Investigating the President
The Michigan Daily -- Monday, September 14, 1998 - 9A
*ants, and then I unzipped them because it
was easier. And I didn't have any panties on.
And so he manually stimulated me."
According to Ms. Lewinsky, "I wanted him
to touch my genitals with his genitals," and
he did so, lightly and without penetration.
Then Ms. Lewinsky performed oral sex on
him, again until he ejaculated ... He told her
that he suspected that a foreign embassy...
was tapping his telephones, and he proposed
cover stories. If ever questioned, she should
Waythat the two of them were just friends. If
anyone ever asked about their phone sex,
she should say that they knew their calls
were being monitored all along, and the
phone sex was just a put-on.
In his grand jury testimony, the President
implicitly denied this encounter. He
acknowledged ... "inappropriate intimate
contact" with Ms. Lewinsky "on certain
occasions in early 1996 and once in early
1997..."
On Saturday, May 24, 1997, according to
Ss. Lewinsky, the President ended their
intimate relationship...
Earlier in his marriage, he told her, he had
had hundreds of affairs; but since turning
40, he had made a concerted effort to be
faithful.
June-October 1997:
Continuing Meetings and Calls
Ms. Lewinsky tried to return to the White
House staff and to revive her sexual rela-
onship with the President, but she failed at
th:.-
According to Betty Currie, the President
instructed her and Marsha Scott to help Ms.
Lewinsky find a White House job. Ms.
Currie testified that she resisted the request,
because her opinion of Ms. Lewinsky had
shifted over time,..
According to Ms. Lewinsky, the
President told her to talk with Ms. Scott
about a White House job in spring 1997. On
June 16, she met with Ms. Scott. The meet-
'g did not go as Ms. Lewinsky anticipated
Ms. Lewinsky ... drafted a note to the
President pleading for a brief meeting the
following Tuesday. Referring to her inability
to get in touch with him, she wrote: "Please
do not do this to me. I feel disposable, used
and insignificant...
"[V]ery frustrated" over her inability to
get in touch with the President to discuss her
job situation, Ms. Lewinsky wrote him a
Wevish letter on July 3, 1997... Ms.
ewinsky also raised the possibility of a job
outside Washington...
On Friday, July 4, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky
had what she characterized as a "very emo-
tional" visit with the President ... The
President was "the most affectionate with
me he'd ever been," Ms. Lewinsky testified.
He stroked her arm, toyed with her hair,
kissed her on the neck, praised her intellect
and beauty. In Ms. Lewinsky's recollection:
"[Hie remarked ... that he
'shed he had more time forn
me. And soI said, well, maybe
you will have more time in repro
three years. And I was ...
thinking just when he wasn't
President, he was going to I
have more time on his hands. th
And he said, well, I don't
know, I might be alone in three ili AE
years. And then I said some-
ing about ... us sort of being lIll W
gether. I think I kind of said,
oh, I think we'd be a good team, or some-
thing like that. And he . . . jokingly said,
well, what are we going to do when I'm 75
and I have to pee 25 times a day? And ... I
told him that we'd deal with that..."
Ms. Lewinsky testified that "I left that
day sort of emotionally stunned," for "I just
knew he was in love with me"
Ms. Lewinsky testified that she brought
birthday gifts for the President...
I had set up in his back office ... I asked
4; . .. if we could share a birthday kiss in
honor of our birthdays ... So, he said that
that was okay...
Ms. Lewinsky touched the President's
genitals through his pants and moved to per-
form oral sex, but the President rebuffed
her.In her recollection: "[H]e said, I'm try-
ing not to do this and I'm trying to be good
... [H]e got visibly upset. And so ... I
hugged him and I told him I was sorry and
t to be upset...
On October 6, 1997, according to Ms.
Lewinsky, she was told that she would never
work at the White House again. Ms. Tripp
conveyed the news, which she indicated had
come from a friend on the White House
staff...
When terminating their sexual relation-
ship on May 24, the President had told Ms.
Lewinsky that he hoped they would remain
friends, for he could do a great deal for her.
Now, having learned that he could not .., get
a White House job, Ms. Lewinsky decid-
to ask him for a job in New York, perhaps
at the United Nations ...
Having learned that she would not be able
to return to the White House, Ms. Lewinsky
sought the President's help in finding a job
in New York City. The President offered to
place her at the United Nations. After initial
enthusiasm, Ms. Lewinsky cooled on the
idea of working at the U.N., and she prodded
the President to get her a job in the private
*tor.
According to Ms. Lewinsky, the
President telephoned her at approximately
2:00 to 2:30 a.m...
According to Ms. Lewinsky, the
President said: "If I had known what kind of
person you really were, I wouldn't have got-
ten involved with you." He reminded Ms.
lJ
I
I
0
Id
Ms.Lewinsky told the President that.she
wanted to pursue jobs in the private sector
... Ms. Lewinsky asked the President
whether Vernon Jordan, a well-known
Washington attorney who she knew was a
close friend of the President and had many
business contacts, might help her find a job.
According to Ms. Lewinsky, the President
was receptive to the idea...
On December 18, Ms. Lewinsky had two
job interviews in New York City...
Ms. Lewinsky testified that in the early-
morning hours of December 17, at roughly
2:00 or 2:30 a.m., she received a call from
the President...
Ms. Lewinsky's name had appeared on
the witness list in the Jones case... President
told her that she would not necessarily be
subpoenaed; if she were, he "suggested she
could sign an affidavit to try to satisfy [Ms.
Jones's] inquiry and not be deposed."
... He also reviewed one of their estab-
lished cover stories. He told Ms. Lewinsky
that she "should say she visited the [White
House] to see Ms. Currie and, on occasion
when working at the [White House], she
brought him letters when no one else was
around." The President's advice "was ...
instantly familiar to [Ms. Lewinsky]..."
In his grand jury appear-
ance, the President was
sents questioned about the
antlal December 17 phone call. He
testified that, although he
1dbe could not rule it out, he did
not remember such a call...
May But when asked whether
Wldte he ever said anything along
ds for these lines after Ms.
to Lewinsky had been identi-
himeWt. fied on the witness list, the
President answered: "I don't
recall whether I might have done something
like that..." Nonetheless, he testified, in the
context of the Jones case, "I never asked her
to lie:'
At some point, according to Mr. Jordan,
Ms. Lewinsky asked him about the future of
the Clintons' marriage. Because Ms.
Lewinsky seemed "mesmerized" by
President Clinton, he "asked her directly had
there been any sexual relationship between
[her] and the President..." Ms. Lewinsky
said she had not had a sexual relationship
with the President.
Ms. Lewinsky testified, however, that at
this time she assumed that Mr. Jordan knew
"with a wink and a nod that [she] was hav-
ing a relationship with the President..."
That evening, Mr. Jordan visited the
President at the White House. According to
Mr. Jordan, the two met alone in the
Residence...
Mr. Jordan asked the President "[t]he one
question that I wanted answered" That ques-
tion was, "Mr. President, have you had sex-
ual relations with Monica Lewinsky?" The
President told Mr. Jordan, "No, never..."
January 8, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky inter-
viewed in New York with Jaymie Durnan,
Senior Vice President and Special Assistant
to the Chairman at MacAndrews & Forbes
Holdings, Inc ... Ms. Lewinsky called Mr.
Jordan and reported that she felt that the
interview had gone "very poorly." Mr.
Jordan indicated in response that "he'd call
the chairman...
Ms. Lewinsky testified that the inter-
views went well and that Ms. Seidman
called her back that day and "informally
offered [her] a position, and [she] informal-
ly accepted."
Ms. Lewinsky then called Mr. Jordan and
relayed the good news
... Mr. Jordan testified that he also told
the President directly that,
"'Monica Lewinsky's going to work for
Revlon,' and his response was, 'Thank you
very much."'
Summary
In this case, the President made and
caused to be made false statements to the
American people about his relationship with
On May 31, 1998, the
spokesman for Independent
Counsel Kenneth W. Starr
declared that the Office's
Monica Lewinsky investiga-
tion "is not about sex. This
case is about perjury, subor-
nation of perjury, witness
tampering, obstruction of
justice. That is what this case
is about."
Now that the 450-page Referral to the
United States House of Representatives
Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code
595(c) (the "Referral") is public, it is plain
that "sex" is precisely what this four-and-a-
half year investigation has boiled down to.
The Referral is so loaded with irrelevant and
unnecessary graphic and salacious allega-
tions that only one conclusion is possible: its
principal purpose is to damage the
President.
The President has acknowledged and
apologized for an inappropriate sexual rela-
tionship with Ms. Lewinsky, so there is no
need to describe that relationship in ugly
detail. No one denies that the relationship
'was wrong or that the President was respon-
sible. The Referral's pious defense of its
pornographic specificity is that, in the
Independent Counsel's view: "the details are
crucial to an informed evaluation of the tes-
timony, the credibility of witnesses, and the
reliability of other evidence. Many of the
details reveal highly personal information;
many are sexually explicit. This is unfortu-
nate, but it is essential."
This statement is patently false. Any fair
reader of the Referral will easily discern that
many of the lurid allegations, which need
not be recounted here, have no justification
at all, even in terms of any OIC legal theory.
They plainly do not relate, even arguably, to
activities, which may be within the defini-
tion of "sexual relations" in the President's
Jones deposition, which is the excuse
advanced by the OIC. They are simply part
of a hit-and-run smear campaign, and their
inclusion says volumes about the OIC's tac-
tics and objectives.
Review of a prosecutor's case necessarily
starts with an analysis of the charges, and
that is what we offer here. This is necessari-
ly a very preliminary response, offered on
the basis of less than a day's analysis and
without any access to the factual materials
cited in the Referral.
Spectacularly absent from the Referral is
any discussion of contradictory or exculpa-
tory evidence or any evidence that would
cast doubt on the credibility of the testimo-
ny the OIC cites (but does not explicitly
quote). This is a failure of fundamental fair-
ness which is highly prejudicial to the
President and it is reason alone to withhold
judgment on the Referral's allegations until
all the prosecutors' evidence can be scruti-
nized and then challenged, as necessary, by
evidence from the President.
The real critique can occur only with
access to the materials on which the prose-
cutors have ostensibly relied. Only at that
time can contradictory evidence be identi-
fied and the context and consistency (or lack
thereof) of the cited evidence be ascertained.
Since we have not been given access to the
transcripts and other materials compiled by
the OIC, our inquiry is therefore necessarily
limited. But even with this limited access,
our preliminary review reaffirms how little
this highly intrusive and disruptive investi-
gation has in fact yielded. In instance after
instance, the OIC's allegations fail to with-
stand scrutiny either as a factual matter, or a
legal matter, or both. The Referral quickly
emerges as a portrait of biased recounting,
skewed analysis, and unconscionable over-
reaching.
In our Preliminary Memorandum, filed
yesterday, at pages 3-12, we set forth at
some length the various ways in which
impeachable "high Crimes and
Misdemeanors" have been defined. Nothing
HOUSE
and "such crimes as would so stain a presi- menced.
dent as to make his continuance in office out a prin
dangerous to the public order," constitute can pos
impeachable offenses. The eleven supposed impeachr
"grounds for impeachment" set forth in the I. The
section of the Referral called "Acts That testified<
May Constitute Grounds for an sex to be
Impeachment" ("Acts") fall far short of that definitior
high standard, and their very allegation Jones dep
demeans the constitutional process. The first alle
document is at bottom overreaching in an affair" an
extravagant effort to find a case where there ently am
is none... definition
jury. The
Allegations of Perjury in Jones about wh
Deposition Not cont
We begin our response to the OIC's OIC mak
charge that the President committed perjury unsuppor
in his January 17 deposition in the Jones mitted pe
case with these simple facts: the President's not abou
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky was wrong; about th
he admitted it was wrong; and he has asked OIC then
for the forgiveness of his family and the as perjur
American people. The perjury charges in the understan
Referral in reality serve one principal pur- "sexual r
pose for the OIC to provide an opportunity ified by t
to lay out in a public forum as much sala- 2. The
cious, gratuitous detail as possible with the President
goal of damaging the President and the pres- dicted M
idency... on the q
The OIC begins its catalogue of "acts that Lewinsky
may constitute grounds for impeachment" sexual ac
with the allegation that "[t]here is substantial the alleg
and credible information that President supra, an
Clinton lied under oath as a defendant in same rea!
Jones v. Clinton regarding his sexual rela- whether t
tionship with Monica Lewinsky." The OIC Ms. Lewi
contends that, for legal reasons, it must dis- evidence
cuss its allegations of sexual activity in intention
detail and then goes out of its way to supply worthwhi
lurid detail after lurid detail that are com-
pletely irrelevant to any legal claim, obvi-
ously hoping that the shock value of its foot-]
notes will overcome the absence of legal
foundation for the perjury allegation. S
In reaching any fair judgment as to thea
merits of the OC's claim that the President's P
testimony establishes a basis for impeach- Pa
ment, it is important to understand a few For t
additional points. First, the OIC barely tion,
acknowledges the elements of perjury, al rel
including, in particular, the substantial bur- know
den that must be met to show that the alleged (1)
false statements were made "knowingly," or anus,
that they were material to the Jones proceed- thigh
ing.
Second, the OIC ignores the careful stan- perso
dards that the courts have mandated to pre- (2) c
vent the misuse of perjury allegations. As the p
was set out in detail in our Preliminary and t
Memorandum, pages 51-64, literally true anoth
statements cannot be the basis for a perjury (3) c
prosecution, even if a witness intends to genit
mislead the questioner. Likewise, answers to and a
inherently ambiguous questions cannot con- body.
stitute perjury. And, normally, a perjury "Con
prosecution may not rest on the testimony of touch
a single witness. throu
Third, by selectively presenting the facts
and failing to set out the full context of the
answers that it claims may have been perju- of the OI
rious, the OIC has presented a wholly mis- contentio
leading picture. This tactic is most pro- memory
nounced in the OIC's astonishing failure to their phys
set out the initial definition of "sexual rela- 3. The
tions" presented by the Jones lawyers at the Presid
President Clinton's deposition, two parts of grand jur
which were eliminated by Judge Wright as ning of hi
being "too broad" The OIC also fails to Whereas
mention that the Jones lawyers were fully President
able, and indeed were invited by President ship begi
Clinton's counsel, to ask the President spe- has appa
cific questions about his sexual encounters, Novembe
but they chose not do so. this claim
The OIC argues that oral sex falls within by the Pr
the definition of sexual relations and that the relationsh
President therefore lied when he said he no concei
denied having sexual relations. It is, howev- by the Pn
er, the President's good faith and reasonable (within af
interpretation that oral sex was outside the of his rela
special definition of sexual relations provid-' possibly h
ed to him. The OIC simply asserts that it dis- the OIC h
agrees with the President's "linguistic pars- grand jury
ing," and that reasonable people would not ny. The Pr
have agreed with him. This simply is not the jury hisi
stuff of which criminal prosecutions and early in 1
surely impeachment proceedings are made. testimony
What is left, then, is a disagreement about tionship I
the very specific details of certain encoun- enced theg
ters that the President has acknowledged function.T
were improper the very "oath against oath" allege peri
that the law and experience reject as a basis terial stat
for a prosecution, because a perjury convic- overreach
tion cannot rest on simple inconsistencies
and memory disparities between only two Alleg
witnesses...
Instead of acknowledging the well-settled In its thi
legal limits on perjury cases, or grappling ious claim
with the important limitations on perjury Clinton's
prosecutions, the OIC has chosen to fill its regarding
report with unnecessary and salacious sex Ms. Lewii
- details that cause pain and damage for adjacent h
absolutely no legitimate reason. Lewinsky
other perj
Allegations of Perjury in Grand offer a cre
Jury Testimony First an
In its second allegation, the OIC contends not deny i
that "[t]here is substantial and credible infor- at the W
mation that President Clinton lied under exchanged
oath to the grand jury about his sexual rela- plaint is &h
WHITE.
RESPONSE
None of these "allegations" makes
ma facie case of perjury, and none
sibly constitute a "ground" for
nent.
OIC first claims that the President
falsely that he did not believe oral
covered by any of the terms and
is for sexual activity used at the
osition. As noted in response to the
gation, supra, the terms "sexual
id "sexual relationship" are inher-
biguous and, when used without
a, cannot possibly amount to per-
President testified to the grand jury
at he believed those terms mean.
ent to accept his explanation, the
es the extraordinary (and factually
ted) claim that the President com-
rjury before the grand jury by lying
t some fact but about his belief
e meaning of certain words. The
compounds this error by claiming
y the President's explanation of his
ding of the contorted definition of
elations" in the Jones suit, as mod-
he court ...
OIC's next charge - that the
testified falsely when he contra-
s. Lewinsky's grand jury testimony
uestion whether he touched Ms.
's breasts or genitalia during their
tivity - is substantially identical to
ation contained in Allegation I,
d cannot constitute perjury for the
son. The critical issue here is not
he testimony of the President and
nsky differ but whether there is any
that the President knowingly and
ally gave false testimony. It is
le to note, however, the inaccuracy
Definition of
xual relations
s set forth in
ula Jones case
e purposes of this deposi-
a person engages in "sexu-
ations" when the person
ingly engages in or causes
ontact with the genitalia,
groin, breast, inner
,or buttocks of any person
an intent to arouse or
y the sexual desire of any
n;
ontact between any part of
erson's body or an object
he genitals and anus of
er person; or
ontact between the
als or anus of the person
my part of another person's
tact" means intentional
ing, either directly or
gh clothing.
C's assertion that "[t]here can be no
n that one of them has a lack of
or is mistaken" about the details of
ical relationship.
OIC's final allegation here is that
lent made a false statement to the
y regarding the timing of the begin-
s relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
the Referral indicates that the
remembers the improper relation-
mning early in 1996, Ms. Lewinsky
rently testified that it began
r 15, 1995. As a legal allegation
is frivolous, because the statement
esident regarding the timing of the
ip (mid-November 1995). There is
vable way in which any statement
resident with regard to the date
few weeks) of the commencement
tionship with Ms. Lewinsky could
ave influenced the grand jury, and
as of course not identified how the
was "influenced" by this testimo-
esident acknowledged to the grand
improper relationship, beginning
996, with Ms. Lewinsky, and his
regarding the date that the rela-
began cannot possibly have influ-
grand jury in any decision-making
The mere fact that the OIC would
jury as a result of an utterly imma-
ement speaks volumes about the
ing in the Referral...
gations of Gift Exchanges
and Meetings
ird allegation, the OIC makes var-
ms of perjury based on President
statements in the Jones deposition
whether he had been alone with
nsky in the Oval Office and in an
hallway and whether he and Ms.
had exchanged gifts. Like the
ury allegations, the OIC fails to
dible case.
d foremost, President Clinton did
meeting alone with Ms. Lewinsky
hite House nor deny that they
d gifts. In essence, the OIC's com-
hat President Clinton was not more
Discussions with Lewinsky
About Potential Testimony
The Referral claims that in the following
exchange in President Clinton's January 17
deposition in the Jones case he committed
perjury:
Q: Have you ever talked to Ms. Lewinsky
about the possibility that she might be asked
to testify in this lawsuit?
A: I'm not sure and let me tell you why
I'm not sure. It seems to me that I want to be
as accurate as I can here. Seems to me the
last time she was there to see Betty before
Christmas we were joking about how you-
all, with the help of the Rutherford Institute,
were going to call every woman I'd ever
talked to and ... ask them that, and so I said
you would qualify, or something like that. I
don't, I don't think we ever had more of a
conversation than that about it, because
when I saw how long the witness list was, or
I heard about it, before I saw, but actually by
the time I saw her name was on it, but I think
that was after all this happened. I might have
said something like that, so I don't want to
say for sure I didn't because I might have
said something like that.
Q: What, if anything, did Monica
Lewinsky say in response?
A: Nothing, that I remember. Whatever
she said, I don't remember. Probably just
some predictable thing.
This answer was literally accurate. The
President described a joking conversation
that he had with many women about the pos-
sibility that they might be subpoenaed by the
Jones lawyers. He made clear that the recol-
lection of the conversation with Ms.
Lewinsky preceded the appearance of Ms.
Lewinsky's name on the witness list (on
December 5), saying: "by the time I saw [the
witness list on December 6] her name was
on it, but I think that was after all this had
happened" The President also stated three
different times in that one answer that he
was not certain as to his recollection, saying,
"I'm not sure,""I don't think," and "I might
have said something like that." In his grand
jury testimony, additional details of a
December 28 conversation with Ms.
Lewinsky were provided by the President.
The testimony that the Referral cites is not
inconsistent - his first answer indicating he
was referring to a conversation that occurred
before she had been named a witness, and
his August 17 testimony describing a con-
versation after she had been subpoenaed in
mid-December. The fact that Ms. Lewinsky
recalls additional conversations on the sub-
ject, all occurring after she had been named
on the witness list, does not establish that the
President's answer was inaccurate. This
answer cannot possibly support a perjury
charge...
Allegations of Concealing Gifts
In its fifth allegation, the OIC contends
that President Clinton obstructed justice by
concealing gifts he had given to Ms.
Lewinsky. This claim is wholly unfounded
and simply absurd. On her December 28,
1998 visit, the President gave Ms. Lewinsky
several holiday and going-away gifts. Ms.
Lewinsky apparently testified that, during
the visit, she raised a question about the
Jones subpoena and suggested "put[ting] the
gifts away outside of my house or some-
where or giv[ing] them to someone, maybe
Betty" Acts at 74-75. To this suggestion, the
President, according to Ms. Lewinsky's
reported testimony, responded with some-
thing like, "I don't know" or "Hmmm" or
"there really was no response." President
Clinton contradicts this testimony. But even
if one accepts Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, "I
don't know, "Hmmm" and silence do not
constitute obstruction of justice...
Ultimately, the only theory that does
make sense is the truth, as testified to by the
President and Ms. Currie and as supported
by the fact that the President acknowledged
giving Ms. Lewinsky gifts as early as his
January 17, 1998 deposition. The President
was unconcerned about the gifts he had
given to Ms. Lewinsky because he frequent-
ly exchanges gifts with friends. That is why
he gave her additional gifts on December 28
even though, according to her testimony, he
knew the Jones lawyers were interested in
them. Thus, when she raised a question, he
told Ms. Lewinsky she had to turn over what
she had; they were of no- concern to him.
Nonetheless, in response to Ms. Lewinsky's
subsequent request, Ms. Currie drove to Ms.
Lewinsky's apartment and picked up a box
of gifts from Ms. Lewinsky and held them
for safekeeping. The President did not direct
or encourage Ms. Currie's activities regard-
ing the gifts. He likewise did not obstruct
justice by concealing their existence.
The OIC also argues that the President
obstructed justice in the Jones case by
destroying an intimate note that Ms.
Lewinsky included in a book she left for him
on January 4, 1998. The OIC states in its
Referral that the President was served with a
document request from the Jones lawyers on
December 16, 1997, that required him to
produce this note to the Jones lawyers. The