TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Senate - January 14, 1999)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S59-S251]
TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate will convene as a Court of Impeachment.
The Chaplain will offer a prayer.
______
PRAYER
The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
Almighty God, whose providential care has never varied all through
our Nation's history, we ask You for a special measure of wisdom for
the women and men of this Senate as they act as jurors in this
impeachment trial. You have been our Nation's refuge and strength in
triumphs and troubles, prosperity and problems. Now, dear Father, help
us through this difficult time. As You guided the Senators to unity in
matters of procedure, continue to make them one in their search for the
truth and in their expression of justice. Keep them focused in a spirit
of nonpartisan patriotism today and in the crucial days to come. Bless
the distinguished Chief Justice as he presides over this trial. We
commit to You all that is said and done and ultimately decided. In Your
holy Name. Amen.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Sergeant at Arms will make the proclamation.
The Sergeant at Arms, James W. Ziglar, made proclamation as follows:
Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded to
keep silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate of the
United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of
impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against
William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Presiding Officer recognizes the majority
leader.
Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Installing Equipment And Furniture in the Senate Chamber
Mr. LOTT. I send a resolution to the desk providing for installing
equipment and furniture in the Senate Chamber and ask that it be agreed
to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (
S. Res. 17), to authorize the installation of
appropriate equipment and furniture in the Senate Chamber for
the impeachment trial.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, the resolution is considered
and agreed to.
The resolution (
S. Res. 17) was agreed to, as follows:
S. Res. 17
Resolved, That in recognition of the unique requirements
raised by the impeachment trial of a President of the United
States, the Sergeant at Arms shall install appropriate
equipment and furniture in the Senate chamber for use by the
managers from the House of Representatives and counsel to the
President in their presentations to the Senate during all
times that the Senate is sitting for trial with the Chief
Justice of the United States presiding.
Sec. 2. The appropriate equipment and furniture referred to
in the first section is as follows:
(1) A lectern, a witness table and chair if required, and
tables and chairs to accommodate an equal number of managers
from the House of Representatives and counsel for the
President which shall be placed in the well of the Senate.
(2) Such equipment as may be required to permit the display
of video, or audio evidence, including video monitors and
microphones, which may be placed in the chamber for use by
the managers from the House of Representatives or the counsel
to the President.
Sec. 3. All equipment and furniture authorized by this
resolution shall be placed in the chamber in a manner that
provides the least practicable disruption to Senate
proceedings.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I now ask unanimous consent floor
privileges be granted to the individuals listed on the document I send
to the desk, during the closed impeachment proceedings of William
Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The document follows.
Floor Privileges During Closed Session
David Hoppe, Administrative Assistant, Majority Leader.
Michael Wallace, Counsel, Majority Leader.
Robert Wilkie, Counsel, Majority Leader.
Bill Corr, Counsel, Democratic Leader.
Robert Bauer, Counsel, Democratic Leader.
Andrea La Rue, Counsel, Democratic Leader.
Peter Arapis, Floor Manager, Democratic Whip.
Kirk Matthew, Chief of Staff, Assistant Majority Leader.
Stewart Verdery, Counsel, Assistant Majority Leader.
Tom Griffith, Senate Legal Counsel.
[[Page
S60]]
Morgan Frankel, Deputy Senate Legal Counsel.
Loretta Symms, Deputy Sergeant at Arms.
Bruce Kasold, Chief Counsel, Secretary & Sergeant at Arms.
David Schiappa, Assistant Majority Secretary.
Lula Davis, Assistant Minority Secretary.
Alan Frumin, Assistant Parliamentarian.
Kevin Kayes, Assistant Parliamentarian.
Patrick Keating, Assistant Journal Clerk.
Scott Sanborn, Assistant Journal Clerk.
David Tinsley, Assistant Legislative Clerk.
Ronald Kavulick, Chief Reporter.
Jerald Linnell, Official Reporter.
Raleigh Milton, Official Reporter.
Joel Breitner, Official Reporter.
Mary Jane McCarthy, Official Reporter.
Paul Nelson, Official Reporter.
Katie-Jane Teel, Official Reporter.
Patrick Renzi, Official Reporter.
Lee Brown, Staff Assistant, Official Reporter.
Kathleen Alvarez, Bill Clerk.
Simon Sargent, Staff Assistant to Sen. Cleland.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Authority to Print Senate Documents
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the
Secretary of the Senate be authorized to print as a Senate document all
documents filed by the parties together with other materials for the
convenience of all Senators.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I am about to submit a series of
unanimous-consent agreements and a resolution for the consideration of
the Senate. In addition to these matters, I would like to state for the
information of all Senators that, pursuant to
S. Res. 16, the
evidentiary record on which the parties' presentations over the next
days will be based was filed by the House managers yesterday and was
distributed to all Senators through their offices. These materials are
now being printed at the Government Printing Office as Senate
documents. The initial documents of the record have been printed and
are now at each Senator's desk. As the printing of the rest of the
volumes of the record is completed over the next few days, they will
also be placed on the Senators desks for their convenience.
THE JOURNAL
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, the Journal of the proceedings
of the trial are approved to date.
The Presiding Officer submits to the Senate for printing in the
Senate Journal the following documents:
The precept, issued on January 8, 1999;
The writ of summons, issued on January 8, 1999; and the receipt of
summons, dated January 8, 1999.
The Presiding Officer submits to the Senate for printing in the
Senate Journal the following documents, which were received by the
Secretary of the Senate pursuant to Senate Resolution 16, 106th
Congress, first session:
The answer of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United
States, to the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives against him on January 7, 1999, received by the
Secretary of the Senate on January 11, 1999;
The trial brief filed by the House of Representatives, received by
the Secretary of the Senate on January 11, 1999;
The trial brief filed by the President, received by the Secretary of
the Senate on January 13, 1999;
The replication of the House of Representatives, received by the
Secretary of the Senate on January 13, 1999; and
The rebuttal brief filed by the House of Representatives, received by
the Secretary of the Senate on January 14, 1999.
Without objection, the foregoing documents will be printed in the
Congressional Record.
The documents follow:
The United States of America, ss:
The Senate of the United States to James W. Ziglar, Sergeant
at Arms, United States Senate, greeting:
You are hereby commanded to deliver to and leave with
William Jefferson Clinton, if conveniently to be found, or if
not, to leave at his usual place of abode, a true and
attested copy of the within writ of summons, together with a
like copy of this precept; and in whichsoever way you perform
the service, let it be done at least 2 days before the answer
day mentioned in the said writ of summons.
Fail not, and make return of this writ of summons and
precept, with your proceedings thereon indorsed, on or before
the day for answering mentioned in the said writ of summons.
Witness Strom Thurmond, President pro tempore of the
Senate, at Washington, D.C., this 8th day of January, 1999,
the two hundred and twenty-third year of the Independence of
the United States.
Attest:
Gary Sisco,
Secretary of the Senate.
____
The United States of America, ss:
The Senate of the United States to William Jefferson Clinton,
greeting:
Whereas the House of Representatives of the United States
of America did, on the 7th day of January, 1999, exhibit to
the Senate articles of impeachment against you, the said
William Jefferson Clinton, in the words following:
``Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in the name
of itself and of the people of the United States of America,
against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United
States of America, in maintenance and support of its
impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I
``In his conduct while President of the United States,
William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional
oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the
United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,
and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and
manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his
personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of
justice, in that:
``On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to
that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided
perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury
concerning one or more of the following: (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; (3) prior false and misleading statements he
allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil
rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the
testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of
evidence in that civil rights action.
``In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined
the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the
Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has
acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice,
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
``Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust, or profit under the United States.
Article II
``In his conduct while President of the United States,
William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional
oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the
United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,
and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed,
and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that
end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and
agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay,
impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and
testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought
against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.
``The means used to implement this course of conduct or
scheme included one or more of the following acts:
``(1) 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.
``(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil
rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false
and misleading testimony if and when called to testify
personally in that proceeding.
``(3) 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.
``(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and
continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William
Jefferson Clinton intensified and 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.
``(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal
civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and
misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an
affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by
the judge. Such false and misleading statements were
subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication
to that judge.
[[Page
S61]]
``(6) 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 brought
against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in
order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.
``(7) On or about January 21, 23, and 26, 1998, William
Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to
potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in
order to corruptly influence the testimony of those
witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by
William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to
the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and
misleading information.
``In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined
the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the
Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has
acted in a manner subversive to the rule of law and justice,
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
``Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust, or profit under the United States.''
And demand that you, the said William Jefferson Clinton,
should be put to answer the accusations as set forth in said
articles, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials,
and judgments might be thereupon had as are agreeable to law
and justice.
You, the said William Jefferson Clinton, are therefore
hereby summoned to file with the Secretary of the United
States Senate, S-220 The Capitol, Washington, D.C., 20510, an
answer to the said articles of impeachment no later than noon
on the 11th day of January, 1999, and therefore to abide by,
obey, and perform such orders, directions, and judgments as
the Senate of the United States shall make in the premises
according to the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Hereof you are not to fail.
Witness Strom Thurmond, President pro tempore of the
Senate, at Washington, D.C., this 8th day of January, 1999,
the two hundred and twenty-third year of the Independence of
the United States.
Attest:
Gary Sisco,
Secretary of the Senate.
____
The foregoing writ of summons, addressed to William
Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, and the
foregoing precept, addressed to me, were duly served upon the
said William Jefferson Clinton, by my delivering true and
attested copies of the same to Charles Ruff, at the White
House, on the 8th day of January, 1999, at 5:27 p.m.
Attest:
James W. Ziglar,
Sergeant at Arms.
Loretta Symms,
Deputy Sergeant at Arms.
Dated: January 8, 1999.
Witnesseth:
Gary Sisco, Secretary,
United States Senate.
____
[In the Senate of the United States Sitting as a Court of Impeachment]
In re Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of
the United States
ANSWER OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON TO THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT
The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton, President of the
United States, in response to the summons of the Senate of
the United States, answers the accusations made by the House
of Representatives of the United States in the two Articles
of Impeachment it has exhibited to the Senate as follows:
Preamble
The Charges in the Articles Do Not Constitute High Crimes or
Misdemeanors
The charges in the two Articles of Impeachment do not
permit the conviction and removal from office of a duly
elected President. The President has acknowledged conduct
with Ms. Lewinsky that was improper. But Article II, Section
4 of the Constitution provides that the President shall be
removed from office only upon ``Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors.'' The charges in the articles do not rise to
the level of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' as contemplated
by the Founding Fathers, and they do not satisfy the rigorous
constitutional standard applied throughout our Nation's
history. Accordingly, the Articles of Impeachment should be
dismissed.
The President Did Not Commit Perjury or Obstruct Justice
The President denies each and every material allegation of
the two Articles of Impeachment not specifically admitted in
this answer.
Article I
President Clinton denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements before the federal grand jury on August
17, 1998.
Factual Responses to Article I
Without waiving his affirmative defenses, President Clinton
offers the following factual responses to the allegations in
Article I:
(1) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury about ``the
nature and details of his relationship'' with Monica
Lewinsky
There is a myth about President Clinton's testimony before
the grand jury. The myth is that the President failed to
admit his improper intimate relationship with Ms. Monica
Lewinsky. The myth is perpetuated by Article I, which accuses
the President of lying about ``the nature and details of his
relationship'' with Ms. Lewinsky.
The fact is that the President specifically acknowledged to
the grand jury that he had an improper intimate relationship
with Ms. Lewinsky. He said so, plainly and clearly: ``When I
was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early
1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was
wrong. These encounters . . . did involve inappropriate
intimate contact.'' The President described to the grand jury
how the relationship began and how it ended at his insistence
early in 1997--long before any public attention or scrutiny.
He also described to the grand jury how he had attempted to
testify in the deposition in the Jones case months earlier
without having to acknowledge to the Jones lawyers what he
ultimately admitted to the grand jury--that he had an
improper intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
The President read a prepared statement to the grand jury
acknowledging his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The
statement was offered at the beginning of his testimony to
focus the questioning in a manner that would allow the Office
of Independent Counsel to obtain necessary information
without unduly dwelling on the salacious details of the
relationship. The President's statement was followed by
almost four hours of questioning. If it is charged that his
statement was in any respect perjurious, false and
misleading, the President denies it. The President also
denies that the statement was in any way an attempt to thwart
the investigation.
The President states, as he did during his grand jury
testimony, that he engaged in improper physical contact with
Ms. Lewinsky. The President was truthful when he testified
before the grand jury that he did not engage in sexual
relations with Ms. Lewinsky as he understood that term to be
defined by the Jones lawyers during their questioning of him
in that deposition. The President further denies that his
other statements to the grand jury about the nature and
details of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky were
perjurious, false, and misleading.
(2) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury when he testified
about statements he had made in the Jones deposition
There is a second myth about the President's testimony
before the grand jury. The myth is that the President adopted
his entire Jones deposition testimony in the grand jury. The
President was not asked to and did not broadly restate or
reaffirm his Jones deposition testimony. Instead, in the
grand jury he discussed the bases for certain answers he
gave. The President testified truthfully in the grand jury
about statements he made in the Jones deposition. The
President stated to the grand jury that he did not attempt to
be helpful to or assist the lawyers in the Jones deposition
in their quest for information about his relationship with
Ms. Lewinsky. He truthfully explained to the grand jury his
efforts to answer the questions in the Jones deposition
without disclosing his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
Accordingly, the full, underlying Jones deposition is not
before the Senate.
Indeed, the House specifically considered and rejected an
article of impeachment based on the President's deposition in
the Jones case. The House managers should not be allowed to
prosecute before the Senate an article of impeachment which
the full House has rejected.
(3) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury about
``statements he allowed his attorney to make'' during the
Jones deposition
The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury about the statements
his attorney made during the Jones deposition. The President
was truthful when he explained to the grand jury his
understanding of certain statements made by his lawyer,
Robert Bennett, during the Jones deposition. The President
also was truthful when he testified that he was not focusing
on the prolonged and complicated exchange between the
attorneys and Judge Wright.
(4) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury concerning
alleged efforts ``to influence the testimony of witnesses
and to impede the discovery of evidence'' in the Jones
case
For the reasons discussed more fully in response to Article
II, the President denies that he attempted to influence the
testimony of any witness or to impede the discovery
of evidence in the Jones case. Thus, the President denies
that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements
before the grand jury when he testified about these
matters.
First Affirmative Defense: Article I Does Not Meet the Constitutional
Standard for Conviction and Removal
For the same reasons set forth in the preamble of this
answer, Article I does not meet the rigorous constitutional
standard for conviction and removal from office of a duly
elected President and should be dismissed.
[[Page
S62]]
Second Affirmative Defense: Article I Is Too Vague To Permit Conviction
and Removal
Article I is unconstitutionally vague. No reasonable person
could know what specific charges are being leveled against
the President. It alleges that the President provided the
grand jury with ``perjurious, false, and misleading
testimony'' concerning ``one or more'' of four subject areas.
But it fails to identify any specific statement by the
President that is alleged to be perjurious, false and
misleading. The House has left the Senate and the President
to guess at what it had in mind.
One of the fundamental principles of our law and the
Constitution is that a person has a right to know what
specific charges he or she is facing. Without such fair
warning, no one can prepare the defense to which every person
is entitled. The law and the Constitution also mandate
adequate notice to jurors so they may know the basis for the
vote they must make. Without a definite and specific
identification of false statements, a trial becomes a moving
target for the accused. In addition, the American people
deserve to know upon what specific statements the President
is being judged, given the gravity and effect of these
proceedings, namely nullifying the results of a national
election.
Article I sweeps broadly and fails to provide the required
definite and specific identification. Were it an indictment,
it would be dismissed. As an article of impeachment, it is
constitutionally defective and should fail.
Third Affirmative Defense: Article I Charges Multiple Offense in One
Article
Article I is fatally flawed because it charges multiple
instances of alleged perjurious, false and misleading
statements in one article. The Constitution provides that
``no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two
thirds of the Members present,'' and Senate Rule XXIII
provides that ``an article of impeachment shall not be
divisible for the purpose of voting thereon at any time
during the trial.'' By the express terms of Article I, a
Senator may vote for impeachment if he or she finds that
there was perjurious, false and misleading testimony in ``one
or more'' of four topic areas. This creates the very real
possibility that conviction could occur even though Senators
were in wide disagreement as to the alleged wrong committed.
Put simply, the structure of Article I presents the
possibility that the President could be convicted even though
he would have been acquitted if separate votes were taken on
each allegedly perjurious statement. For example, it would be
possible for the President to be convicted and removed from
office with as few a
s 17 Senators agreeing that any single
statement was perjurious, because 17 votes for each of the
four categories in Article I would yield 68 votes, one more
than necessary to convict and remove.
By charging multiple wrongs in one article, the House of
Representatives has made it impossible for the Senate to
comply with the Constitutional mandate that any conviction be
by the concurrence of two-thirds of the members. Accordingly,
Article I should fail.
Factual Responses to Article II
Without waiving his affirmative defenses, President Clinton
offers the following factual responses to the allegations in
Article II:
(1) The President denies that on or about December 17, 1997,
he ``corruptly encouraged'' Monica Lewinsky ``to execute
a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be
perjurious, false and misleading''
The President denies that he encouraged Monica Lewinsky to
execute a false affidavit in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky,
the only witness cited in support of this allegation, denies
this allegation as well. Her testimony and proffered
statements are clear and unmistakable:
``[N]o one even asked me to lie and I was never
promised a job for my silence.''
``Neither the President nor anyone ever directed
Lewinsky to say anything or to lie . . .''
``Neither the Pres[ident] nor Mr. Jordan (or
anyone on their behalf) asked or encouraged Ms. L[ewinsky] to
lie.''
The President states that, sometime in December 1997, Ms.
Lewinsky asked him whether she might be able to avoid
testifying the Jones case because she knew nothing about Ms.
Jones or the case. The President further states that he told
her he believed other witnesses had executed affidavits, and
there was a chance they would not have to testify. The
President denies that he ever asked, encouraged or suggested
that Ms. Lewinsky file a false affidavit or lie. The
President states that he believed that Ms. Lewinsky could
have filed a limited but truthful affidavit that might have
enabled her to avoid having to testify in the Jones case.
(2) The President denies that on or about December 17, 1997,
he ``corruptly encouraged'' Monica Lewinsky ``to give
perjurious, false and misleading testimony of and when
called to testify personally'' in the Jones litigation
Again, the President denies that he encouraged Ms. Lewinsky
to lie if and when called to testify personally in the Jones
case. The testimony and proffered statements of Monica
Lewinsky, the only witness cited in support of this
allegation, are clear and unmistakable:
[N]o one ever asked me to lie and I was never
promised a job for my silence.''
``Neither the President nor anyone ever directed
Lewinsky to say anything or to lie . . .''
``Neither the Pres[ident] nor Mr. Jordan (or
anyone on their behalf) asked or encouraged Ms. L[ewinsky] to
lie.''
The President states that, prior to Ms. Lewinsky's
involvement in the Jones case, he and Ms. Lewinsky might have
talked about what to do to conceal their relationship from
others. Ms. Lewinsky was not a witness in any legal
proceeding at that time. Ms. Lewinsky's own testimony and
statements support the President's recollection. Ms. Lewinsky
testified that she ``pretty much can'' exclude the
possibility that she and the President ever had discussions
about denying the relationship after she learned she was a
witness in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky also stated that
``they did not discuss the issue [of what to say about their
relationship] is specific relation to the Jones matter,'' and
that ``she does not believe they discussed the content of any
deposition that [she] might be involved in at a later date.''
(3) The President denies that on or about December 28, 1997,
he ``corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a
scheme to conceal evidence'' in the Jones case
The President denies that he engaged in, encouraged, or
supported any scheme to conceal evidence from discovery in
the Jones case, including any gifts he had given to Ms.
Lewinsky. The President states that he gave numerous gifts to
Ms. Lewinsky prior to December 28, 1997. The President states
that, sometime in December, Ms. Lewinsky inquired as to what
to do if she were asked in the Jones case about the gifts he
had given her, to which the President responded that she
would have to turn over whatever she had. The President
states that he was unconcerned about having given her gifts
and, in fact, that he gave Ms. Lewinsky additional gifts on
December 28, 1997. The President denies that he ever asked
his secretary, Ms. Betty Currie, to retrieve gifts he had
given Ms. Lewinsky, or that he ever asked, encouraged, or
suggested that Ms. Lewinsky conceal the gifts. Ms. Currie
told prosecutors as early as January 1998 and repeatedly
thereafter that it was Ms. Lewinsky who had contacted her
about retrieving gifts.
(4) The President denies that he obstructed justice in
connection with Monica Lewinsky's efforts to obtain a job
in New York to ``corruptly prevent'' her ``truthful
testimony'' in the Jones case
The President denies that he obstructed justice in
connection with Ms. Lewinsky's job search in New York or
sought to prevent her truthful testimony in the Jones case.
The President states that he discussed with Ms. Lewinsky her
desire to obtain a job in New York months before she was
listed as a potential witness in the Jones case. Indeed, Ms.
Lewinsky was offered a job in New York at the United Nations
more than a month before she was identified as a possible
witness. The President also states that he believes that Ms.
Lewinsky raised with him, again before she was ever listed as
a possible witness in the Jones case, the prospect of having
Mr. Vernon Jordan assist in her job search. Ms. Lewinsky
corroborates his recollection that it was her idea to ask for
Mr. Jordan's help. The President also states that he was
aware that Mr. Jordan was assisting Ms. Lewinsky to obtain
employment in New York. The President denies that any of
these efforts had any connection whatsoever to Ms. Lewinsky's
status as a possible or actual witness in the Jones case. Ms.
Lewinsky forcefully confirmed the President's denial when she
testified, ``I was never promised a job for my silence.''
(5) The President denies that he ``corruptly allowed his
attorney to make false and misleading statements to a
Federal judge'' concerning Monica Lewinsky's affidavit
The President denies that he corruptly allowed his attorney
to make false and misleading statements concerning Ms.
Lewinsky's affidavit to a Federal judge during the Jones
deposition. The President denies that he was focusing his
attention on the prolonged and complicated exchange between
his attorney and Judge Wright.
(6) The President denies that he obstructed justice by
relating ``false and misleading statements'' to ``a
potential witness,'' Betty Currie, ``in order to
corruptly influence [her] testimony''
The President denies that he obstructed justice or
endeavored in any way to influence any potential testimony of
Ms. Betty Currie. The President states that he spoke with Ms.
Currie on January 18, 1998. The President testified that, in
that conversation, he was trying to find out what the facts
were, what Ms. Currie's perception was, and whether his own
recollection was correct about certain aspects of his
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Ms. Currie testified that she
felt no pressure ``whatsoever'' from the President's
statements and no pressure ``to agree with [her] boss.'' The
President denies knowing or believing that Ms. Currie would
be a witness in any proceeding at the time of this
conversation. Ms. Currie had not been on any of the witness
lists proffered by the Jones lawyers. President Clinton
states that, after the Independent Counsel investigation
became public, when Ms. Currie was scheduled to testify, he
told Ms. Currie to ``tell the truth.''
(7) The President denies that he obstructed justice when he
relayed allegedly ``false and misleading statements'' to
his aides
The President denies that he obstructed justice when he
misled his aides about the
[[Page
S63]]
nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky in the days
immediately following the public revelation of the Lewinsky
investigation. The President acknowledges that, in the days
following the January 21, 1998, Washington Post article, he
misled his family, his friends and staff, and the Nation to
conceal the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He
sought to avoid disclosing his personal wrongdoing to protect
his family and himself from hurt and public embarrassment.
The President profoundly regrets his actions, and he has
apologized to his family, his friends and staff, and the
Nation. The President denies that he had any corrupt purpose
or any intent to influence the ongoing grand jury
proceedings.
First Affirmative Defense: Article II Does Not Meet the Constitutional
Standard for Conviction and Removal
For the reasons set forth in the preamble of this answer,
Article II does not meet the constitutional standard for
convicting and removing a duly elected President from office
and should be dismissed.
Second Affirmative Defense: Article II Is Too Vague To Permit
Conviction and Removal
Article II is unconstitutionally vague. No reasonable
person could know what specific charges are being leveled
against the President. Article II alleges that the President
``obstructed and impeded the administration of justice'' in
both the Jones case and the grand jury investigation. But it
provides little or no concrete information about the specific
acts in which the President is alleged to have engaged, or
with whom, or when, that allegedly obstructed or otherwise
impeded the administration of justice.
As we set forth in the Second Affirmative Defense to
Article I, one of the fundamental principles of our law and
the Constitution is that a person has the right to know what
specific charges he or she is facing. Without such fair
warning, no one can mount the defense to which every person
is entitled. Fundamental to due process is the right of the
President to be adequately informed of the charges so that he
is able to confront those charges and defend himself.
Article II sweeps too broadly and provides too little
definite and specific identification. Were it an indictment,
it would be dismissed. As an article of impeachment, it is
constitutionally defective and should fail.
Third Affirmative Defense: Article II Charges Multiple Offenses in One
Article
For the reasons set forth in the Third Affirmative Defense
to Article I, Article II is constitutionally defective
because it charges multiple instances of alleged acts of
obstruction in one article, which makes it impossible for the
Senate to comply with the Constitutional mandates that any
conviction be by the concurrence of the two-thirds of the
members. Accordingly, Article II should fail.
Respectfully submitted,
David E. Kendall,
Nicole K. Seligman,
Emmet T. Flood,
Max Stier,
Glen Donath,
Alicia Marti,
Williams & Connolly,
725 12th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20005.
Charles F. C. Ruff,
Gregory B. Craig,
Bruce R. Lindsey,
Cheryl D. Mills,
Lanny A. Breuer,
Office of the White House Counsel,
The White House,
Washington, D.C. 20502.
Submitted: January 11, 1999.
____
[In the Senate of the United States Sitting as a Court of Impeachment]
In re Impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton
TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Now comes the United States House of Representatives, by
and through its duly authorized Managers, and respectfully
submits to the United States Senate its Brief in connection
with the Impeachment Trial of William Jefferson Clinton,
President of the United States.
Summary
The President is charged in two Articles with: (1) Perjury
and false and misleading testimony and statements under oath
before a federal grand jury (Article I), and (2) engaging in
a course of conduct or scheme to delay and obstruct justice
(Article II).
The evidence contained in the record, when viewed as a
unified whole, overwhelmingly supports both charges.
Perjury and False Statements Under Oath
President Clinton deliberately and willfully testified
falsely under oath when he appeared before a federal grand
jury on August 17, 1998. Although what follows is not
exhaustive, some of the more overt examples will serve to
illustrate.
At the very outset, the President read a prepared
statement, which itself contained totally false assertions
and other clearly misleading information.
The President relied on his statement nineteen
times in his testimony when questioned about his relationship
with Ms. Lewinsky.
President Clinton falsely testified that he was
not paying attention when his lawyer employed Ms. Lewinsky's
false affidavit at the Jones deposition.
He falsely claimed that his actions with Ms.
Lewinsky did not fall within the definition of ``sexual
relations'' that was given at his deposition.
He falsely testified that he answered questions
truthfully at his deposition concerning, among other
subjects, whether he had been alone with Ms. Lewinsky.
He falsely testified that he instructed Ms.
Lewinsky to turn over the gifts if she were subpoenaed.
He falsely denied trying to influence Ms. Currie
after his deposition.
He falsely testified that he was truthful to his
aides when he gave accounts of his relationship, which
accounts were subsequently disseminated to the media and the
grand jury.
Obstruction of Justice
The President engaged in an ongoing scheme to obstruct both
the Jones civil case and the grand jury. Further, he
undertook a continuing and concerted plan to tamper with
witnesses and prospective witnesses for the purpose of
causing those witnesses to provide false and misleading
testimony. Examples abound:
The President and Ms. Lewinsky concocted a cover
story to conceal their relationship, and the President
suggested that she employ that story if subpoenaed in the
Jones case.
The President suggested that Ms. Lewinsky provide
an affidavit to avoid testifying in the Jones case, when he
knew that the affidavit would need to be false to accomplish
its purpose.
The President knowingly and willfully allowed his
attorney to file Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit and to use it
for the purpose of obstructing justice in the Jones case.
The President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she
provide a false account of how she received her job at the
Pentagon.
The President attempted to influence the expected
testimony of his secretary, Ms. Currie, by providing her with
a false account of his meetings with Ms. Lewinsky.
The President provided several of his top aides
with elaborate lies about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky,
so that those aides would convey the false information to the
public and to the grand jury. When he did this, he knew that
those aides would likely be called to testify, while he was
declining several invitations to testify. By this action, he
obstructed and delayed the operation of the grand jury.
The President conspired with Ms. Lewinsky and Ms.
Currie to conceal evidence that he had been subpoenaed in the
Jones case, and thereby delayed and obstructed justice.
The President and his representatives orchestrated
a campaign to discredit Ms. Lewinsky in order to affect
adversely her credibility as a witness, and thereby attempted
to obstruct justice both in the Jones case and the grand
jury.
The President lied repeatedly under oath in his
disposition in the Jones case, and thereby obstructed justice
in that case.
The President's lies and misleading statements
under oath at the grand jury were calculated to, and did
obstruct, delay and prevent the due administration of justice
by that body.
The President employed the power of his office to
procure a job for Ms. Lewinsky after she signed the false
affidavit by causing his friend to exert extraordinary
efforts for that purpose.
The foregoing are merely accusations of an ongoing pattern
of obstruction of justice, and witness tampering extending
over a period of several months, and having the effect of
seriously compromising the integrity of the entire judicial
system.
The effect of the President's misconduct has been
devastating in several respects.
(1) He violated repeatedly his oath to ``preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States.''
(2) He ignored his constitutional duty as chief law
enforcement officer to ``take care that the laws be
faithfully executed.''
(3) He deliberately and unlawfully obstructed Paula Jones's
rights as a citizen to due process and the equal protection
of the laws, though he had sworn to protect those rights.
(4) By his pattern of lies under oath, misleading
statements and deceit, he has seriously undermined the
integrity and credibility of the Office of President and
thereby the honor and integrity of the United States.
(5) His pattern of perjuries, obstruction of justice, and
witness tampering has affected the truth seeking process
which is the foundation of our legal system.
(6) By mounting an assault in the truth seeking process, he
has attacked the entire Judicial Branch of government.
The Articles of Impeachment that the House has preferred
state offenses that warrant, if proved, the conviction and
removal from office of President William Jefferson Clinton.
The Articles charge that the President has committed perjury
before a federal grand jury and that he obstructed justice in
a federal civil rights action. The Senate's own precedents
establish beyond doubt that perjury warrants conviction and
removal. During the 1980s, the Senate convicted and removed
three federal judges for committing perjury. Obstruction of
justice under mines the judicial system in the same fashion
that
[[Page
S64]]
perjury does, and it also warrants conviction and removal.
Under our Constitution, judges are impeached under the same
standard as Presidents--treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors. Thus, these judicial impeachments
for perjury set the standard here. Finally, the Senate's own
precedents further establish that the President's crimes need
not arise directly out of his official duties. Two of the
three judges removed in the 1980s were removed for perjury
that had nothing to do with their official duties.
Introduction
This Brief is intended solely to advise the Senate
generally of the evidence that the Managers intend to
product, if permitted, and of the applicable legal
principles. It is not intended to discuss exhaustively all of
the evidence, nor does it necessarily include each and every
witness and document that the Managers would produce in the
course of the trial. This Brief, then, is merely an outline
for the use of the Senate in reviewing and assessing the
evidence as it is set forth at trial--it is not, and is not
intended to be a substitute for a trial at which all of the
relevant facts will be developed.
H. Res. 611, 105th Cong. 2nd Sess. (1998)
The House Impeachment Resolution charges the President with
high crimes and misdemeanors in two Articles. Article One
alleges that President Clinton ``willfully corrupted and
manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his
personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of
justice'' in that he willfully provided perjurious, false and
misleading testimony to a federal grand jury on August 17,
1998. Article Two asserts that the President ``has prevented,
obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice and
engaged in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay,
impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and
testimony related to a federal civil rights action brought
against him.'' Both Articles are now before the Senate of the
United States for trial as provided by the Constitution of
the United States.
The Office of President represents to the American people
and to the world, the strength, the philosophy and most of
all, the honor and integrity that makes us a great nation and
an example for the world. Because all eyes are focused upon
that high office, the character and credibility of any
temporary occupant of the Oval Office is vital to the
domestic and foreign welfare of the citizens. Consequently,
serious breaches of integrity and duty of necessity adversely
influence the reputation of the United States.
This case is not about sex or private conduct. It is about
multiple obstructions of justice, perjury, false and
misleading statements, and witness tampering--all committed
or orchestrated by the President of the United States.
Before addressing the President's lies and obstruction, it
is important to place the events in the proper context. If
this were only about private sex we would not now be before
the Senate. But the manner in which the Lewinsky relationship
arose and continued is important because it is illustrative
of the character of the President and the decisions he made.
Background
Monica Lewinsky, a 22 year old intern, (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 8;
H.Doc. 105-311, p. 728) was working at the White House during
the government shutdown in 1995. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 10; H.Doc.
105-311, p. 730) Prior to their first intimate encounter, she
had never even spoken with the President. Sometime on
November 15, 1995, Ms. Lewinsky and President Clinton flirted
with each other. (Id.) The President of the United States of
America then invited this unknown young intern into a private
area off the Oval Office where he kissed her. He then invited
her back later and when she returned, the two engaged in the
first of many acts of inappropriate contact. (ML 8/6/98 GJ,
p. 12; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 732)
Thereafter, the two concocted a cover story. If Ms.
Lewinsky were seen, she was bringing papers to the President.
That story was totally false. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 54; H.Doc.
105-311, p. 774; 8/26/98 Dep., p. 34; H.Doc. 105-311, p.
1314) The only papers she brought were personal messages
having nothing to do with her duties or those of the
President. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 54-55; H.Doc. 105-311, pp.
774-775) After Ms. Lewinsky moved from the White House to the
Pentagon, her frequent visits to the President were disguised
as visits to Betty Currie. (Id.) Those cover stories are
important, because they play a vital role in the later
perjuries and obstructions.
Encounters
Over the term of their relationship the following
significant matters occurred:
1. Monica Lewinsky and the President were alone on at least
twenty-one occasions;
2. They had at least eleven personal sexual encounters,
excluding phone sex: Three in 1995, Five in 1996 and Three in
1997;
3. They had at least 55 telephone conversations, at least
seventeen of which involved phone sex;
4. The President gave Ms. Lewinsky twenty presents; and,
5. Ms. Lewinsky gave the President forty presents (O.I.C.
Referral, App., Tab E; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 104-111)
These are the essential facts which form the backdrop for
all of the events that followed.
The sexual details of the President's encounters with Ms.
Lewinsky, though relevant, need not be detailed either in
this document or through witness testimony. It is necessary,
though, briefly to outline that evidence, because it will
demonstrate that the President repeatedly lied about that
sexual relationship in his deposition, before the grand jury,
and in his responses to the Judiciary Committee's questions.
He has consistently maintained that Ms. Lewinsky merely
performed acts on him, while he never touched her in a sexual
manner. This characterization not only directly contradicts
Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, but it also contradicts the sworn
grand jury testimony of three of her friends and the
statements by two professional counselors with whom she
contemporaneously shared the details of her relationship.
(O.I.C. Referral, H. Doc. 105-310, pgs. 138-140)
While his treatment of Ms. Lewinsky was offensive, it is
much more offensive for the President to expect the Senate to
believe that in 1995, 1996, and 1997, his intimate contact
with Ms. Lewinsky was so limited that it did not fall within
his narrow interpretation of a definition of ``sexual
relations''. As later demonstrated, he did not even conceive
his interpretation until 1998, while preparing for his grand
jury appearance.
How To View the Evidence
We respectfully submit that the evidence and testimony must
be viewed as a whole; it cannot be compartmentalized. It is
essential to avoid considering each event in isolation, and
then treating it separately. Events and words that may seem
innocent or even exculpatory in a vacuum may well take on a
sinister, or even criminal connotation when observed in the
context of the whole plot. For example, everyone agrees that
Monica Lewinsky testified ``No one ever told me to lie;
nobody ever promised me a job.'' (ML 8/20/98 GJ, p. 105; H.
Doc. 105-311, p. 1161)
When considered alone this would seem exculpatory. However,
in the context of the other evidence, another picture
emerges. Of course no one said. ``Now, Monica, you go in
there and lie.'' They didn't have to. Ms. Lewinsky knew what
was expected of her. Similarly, nobody promised her a job,
but once she signed the false affidavit, she got one.
The Issue
The ultimate issue is whether the President's course of
conduct is such as to affect adversely the Office of the
President and also upon the administration of justice, and
whether he has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as
President and subversive to the Rule of Law and
Constitutional government.
The Beginning
The events that form the basis of these charges actually
began in late 1995. They reached a critical stage in the
winter of 1997 and the first month of 1998. The event
culminated when the President of the United States appeared
before a federal grand jury, raised his right hand to God and
swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth.
december 5-6, 1997
On Friday, December 5, 1997, Monica Lewinsky asked Betty
Currie if the President could see her the next day, Saturday,
but Ms. Currie said that the President was scheduled to meet
with his lawyers all day. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 107-108; H.
Doc. 105-311, pgs. 827-828) Later that Friday, Ms. Lewinsky
spoke briefly to the President at a Christmas party. (ML 7/
31/98 Int., p. 1; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 1451; ML 8/6/98 GJ, p.
108; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 828)
The Witness List Is Received
That evening, Paula Jones's attorneys faxed a list of
potential witnesses to the President's attorneys. (849-DC-
00000128; 849-DC-00000121-37; Referral, H. Doc. 105-311, p.
88) The list included Monica Lewinsky. However, Ms. Lewinsky
did not find out that her name was on the list until the
President told her ten days later, on December 17. (ML 8/6/98
GJ, pgs. 121-123; H. Doc. 105-311, pgs. 841-843) That delay
is significant.
Ms. Lewinsky's First Visit
After her conversation with Ms. Currie and seeing the
President at the Christmas party, Ms. Lewinsky drafted a
letter to the President terminating their relationship. (ML-
55-DC-0177); ML 7/31/98 Int., p. 2; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 1452)
The next morning, Saturday, December 6, Ms. Lewinsky went to
the White House to deliver the letter and some gifts for the
President to Ms. Currie. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 108-109; H. Doc.
105-311, pgs. 828-829) When she arrived at the White House,
Ms. Lewinsky spoke to several Secret Service officers, and
one of them told her that the President was not with his
lawyers, as she thought, but rather, he was meeting with
Eleanor Mondale. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 111; H. Doc. 105-311, p.
831; Mondale 7/16/98 Int., p. 1; H. Doc. 105-316, pgs. 2907-
2908; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 2654) Ms. Lewinsky called Ms.
Currie from a pay phone, angrily exchanged words with her,
and went home. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 112-13; H. Doc. 105-311,
pgs. 832-833; Currie 1/27/98 GJ, p. 27; H. Doc. 105-316, p.
553) After that phone call, Ms. Currie told the Secret
Service watch commander that the President was so upset about
the disclosure of his meeting with Ms. Mondale that he wanted
somebody fired. (Purdie 7/23/98 GJ, pgs. 13, 18-19; H. Doc.
105-316, pgs. 3356-3357).
The Telephone Conversations
At 12:05 p.m., records demonstrate that Ms. Currie paged
Bruce Lindsey with the message: ``Call Betty ASAP.'' (964-DC-
00000862;
[[Page
S65]]
H. Doc. 105-311, p. 2722) Around that same time, according to
Ms. Lewinsky, while she was back at her apartment, Ms.
Lewinsky and the President spoke by phone. The President was
very angry; he told Ms. Lewinsky that no one had every
treated him as poorly as she had. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 113-14;
H. Doc. 105-311, pgs. 833-834) The President acknowledged to
the grand jury that he was upset about Ms. Lewinsky's
behavior and considered it inappropriate. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ,
p. 85; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 537). Nevertheless, in a sudden
change of mood, he invited her to visit him at the White
House that afternoon. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 114; H.Doc. 105-
311, p. 834)
Ms. Lewinsky's Second Visit
Monica Lewinsky arrived at the White House for the second
time that day and was cleared to enter at 12:52 p.m. (WAVES:
827-DC-00000018) Although, in Ms. Lewinsky's words, the
President was ``very angry'' with her during their recent
telephone conversation, he was ``sweet'' and ``very
affectionate'' during this visit. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 113-15;
H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 833-835). He also told her that he would
talk to Vernon Jordan about her job situation. (ML 8/6/98 GJ,
pgs. 115-16; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 835-836)
The Discussions With the Secret Service
The President also suddenly changed his attit
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Senate - January 14, 1999)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S59-S251]
TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate will convene as a Court of Impeachment.
The Chaplain will offer a prayer.
______
PRAYER
The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
Almighty God, whose providential care has never varied all through
our Nation's history, we ask You for a special measure of wisdom for
the women and men of this Senate as they act as jurors in this
impeachment trial. You have been our Nation's refuge and strength in
triumphs and troubles, prosperity and problems. Now, dear Father, help
us through this difficult time. As You guided the Senators to unity in
matters of procedure, continue to make them one in their search for the
truth and in their expression of justice. Keep them focused in a spirit
of nonpartisan patriotism today and in the crucial days to come. Bless
the distinguished Chief Justice as he presides over this trial. We
commit to You all that is said and done and ultimately decided. In Your
holy Name. Amen.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Sergeant at Arms will make the proclamation.
The Sergeant at Arms, James W. Ziglar, made proclamation as follows:
Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded to
keep silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate of the
United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of
impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against
William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Presiding Officer recognizes the majority
leader.
Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Installing Equipment And Furniture in the Senate Chamber
Mr. LOTT. I send a resolution to the desk providing for installing
equipment and furniture in the Senate Chamber and ask that it be agreed
to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (
S. Res. 17), to authorize the installation of
appropriate equipment and furniture in the Senate Chamber for
the impeachment trial.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, the resolution is considered
and agreed to.
The resolution (
S. Res. 17) was agreed to, as follows:
S. Res. 17
Resolved, That in recognition of the unique requirements
raised by the impeachment trial of a President of the United
States, the Sergeant at Arms shall install appropriate
equipment and furniture in the Senate chamber for use by the
managers from the House of Representatives and counsel to the
President in their presentations to the Senate during all
times that the Senate is sitting for trial with the Chief
Justice of the United States presiding.
Sec. 2. The appropriate equipment and furniture referred to
in the first section is as follows:
(1) A lectern, a witness table and chair if required, and
tables and chairs to accommodate an equal number of managers
from the House of Representatives and counsel for the
President which shall be placed in the well of the Senate.
(2) Such equipment as may be required to permit the display
of video, or audio evidence, including video monitors and
microphones, which may be placed in the chamber for use by
the managers from the House of Representatives or the counsel
to the President.
Sec. 3. All equipment and furniture authorized by this
resolution shall be placed in the chamber in a manner that
provides the least practicable disruption to Senate
proceedings.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I now ask unanimous consent floor
privileges be granted to the individuals listed on the document I send
to the desk, during the closed impeachment proceedings of William
Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The document follows.
Floor Privileges During Closed Session
David Hoppe, Administrative Assistant, Majority Leader.
Michael Wallace, Counsel, Majority Leader.
Robert Wilkie, Counsel, Majority Leader.
Bill Corr, Counsel, Democratic Leader.
Robert Bauer, Counsel, Democratic Leader.
Andrea La Rue, Counsel, Democratic Leader.
Peter Arapis, Floor Manager, Democratic Whip.
Kirk Matthew, Chief of Staff, Assistant Majority Leader.
Stewart Verdery, Counsel, Assistant Majority Leader.
Tom Griffith, Senate Legal Counsel.
[[Page
S60]]
Morgan Frankel, Deputy Senate Legal Counsel.
Loretta Symms, Deputy Sergeant at Arms.
Bruce Kasold, Chief Counsel, Secretary & Sergeant at Arms.
David Schiappa, Assistant Majority Secretary.
Lula Davis, Assistant Minority Secretary.
Alan Frumin, Assistant Parliamentarian.
Kevin Kayes, Assistant Parliamentarian.
Patrick Keating, Assistant Journal Clerk.
Scott Sanborn, Assistant Journal Clerk.
David Tinsley, Assistant Legislative Clerk.
Ronald Kavulick, Chief Reporter.
Jerald Linnell, Official Reporter.
Raleigh Milton, Official Reporter.
Joel Breitner, Official Reporter.
Mary Jane McCarthy, Official Reporter.
Paul Nelson, Official Reporter.
Katie-Jane Teel, Official Reporter.
Patrick Renzi, Official Reporter.
Lee Brown, Staff Assistant, Official Reporter.
Kathleen Alvarez, Bill Clerk.
Simon Sargent, Staff Assistant to Sen. Cleland.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Authority to Print Senate Documents
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the
Secretary of the Senate be authorized to print as a Senate document all
documents filed by the parties together with other materials for the
convenience of all Senators.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I am about to submit a series of
unanimous-consent agreements and a resolution for the consideration of
the Senate. In addition to these matters, I would like to state for the
information of all Senators that, pursuant to
S. Res. 16, the
evidentiary record on which the parties' presentations over the next
days will be based was filed by the House managers yesterday and was
distributed to all Senators through their offices. These materials are
now being printed at the Government Printing Office as Senate
documents. The initial documents of the record have been printed and
are now at each Senator's desk. As the printing of the rest of the
volumes of the record is completed over the next few days, they will
also be placed on the Senators desks for their convenience.
THE JOURNAL
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, the Journal of the proceedings
of the trial are approved to date.
The Presiding Officer submits to the Senate for printing in the
Senate Journal the following documents:
The precept, issued on January 8, 1999;
The writ of summons, issued on January 8, 1999; and the receipt of
summons, dated January 8, 1999.
The Presiding Officer submits to the Senate for printing in the
Senate Journal the following documents, which were received by the
Secretary of the Senate pursuant to Senate Resolution 16, 106th
Congress, first session:
The answer of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United
States, to the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives against him on January 7, 1999, received by the
Secretary of the Senate on January 11, 1999;
The trial brief filed by the House of Representatives, received by
the Secretary of the Senate on January 11, 1999;
The trial brief filed by the President, received by the Secretary of
the Senate on January 13, 1999;
The replication of the House of Representatives, received by the
Secretary of the Senate on January 13, 1999; and
The rebuttal brief filed by the House of Representatives, received by
the Secretary of the Senate on January 14, 1999.
Without objection, the foregoing documents will be printed in the
Congressional Record.
The documents follow:
The United States of America, ss:
The Senate of the United States to James W. Ziglar, Sergeant
at Arms, United States Senate, greeting:
You are hereby commanded to deliver to and leave with
William Jefferson Clinton, if conveniently to be found, or if
not, to leave at his usual place of abode, a true and
attested copy of the within writ of summons, together with a
like copy of this precept; and in whichsoever way you perform
the service, let it be done at least 2 days before the answer
day mentioned in the said writ of summons.
Fail not, and make return of this writ of summons and
precept, with your proceedings thereon indorsed, on or before
the day for answering mentioned in the said writ of summons.
Witness Strom Thurmond, President pro tempore of the
Senate, at Washington, D.C., this 8th day of January, 1999,
the two hundred and twenty-third year of the Independence of
the United States.
Attest:
Gary Sisco,
Secretary of the Senate.
____
The United States of America, ss:
The Senate of the United States to William Jefferson Clinton,
greeting:
Whereas the House of Representatives of the United States
of America did, on the 7th day of January, 1999, exhibit to
the Senate articles of impeachment against you, the said
William Jefferson Clinton, in the words following:
``Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in the name
of itself and of the people of the United States of America,
against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United
States of America, in maintenance and support of its
impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I
``In his conduct while President of the United States,
William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional
oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the
United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,
and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and
manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his
personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of
justice, in that:
``On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to
that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided
perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury
concerning one or more of the following: (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; (3) prior false and misleading statements he
allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil
rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the
testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of
evidence in that civil rights action.
``In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined
the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the
Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has
acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice,
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
``Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust, or profit under the United States.
Article II
``In his conduct while President of the United States,
William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional
oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the
United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,
and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed,
and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that
end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and
agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay,
impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and
testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought
against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.
``The means used to implement this course of conduct or
scheme included one or more of the following acts:
``(1) 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.
``(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil
rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false
and misleading testimony if and when called to testify
personally in that proceeding.
``(3) 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.
``(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and
continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William
Jefferson Clinton intensified and 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.
``(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal
civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and
misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an
affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by
the judge. Such false and misleading statements were
subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication
to that judge.
[[Page
S61]]
``(6) 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 brought
against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in
order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.
``(7) On or about January 21, 23, and 26, 1998, William
Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to
potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in
order to corruptly influence the testimony of those
witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by
William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to
the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and
misleading information.
``In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined
the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the
Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has
acted in a manner subversive to the rule of law and justice,
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
``Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust, or profit under the United States.''
And demand that you, the said William Jefferson Clinton,
should be put to answer the accusations as set forth in said
articles, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials,
and judgments might be thereupon had as are agreeable to law
and justice.
You, the said William Jefferson Clinton, are therefore
hereby summoned to file with the Secretary of the United
States Senate, S-220 The Capitol, Washington, D.C., 20510, an
answer to the said articles of impeachment no later than noon
on the 11th day of January, 1999, and therefore to abide by,
obey, and perform such orders, directions, and judgments as
the Senate of the United States shall make in the premises
according to the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Hereof you are not to fail.
Witness Strom Thurmond, President pro tempore of the
Senate, at Washington, D.C., this 8th day of January, 1999,
the two hundred and twenty-third year of the Independence of
the United States.
Attest:
Gary Sisco,
Secretary of the Senate.
____
The foregoing writ of summons, addressed to William
Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, and the
foregoing precept, addressed to me, were duly served upon the
said William Jefferson Clinton, by my delivering true and
attested copies of the same to Charles Ruff, at the White
House, on the 8th day of January, 1999, at 5:27 p.m.
Attest:
James W. Ziglar,
Sergeant at Arms.
Loretta Symms,
Deputy Sergeant at Arms.
Dated: January 8, 1999.
Witnesseth:
Gary Sisco, Secretary,
United States Senate.
____
[In the Senate of the United States Sitting as a Court of Impeachment]
In re Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of
the United States
ANSWER OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON TO THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT
The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton, President of the
United States, in response to the summons of the Senate of
the United States, answers the accusations made by the House
of Representatives of the United States in the two Articles
of Impeachment it has exhibited to the Senate as follows:
Preamble
The Charges in the Articles Do Not Constitute High Crimes or
Misdemeanors
The charges in the two Articles of Impeachment do not
permit the conviction and removal from office of a duly
elected President. The President has acknowledged conduct
with Ms. Lewinsky that was improper. But Article II, Section
4 of the Constitution provides that the President shall be
removed from office only upon ``Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors.'' The charges in the articles do not rise to
the level of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' as contemplated
by the Founding Fathers, and they do not satisfy the rigorous
constitutional standard applied throughout our Nation's
history. Accordingly, the Articles of Impeachment should be
dismissed.
The President Did Not Commit Perjury or Obstruct Justice
The President denies each and every material allegation of
the two Articles of Impeachment not specifically admitted in
this answer.
Article I
President Clinton denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements before the federal grand jury on August
17, 1998.
Factual Responses to Article I
Without waiving his affirmative defenses, President Clinton
offers the following factual responses to the allegations in
Article I:
(1) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury about ``the
nature and details of his relationship'' with Monica
Lewinsky
There is a myth about President Clinton's testimony before
the grand jury. The myth is that the President failed to
admit his improper intimate relationship with Ms. Monica
Lewinsky. The myth is perpetuated by Article I, which accuses
the President of lying about ``the nature and details of his
relationship'' with Ms. Lewinsky.
The fact is that the President specifically acknowledged to
the grand jury that he had an improper intimate relationship
with Ms. Lewinsky. He said so, plainly and clearly: ``When I
was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early
1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was
wrong. These encounters . . . did involve inappropriate
intimate contact.'' The President described to the grand jury
how the relationship began and how it ended at his insistence
early in 1997--long before any public attention or scrutiny.
He also described to the grand jury how he had attempted to
testify in the deposition in the Jones case months earlier
without having to acknowledge to the Jones lawyers what he
ultimately admitted to the grand jury--that he had an
improper intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
The President read a prepared statement to the grand jury
acknowledging his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The
statement was offered at the beginning of his testimony to
focus the questioning in a manner that would allow the Office
of Independent Counsel to obtain necessary information
without unduly dwelling on the salacious details of the
relationship. The President's statement was followed by
almost four hours of questioning. If it is charged that his
statement was in any respect perjurious, false and
misleading, the President denies it. The President also
denies that the statement was in any way an attempt to thwart
the investigation.
The President states, as he did during his grand jury
testimony, that he engaged in improper physical contact with
Ms. Lewinsky. The President was truthful when he testified
before the grand jury that he did not engage in sexual
relations with Ms. Lewinsky as he understood that term to be
defined by the Jones lawyers during their questioning of him
in that deposition. The President further denies that his
other statements to the grand jury about the nature and
details of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky were
perjurious, false, and misleading.
(2) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury when he testified
about statements he had made in the Jones deposition
There is a second myth about the President's testimony
before the grand jury. The myth is that the President adopted
his entire Jones deposition testimony in the grand jury. The
President was not asked to and did not broadly restate or
reaffirm his Jones deposition testimony. Instead, in the
grand jury he discussed the bases for certain answers he
gave. The President testified truthfully in the grand jury
about statements he made in the Jones deposition. The
President stated to the grand jury that he did not attempt to
be helpful to or assist the lawyers in the Jones deposition
in their quest for information about his relationship with
Ms. Lewinsky. He truthfully explained to the grand jury his
efforts to answer the questions in the Jones deposition
without disclosing his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
Accordingly, the full, underlying Jones deposition is not
before the Senate.
Indeed, the House specifically considered and rejected an
article of impeachment based on the President's deposition in
the Jones case. The House managers should not be allowed to
prosecute before the Senate an article of impeachment which
the full House has rejected.
(3) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury about
``statements he allowed his attorney to make'' during the
Jones deposition
The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury about the statements
his attorney made during the Jones deposition. The President
was truthful when he explained to the grand jury his
understanding of certain statements made by his lawyer,
Robert Bennett, during the Jones deposition. The President
also was truthful when he testified that he was not focusing
on the prolonged and complicated exchange between the
attorneys and Judge Wright.
(4) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury concerning
alleged efforts ``to influence the testimony of witnesses
and to impede the discovery of evidence'' in the Jones
case
For the reasons discussed more fully in response to Article
II, the President denies that he attempted to influence the
testimony of any witness or to impede the discovery
of evidence in the Jones case. Thus, the President denies
that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements
before the grand jury when he testified about these
matters.
First Affirmative Defense: Article I Does Not Meet the Constitutional
Standard for Conviction and Removal
For the same reasons set forth in the preamble of this
answer, Article I does not meet the rigorous constitutional
standard for conviction and removal from office of a duly
elected President and should be dismissed.
[[Page
S62]]
Second Affirmative Defense: Article I Is Too Vague To Permit Conviction
and Removal
Article I is unconstitutionally vague. No reasonable person
could know what specific charges are being leveled against
the President. It alleges that the President provided the
grand jury with ``perjurious, false, and misleading
testimony'' concerning ``one or more'' of four subject areas.
But it fails to identify any specific statement by the
President that is alleged to be perjurious, false and
misleading. The House has left the Senate and the President
to guess at what it had in mind.
One of the fundamental principles of our law and the
Constitution is that a person has a right to know what
specific charges he or she is facing. Without such fair
warning, no one can prepare the defense to which every person
is entitled. The law and the Constitution also mandate
adequate notice to jurors so they may know the basis for the
vote they must make. Without a definite and specific
identification of false statements, a trial becomes a moving
target for the accused. In addition, the American people
deserve to know upon what specific statements the President
is being judged, given the gravity and effect of these
proceedings, namely nullifying the results of a national
election.
Article I sweeps broadly and fails to provide the required
definite and specific identification. Were it an indictment,
it would be dismissed. As an article of impeachment, it is
constitutionally defective and should fail.
Third Affirmative Defense: Article I Charges Multiple Offense in One
Article
Article I is fatally flawed because it charges multiple
instances of alleged perjurious, false and misleading
statements in one article. The Constitution provides that
``no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two
thirds of the Members present,'' and Senate Rule XXIII
provides that ``an article of impeachment shall not be
divisible for the purpose of voting thereon at any time
during the trial.'' By the express terms of Article I, a
Senator may vote for impeachment if he or she finds that
there was perjurious, false and misleading testimony in ``one
or more'' of four topic areas. This creates the very real
possibility that conviction could occur even though Senators
were in wide disagreement as to the alleged wrong committed.
Put simply, the structure of Article I presents the
possibility that the President could be convicted even though
he would have been acquitted if separate votes were taken on
each allegedly perjurious statement. For example, it would be
possible for the President to be convicted and removed from
office with as few a
s 17 Senators agreeing that any single
statement was perjurious, because 17 votes for each of the
four categories in Article I would yield 68 votes, one more
than necessary to convict and remove.
By charging multiple wrongs in one article, the House of
Representatives has made it impossible for the Senate to
comply with the Constitutional mandate that any conviction be
by the concurrence of two-thirds of the members. Accordingly,
Article I should fail.
Factual Responses to Article II
Without waiving his affirmative defenses, President Clinton
offers the following factual responses to the allegations in
Article II:
(1) The President denies that on or about December 17, 1997,
he ``corruptly encouraged'' Monica Lewinsky ``to execute
a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be
perjurious, false and misleading''
The President denies that he encouraged Monica Lewinsky to
execute a false affidavit in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky,
the only witness cited in support of this allegation, denies
this allegation as well. Her testimony and proffered
statements are clear and unmistakable:
``[N]o one even asked me to lie and I was never
promised a job for my silence.''
``Neither the President nor anyone ever directed
Lewinsky to say anything or to lie . . .''
``Neither the Pres[ident] nor Mr. Jordan (or
anyone on their behalf) asked or encouraged Ms. L[ewinsky] to
lie.''
The President states that, sometime in December 1997, Ms.
Lewinsky asked him whether she might be able to avoid
testifying the Jones case because she knew nothing about Ms.
Jones or the case. The President further states that he told
her he believed other witnesses had executed affidavits, and
there was a chance they would not have to testify. The
President denies that he ever asked, encouraged or suggested
that Ms. Lewinsky file a false affidavit or lie. The
President states that he believed that Ms. Lewinsky could
have filed a limited but truthful affidavit that might have
enabled her to avoid having to testify in the Jones case.
(2) The President denies that on or about December 17, 1997,
he ``corruptly encouraged'' Monica Lewinsky ``to give
perjurious, false and misleading testimony of and when
called to testify personally'' in the Jones litigation
Again, the President denies that he encouraged Ms. Lewinsky
to lie if and when called to testify personally in the Jones
case. The testimony and proffered statements of Monica
Lewinsky, the only witness cited in support of this
allegation, are clear and unmistakable:
[N]o one ever asked me to lie and I was never
promised a job for my silence.''
``Neither the President nor anyone ever directed
Lewinsky to say anything or to lie . . .''
``Neither the Pres[ident] nor Mr. Jordan (or
anyone on their behalf) asked or encouraged Ms. L[ewinsky] to
lie.''
The President states that, prior to Ms. Lewinsky's
involvement in the Jones case, he and Ms. Lewinsky might have
talked about what to do to conceal their relationship from
others. Ms. Lewinsky was not a witness in any legal
proceeding at that time. Ms. Lewinsky's own testimony and
statements support the President's recollection. Ms. Lewinsky
testified that she ``pretty much can'' exclude the
possibility that she and the President ever had discussions
about denying the relationship after she learned she was a
witness in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky also stated that
``they did not discuss the issue [of what to say about their
relationship] is specific relation to the Jones matter,'' and
that ``she does not believe they discussed the content of any
deposition that [she] might be involved in at a later date.''
(3) The President denies that on or about December 28, 1997,
he ``corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a
scheme to conceal evidence'' in the Jones case
The President denies that he engaged in, encouraged, or
supported any scheme to conceal evidence from discovery in
the Jones case, including any gifts he had given to Ms.
Lewinsky. The President states that he gave numerous gifts to
Ms. Lewinsky prior to December 28, 1997. The President states
that, sometime in December, Ms. Lewinsky inquired as to what
to do if she were asked in the Jones case about the gifts he
had given her, to which the President responded that she
would have to turn over whatever she had. The President
states that he was unconcerned about having given her gifts
and, in fact, that he gave Ms. Lewinsky additional gifts on
December 28, 1997. The President denies that he ever asked
his secretary, Ms. Betty Currie, to retrieve gifts he had
given Ms. Lewinsky, or that he ever asked, encouraged, or
suggested that Ms. Lewinsky conceal the gifts. Ms. Currie
told prosecutors as early as January 1998 and repeatedly
thereafter that it was Ms. Lewinsky who had contacted her
about retrieving gifts.
(4) The President denies that he obstructed justice in
connection with Monica Lewinsky's efforts to obtain a job
in New York to ``corruptly prevent'' her ``truthful
testimony'' in the Jones case
The President denies that he obstructed justice in
connection with Ms. Lewinsky's job search in New York or
sought to prevent her truthful testimony in the Jones case.
The President states that he discussed with Ms. Lewinsky her
desire to obtain a job in New York months before she was
listed as a potential witness in the Jones case. Indeed, Ms.
Lewinsky was offered a job in New York at the United Nations
more than a month before she was identified as a possible
witness. The President also states that he believes that Ms.
Lewinsky raised with him, again before she was ever listed as
a possible witness in the Jones case, the prospect of having
Mr. Vernon Jordan assist in her job search. Ms. Lewinsky
corroborates his recollection that it was her idea to ask for
Mr. Jordan's help. The President also states that he was
aware that Mr. Jordan was assisting Ms. Lewinsky to obtain
employment in New York. The President denies that any of
these efforts had any connection whatsoever to Ms. Lewinsky's
status as a possible or actual witness in the Jones case. Ms.
Lewinsky forcefully confirmed the President's denial when she
testified, ``I was never promised a job for my silence.''
(5) The President denies that he ``corruptly allowed his
attorney to make false and misleading statements to a
Federal judge'' concerning Monica Lewinsky's affidavit
The President denies that he corruptly allowed his attorney
to make false and misleading statements concerning Ms.
Lewinsky's affidavit to a Federal judge during the Jones
deposition. The President denies that he was focusing his
attention on the prolonged and complicated exchange between
his attorney and Judge Wright.
(6) The President denies that he obstructed justice by
relating ``false and misleading statements'' to ``a
potential witness,'' Betty Currie, ``in order to
corruptly influence [her] testimony''
The President denies that he obstructed justice or
endeavored in any way to influence any potential testimony of
Ms. Betty Currie. The President states that he spoke with Ms.
Currie on January 18, 1998. The President testified that, in
that conversation, he was trying to find out what the facts
were, what Ms. Currie's perception was, and whether his own
recollection was correct about certain aspects of his
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Ms. Currie testified that she
felt no pressure ``whatsoever'' from the President's
statements and no pressure ``to agree with [her] boss.'' The
President denies knowing or believing that Ms. Currie would
be a witness in any proceeding at the time of this
conversation. Ms. Currie had not been on any of the witness
lists proffered by the Jones lawyers. President Clinton
states that, after the Independent Counsel investigation
became public, when Ms. Currie was scheduled to testify, he
told Ms. Currie to ``tell the truth.''
(7) The President denies that he obstructed justice when he
relayed allegedly ``false and misleading statements'' to
his aides
The President denies that he obstructed justice when he
misled his aides about the
[[Page
S63]]
nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky in the days
immediately following the public revelation of the Lewinsky
investigation. The President acknowledges that, in the days
following the January 21, 1998, Washington Post article, he
misled his family, his friends and staff, and the Nation to
conceal the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He
sought to avoid disclosing his personal wrongdoing to protect
his family and himself from hurt and public embarrassment.
The President profoundly regrets his actions, and he has
apologized to his family, his friends and staff, and the
Nation. The President denies that he had any corrupt purpose
or any intent to influence the ongoing grand jury
proceedings.
First Affirmative Defense: Article II Does Not Meet the Constitutional
Standard for Conviction and Removal
For the reasons set forth in the preamble of this answer,
Article II does not meet the constitutional standard for
convicting and removing a duly elected President from office
and should be dismissed.
Second Affirmative Defense: Article II Is Too Vague To Permit
Conviction and Removal
Article II is unconstitutionally vague. No reasonable
person could know what specific charges are being leveled
against the President. Article II alleges that the President
``obstructed and impeded the administration of justice'' in
both the Jones case and the grand jury investigation. But it
provides little or no concrete information about the specific
acts in which the President is alleged to have engaged, or
with whom, or when, that allegedly obstructed or otherwise
impeded the administration of justice.
As we set forth in the Second Affirmative Defense to
Article I, one of the fundamental principles of our law and
the Constitution is that a person has the right to know what
specific charges he or she is facing. Without such fair
warning, no one can mount the defense to which every person
is entitled. Fundamental to due process is the right of the
President to be adequately informed of the charges so that he
is able to confront those charges and defend himself.
Article II sweeps too broadly and provides too little
definite and specific identification. Were it an indictment,
it would be dismissed. As an article of impeachment, it is
constitutionally defective and should fail.
Third Affirmative Defense: Article II Charges Multiple Offenses in One
Article
For the reasons set forth in the Third Affirmative Defense
to Article I, Article II is constitutionally defective
because it charges multiple instances of alleged acts of
obstruction in one article, which makes it impossible for the
Senate to comply with the Constitutional mandates that any
conviction be by the concurrence of the two-thirds of the
members. Accordingly, Article II should fail.
Respectfully submitted,
David E. Kendall,
Nicole K. Seligman,
Emmet T. Flood,
Max Stier,
Glen Donath,
Alicia Marti,
Williams & Connolly,
725 12th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20005.
Charles F. C. Ruff,
Gregory B. Craig,
Bruce R. Lindsey,
Cheryl D. Mills,
Lanny A. Breuer,
Office of the White House Counsel,
The White House,
Washington, D.C. 20502.
Submitted: January 11, 1999.
____
[In the Senate of the United States Sitting as a Court of Impeachment]
In re Impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton
TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Now comes the United States House of Representatives, by
and through its duly authorized Managers, and respectfully
submits to the United States Senate its Brief in connection
with the Impeachment Trial of William Jefferson Clinton,
President of the United States.
Summary
The President is charged in two Articles with: (1) Perjury
and false and misleading testimony and statements under oath
before a federal grand jury (Article I), and (2) engaging in
a course of conduct or scheme to delay and obstruct justice
(Article II).
The evidence contained in the record, when viewed as a
unified whole, overwhelmingly supports both charges.
Perjury and False Statements Under Oath
President Clinton deliberately and willfully testified
falsely under oath when he appeared before a federal grand
jury on August 17, 1998. Although what follows is not
exhaustive, some of the more overt examples will serve to
illustrate.
At the very outset, the President read a prepared
statement, which itself contained totally false assertions
and other clearly misleading information.
The President relied on his statement nineteen
times in his testimony when questioned about his relationship
with Ms. Lewinsky.
President Clinton falsely testified that he was
not paying attention when his lawyer employed Ms. Lewinsky's
false affidavit at the Jones deposition.
He falsely claimed that his actions with Ms.
Lewinsky did not fall within the definition of ``sexual
relations'' that was given at his deposition.
He falsely testified that he answered questions
truthfully at his deposition concerning, among other
subjects, whether he had been alone with Ms. Lewinsky.
He falsely testified that he instructed Ms.
Lewinsky to turn over the gifts if she were subpoenaed.
He falsely denied trying to influence Ms. Currie
after his deposition.
He falsely testified that he was truthful to his
aides when he gave accounts of his relationship, which
accounts were subsequently disseminated to the media and the
grand jury.
Obstruction of Justice
The President engaged in an ongoing scheme to obstruct both
the Jones civil case and the grand jury. Further, he
undertook a continuing and concerted plan to tamper with
witnesses and prospective witnesses for the purpose of
causing those witnesses to provide false and misleading
testimony. Examples abound:
The President and Ms. Lewinsky concocted a cover
story to conceal their relationship, and the President
suggested that she employ that story if subpoenaed in the
Jones case.
The President suggested that Ms. Lewinsky provide
an affidavit to avoid testifying in the Jones case, when he
knew that the affidavit would need to be false to accomplish
its purpose.
The President knowingly and willfully allowed his
attorney to file Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit and to use it
for the purpose of obstructing justice in the Jones case.
The President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she
provide a false account of how she received her job at the
Pentagon.
The President attempted to influence the expected
testimony of his secretary, Ms. Currie, by providing her with
a false account of his meetings with Ms. Lewinsky.
The President provided several of his top aides
with elaborate lies about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky,
so that those aides would convey the false information to the
public and to the grand jury. When he did this, he knew that
those aides would likely be called to testify, while he was
declining several invitations to testify. By this action, he
obstructed and delayed the operation of the grand jury.
The President conspired with Ms. Lewinsky and Ms.
Currie to conceal evidence that he had been subpoenaed in the
Jones case, and thereby delayed and obstructed justice.
The President and his representatives orchestrated
a campaign to discredit Ms. Lewinsky in order to affect
adversely her credibility as a witness, and thereby attempted
to obstruct justice both in the Jones case and the grand
jury.
The President lied repeatedly under oath in his
disposition in the Jones case, and thereby obstructed justice
in that case.
The President's lies and misleading statements
under oath at the grand jury were calculated to, and did
obstruct, delay and prevent the due administration of justice
by that body.
The President employed the power of his office to
procure a job for Ms. Lewinsky after she signed the false
affidavit by causing his friend to exert extraordinary
efforts for that purpose.
The foregoing are merely accusations of an ongoing pattern
of obstruction of justice, and witness tampering extending
over a period of several months, and having the effect of
seriously compromising the integrity of the entire judicial
system.
The effect of the President's misconduct has been
devastating in several respects.
(1) He violated repeatedly his oath to ``preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States.''
(2) He ignored his constitutional duty as chief law
enforcement officer to ``take care that the laws be
faithfully executed.''
(3) He deliberately and unlawfully obstructed Paula Jones's
rights as a citizen to due process and the equal protection
of the laws, though he had sworn to protect those rights.
(4) By his pattern of lies under oath, misleading
statements and deceit, he has seriously undermined the
integrity and credibility of the Office of President and
thereby the honor and integrity of the United States.
(5) His pattern of perjuries, obstruction of justice, and
witness tampering has affected the truth seeking process
which is the foundation of our legal system.
(6) By mounting an assault in the truth seeking process, he
has attacked the entire Judicial Branch of government.
The Articles of Impeachment that the House has preferred
state offenses that warrant, if proved, the conviction and
removal from office of President William Jefferson Clinton.
The Articles charge that the President has committed perjury
before a federal grand jury and that he obstructed justice in
a federal civil rights action. The Senate's own precedents
establish beyond doubt that perjury warrants conviction and
removal. During the 1980s, the Senate convicted and removed
three federal judges for committing perjury. Obstruction of
justice under mines the judicial system in the same fashion
that
[[Page
S64]]
perjury does, and it also warrants conviction and removal.
Under our Constitution, judges are impeached under the same
standard as Presidents--treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors. Thus, these judicial impeachments
for perjury set the standard here. Finally, the Senate's own
precedents further establish that the President's crimes need
not arise directly out of his official duties. Two of the
three judges removed in the 1980s were removed for perjury
that had nothing to do with their official duties.
Introduction
This Brief is intended solely to advise the Senate
generally of the evidence that the Managers intend to
product, if permitted, and of the applicable legal
principles. It is not intended to discuss exhaustively all of
the evidence, nor does it necessarily include each and every
witness and document that the Managers would produce in the
course of the trial. This Brief, then, is merely an outline
for the use of the Senate in reviewing and assessing the
evidence as it is set forth at trial--it is not, and is not
intended to be a substitute for a trial at which all of the
relevant facts will be developed.
H. Res. 611, 105th Cong. 2nd Sess. (1998)
The House Impeachment Resolution charges the President with
high crimes and misdemeanors in two Articles. Article One
alleges that President Clinton ``willfully corrupted and
manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his
personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of
justice'' in that he willfully provided perjurious, false and
misleading testimony to a federal grand jury on August 17,
1998. Article Two asserts that the President ``has prevented,
obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice and
engaged in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay,
impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and
testimony related to a federal civil rights action brought
against him.'' Both Articles are now before the Senate of the
United States for trial as provided by the Constitution of
the United States.
The Office of President represents to the American people
and to the world, the strength, the philosophy and most of
all, the honor and integrity that makes us a great nation and
an example for the world. Because all eyes are focused upon
that high office, the character and credibility of any
temporary occupant of the Oval Office is vital to the
domestic and foreign welfare of the citizens. Consequently,
serious breaches of integrity and duty of necessity adversely
influence the reputation of the United States.
This case is not about sex or private conduct. It is about
multiple obstructions of justice, perjury, false and
misleading statements, and witness tampering--all committed
or orchestrated by the President of the United States.
Before addressing the President's lies and obstruction, it
is important to place the events in the proper context. If
this were only about private sex we would not now be before
the Senate. But the manner in which the Lewinsky relationship
arose and continued is important because it is illustrative
of the character of the President and the decisions he made.
Background
Monica Lewinsky, a 22 year old intern, (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 8;
H.Doc. 105-311, p. 728) was working at the White House during
the government shutdown in 1995. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 10; H.Doc.
105-311, p. 730) Prior to their first intimate encounter, she
had never even spoken with the President. Sometime on
November 15, 1995, Ms. Lewinsky and President Clinton flirted
with each other. (Id.) The President of the United States of
America then invited this unknown young intern into a private
area off the Oval Office where he kissed her. He then invited
her back later and when she returned, the two engaged in the
first of many acts of inappropriate contact. (ML 8/6/98 GJ,
p. 12; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 732)
Thereafter, the two concocted a cover story. If Ms.
Lewinsky were seen, she was bringing papers to the President.
That story was totally false. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 54; H.Doc.
105-311, p. 774; 8/26/98 Dep., p. 34; H.Doc. 105-311, p.
1314) The only papers she brought were personal messages
having nothing to do with her duties or those of the
President. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 54-55; H.Doc. 105-311, pp.
774-775) After Ms. Lewinsky moved from the White House to the
Pentagon, her frequent visits to the President were disguised
as visits to Betty Currie. (Id.) Those cover stories are
important, because they play a vital role in the later
perjuries and obstructions.
Encounters
Over the term of their relationship the following
significant matters occurred:
1. Monica Lewinsky and the President were alone on at least
twenty-one occasions;
2. They had at least eleven personal sexual encounters,
excluding phone sex: Three in 1995, Five in 1996 and Three in
1997;
3. They had at least 55 telephone conversations, at least
seventeen of which involved phone sex;
4. The President gave Ms. Lewinsky twenty presents; and,
5. Ms. Lewinsky gave the President forty presents (O.I.C.
Referral, App., Tab E; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 104-111)
These are the essential facts which form the backdrop for
all of the events that followed.
The sexual details of the President's encounters with Ms.
Lewinsky, though relevant, need not be detailed either in
this document or through witness testimony. It is necessary,
though, briefly to outline that evidence, because it will
demonstrate that the President repeatedly lied about that
sexual relationship in his deposition, before the grand jury,
and in his responses to the Judiciary Committee's questions.
He has consistently maintained that Ms. Lewinsky merely
performed acts on him, while he never touched her in a sexual
manner. This characterization not only directly contradicts
Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, but it also contradicts the sworn
grand jury testimony of three of her friends and the
statements by two professional counselors with whom she
contemporaneously shared the details of her relationship.
(O.I.C. Referral, H. Doc. 105-310, pgs. 138-140)
While his treatment of Ms. Lewinsky was offensive, it is
much more offensive for the President to expect the Senate to
believe that in 1995, 1996, and 1997, his intimate contact
with Ms. Lewinsky was so limited that it did not fall within
his narrow interpretation of a definition of ``sexual
relations''. As later demonstrated, he did not even conceive
his interpretation until 1998, while preparing for his grand
jury appearance.
How To View the Evidence
We respectfully submit that the evidence and testimony must
be viewed as a whole; it cannot be compartmentalized. It is
essential to avoid considering each event in isolation, and
then treating it separately. Events and words that may seem
innocent or even exculpatory in a vacuum may well take on a
sinister, or even criminal connotation when observed in the
context of the whole plot. For example, everyone agrees that
Monica Lewinsky testified ``No one ever told me to lie;
nobody ever promised me a job.'' (ML 8/20/98 GJ, p. 105; H.
Doc. 105-311, p. 1161)
When considered alone this would seem exculpatory. However,
in the context of the other evidence, another picture
emerges. Of course no one said. ``Now, Monica, you go in
there and lie.'' They didn't have to. Ms. Lewinsky knew what
was expected of her. Similarly, nobody promised her a job,
but once she signed the false affidavit, she got one.
The Issue
The ultimate issue is whether the President's course of
conduct is such as to affect adversely the Office of the
President and also upon the administration of justice, and
whether he has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as
President and subversive to the Rule of Law and
Constitutional government.
The Beginning
The events that form the basis of these charges actually
began in late 1995. They reached a critical stage in the
winter of 1997 and the first month of 1998. The event
culminated when the President of the United States appeared
before a federal grand jury, raised his right hand to God and
swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth.
december 5-6, 1997
On Friday, December 5, 1997, Monica Lewinsky asked Betty
Currie if the President could see her the next day, Saturday,
but Ms. Currie said that the President was scheduled to meet
with his lawyers all day. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 107-108; H.
Doc. 105-311, pgs. 827-828) Later that Friday, Ms. Lewinsky
spoke briefly to the President at a Christmas party. (ML 7/
31/98 Int., p. 1; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 1451; ML 8/6/98 GJ, p.
108; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 828)
The Witness List Is Received
That evening, Paula Jones's attorneys faxed a list of
potential witnesses to the President's attorneys. (849-DC-
00000128; 849-DC-00000121-37; Referral, H. Doc. 105-311, p.
88) The list included Monica Lewinsky. However, Ms. Lewinsky
did not find out that her name was on the list until the
President told her ten days later, on December 17. (ML 8/6/98
GJ, pgs. 121-123; H. Doc. 105-311, pgs. 841-843) That delay
is significant.
Ms. Lewinsky's First Visit
After her conversation with Ms. Currie and seeing the
President at the Christmas party, Ms. Lewinsky drafted a
letter to the President terminating their relationship. (ML-
55-DC-0177); ML 7/31/98 Int., p. 2; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 1452)
The next morning, Saturday, December 6, Ms. Lewinsky went to
the White House to deliver the letter and some gifts for the
President to Ms. Currie. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 108-109; H. Doc.
105-311, pgs. 828-829) When she arrived at the White House,
Ms. Lewinsky spoke to several Secret Service officers, and
one of them told her that the President was not with his
lawyers, as she thought, but rather, he was meeting with
Eleanor Mondale. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 111; H. Doc. 105-311, p.
831; Mondale 7/16/98 Int., p. 1; H. Doc. 105-316, pgs. 2907-
2908; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 2654) Ms. Lewinsky called Ms.
Currie from a pay phone, angrily exchanged words with her,
and went home. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 112-13; H. Doc. 105-311,
pgs. 832-833; Currie 1/27/98 GJ, p. 27; H. Doc. 105-316, p.
553) After that phone call, Ms. Currie told the Secret
Service watch commander that the President was so upset about
the disclosure of his meeting with Ms. Mondale that he wanted
somebody fired. (Purdie 7/23/98 GJ, pgs. 13, 18-19; H. Doc.
105-316, pgs. 3356-3357).
The Telephone Conversations
At 12:05 p.m., records demonstrate that Ms. Currie paged
Bruce Lindsey with the message: ``Call Betty ASAP.'' (964-DC-
00000862;
[[Page
S65]]
H. Doc. 105-311, p. 2722) Around that same time, according to
Ms. Lewinsky, while she was back at her apartment, Ms.
Lewinsky and the President spoke by phone. The President was
very angry; he told Ms. Lewinsky that no one had every
treated him as poorly as she had. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 113-14;
H. Doc. 105-311, pgs. 833-834) The President acknowledged to
the grand jury that he was upset about Ms. Lewinsky's
behavior and considered it inappropriate. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ,
p. 85; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 537). Nevertheless, in a sudden
change of mood, he invited her to visit him at the White
House that afternoon. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 114; H.Doc. 105-
311, p. 834)
Ms. Lewinsky's Second Visit
Monica Lewinsky arrived at the White House for the second
time that day and was cleared to enter at 12:52 p.m. (WAVES:
827-DC-00000018) Although, in Ms. Lewinsky's words, the
President was ``very angry'' with her during their recent
telephone conversation, he was ``sweet'' and ``very
affectionate'' during this visit. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 113-15;
H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 833-835). He also told her that he would
talk to Vernon Jordan about her job situation. (ML 8/6/98 GJ,
pgs. 115-16; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 835-836)
The Discussions With the Secret Service
The President also suddenly changed his attitude toward the
Secret Serv
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Senate - January 14, 1999)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S59-S251]
TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate will convene as a Court of Impeachment.
The Chaplain will offer a prayer.
______
PRAYER
The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
Almighty God, whose providential care has never varied all through
our Nation's history, we ask You for a special measure of wisdom for
the women and men of this Senate as they act as jurors in this
impeachment trial. You have been our Nation's refuge and strength in
triumphs and troubles, prosperity and problems. Now, dear Father, help
us through this difficult time. As You guided the Senators to unity in
matters of procedure, continue to make them one in their search for the
truth and in their expression of justice. Keep them focused in a spirit
of nonpartisan patriotism today and in the crucial days to come. Bless
the distinguished Chief Justice as he presides over this trial. We
commit to You all that is said and done and ultimately decided. In Your
holy Name. Amen.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Sergeant at Arms will make the proclamation.
The Sergeant at Arms, James W. Ziglar, made proclamation as follows:
Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded to
keep silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate of the
United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of
impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against
William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Presiding Officer recognizes the majority
leader.
Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Installing Equipment And Furniture in the Senate Chamber
Mr. LOTT. I send a resolution to the desk providing for installing
equipment and furniture in the Senate Chamber and ask that it be agreed
to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (
S. Res. 17), to authorize the installation of
appropriate equipment and furniture in the Senate Chamber for
the impeachment trial.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, the resolution is considered
and agreed to.
The resolution (
S. Res. 17) was agreed to, as follows:
S. Res. 17
Resolved, That in recognition of the unique requirements
raised by the impeachment trial of a President of the United
States, the Sergeant at Arms shall install appropriate
equipment and furniture in the Senate chamber for use by the
managers from the House of Representatives and counsel to the
President in their presentations to the Senate during all
times that the Senate is sitting for trial with the Chief
Justice of the United States presiding.
Sec. 2. The appropriate equipment and furniture referred to
in the first section is as follows:
(1) A lectern, a witness table and chair if required, and
tables and chairs to accommodate an equal number of managers
from the House of Representatives and counsel for the
President which shall be placed in the well of the Senate.
(2) Such equipment as may be required to permit the display
of video, or audio evidence, including video monitors and
microphones, which may be placed in the chamber for use by
the managers from the House of Representatives or the counsel
to the President.
Sec. 3. All equipment and furniture authorized by this
resolution shall be placed in the chamber in a manner that
provides the least practicable disruption to Senate
proceedings.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I now ask unanimous consent floor
privileges be granted to the individuals listed on the document I send
to the desk, during the closed impeachment proceedings of William
Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The document follows.
Floor Privileges During Closed Session
David Hoppe, Administrative Assistant, Majority Leader.
Michael Wallace, Counsel, Majority Leader.
Robert Wilkie, Counsel, Majority Leader.
Bill Corr, Counsel, Democratic Leader.
Robert Bauer, Counsel, Democratic Leader.
Andrea La Rue, Counsel, Democratic Leader.
Peter Arapis, Floor Manager, Democratic Whip.
Kirk Matthew, Chief of Staff, Assistant Majority Leader.
Stewart Verdery, Counsel, Assistant Majority Leader.
Tom Griffith, Senate Legal Counsel.
[[Page
S60]]
Morgan Frankel, Deputy Senate Legal Counsel.
Loretta Symms, Deputy Sergeant at Arms.
Bruce Kasold, Chief Counsel, Secretary & Sergeant at Arms.
David Schiappa, Assistant Majority Secretary.
Lula Davis, Assistant Minority Secretary.
Alan Frumin, Assistant Parliamentarian.
Kevin Kayes, Assistant Parliamentarian.
Patrick Keating, Assistant Journal Clerk.
Scott Sanborn, Assistant Journal Clerk.
David Tinsley, Assistant Legislative Clerk.
Ronald Kavulick, Chief Reporter.
Jerald Linnell, Official Reporter.
Raleigh Milton, Official Reporter.
Joel Breitner, Official Reporter.
Mary Jane McCarthy, Official Reporter.
Paul Nelson, Official Reporter.
Katie-Jane Teel, Official Reporter.
Patrick Renzi, Official Reporter.
Lee Brown, Staff Assistant, Official Reporter.
Kathleen Alvarez, Bill Clerk.
Simon Sargent, Staff Assistant to Sen. Cleland.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Authority to Print Senate Documents
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the
Secretary of the Senate be authorized to print as a Senate document all
documents filed by the parties together with other materials for the
convenience of all Senators.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I am about to submit a series of
unanimous-consent agreements and a resolution for the consideration of
the Senate. In addition to these matters, I would like to state for the
information of all Senators that, pursuant to
S. Res. 16, the
evidentiary record on which the parties' presentations over the next
days will be based was filed by the House managers yesterday and was
distributed to all Senators through their offices. These materials are
now being printed at the Government Printing Office as Senate
documents. The initial documents of the record have been printed and
are now at each Senator's desk. As the printing of the rest of the
volumes of the record is completed over the next few days, they will
also be placed on the Senators desks for their convenience.
THE JOURNAL
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, the Journal of the proceedings
of the trial are approved to date.
The Presiding Officer submits to the Senate for printing in the
Senate Journal the following documents:
The precept, issued on January 8, 1999;
The writ of summons, issued on January 8, 1999; and the receipt of
summons, dated January 8, 1999.
The Presiding Officer submits to the Senate for printing in the
Senate Journal the following documents, which were received by the
Secretary of the Senate pursuant to Senate Resolution 16, 106th
Congress, first session:
The answer of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United
States, to the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives against him on January 7, 1999, received by the
Secretary of the Senate on January 11, 1999;
The trial brief filed by the House of Representatives, received by
the Secretary of the Senate on January 11, 1999;
The trial brief filed by the President, received by the Secretary of
the Senate on January 13, 1999;
The replication of the House of Representatives, received by the
Secretary of the Senate on January 13, 1999; and
The rebuttal brief filed by the House of Representatives, received by
the Secretary of the Senate on January 14, 1999.
Without objection, the foregoing documents will be printed in the
Congressional Record.
The documents follow:
The United States of America, ss:
The Senate of the United States to James W. Ziglar, Sergeant
at Arms, United States Senate, greeting:
You are hereby commanded to deliver to and leave with
William Jefferson Clinton, if conveniently to be found, or if
not, to leave at his usual place of abode, a true and
attested copy of the within writ of summons, together with a
like copy of this precept; and in whichsoever way you perform
the service, let it be done at least 2 days before the answer
day mentioned in the said writ of summons.
Fail not, and make return of this writ of summons and
precept, with your proceedings thereon indorsed, on or before
the day for answering mentioned in the said writ of summons.
Witness Strom Thurmond, President pro tempore of the
Senate, at Washington, D.C., this 8th day of January, 1999,
the two hundred and twenty-third year of the Independence of
the United States.
Attest:
Gary Sisco,
Secretary of the Senate.
____
The United States of America, ss:
The Senate of the United States to William Jefferson Clinton,
greeting:
Whereas the House of Representatives of the United States
of America did, on the 7th day of January, 1999, exhibit to
the Senate articles of impeachment against you, the said
William Jefferson Clinton, in the words following:
``Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in the name
of itself and of the people of the United States of America,
against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United
States of America, in maintenance and support of its
impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I
``In his conduct while President of the United States,
William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional
oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the
United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,
and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and
manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his
personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of
justice, in that:
``On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to
that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided
perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury
concerning one or more of the following: (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; (3) prior false and misleading statements he
allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil
rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the
testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of
evidence in that civil rights action.
``In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined
the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the
Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has
acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice,
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
``Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust, or profit under the United States.
Article II
``In his conduct while President of the United States,
William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional
oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the
United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,
and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed,
and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that
end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and
agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay,
impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and
testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought
against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.
``The means used to implement this course of conduct or
scheme included one or more of the following acts:
``(1) 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.
``(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil
rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false
and misleading testimony if and when called to testify
personally in that proceeding.
``(3) 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.
``(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and
continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William
Jefferson Clinton intensified and 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.
``(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal
civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and
misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an
affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by
the judge. Such false and misleading statements were
subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication
to that judge.
[[Page
S61]]
``(6) 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 brought
against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in
order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.
``(7) On or about January 21, 23, and 26, 1998, William
Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to
potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in
order to corruptly influence the testimony of those
witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by
William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to
the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and
misleading information.
``In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined
the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the
Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has
acted in a manner subversive to the rule of law and justice,
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
``Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust, or profit under the United States.''
And demand that you, the said William Jefferson Clinton,
should be put to answer the accusations as set forth in said
articles, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials,
and judgments might be thereupon had as are agreeable to law
and justice.
You, the said William Jefferson Clinton, are therefore
hereby summoned to file with the Secretary of the United
States Senate, S-220 The Capitol, Washington, D.C., 20510, an
answer to the said articles of impeachment no later than noon
on the 11th day of January, 1999, and therefore to abide by,
obey, and perform such orders, directions, and judgments as
the Senate of the United States shall make in the premises
according to the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Hereof you are not to fail.
Witness Strom Thurmond, President pro tempore of the
Senate, at Washington, D.C., this 8th day of January, 1999,
the two hundred and twenty-third year of the Independence of
the United States.
Attest:
Gary Sisco,
Secretary of the Senate.
____
The foregoing writ of summons, addressed to William
Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, and the
foregoing precept, addressed to me, were duly served upon the
said William Jefferson Clinton, by my delivering true and
attested copies of the same to Charles Ruff, at the White
House, on the 8th day of January, 1999, at 5:27 p.m.
Attest:
James W. Ziglar,
Sergeant at Arms.
Loretta Symms,
Deputy Sergeant at Arms.
Dated: January 8, 1999.
Witnesseth:
Gary Sisco, Secretary,
United States Senate.
____
[In the Senate of the United States Sitting as a Court of Impeachment]
In re Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of
the United States
ANSWER OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON TO THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT
The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton, President of the
United States, in response to the summons of the Senate of
the United States, answers the accusations made by the House
of Representatives of the United States in the two Articles
of Impeachment it has exhibited to the Senate as follows:
Preamble
The Charges in the Articles Do Not Constitute High Crimes or
Misdemeanors
The charges in the two Articles of Impeachment do not
permit the conviction and removal from office of a duly
elected President. The President has acknowledged conduct
with Ms. Lewinsky that was improper. But Article II, Section
4 of the Constitution provides that the President shall be
removed from office only upon ``Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors.'' The charges in the articles do not rise to
the level of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' as contemplated
by the Founding Fathers, and they do not satisfy the rigorous
constitutional standard applied throughout our Nation's
history. Accordingly, the Articles of Impeachment should be
dismissed.
The President Did Not Commit Perjury or Obstruct Justice
The President denies each and every material allegation of
the two Articles of Impeachment not specifically admitted in
this answer.
Article I
President Clinton denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements before the federal grand jury on August
17, 1998.
Factual Responses to Article I
Without waiving his affirmative defenses, President Clinton
offers the following factual responses to the allegations in
Article I:
(1) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury about ``the
nature and details of his relationship'' with Monica
Lewinsky
There is a myth about President Clinton's testimony before
the grand jury. The myth is that the President failed to
admit his improper intimate relationship with Ms. Monica
Lewinsky. The myth is perpetuated by Article I, which accuses
the President of lying about ``the nature and details of his
relationship'' with Ms. Lewinsky.
The fact is that the President specifically acknowledged to
the grand jury that he had an improper intimate relationship
with Ms. Lewinsky. He said so, plainly and clearly: ``When I
was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early
1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was
wrong. These encounters . . . did involve inappropriate
intimate contact.'' The President described to the grand jury
how the relationship began and how it ended at his insistence
early in 1997--long before any public attention or scrutiny.
He also described to the grand jury how he had attempted to
testify in the deposition in the Jones case months earlier
without having to acknowledge to the Jones lawyers what he
ultimately admitted to the grand jury--that he had an
improper intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
The President read a prepared statement to the grand jury
acknowledging his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The
statement was offered at the beginning of his testimony to
focus the questioning in a manner that would allow the Office
of Independent Counsel to obtain necessary information
without unduly dwelling on the salacious details of the
relationship. The President's statement was followed by
almost four hours of questioning. If it is charged that his
statement was in any respect perjurious, false and
misleading, the President denies it. The President also
denies that the statement was in any way an attempt to thwart
the investigation.
The President states, as he did during his grand jury
testimony, that he engaged in improper physical contact with
Ms. Lewinsky. The President was truthful when he testified
before the grand jury that he did not engage in sexual
relations with Ms. Lewinsky as he understood that term to be
defined by the Jones lawyers during their questioning of him
in that deposition. The President further denies that his
other statements to the grand jury about the nature and
details of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky were
perjurious, false, and misleading.
(2) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury when he testified
about statements he had made in the Jones deposition
There is a second myth about the President's testimony
before the grand jury. The myth is that the President adopted
his entire Jones deposition testimony in the grand jury. The
President was not asked to and did not broadly restate or
reaffirm his Jones deposition testimony. Instead, in the
grand jury he discussed the bases for certain answers he
gave. The President testified truthfully in the grand jury
about statements he made in the Jones deposition. The
President stated to the grand jury that he did not attempt to
be helpful to or assist the lawyers in the Jones deposition
in their quest for information about his relationship with
Ms. Lewinsky. He truthfully explained to the grand jury his
efforts to answer the questions in the Jones deposition
without disclosing his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
Accordingly, the full, underlying Jones deposition is not
before the Senate.
Indeed, the House specifically considered and rejected an
article of impeachment based on the President's deposition in
the Jones case. The House managers should not be allowed to
prosecute before the Senate an article of impeachment which
the full House has rejected.
(3) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury about
``statements he allowed his attorney to make'' during the
Jones deposition
The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury about the statements
his attorney made during the Jones deposition. The President
was truthful when he explained to the grand jury his
understanding of certain statements made by his lawyer,
Robert Bennett, during the Jones deposition. The President
also was truthful when he testified that he was not focusing
on the prolonged and complicated exchange between the
attorneys and Judge Wright.
(4) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury concerning
alleged efforts ``to influence the testimony of witnesses
and to impede the discovery of evidence'' in the Jones
case
For the reasons discussed more fully in response to Article
II, the President denies that he attempted to influence the
testimony of any witness or to impede the discovery
of evidence in the Jones case. Thus, the President denies
that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements
before the grand jury when he testified about these
matters.
First Affirmative Defense: Article I Does Not Meet the Constitutional
Standard for Conviction and Removal
For the same reasons set forth in the preamble of this
answer, Article I does not meet the rigorous constitutional
standard for conviction and removal from office of a duly
elected President and should be dismissed.
[[Page
S62]]
Second Affirmative Defense: Article I Is Too Vague To Permit Conviction
and Removal
Article I is unconstitutionally vague. No reasonable person
could know what specific charges are being leveled against
the President. It alleges that the President provided the
grand jury with ``perjurious, false, and misleading
testimony'' concerning ``one or more'' of four subject areas.
But it fails to identify any specific statement by the
President that is alleged to be perjurious, false and
misleading. The House has left the Senate and the President
to guess at what it had in mind.
One of the fundamental principles of our law and the
Constitution is that a person has a right to know what
specific charges he or she is facing. Without such fair
warning, no one can prepare the defense to which every person
is entitled. The law and the Constitution also mandate
adequate notice to jurors so they may know the basis for the
vote they must make. Without a definite and specific
identification of false statements, a trial becomes a moving
target for the accused. In addition, the American people
deserve to know upon what specific statements the President
is being judged, given the gravity and effect of these
proceedings, namely nullifying the results of a national
election.
Article I sweeps broadly and fails to provide the required
definite and specific identification. Were it an indictment,
it would be dismissed. As an article of impeachment, it is
constitutionally defective and should fail.
Third Affirmative Defense: Article I Charges Multiple Offense in One
Article
Article I is fatally flawed because it charges multiple
instances of alleged perjurious, false and misleading
statements in one article. The Constitution provides that
``no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two
thirds of the Members present,'' and Senate Rule XXIII
provides that ``an article of impeachment shall not be
divisible for the purpose of voting thereon at any time
during the trial.'' By the express terms of Article I, a
Senator may vote for impeachment if he or she finds that
there was perjurious, false and misleading testimony in ``one
or more'' of four topic areas. This creates the very real
possibility that conviction could occur even though Senators
were in wide disagreement as to the alleged wrong committed.
Put simply, the structure of Article I presents the
possibility that the President could be convicted even though
he would have been acquitted if separate votes were taken on
each allegedly perjurious statement. For example, it would be
possible for the President to be convicted and removed from
office with as few a
s 17 Senators agreeing that any single
statement was perjurious, because 17 votes for each of the
four categories in Article I would yield 68 votes, one more
than necessary to convict and remove.
By charging multiple wrongs in one article, the House of
Representatives has made it impossible for the Senate to
comply with the Constitutional mandate that any conviction be
by the concurrence of two-thirds of the members. Accordingly,
Article I should fail.
Factual Responses to Article II
Without waiving his affirmative defenses, President Clinton
offers the following factual responses to the allegations in
Article II:
(1) The President denies that on or about December 17, 1997,
he ``corruptly encouraged'' Monica Lewinsky ``to execute
a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be
perjurious, false and misleading''
The President denies that he encouraged Monica Lewinsky to
execute a false affidavit in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky,
the only witness cited in support of this allegation, denies
this allegation as well. Her testimony and proffered
statements are clear and unmistakable:
``[N]o one even asked me to lie and I was never
promised a job for my silence.''
``Neither the President nor anyone ever directed
Lewinsky to say anything or to lie . . .''
``Neither the Pres[ident] nor Mr. Jordan (or
anyone on their behalf) asked or encouraged Ms. L[ewinsky] to
lie.''
The President states that, sometime in December 1997, Ms.
Lewinsky asked him whether she might be able to avoid
testifying the Jones case because she knew nothing about Ms.
Jones or the case. The President further states that he told
her he believed other witnesses had executed affidavits, and
there was a chance they would not have to testify. The
President denies that he ever asked, encouraged or suggested
that Ms. Lewinsky file a false affidavit or lie. The
President states that he believed that Ms. Lewinsky could
have filed a limited but truthful affidavit that might have
enabled her to avoid having to testify in the Jones case.
(2) The President denies that on or about December 17, 1997,
he ``corruptly encouraged'' Monica Lewinsky ``to give
perjurious, false and misleading testimony of and when
called to testify personally'' in the Jones litigation
Again, the President denies that he encouraged Ms. Lewinsky
to lie if and when called to testify personally in the Jones
case. The testimony and proffered statements of Monica
Lewinsky, the only witness cited in support of this
allegation, are clear and unmistakable:
[N]o one ever asked me to lie and I was never
promised a job for my silence.''
``Neither the President nor anyone ever directed
Lewinsky to say anything or to lie . . .''
``Neither the Pres[ident] nor Mr. Jordan (or
anyone on their behalf) asked or encouraged Ms. L[ewinsky] to
lie.''
The President states that, prior to Ms. Lewinsky's
involvement in the Jones case, he and Ms. Lewinsky might have
talked about what to do to conceal their relationship from
others. Ms. Lewinsky was not a witness in any legal
proceeding at that time. Ms. Lewinsky's own testimony and
statements support the President's recollection. Ms. Lewinsky
testified that she ``pretty much can'' exclude the
possibility that she and the President ever had discussions
about denying the relationship after she learned she was a
witness in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky also stated that
``they did not discuss the issue [of what to say about their
relationship] is specific relation to the Jones matter,'' and
that ``she does not believe they discussed the content of any
deposition that [she] might be involved in at a later date.''
(3) The President denies that on or about December 28, 1997,
he ``corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a
scheme to conceal evidence'' in the Jones case
The President denies that he engaged in, encouraged, or
supported any scheme to conceal evidence from discovery in
the Jones case, including any gifts he had given to Ms.
Lewinsky. The President states that he gave numerous gifts to
Ms. Lewinsky prior to December 28, 1997. The President states
that, sometime in December, Ms. Lewinsky inquired as to what
to do if she were asked in the Jones case about the gifts he
had given her, to which the President responded that she
would have to turn over whatever she had. The President
states that he was unconcerned about having given her gifts
and, in fact, that he gave Ms. Lewinsky additional gifts on
December 28, 1997. The President denies that he ever asked
his secretary, Ms. Betty Currie, to retrieve gifts he had
given Ms. Lewinsky, or that he ever asked, encouraged, or
suggested that Ms. Lewinsky conceal the gifts. Ms. Currie
told prosecutors as early as January 1998 and repeatedly
thereafter that it was Ms. Lewinsky who had contacted her
about retrieving gifts.
(4) The President denies that he obstructed justice in
connection with Monica Lewinsky's efforts to obtain a job
in New York to ``corruptly prevent'' her ``truthful
testimony'' in the Jones case
The President denies that he obstructed justice in
connection with Ms. Lewinsky's job search in New York or
sought to prevent her truthful testimony in the Jones case.
The President states that he discussed with Ms. Lewinsky her
desire to obtain a job in New York months before she was
listed as a potential witness in the Jones case. Indeed, Ms.
Lewinsky was offered a job in New York at the United Nations
more than a month before she was identified as a possible
witness. The President also states that he believes that Ms.
Lewinsky raised with him, again before she was ever listed as
a possible witness in the Jones case, the prospect of having
Mr. Vernon Jordan assist in her job search. Ms. Lewinsky
corroborates his recollection that it was her idea to ask for
Mr. Jordan's help. The President also states that he was
aware that Mr. Jordan was assisting Ms. Lewinsky to obtain
employment in New York. The President denies that any of
these efforts had any connection whatsoever to Ms. Lewinsky's
status as a possible or actual witness in the Jones case. Ms.
Lewinsky forcefully confirmed the President's denial when she
testified, ``I was never promised a job for my silence.''
(5) The President denies that he ``corruptly allowed his
attorney to make false and misleading statements to a
Federal judge'' concerning Monica Lewinsky's affidavit
The President denies that he corruptly allowed his attorney
to make false and misleading statements concerning Ms.
Lewinsky's affidavit to a Federal judge during the Jones
deposition. The President denies that he was focusing his
attention on the prolonged and complicated exchange between
his attorney and Judge Wright.
(6) The President denies that he obstructed justice by
relating ``false and misleading statements'' to ``a
potential witness,'' Betty Currie, ``in order to
corruptly influence [her] testimony''
The President denies that he obstructed justice or
endeavored in any way to influence any potential testimony of
Ms. Betty Currie. The President states that he spoke with Ms.
Currie on January 18, 1998. The President testified that, in
that conversation, he was trying to find out what the facts
were, what Ms. Currie's perception was, and whether his own
recollection was correct about certain aspects of his
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Ms. Currie testified that she
felt no pressure ``whatsoever'' from the President's
statements and no pressure ``to agree with [her] boss.'' The
President denies knowing or believing that Ms. Currie would
be a witness in any proceeding at the time of this
conversation. Ms. Currie had not been on any of the witness
lists proffered by the Jones lawyers. President Clinton
states that, after the Independent Counsel investigation
became public, when Ms. Currie was scheduled to testify, he
told Ms. Currie to ``tell the truth.''
(7) The President denies that he obstructed justice when he
relayed allegedly ``false and misleading statements'' to
his aides
The President denies that he obstructed justice when he
misled his aides about the
[[Page
S63]]
nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky in the days
immediately following the public revelation of the Lewinsky
investigation. The President acknowledges that, in the days
following the January 21, 1998, Washington Post article, he
misled his family, his friends and staff, and the Nation to
conceal the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He
sought to avoid disclosing his personal wrongdoing to protect
his family and himself from hurt and public embarrassment.
The President profoundly regrets his actions, and he has
apologized to his family, his friends and staff, and the
Nation. The President denies that he had any corrupt purpose
or any intent to influence the ongoing grand jury
proceedings.
First Affirmative Defense: Article II Does Not Meet the Constitutional
Standard for Conviction and Removal
For the reasons set forth in the preamble of this answer,
Article II does not meet the constitutional standard for
convicting and removing a duly elected President from office
and should be dismissed.
Second Affirmative Defense: Article II Is Too Vague To Permit
Conviction and Removal
Article II is unconstitutionally vague. No reasonable
person could know what specific charges are being leveled
against the President. Article II alleges that the President
``obstructed and impeded the administration of justice'' in
both the Jones case and the grand jury investigation. But it
provides little or no concrete information about the specific
acts in which the President is alleged to have engaged, or
with whom, or when, that allegedly obstructed or otherwise
impeded the administration of justice.
As we set forth in the Second Affirmative Defense to
Article I, one of the fundamental principles of our law and
the Constitution is that a person has the right to know what
specific charges he or she is facing. Without such fair
warning, no one can mount the defense to which every person
is entitled. Fundamental to due process is the right of the
President to be adequately informed of the charges so that he
is able to confront those charges and defend himself.
Article II sweeps too broadly and provides too little
definite and specific identification. Were it an indictment,
it would be dismissed. As an article of impeachment, it is
constitutionally defective and should fail.
Third Affirmative Defense: Article II Charges Multiple Offenses in One
Article
For the reasons set forth in the Third Affirmative Defense
to Article I, Article II is constitutionally defective
because it charges multiple instances of alleged acts of
obstruction in one article, which makes it impossible for the
Senate to comply with the Constitutional mandates that any
conviction be by the concurrence of the two-thirds of the
members. Accordingly, Article II should fail.
Respectfully submitted,
David E. Kendall,
Nicole K. Seligman,
Emmet T. Flood,
Max Stier,
Glen Donath,
Alicia Marti,
Williams & Connolly,
725 12th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20005.
Charles F. C. Ruff,
Gregory B. Craig,
Bruce R. Lindsey,
Cheryl D. Mills,
Lanny A. Breuer,
Office of the White House Counsel,
The White House,
Washington, D.C. 20502.
Submitted: January 11, 1999.
____
[In the Senate of the United States Sitting as a Court of Impeachment]
In re Impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton
TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Now comes the United States House of Representatives, by
and through its duly authorized Managers, and respectfully
submits to the United States Senate its Brief in connection
with the Impeachment Trial of William Jefferson Clinton,
President of the United States.
Summary
The President is charged in two Articles with: (1) Perjury
and false and misleading testimony and statements under oath
before a federal grand jury (Article I), and (2) engaging in
a course of conduct or scheme to delay and obstruct justice
(Article II).
The evidence contained in the record, when viewed as a
unified whole, overwhelmingly supports both charges.
Perjury and False Statements Under Oath
President Clinton deliberately and willfully testified
falsely under oath when he appeared before a federal grand
jury on August 17, 1998. Although what follows is not
exhaustive, some of the more overt examples will serve to
illustrate.
At the very outset, the President read a prepared
statement, which itself contained totally false assertions
and other clearly misleading information.
The President relied on his statement nineteen
times in his testimony when questioned about his relationship
with Ms. Lewinsky.
President Clinton falsely testified that he was
not paying attention when his lawyer employed Ms. Lewinsky's
false affidavit at the Jones deposition.
He falsely claimed that his actions with Ms.
Lewinsky did not fall within the definition of ``sexual
relations'' that was given at his deposition.
He falsely testified that he answered questions
truthfully at his deposition concerning, among other
subjects, whether he had been alone with Ms. Lewinsky.
He falsely testified that he instructed Ms.
Lewinsky to turn over the gifts if she were subpoenaed.
He falsely denied trying to influence Ms. Currie
after his deposition.
He falsely testified that he was truthful to his
aides when he gave accounts of his relationship, which
accounts were subsequently disseminated to the media and the
grand jury.
Obstruction of Justice
The President engaged in an ongoing scheme to obstruct both
the Jones civil case and the grand jury. Further, he
undertook a continuing and concerted plan to tamper with
witnesses and prospective witnesses for the purpose of
causing those witnesses to provide false and misleading
testimony. Examples abound:
The President and Ms. Lewinsky concocted a cover
story to conceal their relationship, and the President
suggested that she employ that story if subpoenaed in the
Jones case.
The President suggested that Ms. Lewinsky provide
an affidavit to avoid testifying in the Jones case, when he
knew that the affidavit would need to be false to accomplish
its purpose.
The President knowingly and willfully allowed his
attorney to file Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit and to use it
for the purpose of obstructing justice in the Jones case.
The President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she
provide a false account of how she received her job at the
Pentagon.
The President attempted to influence the expected
testimony of his secretary, Ms. Currie, by providing her with
a false account of his meetings with Ms. Lewinsky.
The President provided several of his top aides
with elaborate lies about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky,
so that those aides would convey the false information to the
public and to the grand jury. When he did this, he knew that
those aides would likely be called to testify, while he was
declining several invitations to testify. By this action, he
obstructed and delayed the operation of the grand jury.
The President conspired with Ms. Lewinsky and Ms.
Currie to conceal evidence that he had been subpoenaed in the
Jones case, and thereby delayed and obstructed justice.
The President and his representatives orchestrated
a campaign to discredit Ms. Lewinsky in order to affect
adversely her credibility as a witness, and thereby attempted
to obstruct justice both in the Jones case and the grand
jury.
The President lied repeatedly under oath in his
disposition in the Jones case, and thereby obstructed justice
in that case.
The President's lies and misleading statements
under oath at the grand jury were calculated to, and did
obstruct, delay and prevent the due administration of justice
by that body.
The President employed the power of his office to
procure a job for Ms. Lewinsky after she signed the false
affidavit by causing his friend to exert extraordinary
efforts for that purpose.
The foregoing are merely accusations of an ongoing pattern
of obstruction of justice, and witness tampering extending
over a period of several months, and having the effect of
seriously compromising the integrity of the entire judicial
system.
The effect of the President's misconduct has been
devastating in several respects.
(1) He violated repeatedly his oath to ``preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States.''
(2) He ignored his constitutional duty as chief law
enforcement officer to ``take care that the laws be
faithfully executed.''
(3) He deliberately and unlawfully obstructed Paula Jones's
rights as a citizen to due process and the equal protection
of the laws, though he had sworn to protect those rights.
(4) By his pattern of lies under oath, misleading
statements and deceit, he has seriously undermined the
integrity and credibility of the Office of President and
thereby the honor and integrity of the United States.
(5) His pattern of perjuries, obstruction of justice, and
witness tampering has affected the truth seeking process
which is the foundation of our legal system.
(6) By mounting an assault in the truth seeking process, he
has attacked the entire Judicial Branch of government.
The Articles of Impeachment that the House has preferred
state offenses that warrant, if proved, the conviction and
removal from office of President William Jefferson Clinton.
The Articles charge that the President has committed perjury
before a federal grand jury and that he obstructed justice in
a federal civil rights action. The Senate's own precedents
establish beyond doubt that perjury warrants conviction and
removal. During the 1980s, the Senate convicted and removed
three federal judges for committing perjury. Obstruction of
justice under mines the judicial system in the same fashion
that
[[Page
S64]]
perjury does, and it also warrants conviction and removal.
Under our Constitution, judges are impeached under the same
standard as Presidents--treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors. Thus, these judicial impeachments
for perjury set the standard here. Finally, the Senate's own
precedents further establish that the President's crimes need
not arise directly out of his official duties. Two of the
three judges removed in the 1980s were removed for perjury
that had nothing to do with their official duties.
Introduction
This Brief is intended solely to advise the Senate
generally of the evidence that the Managers intend to
product, if permitted, and of the applicable legal
principles. It is not intended to discuss exhaustively all of
the evidence, nor does it necessarily include each and every
witness and document that the Managers would produce in the
course of the trial. This Brief, then, is merely an outline
for the use of the Senate in reviewing and assessing the
evidence as it is set forth at trial--it is not, and is not
intended to be a substitute for a trial at which all of the
relevant facts will be developed.
H. Res. 611, 105th Cong. 2nd Sess. (1998)
The House Impeachment Resolution charges the President with
high crimes and misdemeanors in two Articles. Article One
alleges that President Clinton ``willfully corrupted and
manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his
personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of
justice'' in that he willfully provided perjurious, false and
misleading testimony to a federal grand jury on August 17,
1998. Article Two asserts that the President ``has prevented,
obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice and
engaged in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay,
impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and
testimony related to a federal civil rights action brought
against him.'' Both Articles are now before the Senate of the
United States for trial as provided by the Constitution of
the United States.
The Office of President represents to the American people
and to the world, the strength, the philosophy and most of
all, the honor and integrity that makes us a great nation and
an example for the world. Because all eyes are focused upon
that high office, the character and credibility of any
temporary occupant of the Oval Office is vital to the
domestic and foreign welfare of the citizens. Consequently,
serious breaches of integrity and duty of necessity adversely
influence the reputation of the United States.
This case is not about sex or private conduct. It is about
multiple obstructions of justice, perjury, false and
misleading statements, and witness tampering--all committed
or orchestrated by the President of the United States.
Before addressing the President's lies and obstruction, it
is important to place the events in the proper context. If
this were only about private sex we would not now be before
the Senate. But the manner in which the Lewinsky relationship
arose and continued is important because it is illustrative
of the character of the President and the decisions he made.
Background
Monica Lewinsky, a 22 year old intern, (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 8;
H.Doc. 105-311, p. 728) was working at the White House during
the government shutdown in 1995. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 10; H.Doc.
105-311, p. 730) Prior to their first intimate encounter, she
had never even spoken with the President. Sometime on
November 15, 1995, Ms. Lewinsky and President Clinton flirted
with each other. (Id.) The President of the United States of
America then invited this unknown young intern into a private
area off the Oval Office where he kissed her. He then invited
her back later and when she returned, the two engaged in the
first of many acts of inappropriate contact. (ML 8/6/98 GJ,
p. 12; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 732)
Thereafter, the two concocted a cover story. If Ms.
Lewinsky were seen, she was bringing papers to the President.
That story was totally false. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 54; H.Doc.
105-311, p. 774; 8/26/98 Dep., p. 34; H.Doc. 105-311, p.
1314) The only papers she brought were personal messages
having nothing to do with her duties or those of the
President. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 54-55; H.Doc. 105-311, pp.
774-775) After Ms. Lewinsky moved from the White House to the
Pentagon, her frequent visits to the President were disguised
as visits to Betty Currie. (Id.) Those cover stories are
important, because they play a vital role in the later
perjuries and obstructions.
Encounters
Over the term of their relationship the following
significant matters occurred:
1. Monica Lewinsky and the President were alone on at least
twenty-one occasions;
2. They had at least eleven personal sexual encounters,
excluding phone sex: Three in 1995, Five in 1996 and Three in
1997;
3. They had at least 55 telephone conversations, at least
seventeen of which involved phone sex;
4. The President gave Ms. Lewinsky twenty presents; and,
5. Ms. Lewinsky gave the President forty presents (O.I.C.
Referral, App., Tab E; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 104-111)
These are the essential facts which form the backdrop for
all of the events that followed.
The sexual details of the President's encounters with Ms.
Lewinsky, though relevant, need not be detailed either in
this document or through witness testimony. It is necessary,
though, briefly to outline that evidence, because it will
demonstrate that the President repeatedly lied about that
sexual relationship in his deposition, before the grand jury,
and in his responses to the Judiciary Committee's questions.
He has consistently maintained that Ms. Lewinsky merely
performed acts on him, while he never touched her in a sexual
manner. This characterization not only directly contradicts
Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, but it also contradicts the sworn
grand jury testimony of three of her friends and the
statements by two professional counselors with whom she
contemporaneously shared the details of her relationship.
(O.I.C. Referral, H. Doc. 105-310, pgs. 138-140)
While his treatment of Ms. Lewinsky was offensive, it is
much more offensive for the President to expect the Senate to
believe that in 1995, 1996, and 1997, his intimate contact
with Ms. Lewinsky was so limited that it did not fall within
his narrow interpretation of a definition of ``sexual
relations''. As later demonstrated, he did not even conceive
his interpretation until 1998, while preparing for his grand
jury appearance.
How To View the Evidence
We respectfully submit that the evidence and testimony must
be viewed as a whole; it cannot be compartmentalized. It is
essential to avoid considering each event in isolation, and
then treating it separately. Events and words that may seem
innocent or even exculpatory in a vacuum may well take on a
sinister, or even criminal connotation when observed in the
context of the whole plot. For example, everyone agrees that
Monica Lewinsky testified ``No one ever told me to lie;
nobody ever promised me a job.'' (ML 8/20/98 GJ, p. 105; H.
Doc. 105-311, p. 1161)
When considered alone this would seem exculpatory. However,
in the context of the other evidence, another picture
emerges. Of course no one said. ``Now, Monica, you go in
there and lie.'' They didn't have to. Ms. Lewinsky knew what
was expected of her. Similarly, nobody promised her a job,
but once she signed the false affidavit, she got one.
The Issue
The ultimate issue is whether the President's course of
conduct is such as to affect adversely the Office of the
President and also upon the administration of justice, and
whether he has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as
President and subversive to the Rule of Law and
Constitutional government.
The Beginning
The events that form the basis of these charges actually
began in late 1995. They reached a critical stage in the
winter of 1997 and the first month of 1998. The event
culminated when the President of the United States appeared
before a federal grand jury, raised his right hand to God and
swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth.
december 5-6, 1997
On Friday, December 5, 1997, Monica Lewinsky asked Betty
Currie if the President could see her the next day, Saturday,
but Ms. Currie said that the President was scheduled to meet
with his lawyers all day. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 107-108; H.
Doc. 105-311, pgs. 827-828) Later that Friday, Ms. Lewinsky
spoke briefly to the President at a Christmas party. (ML 7/
31/98 Int., p. 1; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 1451; ML 8/6/98 GJ, p.
108; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 828)
The Witness List Is Received
That evening, Paula Jones's attorneys faxed a list of
potential witnesses to the President's attorneys. (849-DC-
00000128; 849-DC-00000121-37; Referral, H. Doc. 105-311, p.
88) The list included Monica Lewinsky. However, Ms. Lewinsky
did not find out that her name was on the list until the
President told her ten days later, on December 17. (ML 8/6/98
GJ, pgs. 121-123; H. Doc. 105-311, pgs. 841-843) That delay
is significant.
Ms. Lewinsky's First Visit
After her conversation with Ms. Currie and seeing the
President at the Christmas party, Ms. Lewinsky drafted a
letter to the President terminating their relationship. (ML-
55-DC-0177); ML 7/31/98 Int., p. 2; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 1452)
The next morning, Saturday, December 6, Ms. Lewinsky went to
the White House to deliver the letter and some gifts for the
President to Ms. Currie. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 108-109; H. Doc.
105-311, pgs. 828-829) When she arrived at the White House,
Ms. Lewinsky spoke to several Secret Service officers, and
one of them told her that the President was not with his
lawyers, as she thought, but rather, he was meeting with
Eleanor Mondale. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 111; H. Doc. 105-311, p.
831; Mondale 7/16/98 Int., p. 1; H. Doc. 105-316, pgs. 2907-
2908; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 2654) Ms. Lewinsky called Ms.
Currie from a pay phone, angrily exchanged words with her,
and went home. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 112-13; H. Doc. 105-311,
pgs. 832-833; Currie 1/27/98 GJ, p. 27; H. Doc. 105-316, p.
553) After that phone call, Ms. Currie told the Secret
Service watch commander that the President was so upset about
the disclosure of his meeting with Ms. Mondale that he wanted
somebody fired. (Purdie 7/23/98 GJ, pgs. 13, 18-19; H. Doc.
105-316, pgs. 3356-3357).
The Telephone Conversations
At 12:05 p.m., records demonstrate that Ms. Currie paged
Bruce Lindsey with the message: ``Call Betty ASAP.'' (964-DC-
00000862;
[[Page
S65]]
H. Doc. 105-311, p. 2722) Around that same time, according to
Ms. Lewinsky, while she was back at her apartment, Ms.
Lewinsky and the President spoke by phone. The President was
very angry; he told Ms. Lewinsky that no one had every
treated him as poorly as she had. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 113-14;
H. Doc. 105-311, pgs. 833-834) The President acknowledged to
the grand jury that he was upset about Ms. Lewinsky's
behavior and considered it inappropriate. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ,
p. 85; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 537). Nevertheless, in a sudden
change of mood, he invited her to visit him at the White
House that afternoon. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 114; H.Doc. 105-
311, p. 834)
Ms. Lewinsky's Second Visit
Monica Lewinsky arrived at the White House for the second
time that day and was cleared to enter at 12:52 p.m. (WAVES:
827-DC-00000018) Although, in Ms. Lewinsky's words, the
President was ``very angry'' with her during their recent
telephone conversation, he was ``sweet'' and ``very
affectionate'' during this visit. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 113-15;
H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 833-835). He also told her that he would
talk to Vernon Jordan about her job situation. (ML 8/6/98 GJ,
pgs. 115-16; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 835-836)
The Discussions With the Secret Service
The President also suddenly changed his attit
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Senate - January 14, 1999)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S59-S251]
TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate will convene as a Court of Impeachment.
The Chaplain will offer a prayer.
______
PRAYER
The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
Almighty God, whose providential care has never varied all through
our Nation's history, we ask You for a special measure of wisdom for
the women and men of this Senate as they act as jurors in this
impeachment trial. You have been our Nation's refuge and strength in
triumphs and troubles, prosperity and problems. Now, dear Father, help
us through this difficult time. As You guided the Senators to unity in
matters of procedure, continue to make them one in their search for the
truth and in their expression of justice. Keep them focused in a spirit
of nonpartisan patriotism today and in the crucial days to come. Bless
the distinguished Chief Justice as he presides over this trial. We
commit to You all that is said and done and ultimately decided. In Your
holy Name. Amen.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Sergeant at Arms will make the proclamation.
The Sergeant at Arms, James W. Ziglar, made proclamation as follows:
Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded to
keep silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate of the
United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of
impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against
William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Presiding Officer recognizes the majority
leader.
Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Installing Equipment And Furniture in the Senate Chamber
Mr. LOTT. I send a resolution to the desk providing for installing
equipment and furniture in the Senate Chamber and ask that it be agreed
to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (
S. Res. 17), to authorize the installation of
appropriate equipment and furniture in the Senate Chamber for
the impeachment trial.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, the resolution is considered
and agreed to.
The resolution (
S. Res. 17) was agreed to, as follows:
S. Res. 17
Resolved, That in recognition of the unique requirements
raised by the impeachment trial of a President of the United
States, the Sergeant at Arms shall install appropriate
equipment and furniture in the Senate chamber for use by the
managers from the House of Representatives and counsel to the
President in their presentations to the Senate during all
times that the Senate is sitting for trial with the Chief
Justice of the United States presiding.
Sec. 2. The appropriate equipment and furniture referred to
in the first section is as follows:
(1) A lectern, a witness table and chair if required, and
tables and chairs to accommodate an equal number of managers
from the House of Representatives and counsel for the
President which shall be placed in the well of the Senate.
(2) Such equipment as may be required to permit the display
of video, or audio evidence, including video monitors and
microphones, which may be placed in the chamber for use by
the managers from the House of Representatives or the counsel
to the President.
Sec. 3. All equipment and furniture authorized by this
resolution shall be placed in the chamber in a manner that
provides the least practicable disruption to Senate
proceedings.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I now ask unanimous consent floor
privileges be granted to the individuals listed on the document I send
to the desk, during the closed impeachment proceedings of William
Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The document follows.
Floor Privileges During Closed Session
David Hoppe, Administrative Assistant, Majority Leader.
Michael Wallace, Counsel, Majority Leader.
Robert Wilkie, Counsel, Majority Leader.
Bill Corr, Counsel, Democratic Leader.
Robert Bauer, Counsel, Democratic Leader.
Andrea La Rue, Counsel, Democratic Leader.
Peter Arapis, Floor Manager, Democratic Whip.
Kirk Matthew, Chief of Staff, Assistant Majority Leader.
Stewart Verdery, Counsel, Assistant Majority Leader.
Tom Griffith, Senate Legal Counsel.
[[Page
S60]]
Morgan Frankel, Deputy Senate Legal Counsel.
Loretta Symms, Deputy Sergeant at Arms.
Bruce Kasold, Chief Counsel, Secretary & Sergeant at Arms.
David Schiappa, Assistant Majority Secretary.
Lula Davis, Assistant Minority Secretary.
Alan Frumin, Assistant Parliamentarian.
Kevin Kayes, Assistant Parliamentarian.
Patrick Keating, Assistant Journal Clerk.
Scott Sanborn, Assistant Journal Clerk.
David Tinsley, Assistant Legislative Clerk.
Ronald Kavulick, Chief Reporter.
Jerald Linnell, Official Reporter.
Raleigh Milton, Official Reporter.
Joel Breitner, Official Reporter.
Mary Jane McCarthy, Official Reporter.
Paul Nelson, Official Reporter.
Katie-Jane Teel, Official Reporter.
Patrick Renzi, Official Reporter.
Lee Brown, Staff Assistant, Official Reporter.
Kathleen Alvarez, Bill Clerk.
Simon Sargent, Staff Assistant to Sen. Cleland.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Authority to Print Senate Documents
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the
Secretary of the Senate be authorized to print as a Senate document all
documents filed by the parties together with other materials for the
convenience of all Senators.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chief Justice, I am about to submit a series of
unanimous-consent agreements and a resolution for the consideration of
the Senate. In addition to these matters, I would like to state for the
information of all Senators that, pursuant to
S. Res. 16, the
evidentiary record on which the parties' presentations over the next
days will be based was filed by the House managers yesterday and was
distributed to all Senators through their offices. These materials are
now being printed at the Government Printing Office as Senate
documents. The initial documents of the record have been printed and
are now at each Senator's desk. As the printing of the rest of the
volumes of the record is completed over the next few days, they will
also be placed on the Senators desks for their convenience.
THE JOURNAL
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, the Journal of the proceedings
of the trial are approved to date.
The Presiding Officer submits to the Senate for printing in the
Senate Journal the following documents:
The precept, issued on January 8, 1999;
The writ of summons, issued on January 8, 1999; and the receipt of
summons, dated January 8, 1999.
The Presiding Officer submits to the Senate for printing in the
Senate Journal the following documents, which were received by the
Secretary of the Senate pursuant to Senate Resolution 16, 106th
Congress, first session:
The answer of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United
States, to the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives against him on January 7, 1999, received by the
Secretary of the Senate on January 11, 1999;
The trial brief filed by the House of Representatives, received by
the Secretary of the Senate on January 11, 1999;
The trial brief filed by the President, received by the Secretary of
the Senate on January 13, 1999;
The replication of the House of Representatives, received by the
Secretary of the Senate on January 13, 1999; and
The rebuttal brief filed by the House of Representatives, received by
the Secretary of the Senate on January 14, 1999.
Without objection, the foregoing documents will be printed in the
Congressional Record.
The documents follow:
The United States of America, ss:
The Senate of the United States to James W. Ziglar, Sergeant
at Arms, United States Senate, greeting:
You are hereby commanded to deliver to and leave with
William Jefferson Clinton, if conveniently to be found, or if
not, to leave at his usual place of abode, a true and
attested copy of the within writ of summons, together with a
like copy of this precept; and in whichsoever way you perform
the service, let it be done at least 2 days before the answer
day mentioned in the said writ of summons.
Fail not, and make return of this writ of summons and
precept, with your proceedings thereon indorsed, on or before
the day for answering mentioned in the said writ of summons.
Witness Strom Thurmond, President pro tempore of the
Senate, at Washington, D.C., this 8th day of January, 1999,
the two hundred and twenty-third year of the Independence of
the United States.
Attest:
Gary Sisco,
Secretary of the Senate.
____
The United States of America, ss:
The Senate of the United States to William Jefferson Clinton,
greeting:
Whereas the House of Representatives of the United States
of America did, on the 7th day of January, 1999, exhibit to
the Senate articles of impeachment against you, the said
William Jefferson Clinton, in the words following:
``Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in the name
of itself and of the people of the United States of America,
against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United
States of America, in maintenance and support of its
impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I
``In his conduct while President of the United States,
William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional
oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the
United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,
and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and
manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his
personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of
justice, in that:
``On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to
that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided
perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury
concerning one or more of the following: (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; (3) prior false and misleading statements he
allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil
rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the
testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of
evidence in that civil rights action.
``In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined
the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the
Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has
acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice,
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
``Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust, or profit under the United States.
Article II
``In his conduct while President of the United States,
William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional
oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the
United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,
and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed,
and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that
end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and
agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay,
impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and
testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought
against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.
``The means used to implement this course of conduct or
scheme included one or more of the following acts:
``(1) 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.
``(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil
rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false
and misleading testimony if and when called to testify
personally in that proceeding.
``(3) 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.
``(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and
continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William
Jefferson Clinton intensified and 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.
``(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal
civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and
misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an
affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by
the judge. Such false and misleading statements were
subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication
to that judge.
[[Page
S61]]
``(6) 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 brought
against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in
order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.
``(7) On or about January 21, 23, and 26, 1998, William
Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to
potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in
order to corruptly influence the testimony of those
witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by
William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to
the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and
misleading information.
``In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined
the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the
Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has
acted in a manner subversive to the rule of law and justice,
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
``Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust, or profit under the United States.''
And demand that you, the said William Jefferson Clinton,
should be put to answer the accusations as set forth in said
articles, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials,
and judgments might be thereupon had as are agreeable to law
and justice.
You, the said William Jefferson Clinton, are therefore
hereby summoned to file with the Secretary of the United
States Senate, S-220 The Capitol, Washington, D.C., 20510, an
answer to the said articles of impeachment no later than noon
on the 11th day of January, 1999, and therefore to abide by,
obey, and perform such orders, directions, and judgments as
the Senate of the United States shall make in the premises
according to the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Hereof you are not to fail.
Witness Strom Thurmond, President pro tempore of the
Senate, at Washington, D.C., this 8th day of January, 1999,
the two hundred and twenty-third year of the Independence of
the United States.
Attest:
Gary Sisco,
Secretary of the Senate.
____
The foregoing writ of summons, addressed to William
Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, and the
foregoing precept, addressed to me, were duly served upon the
said William Jefferson Clinton, by my delivering true and
attested copies of the same to Charles Ruff, at the White
House, on the 8th day of January, 1999, at 5:27 p.m.
Attest:
James W. Ziglar,
Sergeant at Arms.
Loretta Symms,
Deputy Sergeant at Arms.
Dated: January 8, 1999.
Witnesseth:
Gary Sisco, Secretary,
United States Senate.
____
[In the Senate of the United States Sitting as a Court of Impeachment]
In re Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of
the United States
ANSWER OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON TO THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT
The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton, President of the
United States, in response to the summons of the Senate of
the United States, answers the accusations made by the House
of Representatives of the United States in the two Articles
of Impeachment it has exhibited to the Senate as follows:
Preamble
The Charges in the Articles Do Not Constitute High Crimes or
Misdemeanors
The charges in the two Articles of Impeachment do not
permit the conviction and removal from office of a duly
elected President. The President has acknowledged conduct
with Ms. Lewinsky that was improper. But Article II, Section
4 of the Constitution provides that the President shall be
removed from office only upon ``Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors.'' The charges in the articles do not rise to
the level of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' as contemplated
by the Founding Fathers, and they do not satisfy the rigorous
constitutional standard applied throughout our Nation's
history. Accordingly, the Articles of Impeachment should be
dismissed.
The President Did Not Commit Perjury or Obstruct Justice
The President denies each and every material allegation of
the two Articles of Impeachment not specifically admitted in
this answer.
Article I
President Clinton denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements before the federal grand jury on August
17, 1998.
Factual Responses to Article I
Without waiving his affirmative defenses, President Clinton
offers the following factual responses to the allegations in
Article I:
(1) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury about ``the
nature and details of his relationship'' with Monica
Lewinsky
There is a myth about President Clinton's testimony before
the grand jury. The myth is that the President failed to
admit his improper intimate relationship with Ms. Monica
Lewinsky. The myth is perpetuated by Article I, which accuses
the President of lying about ``the nature and details of his
relationship'' with Ms. Lewinsky.
The fact is that the President specifically acknowledged to
the grand jury that he had an improper intimate relationship
with Ms. Lewinsky. He said so, plainly and clearly: ``When I
was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early
1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was
wrong. These encounters . . . did involve inappropriate
intimate contact.'' The President described to the grand jury
how the relationship began and how it ended at his insistence
early in 1997--long before any public attention or scrutiny.
He also described to the grand jury how he had attempted to
testify in the deposition in the Jones case months earlier
without having to acknowledge to the Jones lawyers what he
ultimately admitted to the grand jury--that he had an
improper intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
The President read a prepared statement to the grand jury
acknowledging his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The
statement was offered at the beginning of his testimony to
focus the questioning in a manner that would allow the Office
of Independent Counsel to obtain necessary information
without unduly dwelling on the salacious details of the
relationship. The President's statement was followed by
almost four hours of questioning. If it is charged that his
statement was in any respect perjurious, false and
misleading, the President denies it. The President also
denies that the statement was in any way an attempt to thwart
the investigation.
The President states, as he did during his grand jury
testimony, that he engaged in improper physical contact with
Ms. Lewinsky. The President was truthful when he testified
before the grand jury that he did not engage in sexual
relations with Ms. Lewinsky as he understood that term to be
defined by the Jones lawyers during their questioning of him
in that deposition. The President further denies that his
other statements to the grand jury about the nature and
details of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky were
perjurious, false, and misleading.
(2) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury when he testified
about statements he had made in the Jones deposition
There is a second myth about the President's testimony
before the grand jury. The myth is that the President adopted
his entire Jones deposition testimony in the grand jury. The
President was not asked to and did not broadly restate or
reaffirm his Jones deposition testimony. Instead, in the
grand jury he discussed the bases for certain answers he
gave. The President testified truthfully in the grand jury
about statements he made in the Jones deposition. The
President stated to the grand jury that he did not attempt to
be helpful to or assist the lawyers in the Jones deposition
in their quest for information about his relationship with
Ms. Lewinsky. He truthfully explained to the grand jury his
efforts to answer the questions in the Jones deposition
without disclosing his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
Accordingly, the full, underlying Jones deposition is not
before the Senate.
Indeed, the House specifically considered and rejected an
article of impeachment based on the President's deposition in
the Jones case. The House managers should not be allowed to
prosecute before the Senate an article of impeachment which
the full House has rejected.
(3) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury about
``statements he allowed his attorney to make'' during the
Jones deposition
The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury about the statements
his attorney made during the Jones deposition. The President
was truthful when he explained to the grand jury his
understanding of certain statements made by his lawyer,
Robert Bennett, during the Jones deposition. The President
also was truthful when he testified that he was not focusing
on the prolonged and complicated exchange between the
attorneys and Judge Wright.
(4) The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury concerning
alleged efforts ``to influence the testimony of witnesses
and to impede the discovery of evidence'' in the Jones
case
For the reasons discussed more fully in response to Article
II, the President denies that he attempted to influence the
testimony of any witness or to impede the discovery
of evidence in the Jones case. Thus, the President denies
that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements
before the grand jury when he testified about these
matters.
First Affirmative Defense: Article I Does Not Meet the Constitutional
Standard for Conviction and Removal
For the same reasons set forth in the preamble of this
answer, Article I does not meet the rigorous constitutional
standard for conviction and removal from office of a duly
elected President and should be dismissed.
[[Page
S62]]
Second Affirmative Defense: Article I Is Too Vague To Permit Conviction
and Removal
Article I is unconstitutionally vague. No reasonable person
could know what specific charges are being leveled against
the President. It alleges that the President provided the
grand jury with ``perjurious, false, and misleading
testimony'' concerning ``one or more'' of four subject areas.
But it fails to identify any specific statement by the
President that is alleged to be perjurious, false and
misleading. The House has left the Senate and the President
to guess at what it had in mind.
One of the fundamental principles of our law and the
Constitution is that a person has a right to know what
specific charges he or she is facing. Without such fair
warning, no one can prepare the defense to which every person
is entitled. The law and the Constitution also mandate
adequate notice to jurors so they may know the basis for the
vote they must make. Without a definite and specific
identification of false statements, a trial becomes a moving
target for the accused. In addition, the American people
deserve to know upon what specific statements the President
is being judged, given the gravity and effect of these
proceedings, namely nullifying the results of a national
election.
Article I sweeps broadly and fails to provide the required
definite and specific identification. Were it an indictment,
it would be dismissed. As an article of impeachment, it is
constitutionally defective and should fail.
Third Affirmative Defense: Article I Charges Multiple Offense in One
Article
Article I is fatally flawed because it charges multiple
instances of alleged perjurious, false and misleading
statements in one article. The Constitution provides that
``no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two
thirds of the Members present,'' and Senate Rule XXIII
provides that ``an article of impeachment shall not be
divisible for the purpose of voting thereon at any time
during the trial.'' By the express terms of Article I, a
Senator may vote for impeachment if he or she finds that
there was perjurious, false and misleading testimony in ``one
or more'' of four topic areas. This creates the very real
possibility that conviction could occur even though Senators
were in wide disagreement as to the alleged wrong committed.
Put simply, the structure of Article I presents the
possibility that the President could be convicted even though
he would have been acquitted if separate votes were taken on
each allegedly perjurious statement. For example, it would be
possible for the President to be convicted and removed from
office with as few a
s 17 Senators agreeing that any single
statement was perjurious, because 17 votes for each of the
four categories in Article I would yield 68 votes, one more
than necessary to convict and remove.
By charging multiple wrongs in one article, the House of
Representatives has made it impossible for the Senate to
comply with the Constitutional mandate that any conviction be
by the concurrence of two-thirds of the members. Accordingly,
Article I should fail.
Factual Responses to Article II
Without waiving his affirmative defenses, President Clinton
offers the following factual responses to the allegations in
Article II:
(1) The President denies that on or about December 17, 1997,
he ``corruptly encouraged'' Monica Lewinsky ``to execute
a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be
perjurious, false and misleading''
The President denies that he encouraged Monica Lewinsky to
execute a false affidavit in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky,
the only witness cited in support of this allegation, denies
this allegation as well. Her testimony and proffered
statements are clear and unmistakable:
``[N]o one even asked me to lie and I was never
promised a job for my silence.''
``Neither the President nor anyone ever directed
Lewinsky to say anything or to lie . . .''
``Neither the Pres[ident] nor Mr. Jordan (or
anyone on their behalf) asked or encouraged Ms. L[ewinsky] to
lie.''
The President states that, sometime in December 1997, Ms.
Lewinsky asked him whether she might be able to avoid
testifying the Jones case because she knew nothing about Ms.
Jones or the case. The President further states that he told
her he believed other witnesses had executed affidavits, and
there was a chance they would not have to testify. The
President denies that he ever asked, encouraged or suggested
that Ms. Lewinsky file a false affidavit or lie. The
President states that he believed that Ms. Lewinsky could
have filed a limited but truthful affidavit that might have
enabled her to avoid having to testify in the Jones case.
(2) The President denies that on or about December 17, 1997,
he ``corruptly encouraged'' Monica Lewinsky ``to give
perjurious, false and misleading testimony of and when
called to testify personally'' in the Jones litigation
Again, the President denies that he encouraged Ms. Lewinsky
to lie if and when called to testify personally in the Jones
case. The testimony and proffered statements of Monica
Lewinsky, the only witness cited in support of this
allegation, are clear and unmistakable:
[N]o one ever asked me to lie and I was never
promised a job for my silence.''
``Neither the President nor anyone ever directed
Lewinsky to say anything or to lie . . .''
``Neither the Pres[ident] nor Mr. Jordan (or
anyone on their behalf) asked or encouraged Ms. L[ewinsky] to
lie.''
The President states that, prior to Ms. Lewinsky's
involvement in the Jones case, he and Ms. Lewinsky might have
talked about what to do to conceal their relationship from
others. Ms. Lewinsky was not a witness in any legal
proceeding at that time. Ms. Lewinsky's own testimony and
statements support the President's recollection. Ms. Lewinsky
testified that she ``pretty much can'' exclude the
possibility that she and the President ever had discussions
about denying the relationship after she learned she was a
witness in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky also stated that
``they did not discuss the issue [of what to say about their
relationship] is specific relation to the Jones matter,'' and
that ``she does not believe they discussed the content of any
deposition that [she] might be involved in at a later date.''
(3) The President denies that on or about December 28, 1997,
he ``corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a
scheme to conceal evidence'' in the Jones case
The President denies that he engaged in, encouraged, or
supported any scheme to conceal evidence from discovery in
the Jones case, including any gifts he had given to Ms.
Lewinsky. The President states that he gave numerous gifts to
Ms. Lewinsky prior to December 28, 1997. The President states
that, sometime in December, Ms. Lewinsky inquired as to what
to do if she were asked in the Jones case about the gifts he
had given her, to which the President responded that she
would have to turn over whatever she had. The President
states that he was unconcerned about having given her gifts
and, in fact, that he gave Ms. Lewinsky additional gifts on
December 28, 1997. The President denies that he ever asked
his secretary, Ms. Betty Currie, to retrieve gifts he had
given Ms. Lewinsky, or that he ever asked, encouraged, or
suggested that Ms. Lewinsky conceal the gifts. Ms. Currie
told prosecutors as early as January 1998 and repeatedly
thereafter that it was Ms. Lewinsky who had contacted her
about retrieving gifts.
(4) The President denies that he obstructed justice in
connection with Monica Lewinsky's efforts to obtain a job
in New York to ``corruptly prevent'' her ``truthful
testimony'' in the Jones case
The President denies that he obstructed justice in
connection with Ms. Lewinsky's job search in New York or
sought to prevent her truthful testimony in the Jones case.
The President states that he discussed with Ms. Lewinsky her
desire to obtain a job in New York months before she was
listed as a potential witness in the Jones case. Indeed, Ms.
Lewinsky was offered a job in New York at the United Nations
more than a month before she was identified as a possible
witness. The President also states that he believes that Ms.
Lewinsky raised with him, again before she was ever listed as
a possible witness in the Jones case, the prospect of having
Mr. Vernon Jordan assist in her job search. Ms. Lewinsky
corroborates his recollection that it was her idea to ask for
Mr. Jordan's help. The President also states that he was
aware that Mr. Jordan was assisting Ms. Lewinsky to obtain
employment in New York. The President denies that any of
these efforts had any connection whatsoever to Ms. Lewinsky's
status as a possible or actual witness in the Jones case. Ms.
Lewinsky forcefully confirmed the President's denial when she
testified, ``I was never promised a job for my silence.''
(5) The President denies that he ``corruptly allowed his
attorney to make false and misleading statements to a
Federal judge'' concerning Monica Lewinsky's affidavit
The President denies that he corruptly allowed his attorney
to make false and misleading statements concerning Ms.
Lewinsky's affidavit to a Federal judge during the Jones
deposition. The President denies that he was focusing his
attention on the prolonged and complicated exchange between
his attorney and Judge Wright.
(6) The President denies that he obstructed justice by
relating ``false and misleading statements'' to ``a
potential witness,'' Betty Currie, ``in order to
corruptly influence [her] testimony''
The President denies that he obstructed justice or
endeavored in any way to influence any potential testimony of
Ms. Betty Currie. The President states that he spoke with Ms.
Currie on January 18, 1998. The President testified that, in
that conversation, he was trying to find out what the facts
were, what Ms. Currie's perception was, and whether his own
recollection was correct about certain aspects of his
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Ms. Currie testified that she
felt no pressure ``whatsoever'' from the President's
statements and no pressure ``to agree with [her] boss.'' The
President denies knowing or believing that Ms. Currie would
be a witness in any proceeding at the time of this
conversation. Ms. Currie had not been on any of the witness
lists proffered by the Jones lawyers. President Clinton
states that, after the Independent Counsel investigation
became public, when Ms. Currie was scheduled to testify, he
told Ms. Currie to ``tell the truth.''
(7) The President denies that he obstructed justice when he
relayed allegedly ``false and misleading statements'' to
his aides
The President denies that he obstructed justice when he
misled his aides about the
[[Page
S63]]
nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky in the days
immediately following the public revelation of the Lewinsky
investigation. The President acknowledges that, in the days
following the January 21, 1998, Washington Post article, he
misled his family, his friends and staff, and the Nation to
conceal the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He
sought to avoid disclosing his personal wrongdoing to protect
his family and himself from hurt and public embarrassment.
The President profoundly regrets his actions, and he has
apologized to his family, his friends and staff, and the
Nation. The President denies that he had any corrupt purpose
or any intent to influence the ongoing grand jury
proceedings.
First Affirmative Defense: Article II Does Not Meet the Constitutional
Standard for Conviction and Removal
For the reasons set forth in the preamble of this answer,
Article II does not meet the constitutional standard for
convicting and removing a duly elected President from office
and should be dismissed.
Second Affirmative Defense: Article II Is Too Vague To Permit
Conviction and Removal
Article II is unconstitutionally vague. No reasonable
person could know what specific charges are being leveled
against the President. Article II alleges that the President
``obstructed and impeded the administration of justice'' in
both the Jones case and the grand jury investigation. But it
provides little or no concrete information about the specific
acts in which the President is alleged to have engaged, or
with whom, or when, that allegedly obstructed or otherwise
impeded the administration of justice.
As we set forth in the Second Affirmative Defense to
Article I, one of the fundamental principles of our law and
the Constitution is that a person has the right to know what
specific charges he or she is facing. Without such fair
warning, no one can mount the defense to which every person
is entitled. Fundamental to due process is the right of the
President to be adequately informed of the charges so that he
is able to confront those charges and defend himself.
Article II sweeps too broadly and provides too little
definite and specific identification. Were it an indictment,
it would be dismissed. As an article of impeachment, it is
constitutionally defective and should fail.
Third Affirmative Defense: Article II Charges Multiple Offenses in One
Article
For the reasons set forth in the Third Affirmative Defense
to Article I, Article II is constitutionally defective
because it charges multiple instances of alleged acts of
obstruction in one article, which makes it impossible for the
Senate to comply with the Constitutional mandates that any
conviction be by the concurrence of the two-thirds of the
members. Accordingly, Article II should fail.
Respectfully submitted,
David E. Kendall,
Nicole K. Seligman,
Emmet T. Flood,
Max Stier,
Glen Donath,
Alicia Marti,
Williams & Connolly,
725 12th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20005.
Charles F. C. Ruff,
Gregory B. Craig,
Bruce R. Lindsey,
Cheryl D. Mills,
Lanny A. Breuer,
Office of the White House Counsel,
The White House,
Washington, D.C. 20502.
Submitted: January 11, 1999.
____
[In the Senate of the United States Sitting as a Court of Impeachment]
In re Impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton
TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Now comes the United States House of Representatives, by
and through its duly authorized Managers, and respectfully
submits to the United States Senate its Brief in connection
with the Impeachment Trial of William Jefferson Clinton,
President of the United States.
Summary
The President is charged in two Articles with: (1) Perjury
and false and misleading testimony and statements under oath
before a federal grand jury (Article I), and (2) engaging in
a course of conduct or scheme to delay and obstruct justice
(Article II).
The evidence contained in the record, when viewed as a
unified whole, overwhelmingly supports both charges.
Perjury and False Statements Under Oath
President Clinton deliberately and willfully testified
falsely under oath when he appeared before a federal grand
jury on August 17, 1998. Although what follows is not
exhaustive, some of the more overt examples will serve to
illustrate.
At the very outset, the President read a prepared
statement, which itself contained totally false assertions
and other clearly misleading information.
The President relied on his statement nineteen
times in his testimony when questioned about his relationship
with Ms. Lewinsky.
President Clinton falsely testified that he was
not paying attention when his lawyer employed Ms. Lewinsky's
false affidavit at the Jones deposition.
He falsely claimed that his actions with Ms.
Lewinsky did not fall within the definition of ``sexual
relations'' that was given at his deposition.
He falsely testified that he answered questions
truthfully at his deposition concerning, among other
subjects, whether he had been alone with Ms. Lewinsky.
He falsely testified that he instructed Ms.
Lewinsky to turn over the gifts if she were subpoenaed.
He falsely denied trying to influence Ms. Currie
after his deposition.
He falsely testified that he was truthful to his
aides when he gave accounts of his relationship, which
accounts were subsequently disseminated to the media and the
grand jury.
Obstruction of Justice
The President engaged in an ongoing scheme to obstruct both
the Jones civil case and the grand jury. Further, he
undertook a continuing and concerted plan to tamper with
witnesses and prospective witnesses for the purpose of
causing those witnesses to provide false and misleading
testimony. Examples abound:
The President and Ms. Lewinsky concocted a cover
story to conceal their relationship, and the President
suggested that she employ that story if subpoenaed in the
Jones case.
The President suggested that Ms. Lewinsky provide
an affidavit to avoid testifying in the Jones case, when he
knew that the affidavit would need to be false to accomplish
its purpose.
The President knowingly and willfully allowed his
attorney to file Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit and to use it
for the purpose of obstructing justice in the Jones case.
The President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she
provide a false account of how she received her job at the
Pentagon.
The President attempted to influence the expected
testimony of his secretary, Ms. Currie, by providing her with
a false account of his meetings with Ms. Lewinsky.
The President provided several of his top aides
with elaborate lies about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky,
so that those aides would convey the false information to the
public and to the grand jury. When he did this, he knew that
those aides would likely be called to testify, while he was
declining several invitations to testify. By this action, he
obstructed and delayed the operation of the grand jury.
The President conspired with Ms. Lewinsky and Ms.
Currie to conceal evidence that he had been subpoenaed in the
Jones case, and thereby delayed and obstructed justice.
The President and his representatives orchestrated
a campaign to discredit Ms. Lewinsky in order to affect
adversely her credibility as a witness, and thereby attempted
to obstruct justice both in the Jones case and the grand
jury.
The President lied repeatedly under oath in his
disposition in the Jones case, and thereby obstructed justice
in that case.
The President's lies and misleading statements
under oath at the grand jury were calculated to, and did
obstruct, delay and prevent the due administration of justice
by that body.
The President employed the power of his office to
procure a job for Ms. Lewinsky after she signed the false
affidavit by causing his friend to exert extraordinary
efforts for that purpose.
The foregoing are merely accusations of an ongoing pattern
of obstruction of justice, and witness tampering extending
over a period of several months, and having the effect of
seriously compromising the integrity of the entire judicial
system.
The effect of the President's misconduct has been
devastating in several respects.
(1) He violated repeatedly his oath to ``preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States.''
(2) He ignored his constitutional duty as chief law
enforcement officer to ``take care that the laws be
faithfully executed.''
(3) He deliberately and unlawfully obstructed Paula Jones's
rights as a citizen to due process and the equal protection
of the laws, though he had sworn to protect those rights.
(4) By his pattern of lies under oath, misleading
statements and deceit, he has seriously undermined the
integrity and credibility of the Office of President and
thereby the honor and integrity of the United States.
(5) His pattern of perjuries, obstruction of justice, and
witness tampering has affected the truth seeking process
which is the foundation of our legal system.
(6) By mounting an assault in the truth seeking process, he
has attacked the entire Judicial Branch of government.
The Articles of Impeachment that the House has preferred
state offenses that warrant, if proved, the conviction and
removal from office of President William Jefferson Clinton.
The Articles charge that the President has committed perjury
before a federal grand jury and that he obstructed justice in
a federal civil rights action. The Senate's own precedents
establish beyond doubt that perjury warrants conviction and
removal. During the 1980s, the Senate convicted and removed
three federal judges for committing perjury. Obstruction of
justice under mines the judicial system in the same fashion
that
[[Page
S64]]
perjury does, and it also warrants conviction and removal.
Under our Constitution, judges are impeached under the same
standard as Presidents--treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors. Thus, these judicial impeachments
for perjury set the standard here. Finally, the Senate's own
precedents further establish that the President's crimes need
not arise directly out of his official duties. Two of the
three judges removed in the 1980s were removed for perjury
that had nothing to do with their official duties.
Introduction
This Brief is intended solely to advise the Senate
generally of the evidence that the Managers intend to
product, if permitted, and of the applicable legal
principles. It is not intended to discuss exhaustively all of
the evidence, nor does it necessarily include each and every
witness and document that the Managers would produce in the
course of the trial. This Brief, then, is merely an outline
for the use of the Senate in reviewing and assessing the
evidence as it is set forth at trial--it is not, and is not
intended to be a substitute for a trial at which all of the
relevant facts will be developed.
H. Res. 611, 105th Cong. 2nd Sess. (1998)
The House Impeachment Resolution charges the President with
high crimes and misdemeanors in two Articles. Article One
alleges that President Clinton ``willfully corrupted and
manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his
personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of
justice'' in that he willfully provided perjurious, false and
misleading testimony to a federal grand jury on August 17,
1998. Article Two asserts that the President ``has prevented,
obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice and
engaged in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay,
impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and
testimony related to a federal civil rights action brought
against him.'' Both Articles are now before the Senate of the
United States for trial as provided by the Constitution of
the United States.
The Office of President represents to the American people
and to the world, the strength, the philosophy and most of
all, the honor and integrity that makes us a great nation and
an example for the world. Because all eyes are focused upon
that high office, the character and credibility of any
temporary occupant of the Oval Office is vital to the
domestic and foreign welfare of the citizens. Consequently,
serious breaches of integrity and duty of necessity adversely
influence the reputation of the United States.
This case is not about sex or private conduct. It is about
multiple obstructions of justice, perjury, false and
misleading statements, and witness tampering--all committed
or orchestrated by the President of the United States.
Before addressing the President's lies and obstruction, it
is important to place the events in the proper context. If
this were only about private sex we would not now be before
the Senate. But the manner in which the Lewinsky relationship
arose and continued is important because it is illustrative
of the character of the President and the decisions he made.
Background
Monica Lewinsky, a 22 year old intern, (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 8;
H.Doc. 105-311, p. 728) was working at the White House during
the government shutdown in 1995. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 10; H.Doc.
105-311, p. 730) Prior to their first intimate encounter, she
had never even spoken with the President. Sometime on
November 15, 1995, Ms. Lewinsky and President Clinton flirted
with each other. (Id.) The President of the United States of
America then invited this unknown young intern into a private
area off the Oval Office where he kissed her. He then invited
her back later and when she returned, the two engaged in the
first of many acts of inappropriate contact. (ML 8/6/98 GJ,
p. 12; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 732)
Thereafter, the two concocted a cover story. If Ms.
Lewinsky were seen, she was bringing papers to the President.
That story was totally false. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 54; H.Doc.
105-311, p. 774; 8/26/98 Dep., p. 34; H.Doc. 105-311, p.
1314) The only papers she brought were personal messages
having nothing to do with her duties or those of the
President. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 54-55; H.Doc. 105-311, pp.
774-775) After Ms. Lewinsky moved from the White House to the
Pentagon, her frequent visits to the President were disguised
as visits to Betty Currie. (Id.) Those cover stories are
important, because they play a vital role in the later
perjuries and obstructions.
Encounters
Over the term of their relationship the following
significant matters occurred:
1. Monica Lewinsky and the President were alone on at least
twenty-one occasions;
2. They had at least eleven personal sexual encounters,
excluding phone sex: Three in 1995, Five in 1996 and Three in
1997;
3. They had at least 55 telephone conversations, at least
seventeen of which involved phone sex;
4. The President gave Ms. Lewinsky twenty presents; and,
5. Ms. Lewinsky gave the President forty presents (O.I.C.
Referral, App., Tab E; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 104-111)
These are the essential facts which form the backdrop for
all of the events that followed.
The sexual details of the President's encounters with Ms.
Lewinsky, though relevant, need not be detailed either in
this document or through witness testimony. It is necessary,
though, briefly to outline that evidence, because it will
demonstrate that the President repeatedly lied about that
sexual relationship in his deposition, before the grand jury,
and in his responses to the Judiciary Committee's questions.
He has consistently maintained that Ms. Lewinsky merely
performed acts on him, while he never touched her in a sexual
manner. This characterization not only directly contradicts
Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, but it also contradicts the sworn
grand jury testimony of three of her friends and the
statements by two professional counselors with whom she
contemporaneously shared the details of her relationship.
(O.I.C. Referral, H. Doc. 105-310, pgs. 138-140)
While his treatment of Ms. Lewinsky was offensive, it is
much more offensive for the President to expect the Senate to
believe that in 1995, 1996, and 1997, his intimate contact
with Ms. Lewinsky was so limited that it did not fall within
his narrow interpretation of a definition of ``sexual
relations''. As later demonstrated, he did not even conceive
his interpretation until 1998, while preparing for his grand
jury appearance.
How To View the Evidence
We respectfully submit that the evidence and testimony must
be viewed as a whole; it cannot be compartmentalized. It is
essential to avoid considering each event in isolation, and
then treating it separately. Events and words that may seem
innocent or even exculpatory in a vacuum may well take on a
sinister, or even criminal connotation when observed in the
context of the whole plot. For example, everyone agrees that
Monica Lewinsky testified ``No one ever told me to lie;
nobody ever promised me a job.'' (ML 8/20/98 GJ, p. 105; H.
Doc. 105-311, p. 1161)
When considered alone this would seem exculpatory. However,
in the context of the other evidence, another picture
emerges. Of course no one said. ``Now, Monica, you go in
there and lie.'' They didn't have to. Ms. Lewinsky knew what
was expected of her. Similarly, nobody promised her a job,
but once she signed the false affidavit, she got one.
The Issue
The ultimate issue is whether the President's course of
conduct is such as to affect adversely the Office of the
President and also upon the administration of justice, and
whether he has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as
President and subversive to the Rule of Law and
Constitutional government.
The Beginning
The events that form the basis of these charges actually
began in late 1995. They reached a critical stage in the
winter of 1997 and the first month of 1998. The event
culminated when the President of the United States appeared
before a federal grand jury, raised his right hand to God and
swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth.
december 5-6, 1997
On Friday, December 5, 1997, Monica Lewinsky asked Betty
Currie if the President could see her the next day, Saturday,
but Ms. Currie said that the President was scheduled to meet
with his lawyers all day. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 107-108; H.
Doc. 105-311, pgs. 827-828) Later that Friday, Ms. Lewinsky
spoke briefly to the President at a Christmas party. (ML 7/
31/98 Int., p. 1; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 1451; ML 8/6/98 GJ, p.
108; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 828)
The Witness List Is Received
That evening, Paula Jones's attorneys faxed a list of
potential witnesses to the President's attorneys. (849-DC-
00000128; 849-DC-00000121-37; Referral, H. Doc. 105-311, p.
88) The list included Monica Lewinsky. However, Ms. Lewinsky
did not find out that her name was on the list until the
President told her ten days later, on December 17. (ML 8/6/98
GJ, pgs. 121-123; H. Doc. 105-311, pgs. 841-843) That delay
is significant.
Ms. Lewinsky's First Visit
After her conversation with Ms. Currie and seeing the
President at the Christmas party, Ms. Lewinsky drafted a
letter to the President terminating their relationship. (ML-
55-DC-0177); ML 7/31/98 Int., p. 2; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 1452)
The next morning, Saturday, December 6, Ms. Lewinsky went to
the White House to deliver the letter and some gifts for the
President to Ms. Currie. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 108-109; H. Doc.
105-311, pgs. 828-829) When she arrived at the White House,
Ms. Lewinsky spoke to several Secret Service officers, and
one of them told her that the President was not with his
lawyers, as she thought, but rather, he was meeting with
Eleanor Mondale. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 111; H. Doc. 105-311, p.
831; Mondale 7/16/98 Int., p. 1; H. Doc. 105-316, pgs. 2907-
2908; H. Doc. 105-311, p. 2654) Ms. Lewinsky called Ms.
Currie from a pay phone, angrily exchanged words with her,
and went home. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 112-13; H. Doc. 105-311,
pgs. 832-833; Currie 1/27/98 GJ, p. 27; H. Doc. 105-316, p.
553) After that phone call, Ms. Currie told the Secret
Service watch commander that the President was so upset about
the disclosure of his meeting with Ms. Mondale that he wanted
somebody fired. (Purdie 7/23/98 GJ, pgs. 13, 18-19; H. Doc.
105-316, pgs. 3356-3357).
The Telephone Conversations
At 12:05 p.m., records demonstrate that Ms. Currie paged
Bruce Lindsey with the message: ``Call Betty ASAP.'' (964-DC-
00000862;
[[Page
S65]]
H. Doc. 105-311, p. 2722) Around that same time, according to
Ms. Lewinsky, while she was back at her apartment, Ms.
Lewinsky and the President spoke by phone. The President was
very angry; he told Ms. Lewinsky that no one had every
treated him as poorly as she had. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 113-14;
H. Doc. 105-311, pgs. 833-834) The President acknowledged to
the grand jury that he was upset about Ms. Lewinsky's
behavior and considered it inappropriate. (WJC 8/17/98 GJ,
p. 85; H.Doc. 105-311, p. 537). Nevertheless, in a sudden
change of mood, he invited her to visit him at the White
House that afternoon. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, p. 114; H.Doc. 105-
311, p. 834)
Ms. Lewinsky's Second Visit
Monica Lewinsky arrived at the White House for the second
time that day and was cleared to enter at 12:52 p.m. (WAVES:
827-DC-00000018) Although, in Ms. Lewinsky's words, the
President was ``very angry'' with her during their recent
telephone conversation, he was ``sweet'' and ``very
affectionate'' during this visit. (ML 8/6/98 GJ, pgs. 113-15;
H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 833-835). He also told her that he would
talk to Vernon Jordan about her job situation. (ML 8/6/98 GJ,
pgs. 115-16; H.Doc. 105-311, pgs. 835-836)
The Discussions With the Secret Service
The President also suddenly changed his attitude toward the
Secret Serv
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
