get as much information as quickly went and put those gifts under her bed. as I could. Secondly, let’s examine the defense in light of the facts. The President Why is she nervous? Because Mike Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, himself brought Ms. Currie into the Isikoff is calling about the gifts that you have to determine what the pur- civil rights case as a corroborating wit- are presently under her bed, and she is pose of those five statements to Betty ness when he repeatedly used her name nervous. I would be nervous. And so she Currie were. Were they to get informa- in the deposition, and just as signifi- goes to see Bruce Lindsey. She goes to tion, or were they to get her to falsely cantly the President had to be con- see Vernon Jordan. ‘‘I need help. What testify when she was called as a wit- cerned about a looming perjury charge do I do?’’ And she probably told the ness? Logic tells us that the Presi- against him in light of his false testi- President. dent’s argument was that he was just mony in the deposition. At least six It is all breaking loose, the house of trying to refresh his memory. Well, so times in that deposition the President cards is falling down, and she is either much of a novel legal defense argu- challenged the plaintiff’s attorneys to going to report to Mr. Jordan or to ment. question Ms. Currie about the particu- seek advice from him. Either way, she First, consider the President’s op- lar issue. knows it is serious, and it all has legal tions after he left the deposition. You don’t have it in front of you, but consequences. And she is a witness to He could have abided by the judge’s you will see it when we distribute the it all. gag order and not say anything. copies of my remarks. I will go through And not only does Betty Currie’s tes- Second, he could have called Betty those six times. timony talk about this call from Mi- Currie in and asked her an open-ended At page 58 of the deposition, the chael Isikoff and going to see Vernon question: Ms. Currie, or Betty, what do President, when asked whether he was Jordan, but Vernon Jordan’s testimony you remember happened? alone with Ms. Lewinsky said that he confirms the visit as well. The third option was to call her in was not alone with her or that Betty The President claims he called Ms. and to make these declaratory state- Currie was there with Monica. Currie in to work on that Sunday night ments, violate the judge’s order, and At page 70, when asked about the last only to find out what she knew, but the tamper with the anticipated testimony time the President saw Ms. Lewinsky, President knew the truth about the re- of Betty Currie. he falsely testified he only recalled lationship, and if he told the truth in That is the course that the President that she was there to see Betty. deposition the day before, he would chose. He made sure it was a face-to- At page 64, he told the Jones lawyers have had no reason to be refreshed by face meeting, not a telephone call. He to ‘‘ask Betty’’ whether Lewinsky was Betty Currie. made sure that no one else was present. alone with him in the White House or More importantly, the President’s He made sure that the meeting was on not or with Betty in the White House demeanor, Ms. Currie’s reaction and his territory and in his office where he between the late hours. the suggested lies clearly prove that could feel comfortable and he could At page 65 of the deposition, the the President was not merely inter- utilize the power and prestige of his of- President was asked whether Ms. viewing Ms. Currie. Rather, he was January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S239 looking for corroboration for his false uses it’s ‘‘good news.’’ She is using think he responded, ‘‘I don’t know,’’ or, ‘‘Let coverup, and that is why he coached every means possible to get the atten- me think about that,’’ and left that topic. her. He needed a witness for him, not tion of Monica Lewinsky. And then at Not exactly the response you would against him. 8:50 a.m. the President telephones hope for or expect from the President. Now, let’s go to exhibit 5, Betty Cur- Currie at home. At 8:56 a.m. the Presi- But the answer led to action. Later rie’s testimony—excuse me, exhibit 15. dent telephones Jordan at home. that day Ms. Lewinsky got a call from This is Betty Currie’s testimony be- Go on down to 10:56 a.m. ‘‘The Presi- Ms. Currie, who said, ‘‘I understand fore the grand jury on January 27, 1998. dent telephones Jordan at his office.’’ you have something to give to me,’’ or, And Betty Currie is asked about this. And so what is going on here? They are according to Ms. Lewinsky, ‘‘The Now, remember, it was on a Sunday nervous; they are afraid; it is all break- President said you have something to that Betty Currie was first called into ing loose. They are trying to get ahold give me.’’ She wasn’t exactly sure of the White House to go through these of Monica Lewinsky to find out what is the phrase but it was either, ‘‘I under- five statements, this coaching by the going on, who she is talking to. stand you have something to give me,’’ President. And then she testified to the Later that day things continued to what Betty Currie said, or Betty Currie grand jury: destabilize for the President. At 4:54 said, ‘‘The President said you have Question: Did there come a time after that p.m. Mr. Jordan learned from the at- something to give to me.’’ that you had another conversation with the torney, Frank Carter, that he no longer And so, ladies and gentlemen, if you President about some other news about what represented Ms. Lewinsky, and so Mr. accept the testimony of Monica was going on? That would have been Tuesday Jordan’s link had been cut off. Mr. Jor- Lewinsky on that point, you must con- or Wednesday—when he called you into the dan continued to attempt to reach the clude that the directive to retrieve the Oval Office? President or someone at the White gifts came from the President. I will Betty Currie’s answer: House. Between 4:58 and 5:22 p.m., he concede that there is a conflict in the It was Tuesday or Wednesday. I don’t re- made six calls trying to get ahold of testimony on this point with the testi- member which one this was, either. But the someone at the White House, the Presi- mony of Betty Currie. Ms. Currie, in best I remember, when he called me in the dent. her grand jury testimony, had a fuzzy Oval Office, it was sort of a recapitulation of When Mr. Jordan was asked about memory, a little different recollection. what we had talked about on Sunday—you She testified that, ‘‘the best she can re- know, ‘‘I was never alone with her’’—that why he was urgently trying to get sort of thing. ahold of the White House, he re- member,’’ Ms. Lewinsky called her. Question: Did he pretty much list the sponded, ‘‘Because the President asked But whenever she was asked further, same—— me to get Monica Lewinsky a job’’ and she said that maybe Ms. Lewinsky’s Answer: To my recollection, sir, yes. he thought it was ‘‘information they memory is better than hers on that Question: And did he say it in sort of the ought to have.’’ Jordan finally reaches issue. But there is helpful evidence to same tone and demeanor that he used the the President about 6 p.m. and tells clear up this discrepancy, or this in- first time he told you on Sunday? consistency. Monica, you will recall, in Answer: The best I remember, yes, sir. him that [Mr.] Carter had been fired. Why this flurry of activity? It shows her deposition said she thought that And this needs to be emphasized. Not how important it was for the President Betty had called her and she thought only was that witness coaching taking of the United States to find Ms. that the call came from her cell phone place on Sunday, but it took place a Lewinsky. Betty Currie was in charge number. couple days later. It was twice repeated of contacting Monica, and it could not Well, it was not known at the time of by the President to Betty Currie. He happen, it did not happen. Ms. the questioning of Monica Lewinsky, needed to have her good and in line. Lewinsky was a co-conspirator in hid- but since then the cell phone record This is more than witness tampering. ing this relationship from the Federal was retrieved. And you don’t have it in It is witness compulsion of false testi- court and he was losing control over front of you, but it will be available. mony by an employer to a subordinate her. In fact, she ultimately agreed to The cell phone record was retrieved employee. This has nothing to do with testify truthfully, under penalty of per- that showed, on Betty Currie’s cell facts, nothing to do with media inquir- jury, in this matter. This was trouble phone calls, that a call was made at ies. It has to do with keeping his team for the President. 3:32, from Betty Currie to Monica on board, keeping the ship from sink- And, so, now let’s continue; let’s con- Lewinsky. And this confirms the testi- ing, and hiding the facts that are im- tinue exploring the web of obstruction. mony of Monica Lewinsky that the fol- portant. At this point we are not talk- But to do this, we have to backtrack to lowup to get the gifts came from Betty ing about hiding personal facts from what I have already referred to, and Currie. The only way she would know inquiring minds but an effort to impede that was the incident on December 28, about it is if the President directed her the legitimate and necessary function- the episode with the gifts. to go retrieve the gifts, as was dis- ing of our court system. On December 28, another brick in the cussed with Monica earlier. And now let’s go to the Martin Lu- wall of obstruction was laid. It was the Now, the President will argue that ther King holiday, almost exactly a concealment of evidence. Ms. Lewinsky Monica’s timeline does not fit with the year ago, Monday, January 19. Again, testified that she discussed with the time of the cell phone call. But remem- you will see the example of the frantic President the fact that she had been ber, the cell phone record was retrieved search for Monica Lewinsky did con- subpoenaed and that the subpoena subsequent to both the testimony of tinue. called for her to produce gifts. And this Monica Lewinsky and Betty Currie be- Exhibit 16. I am not going to go is what Ms. Lewinsky was telling the fore the grand jury, and therefore the through all of this, but I just want to President at the meeting with him on record was not available to refresh the briefly show the frantic activity on December 28. She testified before the recollection or to make inquiry with this particular day. grand jury that she recalled telling the him about that. Monica Lewinsky’s First of all, you will see Betty Currie President that the subpoena in ques- time estimates as to when Betty Currie is trying to fulfill her responsibility to tion had requested a hatpin and other arrived to pick up the gifts was based get ahold of Ms. Lewinsky. She uses items, and this concerned her—the upon her memory without the benefit the pager system, and she says, specificity of it. And the President re- of records. ‘‘Please call Kay at home.’’ Now ‘‘Kay’’ sponded it ‘‘bothered’’ him, too. The questions raised by the President is the code name that is used for Betty Well, let’s look at the testimony of on this issue are legitimate and dem- Currie. That is the agreed upon signal. Ms. Lewinsky, which is exhibit 17. This onstrate the need to call the key wit- And she uses three messages: ‘‘Please is Lewinsky testifying about the meet- nesses to a trial of this case and to as- call Kay. Please call Kay. Please call ing. sess which version of the events is be- Kay.’’ lievable and substantiated by the cor- And then at some point I said to him [the Then she starts using different tech- President], ‘‘Well, you know, should I— roborating evidence. This is certainly niques to get her attention. ‘‘It’s a so- maybe I should put the gifts away outside an area of testimony where the juror cial call.’’ And then she later uses it’s my house somewhere or give them to some- needs to hear from Betty Currie and a ‘‘family emergency.’’ Then she later one, maybe Betty.’’ And he sort of said—I Monica Lewinsky and to examine all of S240 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 the circumstantial evidence and docu- subpoena asked for gifts? On the other testifying.’’ His answer: ‘‘I’m not sure mentary evidence to determine the hand, if he knew the subpoena re- * * *,’’ he said. He then added that he truth. It is my belief, based upon com- quested gifts, why would he give may have joked that the Jones lawyers mon sense and based upon the docu- Monica more gifts on December 28? might subpoena every woman he has mentary evidence, that the testimony This seems odd. But Ms. Lewinsky’s ever spoken to, and that ‘‘I don’t think of Monica Lewinsky is supported in the testimony reveals the answer. She said we ever had more of a conversation record and it leads to the conclusion that she never questioned ‘‘that we than that about it * * *.’’ that it was the President who initiated were ever going to do anything but Not only does Monica Lewinsky di- this retrieval of the gifts and the con- keep this private,’’ and that means to rectly contradict his testimony, but cealment of the evidence. take ‘‘whatever appropriate steps need the President later had to answer ques- Now, there are many lawyers here in to be taken.’’ That is from Monica’s tions in the grand jury about these this room, and you know that in Fed- grand jury testimony of August 6. same set of circumstances and the eral cases all across this country Why would the President even meet President directly contradicted him- judges instruct juries on circumstan- with Monica Lewinsky on December 28 self. Speaking of this December 28 tial evidence. We have presented to you when their relationship was in question meeting, he said that he ‘‘knew by a great amount of direct evidence, and he had a deposition coming up? then, of course, that she had gotten a grand jury testimony, eyewitness testi- Certainly he knew he would be ques- subpoena’’ and they had a ‘‘conversa- mony, documentary evidence. But ju- tioned about it. Certainly if Monica be- tion about the possibility of her testi- ries can use circumstantial evidence as came a witness she would be ques- fying.’’ well. And a typical line from the in- tioned about the relationship, that she I submit to this body that the incon- struction that is given in Federal would be asked when was the last time sistencies of the President’s own testi- courts to Federal juries all across the you met with the President, and now mony, as well as common sense, seri- land: they have to say December 28, if they ously diminish his credibility on this The law makes absolutely no distinction were going to tell the truth. issue. between the weight or value to be given ei- The answer is, the President knew Now let’s go forward, once again, to ther to direct or circumstantial evidence. that he had to keep Monica Lewinsky the time period in which the President Nor is a greater degree of certainty required on the team and he was willing to take gave his deposition in the Paula Jones of circumstantial evidence than of direct evi- more risks so that she would continue case. The President testified under dence. to be a part of the conspiracy to ob- oath on January 17, and immediately So I think it is incumbent upon you struct the legitimate functions of the thereafter, remember, he brought to evaluate the circumstances very Federal court in a civil rights case. Betty Currie in to present a set of false carefully in addition to the testimony. It should be remembered that the facts to her, seeking her agreement and Now, let’s examine the key question President has denied each and every al- coaching her. for a moment. Why did Betty Currie legation of the two articles of impeach- But the President is fully convinced pick up the gifts from Monica ment, he has denied each element of that he can get by with his false deni- Lewinsky? Monica Lewinsky states the obstruction of justice charges, in- als because no one will be able to prove that she did not request this and the cluding this allegation that he encour- what did or did not happen in the Oval retrieval was initiated by the call from aged a scheme to conceal evidence in a Office. There were no witnesses, and it Betty Currie. This was after the meet- civil rights case. This straightforward boils down to a ‘‘he said, she said’’ sce- ing with the President. Monica denial illustrates the dispute in the nario, and as long as that is the case, Lewinsky’s version is corroborated by evidence and testimony. It sets the he believes he can win. If the President the cell phone record and the pattern credibility of Monica Lewinsky, the can simply destroy Monica Lewinsky’s of conduct on the part of Betty Currie. credibility of Betty Currie, the credi- credibility in public and before the What do I mean by that? As a loyal bility of Vernon Jordan, and others grand jury, then he will escape the con- secretary to the President, it is incon- against the credibility of the President sequences for his false statements ceivable that she would go to retrieve of the United States. under oath and obstruction in the civil gifts that she knows the President is How can you, as jurors, determine rights case. Now, remember, this view- very concerned about and could bring who is telling the truth? I have pointed point, though, is all before the DNA down the whole house. Betty Currie, a to the corroborating evidence, the cir- tests were performed on the blue dress, subordinate employee, would not en- cumstantial evidence, as well as com- forcing the President to acknowledge gage in such activity on such a sen- mon sense supporting the testimony of certain items. sitive matter without the approval and Monica Lewinsky. But let me ask you In order to carry out this coverup direction of the President himself. two questions: Can you convict the and obstruction, the President needed In addition, let’s look further to the President of the United States without to go further. He needed not only Betty actions of Betty Currie. It becomes hearing personally the testimony of Currie to repeat his false statements, clear that she understands the signifi- one of the key witnesses? The second but also other witnesses who would as- cance of these gifts, their evidentiary question is: Can you dismiss the suredly be called before the Federal value in a civil rights case, and the fact charges under this strong set of facts grand jury and who would be ques- that they are under subpoena. She re- and circumstances without hearing and tioned by the news media in public fo- trieves these items, and where does she evaluating the credibility of key wit- rums. And this brings us to the false place them? She hides them under her nesses? statements that the President made to bed—significantly, a place of conceal- Let me take this a step further and his White House staff and Presidential ment. evaluate the credibility of the Presi- aides. Now, let’s look at the President’s de- dent. Let’s first look back at his testi- Let’s call Sydney Blumenthal and fense. The President stated in his re- mony on the December 28 meeting that John Podesta to the witness stand. I sponse to questions 24 and 25, that were he gave in his deposition. In that case, concede they would be adverse wit- submitted from the House to the Presi- he seriously misrepresented the nature nesses. This is referred to in exhibit 18 dent, he said he was not concerned of his meeting with Ms. Lewinsky, and that you have in front of you. about the gifts. In fact, he recalled tell- that was the gift exchange. First he First, the testimony of Sydney ing Monica that if the Jones lawyers was asked: Blumenthal. Mr. Blumenthal, to put request the gifts, she should just turn Question: Did she tell you that she had this in perspective, is testifying about them over to them. The President tes- been served with a subpoena in this case? his conversations when the President tified he is ‘‘not sure’’ if he knew the The President answered flatly, ‘‘No. I called him in to go through these facts subpoena asked for gifts. don’t know if she had been.’’ of what happened. So Mr. Blumenthal Now, why in the world would Monica Again, this is his testimony in the testified that ‘‘it was at that point that and the President discuss turning over deposition. He was also asked in the he’’—referring to the President—‘‘gave gifts to the Jones lawyer if Ms. deposition if he ‘‘ever talked to Monica his account as to what happened to me Lewinsky had not told him that the Lewinsky about the possibility of her and he said that Monica—and it came January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S241 very fast. He said, ‘Monica Lewinsky Secondly, he makes it clear in his true. But we know there is even more came at me and made a sexual demand statements to John Podesta that he de- at stake in this trial. What happens on me.’ He rebuffed her. He said, ‘I’ve nies any sexual relations with Monica here affects the workings of our Con- gone down that road before, I’ve caused Lewinsky, including oral sex. There is stitution, it will affect the Presidency pain for a lot of people and I’m not no quibbling about definitions in this in future decades, and it will have an going to do that again.’ ’’ statement. It clearly reflects an at- impact on a whole generation of Amer- Look at this next line. ‘‘She threat- tempt to deceive, lie and obstruct our icans. What is at stake is our Constitu- ened him. She said that she would tell system of justice. tion and the principle of equal justice people they’d had an affair, that she In this case, at every turn, he used for all. was known as the stalker among her whatever means available to evade the I have faith in the Constitution of peers, and that she hated it and if she truth, destroy evidence, tamper with the United States, but the checks and had an affair or said she had an affair witnesses and took any other action re- balances of the Constitution are car- then she wouldn’t be the stalker any quired to prevent evidence from com- ried out by individuals—individuals more.’’ ing forward in a civil rights case that who are entrusted under oath with up- He talks about this character in a would prove a truth contrary to the holding the trust given to us by the novel, and I haven’t read that book. President’s interest. He had obstructed people of this great land. If I believe in But the last line: ‘‘And I said to him, I the administration of justice before the the Constitution, that it will work, said, ‘‘When this happened with Monica U.S. district court in a civil rights case then I must believe in you. Lewinsky, were you alone?’ He said, and before the Federal grand jury. But Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, ‘Well, I was within eyesight or earshot as we move toward a conclusion, let’s I trust the Constitution of the United of someone.’ ’’ not focus just on the supporting cast States. But today it is most important Let’s go to John Podesta’s testimony we talked about, but we need to look at that I believe in you. I have faith in where he was called in the same fash- the direct and personal actions of the the U.S. Senate. You have earned the ion. The President talked to him about President. trust of the American people, and I what is happening: I want to look at exhibit 20. This just trust each of you to make the right de- Question: Okay. Share that with us. summarizes the seven pillars of ob- cision for our country. Answer: Well, I think he said—he said struction. What did the President do Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. that—there was some spate of, you know, that constitutes evidence of obstruc- The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- what sex acts were counted, and he said that ognizes the majority leader. he had never had sex with her in any way tion? whatsoever. No. 1, he personally encouraged a RECESS Question: Okay. witness, Monica Lewinsky, to provide Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask Answer: —that they had not had oral sex. false testimony. unanimous consent that we take an- Very briefly, Dick Morris. You have No. 2, the President had direct in- other 15-minute break in the proceed- heard this. I will refer to the last line: volvement in assuring a job for a wit- ings. And I urge the Senators to return ‘‘ ‘They’re just not ready for it,’ mean- ness—underlining direct involvement. promptly to the Chamber so we can ing the voters. And he [The President] He made the calls, Vernon Jordan did, begin after the 15-minute break. said, ‘Well, we just have to win, then.’ ’’ and it is connected with the filing of There being no objection, at 4:51 As the President testified before the the false affidavit by that witness. p.m., the Senate recessed until 5:10 grand jury, he knew these witnesses No. 3, the President personally, with p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassem- would be called before the grand jury. corrupt intentions, tampered with the bled when called to order by the Chief At page 106 of the President’s testi- testimony of a prospective witness, Justice. mony before the grand jury—I just Betty Currie. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- want to confirm this point because it is No. 4, the President personally pro- ognizes the majority leader. important—he testified—the question vided false statements under oath be- Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I be- was: ‘‘You know that they’’—and this fore a Federal grand jury. lieve we are ready to resume final pres- is referring to John Podesta, Sydney No. 5, by direct and circumstantial entation of the afternoon. Several Sen- Blumenthal and his aides— ‘‘that they evidence the President personally di- ators have inquired what will happen might be witnesses, you knew they rected the concealment of evidence the balance of the day. I believe the might be called into the grand jury, under subpoena in a judicial proceed- presentation by Congressman ROGAN didn’t you?’’ ing. will be the last of the day. It is antici- His answer: ‘‘That’s right.’’ No. 6, the President personally al- pated we will complete today’s presen- So there is no question these were lowed false representations to be made tation around 6:30 or 6:45. witnesses going to testify before the by his attorney, Robert Bennett, to a I yield the floor. grand jury. He was giving them false Federal district judge on January 17. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- information, and he did not limit it to No. 7, the President intentionally ognizes Mr. ROGAN. that. The false statements to them provided false information to witnesses Mr. Manager ROGAN. Mr. Chief Jus- constitute witness tampering and ob- before a Federal grand jury knowing tice, counsel for the President, Mem- struction of justice. that those statements would be re- bers of the United States Senate, my I think there are two significant peated with the intent to obstruct the name is Congressman JAMES E. ROGAN. points in the statements the President proceedings before that grand jury and I represent the 27th District of Califor- made to his aides. that is the statements that he made to nia. First of all, the President who wants the aides. May I say at the outset that some of to do away with the politics of personal The seven pillars of this obstruction the facts and evidence you will hear in destruction indicates a willingness to case were personally constructed by my presentation may sound familiar in destroy the credibility and reputation the President of the United States. It light of the last presentation. Although of a young person who worked in his of- was done with the intent that the truth at times the facts may appear to be a fice for what reason? In order to pre- and evidence would be suppressed in a crossover, the relevance will be pre- serve not only his Presidency but, civil rights case pending against him. sented in a different light. more significantly, to defeat the civil The goal was to win, and he was not Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON’s presen- rights case against him. It is not a going to let the judicial system stand tation offered the evidence as it relates matter of saying he didn’t do it, be- in his way. to the obstruction of justice charge cause he could have simply uttered a At the beginning of my presentation, against the President in article II. I denial, but he engaged in character as- I tried to put this case into perspective will be inviting this body to view the sassination that he knew would be re- for myself by saying that this proceed- evidence within the framework of arti- peated to the Federal grand jury and ing is the same as to what takes place cle I, perjury before the grand jury. throughout the public—she was a in every courtroom in America—the On behalf of the House of Representa- stalker, she threatened me, she came pursuit of truth, seeking equal justice, tives and in the name of the people of on to me, and it was—it was repeated. and upholding the law. All of that is the United States, I will be presenting S242 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 to the Senate evidence against the The key to understanding the facts of questioned him that day. The Presi- President to demonstrate he commit- this case is to understand why the dent’s attorneys were allowed to be ted perjury before a Federal grand jury President was asked, under oath, ques- there with him during the entire pro- as set forth in article I of the articles tions about his private life in the first ceeding so that he could confer with of impeachment. place. them at his leisure if he was unsure of Article I of the impeachment resolu- Despite the popular spin, it wasn’t how to respond to a question. As a mat- tion against President Clinton alleges because Members of Congress or law- ter of fact, the attorney who ques- that he committed perjury before the yers from the Office of the Independent tioned the President encouraged him to grand jury. Counsel, or a gaggle of reporters sud- confer with his lawyers if there arose On August 17, 1998, President Clinton denly decided to invade the President’s in the President’s mind any reason to swore to tell the truth, the whole privacy. No. This all came about be- hesitate before answering a question. truth, and nothing but the truth. The cause of a claim against the President The following exchange occurred at evidence shows that contrary to that from when he was the Governor of Ar- the beginning of the President’s testi- oath, the President willfully provided kansas. mony. The President was told: perjurious, false, and misleading state- During the discovery phase of the Normally, grand jury witnesses, while not ments to the grand jury in four general Paula Jones sexual harassment case allowed to have attorneys in the grand jury areas: against the President, Federal Judge room with them, can stop and consult with First, he perjured himself when he Susan Webber Wright ordered him to their attorneys. Under our arrangement gave a false accounting to the grand answer questions under oath relating today, your attorneys are here and present jury about the nature and details of his to any sexual relationship he may have for consultation and you can break to con- relationship with a 21-year-old intern, sult them as necessary. . . . Do you under- had while Governor and President with stand that, sir? Ms. Monica Lewinsky, who was a sub- subordinate female Government em- The President responded: ‘‘I do un- ordinate Federal Government em- ployees. These orders are common in derstand that.’’ ployee. similar cases, and the questions posed Second, he perjured himself before As a practical matter, the President to President Clinton are questions rou- had three options as he appeared before the grand jury when he repeated pre- tinely posed to defendants in civil vious perjured answers he gave under the grand jury to testify. rights sexual harassment cases every First, the President could tell the oath in a sexual harassment suit, single day in courthouses throughout which was a Federal civil rights action truth about his true relationship with the land. Miss Lewinsky. brought against him by Paula Jones. During the President’s deposition in Third, he perjured himself before the However, the evidence will clearly the Paula Jones case, he was asked show that the president rejected the grand jury when he repeated previous questions about his relationship with perjured answers to justify his attor- option of telling the truth. Monica Lewinsky. The judge allowed Second, the President knew he could ney’s false representations to a Federal these questions because they possibly judge in the Paula Jones sexual harass- invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege could lead Mrs. Jones to discover if against self-incrimination. ment lawsuit against him. there was any pattern of conduct to Finally, he perjured himself before The independent counsel’s attorney help prove her case. The President re- explicitly reminded the President the grand jury when he testified falsely peatedly denied that he had a sexual about his attempts to get other poten- about his right to refuse to answer any relationship with Monica Lewinsky. question that might tend to incrimi- tial grand jury witnesses to tell false A few days later, the story about his stories to the grand jury, and to pre- nate him. relationship with Ms. Lewinsky broke The President was asked: vent the discovery of evidence in Paula in the press. A criminal investigation Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit You have a privilege against self-incrimi- began to determine whether the Presi- nation. If a truthful answer to any question against him. dent perjured himself in the Paula In a judicial proceeding, a witness would tend to incriminate you, you can in- Jones sexual harassment case and ob- voke the privilege and that invocation will has a very solemn obligation to tell the structed justice by trying to defeat her not be used against you. Do you understand truth, the whole truth and nothing but claim against him by corrupt means. that? the truth. Perjury is a serious crime On the afternoon of August 17, 1998, The President’s response was: ‘‘I do.’’ because our judicial system can only President Clinton raised his right hand The President knew he had the right succeed if citizens are required to tell and took an oath before the grand jury to refuse to answer any incriminating the truth in court proceedings. If wit- in their criminal investigation. questions and that no legal harm would nesses may lie with impunity for per- (Text of Videotape presentation:) have come to him for doing so. sonal or political reasons, ‘‘justice’’ is William Jefferson Clinton, Do you sol- But he rejected this option, just as he no longer the product of the court sys- emnly swear that the testimony you are rejected the option of telling the truth, tem, and we descend into chaos. That about to give in this matter will be the the whole truth, and nothing but the is why the U.S. Supreme Court has truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. placed a premium on truthful testi- truth, so help you God? Instead, he selected a third path. mony and shows no tolerance for per- Note the incredibly solemn obliga- He continued to lie about corrupt ef- jury. tion of the oath the President took: forts to destroy Paula Jones’ civil More than 20 years ago, the Supreme Do you solemnly swear that the testimony rights lawsuit against him. Court addressed this very concept of you are about to give in this matter will be If a trial is permitted before this perjury and its dangerous effect on our the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but body where live witnesses can be system of law. Listen to the words of the truth? called, and where their credibility can the U.S. Supreme Court: When the President made that sol- be scrutinized, the evidence will show In this constitutional process of securing a emn pledge, he was not obliging him- this distinguished body that the course witness’ testimony, perjury simply has no self to tell the grand jury the partial the President charted was a course of place whatever. Perjured testimony is an ob- vious and flagrant affront to the basic con- truth, he was not obliging himself to perjury. cepts of judicial proceedings. . . . Congress tell the ‘‘I didn’t want to be particu- Despite the president’s unique level has made the giving of false answers a crimi- larly helpful’’ truth; he was not oblig- of judicial sophistication and expertise, nal act punishable by severe penalties; in no ing himself to tell the ‘‘this is embar- the attorneys at the grand jury were other way can criminal conduct be flushed rassing so I think I’ll fudge on it a lit- careful to make sure the president un- into the open where the law can deal with it. tle bit’’ truth. He was required to tell derstood his responsibilities to tell the That is the framework under which the truth, the whole truth, and nothing truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the House of Representatives acted in but the truth, and he made that pledge the truth. impeaching the President of the United in the name of God. They did this at the outset of his tes- States, and now respectfully urges this The attorneys for the Office of the timony, before any questions were body to call the President to constitu- Independent Counsel showed great def- asked that might tempt the president tional accountability. erence to the President when they to lie under oath. January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S243 And they specifically warned him A: Well, no one read me a definition then mitted perjury before the grand jury that if he were to lie or intentionally and we didn’t go through this exercise then. when he testified about the nature of mislead the grand jury, he could face I swore an oath to tell the truth, and I be- his relationship with Monica perjury and obstruction of justice lieved I was bound to be truthful and I tried Lewinsky, a 21-year-old White House to be. charges, both of which are felonies intern who, by definition, was a subor- under federal law. Having just received his ‘‘refresher dinate Government employee. This exchange occurred before the course’’ on either ‘‘taking the Fifth’’ On December 5, 1995, Monica President’s testimony: and remaining silent, or telling the Lewinsky’s name appeared on the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Q: Mr. President, you understand that your Paula Jones witness list. Later, the testimony here today is under oath? the president acknowledged he was re- President was ordered by Federal A: I do. quired to tell the truth when he gave Judge Susan Webber Wright to answer Q: And you understand that because you answers to questions 8 months earlier questions about Monica Lewinsky be- have sworn to tell the truth, the whole in the Paula Jones sexual harassment cause the President was a defendant in truth, and nothing but the truth, that if you civil rights lawsuit. a sexual harassment case. were to lie or intentionally mislead the Question to the President: At his deposition in the Paula Jones grand jury, you could be prosecuted for per- Q: At the Paula Jones deposition, you were case, the President was shown a defini- jury and/or obstruction of justice? represented by Mr. Robert Bennett, your A: I believe that’s correct. tion approved by Judge Wright of what Q: Is there anything that . . . I’ve stated to counsel, is that correct? constitutes sexual relations. I am A: That is correct. you regarding your rights and responsibil- going to read the definition that was Q: He was authorized by you to be your ities that you would like me to clarify or representative there, your attorney, is that presented to the President. that you don’t understand? correct? And let me say at the outset that I A: No, sir. A: That is correct. am going to slightly sanitize it. You Despite this ominous warning, the Q: Your counsel, Mr. Bennett, indicated have in your materials, Members of prosecutors continued emphasizing the .. . and I’m quoting, ‘‘The President intends this body, a copy of the actual defini- need for the President to resist lying to to give full and complete answers as Ms. tion that was given to you, so you will the grand jury. Jones is entitled to have.’’ be able to understand precisely what Still intent on making sure the My question to you is, do you agree with was put before the President. President understood his obligations, your counsel that a plaintiff in a sexual har- Definition of sexual relations: ‘‘For assment case is, to use his words, entitled to the purposes of this deposition, a per- the attorneys further advised him: have the truth? Q: Mr. President, I would like to read for A: I believe that I was bound to give truth- son engages in sexual relations when you a portion of Federal Rule of Evidence ful answers, yes, sir. the person knowingly engages in or 603, which discusses the important function Q: But the question is, sir, do you agree causes contact with the [certain enu- the oath has in our judicial system. with your counsel that a plaintiff in a sexual merated body parts] of any person with It says that the purpose of the oath is . . . harassment case is entitled to have the an intent to arouse or gratify the sex- calculated to awaken the witness’ conscience truth? ual desire of any person.’’ and impress the witness’ mind with the duty A. I believe when a witness is under oath in Members of the Senate, just for clari- to tell the truth. a civil case, or otherwise under oath, the fication, I did not feel the need to actu- Could you please tell the grand jury what witness should do everything possible to an- that oath means to you for today’s testi- swer the questions truthfully. ally relate to this body what those enu- merated body parts are. mony? Thus, the groundwork was laid for A: I have sworn an oath to tell the grand After reviewing the deposition, the jury the truth, and that’s what I intend to the President to testify under oath. President then denied that he ever had do. He knew how the rules worked re- a sexual relationship with Monica When the President said in that very specting testimony before the grand Lewinsky. As we have already seen, last answer I just read that he swore an jury. from the day in January when the oath to tell the grand jury ‘‘the truth,’’ If a question was vague or ambigu- President testified in the Jones deposi- the prosecutor immediately followed ous, the President could ask for a clari- tion until the day he appeared in Au- up with this question. Here is what he fication. gust for his grand jury testimony, he was told. If he was unsure how to answer, or in- vehemently denied ever having a sex- Question to the President: deed whether to answer a question, he ual relationship with Monica could stop the questioning, take a Q: You understand that [the oath] requires Lewinsky. you to give the whole truth, that is, a com- break, and consult privately with his Listen to the President addressing plete answer to each question, sir? attorneys who were present with him. the American people on the subject of A: I will answer each question as accu- If giving an answer would tend to in- his credibility. The date is January 26, rately and fully as I can. criminate him, he could refuse to an- 1998, 5 days after the Lewinsky story One would think these repetitive ex- swer the question by claiming his Fifth broke in the press. planations would be enough to warn Amendment rights. (Text of videotape presentation:) even the most legally unsophisticated But if, after all of this, he decided to ‘‘But I want to say one thing to the Amer- witness about the need to treat a grand give an answer, the answer he gave was ican people. I want you to listen to me. I’m jury criminal investigation seriously, required to be the truth, the whole going to say this again.’’ truth, and nothing but the truth. And ‘‘I did not have sexual relations with that and the need to tell the whole truth at woman—Miss Lewinsky.’’ any cost. it was no different than the obligation ‘‘I never told anybody to lie—not a single No reasonable person could believe at when he testified in the Paula Jones time. Never. These allegations are false. And this point that the President did not deposition—the same oath, the same I need to go back to work for the American understand his obligations. obligation. people.’’ Yet, just to be sure, the attorneys Let’s look at how the President chose ‘‘Thank you.’’ again impressed on the President his to meet his obligation. Beginning in January 1998, the Presi- solemn duty to tell the truth: As noted in my opening remarks, the dent went on an 8-month campaign, Question to the President: President’s grand jury perjury is the both under oath and in the press, deny- Q: Now, you took the same oath to tell the basis for article I of the impeachment ing any sexual relationship with truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the resolution. The evidence shows, and Monica Lewinsky in any way, shape, or truth on January 17th, 1998, in a deposition live witnesses clearly will dem- form. But 8 months after his deposition in the Paula Jones litigation; is that correct, onstrate, that the President repeatedly testimony and these passionate deni- sir? committed perjury before the grand als, the tide had turned against his A: I did take an oath then. jury when he testified as a defendant in story. By August, Monica Lewinsky Q: Did the oath you took on that occasion a sexual harassment civil rights law- was now cooperating with the office of mean the same to you then as it does today? A: I believed then that I had to answer the suit against him. the independent counsel. If she was questions truthfully. That is correct. ... He intentionally failed in his lawful telling the truth in her sworn testi- Q: And it meant the same to you then as it obligation to tell the truth in four gen- mony, then the President’s January de- does today? eral areas. First, the President com- nial in the Paula Jones case would S244 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 have been a clear case of him commit- I regret that what began as a friendship was on November 15, 1995, during the ting perjury and obstructing justice. came to include this conduct. I take full re- Government shutdown. And she also Why? Because she was describing, in sponsibility for my actions. While I will pro- said that the very first time that she very graphic detail, conduct occurring vide the grand jury whatever other informa- tion I can, because of privacy considerations ever spoke to the President was the between her and the President that affecting my family, myself, and others, and same day he invited her back to the clearly fit the definition of ‘‘sexual re- in an effort to preserve the dignity of the of- Oval Office and began a sexual rela- lations’’ as used in the Paula Jones fice I hold, this is all I will say about the tionship with her. deposition—conduct that he repeatedly specifics of these particular matters. It is obvious that the reference in the denied under oath. I will try to answer to the best of my abil- President’s prepared statement to the ity other questions, including questions So by the time the President sat grand jury that this relationship began down for his grand jury testimony to about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, questions about my understanding of the in 1996 was intentionally false. answer these questions under oath, he The President’s statement was inten- had put himself in a huge box. He could term of sexual relations, as I understood it to be defined at my January 17th, 1998, depo- tionally misleading when he described not continue the outright lie because sition, and questions concerning alleged sub- being alone with Ms. Lewinsky only on Ms. Lewinsky had turned over her blue ordination of perjury, obstruction of justice certain occasions. Actually, they were dress for DNA testing, and at the time and intimidation of witnesses. alone in the White House at least 20 of his grand jury testimony he didn’t That . . . is my statement. times and had at least 11 sexual en- know what the results were of that FBI Beyond that statement, the Presi- counters at the White House. The test. Under such circumstances, con- dent generally refused to answer spe- President attempted to use language tinuing the lie was too risky of a strat- cific questions about his relationship that subtly minimized the number of egy even for the most accomplished of with Monica Lewinsky. The President times they were alone. gamblers. But if he told the truth, his used that prepared statement as a sub- The President’s statement was inten- earlier perjury and obstruction of jus- stitute answer for specific questions tionally misleading when he described tice would have ended his Presidency. about his conduct with Ms. Lewinsky his telephone conversations with He was sure he would have been driven 19 separate times during his testimony Monica Lewinsky as ‘‘occasional.’’ In from office. before the grand jury. The purpose of fact, there are at least 55 documented Remember that the President had ac- the prepared statement was to avoid telephone conversations between the tually authorized that a poll be taken answering the types of specific harass- President of the United States and the for him by Dick Morris, and the poll ment lawsuit questions for which the young intern. And, without going into wasn’t just taken on whether the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Susan further graphic detail, the evidence American people would forgive him for Webber Wright had earlier cleared the shows that, at least on 17 of those occa- adultery; the President asked Dick way. The evidence shows the President sions, those conversations included Morris to poll in two other areas. He used this prepared statement in order much more than mere sexual banter, as asked Dick Morris to poll whether the to justify the perjurious answers he the President described it. American people would forgive him for gave at his deposition which were in- perjury and obstruction of justice. tended to affect the outcome of the The most unsettling part of that When he got the poll results back, he Paula Jones case. The fact that this statement was uttered near the close. learned that the American people statement was prepared in advance Listen to what the President said: ‘‘I would forgive him for the adultery but shows his intent to mislead the grand regret that what began as a friendship they would not forgive him for perjury jury in this very area. Ironically, this came to include this conduct.’’ or for obstruction of justice. prepared statement was supposed to in- ‘‘Friendship.’’ The very day the Presi- Once he got the bad news from Dick oculate the President from perjury. In- dent met and spoke with a young Morris that his political career was stead, it opened him up to 19 more ex- White House intern for the first time over if he perjured himself, he told amples of giving perjurious, false, and was the day he invited her back to the Dick Morris, ‘‘We’ll just have to win.’’ misleading answers under oath. Oval Office to perform sex acts on him. So at his grand jury testimony, once For example, in that prepared state- In fact, Monica Lewinsky said that the first question was asked about his ment, the President said his sexual after their sexual relationship was over relationship with Monica Lewinsky, contact with Ms. Lewinsky began in a month old, she didn’t even think the the President produced a prepared 1996, and not in 1995, as Ms. Lewinsky President knew her name. The Presi- statement and read from it. This pre- had testified. This was not a mere slip dent’s statement about his relationship pared statement he read to the grand of memory over a meaningless time- with Monica Lewinsky beginning as a jury on August 17, 1998, was the frame; there is a discrepancy in the friendship is a callous and deceptive linchpin in his plan to ‘‘win.’’ dates for a reason. You see, under the mischaracterization of how his rela- (Text of videotape presentation:) tionship with this young woman really Q. Mr. President, were you physically inti- President’s version, in 1996 Monica mate with Monica Lewinsky? Lewinsky was a paid White House em- began. A. Mr. Bittman, I think maybe I can save ployee. Under the facts as testified to Thus, the President began his deposi- you and the grand jurors a lot of time if I by Ms. Lewinsky, when the relation- tion testimony by reading a false and read a statement, which I think will make it ship really began in 1995, she was not a misleading statement to the grand clear what the nature of my relationship paid employee at the White House, she jury. He then used that statement as with Ms. Lewinsky was and how it related to was a young, 21-year-old White House an excuse not to answer specific ques- the testimony I gave, what I was trying to do tions that were directly relevant to al- in that testimony. And I think it will per- intern. haps make it possible for you to ask even The concept of a President having a lowing the grand jury to complete its more relevant questions from your point of sexual relationship in the White House criminal investigation. Had he given view. And, with your permission, I’d like to with a young intern less than half his specific answers to specific questions read that statement. age was a public relations disaster for about the true nature of his relation- Q. Absolutely. Please, Mr. President. the President, as everyone vividly re- ship, the grand jury would have been A. When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on members. It is clear that the President able to learn the whole truth about certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was somehow viewed the concept as less whether the President perjured himself wrong. These encounters did not consist of combustible if he could take the and obstructed justice in the Paula sexual intercourse. They did not constitute ‘‘young intern’’ phrase out of the pub- Jones sexual harassment civil rights sexual relations as I understood that term to lic lexicon. Yet, in his deposition testi- lawsuit. be defined at my January 17th, 1998 deposi- mony, the President admitted he met Paula Jones had a legal and constitu- tion. But they did involve inappropriate inti- her and saw her when she was an intern tional right to learn if the President, mate contact. working in the White House in Novem- while as President or Governor, used These inappropriate encounters ended, at my insistence, in early 1997. I also had occa- ber 1995, during the Government shut- his position of power and influence to sional telephone conversations with Ms. down. Monica Lewinsky confirmed get sexual favors from subordinate fe- Lewinsky that included inappropriate sexual this. In fact, she testified that the first male employees in the workplace or to banter. time she ever spoke to the President reward subordinate female employees January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S245 for granting such favors to him. In- appearance, tried to explain away his stituted sexual relations wasn’t stead, the President intentionally pro- January deposition denial of engaging enough, the President then decided to vided on 19 separate occasions a mis- in sexual relations with Monica take his interpretation of the judge’s leading statement instead of giving a Lewinsky. definition one step further. He added a true characterization of his conduct, as (Text of video tape presentation:) new element as to why he claimed the required by his oath. Q. Did you understand the words in the definition didn’t apply to him. He had no legal or constitutional first portion of the [Jones deposition] ex- When asked again, at his grand jury right to refuse to answer such ques- hibit, Mr. President, that is, ‘‘For the pur- testimony, what he thought the defini- tions without claiming a fifth amend- poses of this deposition, a person engages in tion of sexual relations meant, here is ment privilege and then allowing Judge ‘sexual relations’ when the person knowingly the new twist that the President came Wright to make a determination as to engages in or causes . . .’’? up with. whether the privilege applied. The Did you understand, do you understand the (Text of videotape presentation:) words there in that phrase? A. As I remember from the previous discus- President’s preliminary statement de- A. Yes . . . I can tell you what my under- sion this was some kind of definition that livered 19 times was an initial shot standing of the definition is, if you want . .. had something to do with sexual harassment. across the perjury bow offered by the My understanding of this definition is it cov- So, that implies it’s forcing to me. And I— President throughout his grand jury ers contact by the person being deposed with there was never any issue of forcing in the the enumerated areas, if the contact is done testimony. It showed a premeditated case involving—well, any of these questions effort to thwart the grand jury’s crimi- with an intent to arouse or gratify. That’s they were asking me. They made it clear in nal investigation, to justify his prior my understanding of the definition. this discussion I just reviewed that what wrongdoing, and to deny Paula Jones Q. What did you believe the definition to they were referring to was intentional sexual include and exclude? What kinds of activi- her constitutional right to bring for- conduct, not some sort of forcible abusive be- ties? havior. ward her claim in a court of law. A. I thought the definition included any The President gave further perjuri- So I basically—I don’t think I paid any at- activity by the person being deposed, where tention to it because it appeared to me that ous, false, and misleading testimony the person was the actor and came into con- that was something that had no reference to regarding the nature and details of his tact with those parts of the bodies with the the facts that they admitted they were ask- relationship with Monica Lewinsky. purpose or intent of gratification, and ex- ing me about. One of the ways the President tried to cluded any other activity. For example, The President now took the position kissing’s not covered by that, I don’t think. justify his perjurious answers in the that the definition didn’t apply to him Jones deposition about his relationship Q. Did you understand the definition to be limited to sexual activity? because it would only have applied if was to deconstruct the English lan- A. Yes, I understood the definition to be he forced himself on Monica Lewinsky. guage. Remember, the President was limited to physical contact with those areas Remember the definition. And I will shown a copy of the definition of ‘‘sex- of the body with the specific intent to arouse read it again: ual relations’’ that Judge Wright ap- or gratify. That’s what I understood it to be. For the purposes of this deposition, a per- proved in his January deposition. This Q. What specific acts did the definition in- son engages in sexual relations when the per- definition was directed by Judge clude, as you understood the definition on son knowingly engages in or causes— Wright to be used as the guide under January 17th, 1998? (1) contact with the [certain enumerated A. Any contact with the areas that are which the President was to answer body parts] of any person with an intent to mentioned, sir. If you contacted those parts arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any questions about his relationship with of the body with an intent to arouse or grat- person[.] Monica Lewinsky. After carefully re- ify, that is covered. As you can see, this straightforward viewing that definition, the President Q. What did you understand . .. definition did not include the subject said under oath that it did not apply to A. The person being deposed. If the person being deposed contacted those parts of an- of force or harassment. his relationship with her. Yet when the independent counsel’s It is important to remember that at other person’s body with an intent to arouse attorney tried to clarify the Presi- the time the President testified that he or gratify, that was covered. dent’s newfound position, the President never had sexual relations with Monica If that answer sounds confusing to gave no ground. He simply plowed Lewinsky, this was not a risky perjury you, there is a reason for that. It was ahead with his new interpretation. meant to be. strategy. After all, he had successfully (Text of videotape presentation:) What the President now was saying used Vernon Jordan to get Monica Q. I’m just trying to understand, Mr. Presi- Lewinsky a good job in New York, de- to the grand jury is that during their dent. You indicated that you put the defini- spite her questionable qualifications. intimate relationship in the Oval Of- tion in the context of a sexual harassment She had filed a false affidavit in the fice, Monica Lewinsky had sexual rela- case . . . Jones case denying a sexual relation- tions with him; he didn’t have sexual A. No, no, I think it was not in the context ship with the President. She and the relations with her. of sexual harassment. I just re-read those President had previously agreed to Consider that for a minute. four pages, which obviously the grand jury The President is asking everyone to doesn’t have. But there was some reference comprehensive cover stories to deny to the fact that this definition apparently the truth of their relationship if any- believe that between the years 1995 and bore some—had some connection to some one ever confronted them about it. And 1997, while Monica Lewinsky was en- definition in another context and that this the bevy of gifts the President had gaged in a pattern of explicit availabil- was being used not in that context, not nec- given to Monica were now nestled safe- ity for him as she described in her tes- essarily in the context of sexual harassment. ly under Betty Currie’s bed so that timony, the President carefully avoid- So I would think that this causes would they would never be produced to or dis- ed having any intimate contact with be—means to force someone to do something. covered by Mrs. Jones’ attorneys in her as described in Judge Wright’s very That’s what I read it. That’s the only point I’m trying to make. Therefore, I did not be- compliance with their subpoena to detailed definition. lieve that any one had ever suggested that I have those gifts produced. And, according to the President, had forced anyone to do anything and I did The perjury strategy was a safe bet since he never intimately touched her not do that. And so, that could not have had in January at his deposition, but it as described in the definition—she only any bearing on any questions relating to Ms. soon turned upside-down for the Presi- touched him—then he was under no ob- Lewinsky. dent. By the time of his grand jury tes- ligation to answer questions in the har- The evidence clearly shows from timony in August, the President knew assment suit about Monica Lewinsky Monica Lewinsky’s sworn testimony things had changed drastically, but not as Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright that the President deconstructed the in his favor. In light of Ms. Lewinsky’s ordered him to do under oath. English language to deny Paula Jones cooperation with the independent Not only does the President’s claim the opportunity to find out if other counsel, the impending FBI report on strain all boundaries of common sense, witnesses were out there who would the DNA testing on the blue dress, and it is directly in conflict with Monica help bolster her case against the Presi- the President’s decision not to confess Lewinsky’s detailed and corroborated dent, and she was legally entitled to do to his crime, the President needed to accounts of their relationship. that under our sexual harassment laws. come up with some excuse. Here is how As if this ridiculous expansion of No reasonable interpretation of the the President, at his August grand jury Judge Wright’s definition of what con- President’s testimony could be made S246 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 that he fulfilled his legal obligation to swers that violated his oath to tell the during his January deposition. This as- testify to the truth, the whole truth truth, the whole truth and nothing but sertion before the grand jury that he and nothing but the truth. the truth. And incidentally, during his testified truthfully in the Jones case is His statements were perjurious. They grand jury testimony, the President in and of itself perjurious testimony were designed to defeat Paula Jones’ actually suggested that he had a right because the record is clear he did not right to pursue her sexual harassment to give less than complete answers. testify truthfully in January in the civil rights lawsuit against this Presi- Why? Because he questioned the mo- Paula Jones case. He perjured himself. dent. tives of Ms. Jones in bringing her law- Thus, when the President testified And by the way, in his testimony, the suit. before the grand jury in August, he President conceded that if Monica If this standard is acceptable, what knew he had given perjurious answers Lewinsky’s recitation of the facts was does that do to the search for the truth in the January deposition. If the Presi- true, he would have perjured himself when an oath is administered in a dent really thought, as he testified, both in his deposition testimony and in courtroom to one who claims to ques- that he had told the truth in his Janu- repeating his denials before the grand tion the ‘‘motives’’ of their opponent in ary deposition testimony, he would not jury. Listen to this. a trial? This suggestion has no basis in have related a false account of events (Text of videotape presentation:) law. And it is destructive to the truth- to his secretary, Betty Currie, whom Q. And you testified that you didn’t have seeking function of the courts. he knew, by his own admission, might sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky in The President’s perjurious legal hair- be called as a witness in the Jones the Jones deposition under that definition, splitting used to bypass the require- case; he would not have repeatedly de- correct? ment of telling the complete truth de- nied he was unable to recall being A. That’s correct, sir. nied Paula Jones her constitutional alone with Monica Lewinsky; and he Q. If the person being deposed touched the right to have her day in court and an would not have told false accounts to genitalia of another person, would that be in—with the intent to arouse the sexual de- orderly disposition of her claim in the his aides whom he knew, by his own ad- sire, arouse or gratify, as defined in defini- sexual harassment case against the mission, were potential witnesses in tion one, would that be, under your under- President. later proceedings. standing, then and now, sexual relations? To dismiss this conduct with a shrug The evidence of perjury and obstruc- A. Yes, sir. because it is ‘‘just about sex’’ is to say tion of justice is overwhelming in this Q. Yes, it would? that the sexual harassment laws pro- case. He continued to use illegal means A. Yes, it would if you had a direct contact tecting women in the workplace do not to defeat Ms. Jones’ constitutional with any of these places in the body, if you apply to powerful employers or others right to bring her harassment case had direct contact with intent to arouse or in high places of privilege. As one wag gratify, that would fall within the definition. against him. Q. So you didn’t do any of those three recently noted, if this case is ‘‘just Next, the President committed per- things with Monica Lewinsky? about sex,’’ then robbery is just a dis- jury before the grand jury when he tes- A. You are free to infer that my testimony agreement over money. tified that he did not allow his attor- is that I did not have sexual relations as I Next, the President perjured himself ney to make false representations understood this term to be defined. before the grand jury when he repeated while referring to Monica Lewinsky’s So, who is telling the truth? The only previous perjured answers he gave in affidavit before the judge in the Jones way to really know is to bring forth the deposition of the Paula Jones case. case, an affidavit that he knew was the witnesses, put them under oath and In his grand jury testimony in August, false. give each juror, each Member of this the President admitted he had to tell Remember, at the Jones deposition body the opportunity to make that de- the truth, the whole truth, and nothing in January 1998, Monica Lewinsky pre- termination of credibility, because the but the truth when he testified in the viously had filed a false affidavit that record shows that Monica Lewinsky de- Paula Jones deposition. said, ‘‘I have never had a sexual rela- livered consistent and detailed testi- The question to the President: tionship with the President’’ and that mony under oath regarding many spe- Now, you took the same oath to tell the she had no relevant information to pro- cific encounters with the President truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the vide on the subject to Ms. Jones. that clearly fell within the definition truth on January 17th, 1998, in a deposition When Ms. Jones’ attorneys at- of sexual relations from the Jones dep- in the Paula Jones litigation; is that correct, tempted to question the President osition. sir? about his relationship with Ms. Monica Lewinsky’s memory and ac- Answer: Lewinsky, the President’s attorney, counts of these incidents are amazingly I did take an oath then. Mr. Bennett, objected to him even corroborated by her recollection of Question: being questioned about the relation- dates, places and phone calls which Did the oath you took on that occasion ship. correspond with the official White mean the same to you then as it does today? Mr. Bennett claimed that in light of House entrance logs and phone records. Answer: Monica Lewinsky’s affidavit saying Monica Lewinsky’s testimony is fur- I believe then that I had to answer the that there was no sexual relationship ther corroborated through DNA testing questions truthfully; that is correct. between the two, and there never had and the testimony of her friends and When the President testified in his been, that Paula Jones’ lawyer had no family members, to whom she made January deposition, he knew full well good faith belief even to question the near contemporaneous statements that Monica Lewinsky’s affidavit she President about a relationship with about the relationship. filed in the case stating that they Monica Lewinsky. Most importantly, Monica Lewinsky never had sexual relations was false. Listen to what Mr. Bennett told had every reason to tell the truth to Yet, when this affidavit was shown to Judge Wright in the deposition. the grand jury. She was under a threat him at the deposition, he testified that (Text of videotape presentation:) of prosecution for perjury, not only for her false claim was, in his words, ‘‘ab- Mr. BENNETT. Your Honor, excuse me, Mr. her grand jury testimony, but also for President, I need some guidance from the solutely true.’’ Court at this point. I’m going to object to the false affidavit she filed on behalf of He knew that the definition of ‘‘sex- the innuendo. I’m afraid, as I say, that this the President in the Jones case. ual relations’’ used in the earlier Jones will leak. I don’t question the predicates She knew then and she knows today deposition was meant to cover the here. I question the good faith of counsel, that her immunity agreement could be same activity that was mentioned in the innuendo in the question. Counsel is revoked at any time if she lies under Monica Lewinsky’s false affidavit. fully aware that Ms. Jane Doe 6 [Monica oath or if she lied under oath in the Rather than tell the complete truth, Lewinsky] has filed, has an affidavit which past. Truthful testimony was and re- the President lied about the relation- they are in possession of saying that there is mains a condition for her immunity ship, the cover stories, the affidavit, absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton, and from prosecution. the subpoena for gifts, and the search yet listening to the innuendo in the By way of contrast, the President for a job for Ms. Lewinsky. questions—— was under obligation to give complete Later he denied to the grand jury in Judge WRIGHT. No, just a minute, let me answers. Instead, he offered false an- August that he committed any perjury make my ruling. I do not know whether January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S247 counsel is basing this question on any affida- they never had a sexual relationship simply does not withstand the test of vit, but I will direct Mr. Bennett not to com- was true and accurate. truth. The videotape of the President’s ment on other evidence that might be perti- Listen to the President as he re- January deposition shows the Presi- nent and could be arguably coaching the wit- sponds. dent paying very close attention to Mr. ness at this juncture. Now, Mr. Fisher is an officer of this court, and I have to assume (Text of videotape presentation:) Bennett when Mr. Bennett was making that he has a good faith basis for asking the Q: In paragraph eight of her affidavit, she the statement about ‘‘no sex of any question. If in fact he has no good faith basis says this, ‘‘I have never had a sexual rela- kind.’’ for asking this question, he could later be tionship with the President, he did not pro- View again the video clip of the sanctioned. If you would like, I will be happy pose that we have a sexual relationship, he President during Mr. Bennett’s argu- to review in camera any good faith basis he did not offer me employment or other bene- ment that the Jones lawyers have no might have. fits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he right to ask questions about Monica did not deny me employment or other bene- Mr. BENNETT. Well, Your Honor, with all Lewinsky, only this time watch the due respect, I would like to know the proffer. fits for reflecting a sexual relationship.’’ I’m not coaching the witness. In preparation Is this a true and accurate statement as far President as he focuses on his lawyer of the witness for this deposition, the wit- as you know it? speaking about one of the most impor- ness is fully aware of Ms. Jane Doe 6’s A: That is absolutely true. tant subjects he has ever faced in his (Monica Lewinsky’s) affidavit, so I have not The President’s answer: ‘‘That is ab- entire life—the survival of his Presi- told him a single thing he doesn’t know, but solutely true.’’ dency. I think when he asks questions like this When President Clinton was asked (Text of videotape presentation:) where he’s sitting on an affidavit from the during his grand jury testimony 8 Mr. BENNETT. Your Honor, excuse me, Mr. witness, he should at least have a good faith months later how he could have sat si- President, I need some guidance from the proffer. Court at this point. I’m going to object to Judge WRIGHT. Now, I agree with you that lently at his earlier deposition while his attorney made the false statement the innuendo. I’m afraid, as I say, that this he needs to have a good faith basis for asking will leak. I don’t question the predicates the question. that ‘‘there is no sex of any kind,’’ in here. I question the good faith of counsel, Mr. BENNETT. May we ask what it is, Your any manner, shape, or form, to Judge the innuendo in the question. Counsel is Honor? Wright, the President first said that he fully aware that Ms. Jane Doe 6 [Monica Judge WRIGHT. And I’m assuming that he was not paying ‘‘a great deal of atten- Lewinsky] has filed, has an affidavit which does, and I will be willing to review this in they are in possession of saying that there is camera if he does not want to reveal it to tion’’ to Mr. Bennett’s comments. absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, counsel. (Text of videotape presentation:) shape or form, with President Clinton, and Mr. BENNETT. Fine. Q. Mr. President, I want to—before I go yet listening to the innuendo in the Mr. FISHER. I would welcome an oppor- into a new subject area, briefly go over questions—— tunity to explain to the Court what our good something you were talking about with Mr. Judge WRIGHT. No, just a minute, let me faith basis is in an in camera hearing. Bittman. The statement of your attorney, make my ruling. I do not know whether Judge WRIGHT. All right. Mr. Bennett, at the Paula Jones deposition— counsel is basing this question an any affida- Mr. FISHER. I would prefer that we not counsel is fully aware—it’s page 54, line 5. vit, but I will direct Mr. Bennett not to com- take the time to do that now, but I can tell ‘‘Counsel is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky is ment on other evidence that might be perti- the Court I am very confident there is sub- filing, has an affidavit, which they were in nent and could be arguably coaching the wit- stantial basis. possession of, saying that there was abso- ness at this juncture. Now, I Mr. Fisher is as Judge WRIGHT. All right, I’m going to per- lutely no sex of any kind in any manner, officer of this court, and I have to assume mit the question. He’s an officer of the shape or form with President Clinton.’’ That that he has a good faith basis for asking the Court, and as you know, Mr. Bennett, this statement was made by your attorney in question. If in fact he has no good faith basis Court has ruled on prior occasions that a front of Judge Susan Webber Wright. for asking this question, he could later be good faith basis can exist notwithstanding A. That’s correct. sanctioned. If you would like, I will be happy the testimony of the witness, of the depo- Q. Your—that statement is a completely to review in camera any good faith basis he nent, and the other party. false statement. Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. might have. May I say as an aside that by pre- Lewinsky, the statement that there was ‘‘no Mr. BENNETT. Well, Your Honor, with all senting that, I am in no way question- sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form due respect, I would like to know the proffer. ing the quality or the integrity of the with President Clinton’’ was an utterly false I’m not coaching the witness. In preparation President’s attorney, Mr. Bennett, on statement. Is that correct? of the witness for this deposition, the wit- that day. Mr. Bennett was doing his job A. It depends upon what the meaning of ness is fully aware of Ms. Jane Doe 6’s as the President’s lawyer. He had an af- the word ‘‘is’’ means. If ‘‘is’’ means is, and (Monica Lewinsky’s) affidavit, so I have not never has been, that’s one thing. If it means, told him a single thing he doesn’t know, but fidavit from Monica Lewinsky that I think when he asks questions like this said none of this ever happened. And so there is none, that was a completely true statement. But as I have testified—I’d like where he’s sitting on an affidavit from the I hope that none of you will assume to testify again—this is —it is somewhat un- witness, he should at least have a good faith that by my showing this deposition usual for a client to be asked about his law- proffer. tape today that I am trying to draw yer’s statements instead of the other way Judge WRIGHT. Now, I agree with you that any unfair inference against the Presi- around. I was not paying a great deal of at- he needs to have a good faith basis for asking dent’s attorney on that date. But you tention to this exchange. I was focusing on the question. my own testimony. Mr. BENNETT. May we ask what it is, Your can tell from what you have just ob- Honor? served that Mr. Bennett was using The President added to this expla- Judge WRIGHT. And I’m assuming that he Monica Lewinsky’s false affidavit in an nation he was giving to the attorney does, and I will be willing to review this in attempt to stop questioning of the questioning him. This is what the camera if he does not want to reveal it to President about Ms. Lewinsky. President said: ‘‘And I’m not sure . . . counsel. What did the President do during as I sit here today that I sat there and Mr. BENNETT. Fine. followed all these interchanges be- Mr. FISHER. I would welcome an oppor- that exchange? He sat mute. He did not tunity to explain to the Court what our good say anything to correct Mr. Bennett, tween the lawyers. I’m quite sure that faith basis is in an in camera hearing. even though the President knew that I didn’t follow all the interchanges be- Judge WRIGHT. All right. the affidavit upon which Mr. Bennett tween the lawyers all that carefully. Mr. FISHER. I would prefer that we not was relying was utterly false. And I don’t really believe, therefore, take the time to do that now, but I can tell Judge Wright overruled Mr. Ben- that I can say Mr. Bennett’s testimony the Court I am very confident there is sub- nett’s objection and allowed the ques- or statement is testimony and is im- stantial basis. Judge WRIGHT. All right, I’m going to per- tioning about Monica Lewinsky to pro- putable to me. I didn’t—I don’t know mit the question. He’s an officer of the ceed. that I was really paying attention, Court, and as you know, Mr. Bennett, this Later in the deposition, Mr. Bennett paying that much attention to him.’’ Court has ruled on prior occasions that a read to the President the portion of This denial of the President while his good faith basis can exist notwithstanding Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit in which she attorney was proffering a false state- the testimony of the witness, of the depo- denied having a sexual relationship ment to Judge Wright in an effort to nent, and the other party. with the President. Mr. Bennett then keep the Paula Jones lawyers from By the way, lest there be any doubt asked the President, who was under even questioning the President about in the minds of any Member of this oath, if Ms. Lewinsky’s statement that his relationship with Monica Lewinsky body as to whom the President was S248 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 looking at and focusing at, we are fully have an ironclad alibi. I wasn’t at the This perjurious testimony breaks prepared to bring in a witness for you crime scene, I was home with my down into four categories: who was present at the deposition and mother eating apple pie. But if I was First, he made false and misleading who will draw a map for every Member there, it is a clear case of self-defense. statements to the grand jury concern- of this body and show the location of The President now asks this body of ing his knowledge of Monica the President and every other person lawmakers to give acceptance to these Lewinsky’s false affidavit. around the table. ludicrous definitions of ordinary words Second, he made false and misleading Just in case the President’s ‘‘I wasn’t and phrases. He asks you to believe statements to the grand jury when he paying any attention’’ excuse didn’t this is what he really thought when he related a false account of his inter- fly, the President, in his grand jury was asked if he ever had sexual rela- action with his secretary, Betty Currie, testimony, decided to try another ar- tions with Monica Lewinsky, and when when he reasonably knew she might gument on for size. He suggested that he was asked about her false affidavit. later be called before the grand jury to when Mr. Bennett made his statement By the way, as to the President’s testify. about ‘‘there is no sex of any kind,’’ ‘‘tense’’ argument that he presented Third, he made perjurious and mis- the President was focusing on the about what the meaning of the word leading statements to the grand jury meaning of the word ‘‘is.’’ ‘‘is’’ is, this fails to take into account when he denied engaging in a plan to He then said that when Mr. Bennett another important fact. The false affi- hide evidence that had been subpoe- made the assertion that ‘‘there is no davit of Monica Lewinsky that Mr. naed in the Jones civil rights case sex of any kind,’’ Mr. Bennett was Bennett was waiving that day before against him. speaking only in the present tense, as the judge made no such distinction. Finally, he made perjurious and mis- if the President understood that to Her affidavit never said in the present leading statements to the grand jury mean ‘‘there is no sex’’ because there tense, ‘‘I am not now having a sexual concerning statements he made to his was no sex occurring at the time Mr. relationship with the President.’’ Her aides about Monica Lewinsky when he Bennett’s remark was made. affidavit said, ‘‘I have never had a sex- reasonably knew these aides might be The President stated, ‘‘It depends on ual relationship with the President.’’ called later to testify. what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.’’ The President perjured himself when Let’s look briefly at the first area. And that if it means there is none, he said that Mr. Bennett’s statement The President made false and mis- that was a completely true statement. that there was no sex of any kind was leading statements before the grand Listen and watch again to the same ‘‘absolutely true,’’ depending on what jury regarding his knowledge of the video clip from the President’s grand the meaning of the word ‘‘is’’ is. contents of Monica Lewinsky’s affida- The President did not admit to the jury testimony that we saw a few mo- vit. grand jury that Mr. Bennett’s state- ments ago. Only this time, pay close As we now know conclusively, ment was false, because to do so would attention to the President’s excuse as Monica Lewinsky filed an affidavit in have been to admit that the term ‘‘sex- to why he did not have to comply with the Jones case in which she denied ever ual relations’’ as used in Ms. the truth, because in his mind there is having a sexual relationship with the Lewinsky’s affidavit meant ‘‘no sex of some question as to what the meaning President, and that was a lie when it any kind.’’ Admitting that would be to of the word ‘‘is’’ is. was filed. admit that he perjured himself pre- (Text of videotape presentation:) Remember—during his deposition in viously in his grand jury testimony Q. Mr. President, I want to, before I go into the Jones case, the President said that and in his deposition. Ms. Lewinsky’s denial of ever having a a new subject area, briefly go over something Now, interestingly, Ms. Lewinsky you were talking about with Mr. Bittman. sexual relationship was ‘‘absolutely doesn’t bother attempting to match The statement of your attorney, Mr. Ben- true.’’ the President’s linguistic nett, at the Paula Jones deposition ‘‘counsel Monica Lewinsky later testified that deconstructions of the English lan- is fully aware’’—it’s page 54 line 5.—‘‘counsel she is ‘‘100 percent sure’’ that the guage. After she was granted immu- is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed, President suggested she might want to has an affidavit which they were in posses- nity, Monica Lewinsky testified under sign an affidavit to avoid testifying in sion of saying that there is no sex of any oath that the part of her affidavit de- kind in any manner, shape or form, with nying a sexual relationship with the the case of Jones versus Clinton. In President Clinton?’’ That statement is made President was a lie. fact, the President gave the following by your attorney in front of Judge Susan I read from page 204 of Ms. testimony before the grand jury: Webber Wright, correct? Lewinsky’s testimony: And did I hope she’d be able to get out of A. That’s correct. testifying on an affidavit? Absolutely. Did I Q. That statement is a completely false Question: Let me ask you a straight- forward question. Paragraph 8— want her to execute a false affidavit? No, I statement. Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew did not. of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the Referring to her affidavit— This testimony is false because it statement that there was ‘‘no sex of any at the start says, ‘‘I have never had a sexual kind in any manner, shape or form, with relationship with the President.’’ Is that could not be possible that Monica President Clinton,’’ was an utterly false true? Lewinsky could have filed a truthful statement. Is that correct? Answer: No. affidavit in the Jones case, an affidavit A. It depends on what the meaning of the Thus, the President engaged in an acknowledging a sexual relationship word ‘‘is’’ is. If ‘‘is’’ means is, and never has evolving series of lies during his sworn with the President, that would have been, that is one thing. If it means there is helped her to avoid having to appear as none, that was a completely true statement. testimony in order to cover previous But, as I have testified, and I’d like to tes- lies he told in sworn testimony, and to a witness in the Paula Jones case. tify again, this is—it is somewhat unusual conceal his conduct that obstructed The attorneys for Paula Jones were for a client to be asked about his lawyer’s justice in the Paula Jones sexual har- seeking evidence of sexual relation- statements, instead of the other way around. assment suit against him. He did this ships with the President, and ones that I was not paying a great deal of attention to to deny Paula Jones her constitutional the President might have had with this exchange. I was focusing on my own tes- right to bring a case of sexual harass- other State or Federal employees. timony. ment against him, and to sidetrack the This information was legally obliged In essence, here is what the President investigation of the Office of Independ- to be produced by the President to says in his own defense: I wasn’t paying ent Counsel into his misconduct. Paula Jones in her sexual harassment any attention to what my lawyer was Finally, the President committed lawsuit against him to help prove her saying when he offered the false affida- perjury before the grand jury when he claim. vit on my behalf to the judge. However, testified falsely about his blatant at- Judge Susan Webber Wright had al- if I was paying attention, I was focus- tempts to influence the testimony of ready ruled that Paula Jones was enti- ing on the very narrow definition of potential witnesses and his involve- tled to this information from the Presi- what the word ‘‘is’’ is and the tense in ment in a plan to hide evidence that dent for purposes of discovery. which that was presented. had lawfully been subpoenaed in the If Monica Lewinsky had filed a truth- Now, I am a former prosecutor, and civil rights action brought against ful affidavit that acknowledged a sex- that is like the murderer who says: I him. ual relationship with the President, January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S249 then she certainly could not have Two and a half hours after he re- case at the time. I thought what would hap- avoided having to testify in a deposi- turned from the Paula Jones deposi- pen is that it would break in the press, and tion. tion, President Clinton called Ms. I was trying to get the facts down. I was try- The President knew this. Currie at home and asked her to come ing to understand what the facts were. His grand jury testimony on this sub- to the White House the next day, a The President told the grand jury ject is perjury. Sunday. that he was putting those questions to Next, the President provided false Ms. Currie testified that it was rare Betty Currie on that Sunday to refresh testimony concerning his conversa- for the President to ask her to come in his recollection and trying to pin down tions with his personal secretary Betty on a Sunday. what the facts were. Currie about Monica after he testified At about 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, Janu- Later, the President stated that he in the Jones deposition. ary 18, Ms. Currie went to meet with was referring to a larger area than sim- Recall Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON’s President Clinton at the White House. ply the room where he and Ms. presentation a short time ago. The Listen to what Betty Currie told the Lewinsky were located. He also testi- President had just testified on January grand jury: fied that his statements to Ms. Currie 17, 1998, in the Paula Jones deposition. He said that he had had his deposition yes- were intended to cover a limited range He said he could not recall being alone terday, and they had asked several questions of dates. with Monica Lewinsky and that he did about Monica Lewinsky. And I was a little Listen to the President’s answer. not have a sexual relationship with shocked by that or—(shrugging). And he A. [W]hen I said, we were never alone, her. said—I don’t know if he said—I think he may right, I think I also asked her a number of After his testimony, on the very next have said, ‘‘There are several things you may other questions, because there were several day and in a separate conversation want to know,’’ or ‘‘There are things—’’ He times, as I’m sure she would acknowledge, asked me some questions. when I either asked her to be around. I re- with her a few days later, President member once in particular when I was talk- Clinton made statements to Ms. Currie According to Ms. Currie, the Presi- dent then said to her in rapid succes- ing with Ms. Lewinsky when I asked Betty to that he knew were false. be in the, actually, in the next room in the He made them to coach Ms. Currie sion: dining room, and, as I testified earlier, once and to influence her potential future You were always there when she was there, in her own office. But I meant that she was testimony. right? We were never really alone. always in the Oval Office complex, in that He coached her by reciting inac- You could see and hear everything. complex, while Monica was there. And I be- Monica came on to me, and I never touched curate answers to possible questions lieve that this was part of a series of ques- her, right? tions I asked her to try to quickly refresh that she might be asked if she were She wanted to have sex with me, and I my memory. So, I wasn’t trying to get her to called to testify in the Paula Jones can’t do that. say something that wasn’t so. And, in fact, I case. Ms. Currie indicated that these re- think she would recall that I told her to just By the way: the President discussed marks were ‘‘more like statements relax, go in the grand jury and tell the truth his deposition testimony with Ms. than questions.’’ when she had been called as a witness. Currie in direct violation of Judge Ms. Currie concluded that the Presi- Now the President was treating the Wright’s order that he not discuss his dent wanted her to agree with him. grand jury to his construction of what testimony with anyone. Judge Wright Ms. Currie also said that she felt the the word ‘‘alone’’ means to him. warned the President at the deposition: President made these remarks to see When asked he answered: Before he leaves, I want to remind him, as her reaction. it depends on how you define alone, and the witness in this matter, . . . that this Ms. Currie said that she indicated her ‘‘there were a lot of times when we were case is subject to a Protective Order regard- agreement with each of the President’s alone, but I never really thought we were. ing all discovery, . . . [A]ll parties present, The President also was asked about including . . . the witness are not to say any- statements, although she knew that thing whatsoever about the questions they the President and Ms. Lewinsky had in his specific statement to Betty Currie were asked, the substance of the deposition, fact been alone in the Oval Office and that ‘‘you could see and hear every- . . ., any details . . . in the President’s study. thing.’’ He testified that he was uncer- After he coached her, the President Ms. Currie also knew that she could tain what he intended by that com- wanted Betty Currie to be a witness. not, and did not hear or see the Presi- ment: During his deposition testimony, the dent and Ms. Lewinsky while they were Question to the President: President did everything he could to alone. Q: When you said to Mrs. Currie, you could suggest to the Jones lawyers they Ms. Currie testified that two or three see and hear everything, that wasn’t true ei- ther, was it, as far as you knew. . .. needed to depose Betty Currie. He did days after her conversation with the President at the White House, he again A. My memory of that was that, that she this by referring to her over and over had the ability to hear what was going on if again as the one with the information called her into the Oval Office to dis- she came in the Oval Office from her office. they need for information about him cuss this. And a lot of times, you know, when I was in and Monica Lewinsky. She described their conversation as, the Oval Office, she just had the door open to He stated to the Jones lawyer in his quote, ‘‘sort of a recapitulation of what her office. Then there was—the door was deposition, for example, that: we had talked about on Sunday—you never completely closed to the hall. So I think there was—I’m not entirely sure what . . . the last time he had seen Ms. Lewinsky know, I was never alone with her’’— I meant by that, but I could have meant that was when she had come to the White House that sort of thing.’’ she generally would be able to hear conversa- to see Ms. Currie; that Ms. Currie was Q: [To Ms. Currie] Did he pretty much list tions, even if she couldn’t see them. And I present when the President had made a jok- the same? think that’s what I meant. ing reference about the Jones case to Ms. A. To my recollection, sir, yes. The President also was asked about Lewinsky; that Ms. Currie was his source of In his grand jury testimony, the information about Vernon Jordan’s assist- his comment to Ms. Currie that Ms. ance to Ms. Lewinsky; and that Ms. Currie president was asked why he might have Lewinsky had ‘‘come on’’ to him, but had helped set up the meetings between Ms. said to Ms. Currie in their meeting on that he had ‘‘never touched her.’’ Lewinsky and Mr. Jordan regarding her that Sunday ‘‘we were never alone to- Question to the President: move to New York. gether, right?’’ and ‘‘you could see and Q: [I]f [Ms. Currie] testified that you told Because the President referred so hear everything.’’ her, Monica came on to me and I never often to Ms. Currie, it is obvious he Here is how the President testified: touched her, you did, in fact, of course, wanted her to become a witness in the [W]hat I was trying to determine was touch Ms. Lewinsky, isn’t that right, in a Jones matter, particularly if specific whether my recollection was right and that physically intimate way? allegations of the President’s relation- she was always in the office complex when A. Now, I’ve testified about that. And ship with Ms. Lewinsky came to light. Monica was there, and whether she thought that’s one of those questions that I believe is she could hear any conversations we had, or answered by the statement that I made. According to Ms. Currie, President did she hear any—I was trying to—I knew . Q: What was your purpose in making these Clinton even told her at some point . . to a reasonable certainty that I was going statements to Mrs. Currie, if it weren’t for that she might be asked about Monica to be asked more questions about this. I the purpose to try to suggest to her what she Lewinsky. didn’t really expect you to be in the Jones should say if ever asked? S250 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 14, 1999 A. Now, Mr. Bittman, I told you, the only his perjury from the day before at the 28, 1998, doesn’t exonerate the Presi- thing I remember is when all this stuff blew deposition. dent. It demonstrates that the Presi- up, I was trying to figure out what the facts The circumstances surrounding the dent never believed that Monica were. I was trying to remember. I was trying president’s statements clearly show, Lewinsky in light of all of their rela- to remember every time I had seen Ms. Lewinsky. . . . I knew this was all going to clearly show that he improperly sought tionship, all of the cover stories, all of come out. . . . I did not know [at the time] to influence Ms. Currie’s potential fu- the plans that they had put forward, that the Office of Independent Counsel was ture testimony. her willingness to subject herself to a involved. And I was trying to get the facts His actions were an obstruction of perjury prosecution by filing a false af- and try to think of the best defense we could justice, and a blatant attempt to ille- fidavit, all of that was because he knew construct in the face of what I thought was gally influence the truthful testimony that Monica Lewinsky would never going to be a media onslaught. of a potential witness. turn those gifts over pursuant to the Finally, the President was asked why And his later denials about it under subpoena. And as Ms. Lewinsky testi- he would have called Ms. Currie into oath were perjurious. fied, she never questioned, as she said, his office a few days after the Sunday Next, the President gave perjurious, ‘‘that we were ever going to do any- meeting and repeated the statements false and misleading testimony before thing but keep this quiet.’’ about Ms. Lewinsky to her. the grand jury when he denied he was This meant that they would take, in The President testified that although engaged in a plot to hide evidence that her words, ‘‘whatever steps needed to he would not dispute Ms. Currie’s testi- had been subpoenaed in the Paula be taken’’ to keep it quiet. mony to the contrary, he did not re- Jones case. By giving more gifts to Monica member having a second conversation On December 19, 1997, Monica Lewinsky after she received a subpoena with her along these lines. Lewinsky was served with a subpoena to appear in the Jones case, the Presi- Thus, the president referred to Ms. in the Paula Jones case. dent believed that Monica Lewinsky Currie many times in his deposition The subpoena required her to testify would never testify truthfully about when describing his relationship with at a deposition in January, and the their relationship. Ms. Lewinsky. subpoena required her to produce each Additionally, Ms. Lewinsky said she He himself admitted that a large and every gift President Clinton had could not answer why the President number of questions about Ms. given her. would give her more gifts on the 28th Lewinsky were likely to be asked in Nine days after she received this sub- when he knew she had to produce gifts the very near future. poena, Ms. Lewinsky met with the in response to the subpoena. She did The President reasonably could fore- President for about 45 minutes in the testify, however, that—— see that Ms. Currie either might be de- Oval Office. To me it was never a question in my mind posed or questioned, or might need to By this time, President Clinton knew and I—from everything he said to me, I never prepare an affidavit. that she had been subpoenaed in the questioned him, that we were never going to When he testified he was only mak- case. do anything but keep this private, so that ing statements to Ms. Currie to ‘‘ascer- At this meeting they discussed the meant deny it and that meant do—take tain what the facts were, trying to as- whatever appropriate steps needed to be fact that the gifts that he had given taken, you know, for that to happen. . . . So certain what Betty’s perception was,’’ Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed, by turning over these gifts, it would at least this statement was false, and it was including a hat pin—the first gift the prompt [the Jones attorneys] to question me perjurious. president had ever given Ms. Lewinsky. about what kind of friendship I had with the We know it was perjury, because the Monica Lewinsky testified that at President. . . . President called Ms. Currie into the some point in this meeting she said to After this meeting on the morning of White House the day after his deposi- the President, December 28, Betty Currie called tion to tell her—not ask her, to tell Well, you know, I—maybe I should put the Monica Lewinsky and made arrange- her—that gifts away outside my house somewhere or ments to pick up gifts the President he was never alone with Ms. Lewinsky; give them to someone, maybe Betty. had given to Ms. Lewinsky. to tell her that Ms. Currie could always And he sort of said—I think he responded, Monica Lewinsky testified under hear or see them ‘‘I don’t know’’ or ‘‘Let me think about oath before the grand jury that a few that.’’ And left that topic. and to tell her that he never touched Ms. hours after meeting with the President Lewinsky. President Clinton provided the fol- on December 28, 1997, where they dis- These were false statements, and he lowing explanation to the grand jury cussed what to do about the gifts he knew that the statements were false at and to the House Judiciary Committee gave to her, Betty Currie called Monica the time he made them to Betty regarding this conversation: Lewinsky. Currie. Ms. Lewinsky said something to me like, Monica Lewinsky explained it to the The President’s suggestion that he ‘‘what if they ask me about the gifts you’ve grand jury as follows: given me,’’ but I do not know whether that was simply trying to refresh his mem- Question: What did [Betty Currie] say? ory when talking to Betty Currie is conversation occurred on December 28, 1997, Answer: She said, ‘‘I understand you have nonsense. or earlier. something to give me.’’ Or, ‘‘The President Whenever this conversation occurred, I tes- What if Ms. Currie had confirmed said you have something to give me.’’ Along tified, I told her ‘‘that if they [the Jones those lines. . . . these statements—statements the Lawyers] asked her for gifts, she’d have to president knew were false? It could not Question: When she said something along give them whatever she had. . . .’’ the lines of ‘‘I understand you have some- in any way remind the President of I simply was not concerned about the fact thing to give me,’’ or ‘‘The President says what really happened in the Oval Office that I had given her gifts. Indeed, I gave her you have something for me,’’ what did you with Monica Lewinsky because the additional gifts on December 28, 1997. understand her to mean? President already knew he was alone The President’s statement that he Answer: The gifts. with Monica Lewinsky. The President told Ms. Lewinsky that if the attor- Later in the day on December 28, Ms. already knew that obviously Ms. Currie neys for Paula Jones asked for the Currie drove to Monica Lewinsky’s could not always see him back in the gifts, then she had to provide them, is home. Oval Office area with Monica perjurious. Ms. Lewinsky gave Ms. Currie a Lewinsky. And the President already It strains all logic to believe the sealed box that contained several gifts knew that he had an intimate sexual President would encourage Monica Ms. Lewinsky had received from the relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Lewinsky to turn over the gifts. To do President, including the hat pin that There is no logical way to justify his so would have raised questions about was specifically named in the Jones claim that he made these statements their relationship and would go against subpoena. to Ms. Currie to refresh his recollec- all of their other efforts to conceal the As further corroboration, Monica tion. relationship, including filing a false af- Lewinsky had told the FBI earlier that The only reasonable inference from fidavit about their relationship. The when Betty Currie called her about the President’s conduct is that he tried fact that the President gave Monica these gifts, it sounded like Betty to enlist a potential witness to back up Lewinsky additional gifts on December Currie was calling on her cell phone. January 14, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S251 Ms. Lewinsky gave her best guess on didn’t want to do anything to complicate the witnesses and place them all under the time of day the call came on De- this matter further. So, I said things that oath. If the witnesses can make the cember 28. were true. They may have been misleading, case against the President, if the wit- Although Ms. Lewinsky’s guess on and if they were, I have to take responsibil- ity for it, and I’m sorry. nesses that make the case against the the hour the call came was a bit off, President who, incidentally, are his The President’s testimony that day phone records were later produced re- employees, his top aides, his former in- that he said things that were true to vealing that Betty Currie in fact called terns, and his close friends—if all of his aides is clearly perjurious. Just as Monica Lewinsky on her cell phone, these people in the President’s universe the President predicted, several of the just as Ms. Lewinsky had described it. are lying, then the President has been President’s top aides were later called The only logical conclusion is that done a grave disservice. He deserves to testify before the grand jury as to Betty Currie called Monica Lewinsky not just an acquittal, he deserves the what the President told them. And about retrieving the President’s gifts. most profound of apologies. when they testified before the grand There would have been no reason for But, if they are not lying, if the evi- jury they passed along the President’s Betty Currie, out of the blue, to return false account, just as the President in- dence is true, if the Chief Executive Of- gifts unless instructed to do so by the tended them to do. ficer of our Nation used his power and President. Betty Currie didn’t know I will not belabor the point any fur- his influence to corruptly destroy a about the gift issue ahead of time. Only ther with the Members of this body be- lone woman’s right to bring forth her the President and Monica Lewinsky cause I think Mr. Manager HUTCHINSON case in a court of law, then there must had discussed it. There is no other way ably presented that testimony. be constitutional accountability, and Ms. Currie could have known to call But we know from the evidence that by that I mean the kind of accountabil- Monica Lewinsky about the gifts un- Erskine Bowles, John Podesta, Sidney ity the framers of the Constitution in- less the President told her to do it. Blumenthal, all came before the grand tended for such conduct and not the President Clinton perjured himself jury. They all provided testimony to type of accountability that satisfies when he testified before the grand jury the grand jury establishing that the the temporary mood of the moment. on this issue and reiterated to the President’s comments to them were Our Founders bequeathed to us a Na- House Judiciary Committee that he did the truth. The President had them go tion of laws, not of polls, not of focus not recall any conversation with Ms. in. The President gave them that infor- groups, and not of talk show habitues. Currie around December 28. He also mation so false information would be America is strong enough to absorb the perjured himself when he testified be- shared with the grand jury so that the truth about their leaders when those fore the grand jury that he did not tell grand jury would never be armed with leaders act in a manner destructive to Betty Currie to take possession of the the truth. And when witnesses are their oath of office. God help our coun- gifts that he had given Ms. Lewinsky. called to come before this body, you try’s future if we ever decide otherwise. Question to the President: will have an opportunity to make that The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chair rec- After you gave her the gifts on December determination. ognizes the majority leader. 28th, did you speak with your secretary, Ms. Mr. Chief Justice and Members of the ADJOURNMENT Currie, and ask her to pick up a box of gifts United States Senate, posterity looks Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask that were some compilation of gifts that Ms. to this body to defend in a courageous unanimous consent that the court Lewinsky would have—— way the public trust and take care that Answer: No, sir, I didn’t do that. stand in adjournment until 1 p.m. to- Question: —to give to Ms. Currie? the basis of our Government is not un- morrow, and that all Members remain Answer: I did not do that. dermined. On January 17, 1998, Presi- standing at their desks as the Chief dent Clinton, while a defendant in a The President had a motive to con- Justice departs the Chamber. I further civil rights sexual harassment lawsuit, ceal the gifts because both he and Ms. ask that after the court adjourns in a gave sworn testimony in a deposition Lewinsky were concerned that the gifts moment, the Senate will, while in leg- presided over by a Federal judge. In might raise questions about their rela- islative session, stand in recess subject this deposition he raised his hand and tionship. By confirming that the gifts to the call of the Chair. he swore to tell the truth, the whole would not be produced, the President The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objec- truth and nothing but the truth. ensured that these questions would tion, it is so ordered. On August 17th, President Clinton Thereupon, at 6:59 p.m., the Senate, never arise. The concealment of these testified before a Federal grand jury in gifts from Paula Jones’ attorneys al- sitting as a Court of Impeachment, ad- a criminal investigation. At this ap- journed. lowed the President to provide perjuri- pearance he raised his hand and he f ous statements about the gifts at his swore to tell the truth, the whole deposition in the Jones case. truth, and nothing but the truth. The LEGISLATIVE SESSION Finally, the President gave perjuri- evidence conclusively shows that the ous testimony to the grand jury con- President rejected his obligations cerning statements he gave to his top under oath on both occasions. He en- RECESS SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF aides regarding his relationship with gaged in a serial pattern of perjury and THE CHAIR Monica Lewinsky. Here is a portion of obstruction of justice. These corrupt Thereupon, at 6:59 p.m., the Senate his grand jury transcript, when the acts were done so he could deny a U.S. recessed subject to the call of the President testified about his conversa- citizen, Mrs. Paula Jones, her constitu- Chair. tion with key aides, once the Monica tional right to bring her claim against The Senate reassembled at 7:01 p.m., Lewinsky story became public. him in a court of law. In so doing, he when called to order by the Presiding Question to the President: intentionally violated his oath of of- Officer (Mr. SESSIONS). Question: Did you deny to them or not, Mr. fice, his constitutional duty to take f President? care that the laws be faithfully exe- Answer: . . . I did not want to mislead my ORDER FOR PRINTING OF cuted, and his solemn obligation to re- friends, but I want to define language where APPOINTMENTS I can say that. I also, frankly, do not want to spect Mrs. Jones’ rights by providing turn any of them into witnesses because I— truthful testimony under oath. Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unan- and sure enough, they all became witnesses. The evidence reviewed by the House imous consent that the appointments Question: Well, you knew they might be of Representatives and relied upon by that are now at the desk, which were witnesses, didn’t you? our body in bringing articles of im- made pursuant to law during the sine Answer: And so I said to them things that peachment against the President was die adjournment of the Senate, be were true about this relationship. That I not political. It was overwhelming. He printed in the RECORD. used—in the language I used, I said, there is The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without nothing go[ing] on between us. That was has denied all allegations set forth in true. I said, I have not had sex with her as I these articles. Who is telling the truth? objection, it is so ordered. defined it. That was true. And did I hope that There is only one way to find out. The appointments are as follows: I would never have to be here on this day On behalf of the House of Representa- To the Twenty-First Century Workforce giving this testimony? Of course. But I also tives, we urge this body to bring forth Commission, pursuant to Public Law 105–220,