Perjury
in the Paula Jones
Depostion
ALLEGED LIE
|
IMPEACHMENT ARTICLE
|
EVIDENCE OF GUILT
|
EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE
|
IS IT IMPEACHABLE?
(See Note Below)
|
RATING 1(weak) to10(strong) |
|
Q: . . . At any time were you and
Monica Lewinsky
together alone in the Oval Office?
[videotape shows approximately five-second
pause before answer]
WJC: I don't recall.... I typically worked some on the
weekends. Sometimes they'd bring me things on the
weekends. She -- it seems to me she brought things to
me once or twice on the weekends. In that case,
whatever time she would be in there, drop it off,
exchange a few words and go....
Q: So I understand, your testimony is that it was
possible, then, that you were alone with her, but
you have no specific recollection of that ever
happening?
WJC: Yes, that's correct. It's possible that she, in,
while she was working there, brought something to
me and that at the time she brought it to me, she
was the only person there. That's possible.
|
House Article II,
which failed on a 205-229 vote.
|
Obvious
falsehood. It is inconceivable, given the sexual nature of their
relationship as established by the semen-stained dress, that Clinton
could not recall being alone with Lewinsky. Some of the visits
lasted more than an hour. Clinton generally has a fine memory.
Testimony of
Lewinsky, Currie, and six secret service agents also confirm that
Clinton and Lewinsky spent time together alone.
|
Only a laughably
tortured definition of the word "alone." (One cannot assign
private meanings to words and use an odd definition as a defense to
perjury.)
It is, however, unlikely that he would have been prosecuted for perjury
for this lie even though it is arguably material to the Jones
litigation.
|
Probably not.
The lie is not an attempt to cover up an abuse of presidential
power. It is made in the context of weak civil litigation, and
could be seen to be as much an attempt to protect himself and his
family from the embarrassment that public knowledge of his affair with
a young subordinate would cause as it was an attempt to obstruct
justice in the Jones case. The lie does, after all, concern
sex--and it is human nature that people generally lie about their
sexual activities. The public in general could hardly be said to
be damaged by this lie, and justice for Jones only marginally affected.
|
3 |
|
Q: Did you have an extramarital sexual affair
with
Monica Lewinsky?
WJC: No.
Q: If she told someone that she had a sexual affair
with you beginning in November of 1995, would that
be a lie?
WJC: It's certainly not the truth. It would not be the
truth.
Q: I think I used the term "sexual affair." And so
the record is completely clear, have you ever had
sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that
term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as
modified by the Court?
Mr. Bennett: I object because I don't know that
he can remember-
Judge Wright: Well, it's real short. He can -- I will permit
the question and you may show the witness
definition number one.
WJC: I have never had sexual relations with
Monica
Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her.
|
House Article II,
which failed on a 205-229 vote. |
The term "sexual
relations" was defined: "For the purposes of this deposition, a person
engages
in 'sexual relations' when the person knowingly engages
in or causes . . . contact with the genitalia, anus,
groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person
with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire
of any person. . . . 'Contact' means intentional
touching, either directly or through clothing."
Without question, if Clinton fondled the bare breasts of
Lewinsky, as Lewinksky later testified under oath,
that would be within the definition of "sexual relations."
Overall, Lewinsky's account of being fondled is credible. It
is also noteworthy that the President's lawyers showed no interest in
cross-examining her in a Senate trial, as they might be expected to if
they really thought she was lying.
Oral sex-- which the semen-stained dress proves--would
also be a form of sexual relations since
Clinton--even if completely passive--would have "caused" the
contact of "genitalia" (his) with "an intent to arouse
the sexual desire of any
person" (him).
|
Lewinsky could be
lying about being fondled by the President. She submitted a false
affidavit, lied to Tripp, and told Tripp she'd been lying her whole
life. She also later admitted to fabricating stories, such as her
tale of having lunch with Hillary Clinton on Martha's Vineyard
and her claim to having removed all her clothes while with the
President.
|
Questionable.
Of course, Clinton well understood that
Jones's lawyers, whose
client accused him of asking her to fellate him, would not have drafted
a definition of "sexual relations" which failed to include oral
sex. His answer was not just misleading, but literally
false. The judge in the Jones case thought the questions were
material to the suit and allowed them to be asked over the objections
of the President's lawyers. His lies probably delayed settlement
of Jones's suit.
But much of what was said above is
applicable again here: The lies were made in the context
of weak civil litigation, and
could be seen to be as much an attempt to protect himself and his
family from the embarrassment that public knowledge of his affair with
a young subordinate would cause as they were an attempt to obstruct
justice in the Jones case. |
4
|
|
Q: Well, have you ever given any gifts to Monica
Lewinsky?
WJC: I don't recall. Do you know what they were?
Q: A hat pin?
WJC: I don't, I don't remember. But I certainly,
I could have.
Q: A book about Walt Whitman?
WJC: I give -- let me just say, I give people a
lot of gifts, and when people are around I
give a lot of things I have at the White
House away, so I could have given her a gift,
but I don't remember a specific gift.
|
House Article II,
which failed on a 205-229 vote. |
Three weeks before
the President's deposition, President Clinton gave Ms. Lewinsky a
number of gifts, including a Rockettes blanket, a marble-like bear's
head,
sunglasses, and a stuffed animal wearing a T-shirt from the
Black Dog. Lewinsky produced these gifts for the OIC on July 29,
1998. The evidence also shows that the President
gave Ms. Lewinsky a hat pin on
February 28, 1997. The President and Ms. Lewinsky discussed
the hatpin on December 28, 1997, after Ms. Lewinsky received a
subpoena calling for her to produce all gifts from the President.
Lewinsky testified, "I mentioned that I
had been concerned about the hat pin being on the subpoena and he
said that that had sort of concerned him also and asked me if I
had told anyone that he had given me this hat pin and I said
no." |
While an obvious
lie, Clinton's denial of a recollection of giving gifts to Lewinsky is
only tangentially related to Jones's lawsuit. Giving gifts to a
friend is not illegal, and not even necessarily indicative of a
sexual relationship, much less evidence that
Clinton is the type of person who sexually harrasses
subordinates. As such, the lie (assuming a lapse of memory
is implausible) could be considered immaterial, and therefore not
perjurious.
|
Almost certainly
not, especially standing alone. The lie was only arguably
material to the Jones litigation, and therefore might not be considered
perjury. As with his other lies during the Jones deposition,
Clinton had multiple motives, including the understandable one of
wanting to prevent disclosure to his family of his relationship with
Lewinsky.
|
1
|
Perjury
Before the Grand Jury
ALLEGED LIE
|
IMPEACHMENT ARTICLE
|
EVIDENCE OF GUILT
|
EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE
|
IS IT IMPEACHABLE?
|
RATING (1-10)* |
|
Since it was impossible to argue that the
fondling of breasts was not "sexual relations" as defined in the Jones
case, and the President did not want to concede that he perjured
himself in the previous deposition, he claims not to recollect touching
Lewinsky's breasts:
Q: The question is, if Monica Lewinsky says that
while you were in the Oval Office area you touched
her breasts would she be lying?
A: That is not my recollection. My recollection is
that I did not have sexual relations with
Ms. Lewinsky and I'm staying on my former
statement about that.
Q: If she says that you kissed her breasts, would she
be lying?
A: I'm going to revert to my former statement....
Q: So touching, in your view then and now -- the
person being deposed touching or kissing the
breast of another person would fall within the
definition [of sexual relations]?
A: That's correct, sir.
|
Article I in the
Senate: "William Jefferson Clinton willfully
provided perjurious,
false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning...: (1) the
nature and details of his relationship with a
subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and
misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought
against him...
45 Senators voted to convict on this article; 55 voted to acquit.
|
Lewinsky's testimony about these encounters is
specific. She described nine
incidents of sexual activity in which the President touched and
kissed her breasts.
Also, many of her friends testified that Lewinsky had told them
that the President
had touched her breasts and genitalia during sexual activity. These
statements were made well before the President's grand jury
testimony rendered these details important. Lewinsky
had no motive to lie to these individuals.
In addition, a computer file obtained from Ms. Lewinsky's home
computer contained a draft letter that explicitly refers to
"watching your mouth on my breast.
Finally, the President's "hands-off" scenario
-- in which he would have received oral sex on nine occasions
from Ms. Lewinsky but never made direct contact with Ms.
Lewinsky's breasts or genitalia -- is implausible.--Starr Report
|
It cannot be proven
beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton lied when he
denied touching Lewinsky's breasts. Unlike his implicit denial of
oral sex in the civil deposition, DNA evidence cannot prove
fondling. On the issue of breast fondling, it is a "he said-she
said" and Lewinsky has proven her willingness to lie about the nature
of her relationship with Clinton. (For example, claiming at
one time that she took off all her clothes in the Oval Office, then
denying it later.)
|
Questionable.
There is no question of materiality with respect to these lies before
the grand jury, because they clearly are relevant to the ongoing
investigation of possible crimes. Of course, it is harder to
prove that Clinton lied when he denied touching Lewinsky's breasts than
when he implicitly denied having oral sex, because DNA evidence proves
only that he did the latter.
|
3
|
|
Clinton denied telling his aides actual falsehoods
about the nature of his relationship with Lewinsky, even though aides
reported that he told them that he did not have sex in any
form--specifically including oral sex--with Lewinsky. (Assuming
that Clinton did lie to his aides, this might be--although a
stretch--considered witness tampering.)
|
Article I states
that Clinton lied to the grand jury about "his corrupt efforts to
influence the testimony of witnesses"(which included Curries and
Lewinsky as well as aides).
|
Clinton's aides, who had no
reason to lie about it, reported that he denied having sexual relations
with Lewinsky. He lied--and hoped that these aides would repeat
these lies, as well as (in some cases) their attacks on the integrity
of OIC.
|
Lies, almost
certainly, but not really material. This is not witness tampering
because Clinton never actually told
any of his aides to repeat these lies.
|
No. The lies
concern a matter of small legal importance. Clinton had more compelling
reasons to lie to his aides than to influence their possible testimony,
which would in any event have been hearsay with little probative value
on the question of his perjury concerning the nature of his
relationship with Lewinsky.
|
1
|
Improperly Influencing
Witnesses
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF LAW
|
IMPEACHMENT ARTICLE
|
EVIDENCE OF GUILT
|
EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE
|
IS IT IMPEACHABLE?
|
RATING (1-10)* |
The day after his
deposition in the Jones case, Clinton discussed his relationship with
Lewinsky with his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the Oval
Office. According to Currie's testimony, Clinton said, among
other things, "We were never really alone," "You could see and hear
everything," "Monica came on to me and I never touched her, right?,"
and "She wanted to have sex with me and I can't do that." These
statements could easily be seen as an attempt to make sure any future
testimony by Currie squared with Clinton's. The first two
statements above were plainly false. The other statements were
not really questions because Currie was in no position to answer them.
|
Part of
Article II in the Senate: "On or about January 18 and
January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and
misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action
brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order
to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness." 50
Senators voted to convict on this article; 50 voted to acquit. |
In his testimony
in the Jones case, Clinton made several references to
Currie as Lewinksy's close friend, almost inviting the lawyers
for Jones to depose her. This suggests that in his conversation
with Currie the next day he was focused on preparing her to testify
falsely, should she be added to the deposition list in the Jones
case. It is also possible (but not proven) that Clinton had a
second conversation along the lines of his first after he learned that
the OIC was investigating his possible perjury in his Jones
deposition.
|
Clinton argued that
in this discussion he was merely trying to refresh his recollection of
the details of his affair, and that at the time he did
not believe Currie would be called as a witness--or even that a grand
jury investigation was under way. Clinton had reason to expect
the press would soon be hounding Currie, and he could have been focused
on avoiding embarrassment more than securing false testimony.
|
Questionable.
Clinton probaby had dual motives for wanting Currie to lie. This might
be enough to make out a case of witness tampering. Of course, a
crime is not necessarily "a high crime or misdemeanor" within the
meaning of the Constitution's impeachment provisions, and there
is considerable merit to the argument that what Clinton did says little
about his willingness to abuse his position as President to the
detriment of the nation, the biggest concern of the framers.
People sometimes resort to drastic (even illegal) means to protect
their marriages and damage to their careers. What Clinton
did shows a lack of character, to be sure, but is it impeachable?
|
4
|
|
Clinton asked his friend, Vernon Jordan, to help
find Lewinsky a job. Just two days after Lewinsky signed her
false affidavit in the Jones case on January 7, 1998, Revlon--acting on
Jordan's request--offered Lewinsky a job. This might be seen as a
payback for Lewinsky's perjured testimony.
|
Part of Article II
in the Senate:
"Clinton...succeeded in an effort
to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action
brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful
testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the
truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him." 50 Senators voted to convict on this charge; 50 voted to
acquit. |
The timing of Jordan's call to
his friend at Revlon, falling so closely after the date that Lewinsky
signed her false affidavit, seems suspicious. Clinton
closely followed Jordan's efforts and it is interesting that Jordan
referred Lewinsky to a criminal, not a civil, lawyer
to help her draft her affidavit in a civil case.
|
Helping a friend
land a job is not by itself a crime. It is
clear that Clinton asked Jordan to help Lewinsky in her job hunt well
before he had any reason to suspect that his relationship with her
would come to public attention. He had a personal
reason--unrelated to her testimony-- for helping Lewinsky,
and that was minimizing the risk to his marriage and his
political career.
|
No. This is
one of the weakest allegations, since there is no way of proving that
the illegal motive of influencing her testimony prevailed over the
other motive of avoiding personal and political embarrassment.
Lewinsky, to Clinton, was a pest and he'd rather have her off in New
York. Also, the Jones case seemed weak and it is unlikely that Clinton
would be overly focused on influencing testimony that was quite
tangential to the merits of the case. Besides, Lewinsky--
even without the President's job-hunting assistance--had no
desire to tell the truth in her Jones affidavit.
|
1
|
Betty Currie
visited Lewinsky's home and collected gifts given to her by the
President, which she then stored under her bed in her own home.
It seems likely that Currie would not have taken this action without
Clinton asking her to do so, and if he did--in an attempt to avoid
having the gifts obtained by the Office of Independent Counsel through
a subpoena--it could be seen as an attempt to hide evidence, and thus
obstruct justice.
|
Part of Article II
in the Senate:
"On or about December 28,
1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or
supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a
Federal civil rights action brought against him." 50 Senators voted to convict on this charge; 50 voted to
acquit. |
Currie's testimony
that Lewinsky initiated the gift gathering seems much less credible
than Lewinsky's version. Currie's testimony seems in many
respects an effort to protect the President and--in some respects--is
very hard to believe, as when she denied ever suspecting that Clinton
and Lewinsky had a physical relationship. Currie in fact admitted
that it was possible that Lewinsky had a better memory about the gift
gathering incident than she did.
|
In telling Lewinsky
that her gifts could be subpoenaed, the President was merely supplying
accurate legal information. If Lewinsky, acting on this
information, decided to call Currie for help (Currie's testimony
is that the call came from Monica), then Clinton committed no
crime. Also, it seems odd that Clinton would have given gifts to
Lewinsky--as he did--on the same day he asked Currie to collect them.
|
Questionable, but
perhaps the strongest charge. There can be no question but that if
Clinton in fact asked Betty Currie, a personal secretary (but an
employee paid by taxpayers), to round up gifts to Lewinsky,
this was an attempt to hide evidence--not to spin things favorably in
the press. If so, it is obstruction of justice by the
President. It is, however,
obstruction of justice in a civil case--not a criminal case--and,
moreover, a case that was later dismissed after settlement.
At bottom, there is the question of whether the offense is a serious
breach of the trust placed in the Presidency. Clinton's actions
hardly endangered the Republic; they do, though, show a lack of respect
for the law by the nation's chief law enforcer.
|
5
|
Clinton suborned
perjury when, in a December 17, 1997 phone conversation, he asked her
to say in her Jones affidavit that she was "delivering documents to
me." He also suborned perjury when he suggested that she state in her
affidavit that the Office of Legislative Affairs had found her Pentagon
job, when in fact it had not.
|
Part of
Article II in the Senate: "On or about December
17,
1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a
Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn
affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and
misleading." 50 Senators voted to convict on this charge; 50 voted to
acquit.
|
"Delivering
documents" was usually a story to cover their relationship, and
only rarely the real reason for Lewinsky's visit to the Oval
Office. The Pentagon job was arranged through Clinton's
aides in the West Wing, not the Office of Legislative Affairs.
Clinton knew this. Asking someone to lie in an affidavit is
a serious matter, arguably worse than lying yourself because you expose
another person to the risk of prison.
|
In her Senate
testimony, Lewinsky stated that she did not understand that Clinton was
asking her to use the "delivering documents" cover story in connection
with the affidavit.
|
Questionable.
The second charge relating to the Pentagon job is the more solid.
|
2
|
Note on Impeachable
Offenses
The Constitution says that
a President may be impeached for "Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors" (Art II, Section 4). The two specified
crimes (treason and bribery) both relate to acts of a President
that constitute a serious abuse of his official power. Some
people have drawn from this the conclusion that illegal acts of a
President that do not relate to his office are not impeachable offenses
(but could instead be the basis for a prosecution after he leaves
office). Yet the matter cannot be so clear. Hardly anyone,
for example, believes that if a President were determined to have
committed murder or rape a year before taking office, this would not be
a sufficient basis for impeachment. Also, it should be noted,
some actions that are not crimes at all, such as being in a constant
state of drunkenness or abandoning Washington for a six-month vacation
in Aruba, are undoubtedly appropriate reasons to impeach.
In the case of William Clinton, we had a President who lied repeatedly
under oath, suborned perjury, and hid evidence. His lies, while
about sex, continued after they were necessary to save his marriage or
avoid extreme embarrassment. He lied to the grand jury when his
basis for doing so was to avoid admitting earlier acts of
perjury. There is no question but that the President's actions
were not those we would like to see from the nation's chief enforcer of
federal law.
Formalists in Congress and elsewhere argued that "no man is above the
law." Clinton committed felonies and they must be punished.
The fact that the prosecutor might have employed a sting operation or
had a too cozy relationship with various Clinton-haters should not be a
mitigating factor. Finally, these formalists believed, the
consequences of removal of the President for the nation's politics and
economy were largely irrelevant.
Polls taken during the impeachment proceedings, however, made clear
that the American public took a less formalistic view. In the
words of Judge Richard Posner, the public "is prepared to allow that
the President may be a little above the law, that felonies can be
excused when they seem the harmless consequence of human weaknesses
that never should have been a subject of legal proceedings, that
prosecutorial excess can mitigate a defendant's guilt, and that
pragmatic considerations should bear heavily on the decision to force a
President from office."
In the end, there is no clear answer to the question of whether William
Jefferson Clinton committed an impeachable offense.
|
Clinton
Impeachment Trial Homepage
|
