Why Democrats Should Draft George W.(FDR) Bush In 2004
GROW SPINE, GOP, INVESTIGATE CLINTON (NOW says Rush Limbaugh)
Bill Clinton - An Innocent Man
Bush Says He Wants to Let Clinton 'Move On'
"Listen, here's my view: I think it's time to get all of this business behind us. I think it's time ... to allow the president to finish his term, and let him move on and enjoy life and become an active participant in the American system. And I think we've had enough focus on the past. It's time to move forward."
Bush Won't Dwell On Clinton Affair, "We're Moving Forward"
"B/S, Mr Bush. Clinton is a criminal and a traitor. We demand a thorough investigation and prosecution. Our Republic is dead and our liberty is at stake if the next administration does not clean up this mess for now and forever more. Corrupt politicians must pay the price for subverting our Constitution and using their offices for personal gain."
4 Posted on 01/20/2000 14:17:56 PST by Jim Robinson
Bush Justice Department Obstructs Testimony of Chinagate Scandal Figure John Huang
Bill O'Reilly blasts Ashcroft and Reno for Corruption
Bush White House Hides Clinton Fund-raising Scandal From Congress
Bush Administration Lawyers Defending Hillary - Gratis
Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick, not once, but twice
Juanita Broaddrick NBC Interview Transcript
"That’s why I’m for instant background checks at gun shows. I’m for trigger locks."
George W. Bush - Source: St. Louis debate Oct 17, 2000.
EMERSON & THE SECOND AMENDMENT
BUSH TO NAME JUSTICE DEPT AFTER A KENNEDY
The Assassination of Ron Brown
The Corrupt Investigation of Ron Brown and the Following Coverup
REVEALED: GUN LOST ON FATAL RON BROWN FLIGHT
THE SECRET FILES OF RON BROWN - Ira Sockowitz
"Anytime you have a circular, symmetrical hole, a pathologist knows that one of the distinct mechanisms for making such a defect is a bullet. It's not even arguable in the field of medical legal investigations whether an autopsy should have been conducted on Brown, I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied. Forget about Brown being a cabinet member, or being under investigation. He was in a plane crash. That alone should have meant he was autopsied."
Coroner Cyril Wecht - One of the nation's most prominent forensic pathologists. Source
THE DEATH OF BARBARA ALICE WISE
CIA Documents on Ron Brown Declared Secret
Witness in Brown Case May Have Been Murdered
The Strange Death of Ron Miller
Anthrax Death in Oklahoma? - Ron Miller
Oklahoma Natural Gas Overcharges Tied to Clinton White House - Ron Miller
Hillary's Oklahoma scandal - Ron Miller
115 People Doing Prison Time For What President Clinton Did
Ashcroft Accuses Clinton Of Perjury
So-Called Intellectuals Have Already Destroyed The Country
3. Sections 1621 and 1623 of Title 18 (perjury) carry a penalty of imprisonment of not more than five years for knowingly making a false, material statement under oath, including in any ancillary court proceeding. An "ancillary proceeding" includes a deposition in a civil case. United States v. McAfee, 8 F.3d 1010, 1013 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Scott, 682 F.2d 695, 698 (8th Cir. 1982). The perjury statutes apply to statements made during civil proceedings. As one United States Court of Appeals recently stated, "we categorically reject any suggestion, implicit or otherwise, that perjury is somehow less serious when made in a civil proceeding. Perjury, regardless of the setting, is a serious offense that results in incalculable harm to the functioning and integrity of the legal system as well as to private individuals." United States v. Holland, 22 F.3d 1040, 1047 (11th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Wilkinson, 137 F.3d 214, 225 (4th Cir. 1998).
Lewinsky Gets Immunity; Will Say Clinton Coached Her on Testimony
By DON VAN NATTA Jr. and JOHN M. BRODER
New York Times
Wednesday, July 29, 1998
ASHINGTON -- Monica Lewinsky received a sweeping grant of immunity from federal prosecution Tuesday, agreeing to testify that President Clinton urged her to deny under oath that they had a sexual relationship, two lawyers familiar with her account said Tuesday.
[end of snippet]
Clinton's "understanding" of the term sexual relations
President Clinton's
Statement read in his
grand jury appearance.
(Aug. 17 1998)
"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 not consist of sexual intercourse, they did not constitute sexual relations as I understood that term to be defined at my January 17, 1998 deposition. But they did involve inappropriate intimate contact. These inappropriate encounters ended at my insistence in early 1997. I also had occasional telephone conversations with Ms. Lewinsky that included inappropriate sexual banter.
I regret that what began as a friendship came to include this conduct and I take full responsibility for my actions. While I will provide the grand jury whatever other information I can, because of privacy considerations affecting my family, myself and others, and in an effort to preserve the dignity of the office I hold, this is all I will say about the specifics of these particular matters.''
"I will try to answer to the best of my ability other questions including questions about my relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, questions about my understanding of the term sexual relations as I understood it to be defined at my January 17, 1998 deposition, and questions concerning alleged subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice and intimidation of witnesses.''
PRESENTATION BY
CONGRESSMAN BOB BARR
BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
SITTING AS A JURY IN
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
____________________________
FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 1999
____________________________
Mr. Chief Justice. If it please the Senate. On behalf of the House of Representatives, I thank the Senate for the opportunity to appear today and present this argument. The House -- and I -- greatly appreciate the time and effort the Senate has taken on this important matter.
You have heard the facts summarized by my colleagues. They have described for you the law of perjury and the law of obstruction. I will now discuss several of the specific instances in which William Jefferson Clinton violated these laws as set forth in the Articles of Impeachment presented to you.
The process facing you, the jurors, of fitting the federal law of obstruction of justice and witness tampering (18 USC Sections 1503 and 1512) and of perjury (18 USC Sections 1621 and 1623) into the facts of the case against President William Jefferson Clinton, is not a case in which there is great difficulty. It is not a problem of fitting a round peg into a square hole. Quite the contrary. We have a case here in which the fit between fact and law is as precise as the finely tuned mechanism of a Swiss watch. The evidence that President William Jefferson Clinton committed perjury and obstruction is overwhelming. These are Pattern Offenses.
I beg your attention to the following exposition of facts and law, but, before commencing, I would respectfully ask each of you to remember that, under the Law of Impeachment based on our Constitution, proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the President committed each and every element of one or more violations of provisions of the federal criminal code, has never been required to sustain a conviction in any prior impeachment trial in the Senate. However, I speak for all House Managers, in relating to you our belief that the record and the law applicable to these two Articles of Impeachment, clearly establish that President William Jefferson Clinton did in fact violate several provisions of Title 18 of the United States Code, including Perjury, Obstruction, and Tampering with Witnesses. A fortiori, there is more than sufficient grounds on which you might base a conviction as to both Articles.
1. Submission of the False Affidavit in the Jones Case.
We believe the evidence presented clearly establishes that on December 17, 1997, the President encouraged a witness in a federal civil rights action brought against him -- Monica Lewinsky -- to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding which he knew to be perjurious, false, and misleading.
As the other managers have outlined, Monica Lewinsky filed a sworn affidavit in the Jones case that denied any sexual relationship between her and the President. That affidavit was false. Ms. Lewinsky testified before the grand jury that the scheme to file this false affidavit was devised during a telephone conversation with the President on December 17, 1997; a call he initiated according to Ms. Lewinsky's from testimony, at 2:00 or 2:30 a.m. on the morning of December 17th, ostensibly to tell her that Betty Currie's brother had been killed in a car accident, but more importantly to tell Ms. Lewinsky her name was on the witness list filed in the Jones case. During this conversation, the President suggested to her she could file an affidavit in the Jones case in order to avoid having to testify in that case. She testified she and the President both understood from their conversation they would continue their pattern of covering up their relationship. Ms. Lewinsky testified she knew if she had filed a truthful affidavit in the Jones case, the Jones lawyers most certainly would have deposed her in that case. Vernon Jordan's testimony to the grand jury confirmed the President knew Ms. Lewinsky planned to file a false affidavit. He stated from his conversations with the President, the President knew in advance that Ms. Lewinsky planned to execute an affidavit denying their sexual relationship, and that he later informed the President Ms. Lewinsky had signed the false affidavit.
For his part, the President denies asking Ms. Lewinsky to execute a false affidavit. Instead, as he asserted in his response to the House Judiciary Committee's request for admissions, he seeks to have you believe he sought simply to have Ms. Lewinsky execute an affidavit that would, "get her out of having to testify," while being factually correct. This statement lacks credibility; in fact, it reflects a virtual legal impossibility.
The President has admitted Ms Lewinsky was the woman with whom he had an "improper intimate relationship" while President; and he has admitted he was very concerned over the great personal embarrassment and humiliation he feared would have occurred if that relationship had been revealed in the Jones case. Yet, he would have you believe he cannot remember a call he made to that woman, about that case, that occurred at 2 o'clock in the morning and during which they discussed the unexpected death of his own secretary's brother. His statement is not credible, because it is not true.
As Vernon Jordan's grand jury testimony corroborated, the President knew what Ms. Lewinsky planned to allege in her affidavit in the Jones case, yet he took no action to stop her from filing it. As you have heard in earlier presentations, the President's lawyer, Robert Bennett, stated in court directly to Judge Wright, when he presented the false Lewinsky affidavit, "there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form" and that the President was "fully aware of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit." The President took no action to correct his lawyer's misstatement. As you have also heard, the President in his grand jury testimony tried to disingenuously dissect the words of his attorney to remove his conduct from further examination, even though obviously and by any reasonable interpretation of the definition given the President, his conduct with Ms. Lewinsky was covered. And he disavowed knowledge of his lawyer's misrepresentations, by claiming he was not paying attention when Mr. Bennett made those representations to the court. However, it is by now clear the videotape of the deposition irrefutably shows President Clinton looking intently and directly toward his lawyer as the statements are made. Again, the President's statement lacks credibility, because it is demonstrably and clearly false. And it constitutes perjury.
Later in the deposition, when Mr. Bennett read to the President the portion of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit where she denies their relationship and asked him, "[i]s that a true and accurate statement as far as you know it," the President answered, "[t]hat is absolutely true." Again, his statement is not credible. Because again, it is a lie. It is perjury.
The inescapable conclusion from this evidence is that the President has lied, and continues to lie about the Lewinsky affidavit. His continual false statements and denials about the affidavit bolster our conclusion that, in fact, he was part of the scheme to file the false affidavit. The evidence supports Ms. Lewinsky's account that such a scheme did in fact exist between them. The evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, do not support the President's denial. [Chart: Definition of Inference.] Inferences, I might add, that, in your deliberations as in any federal court, are to be, and should be, based on common sense and in light of your experiences in judging human behavior.
Moreover, in engaging in this course of conduct, referring to the words of the obstruction statute, 18 USC 1503 [Chart: 18 USC 1503], the President's actions constituted an "endeavor to influence or impede the due administration of justice," in that he was attempting to prevent the plaintiff in the Jones case from having a "free and fair opportunity to learn what she may learn concerning the material facts surrounding her claim." These acts by the President also constituted an endeavor to "corruptly persuade another person with the intent to influence the testimony they might give in an official proceeding," which are in fact elements of the tampering statute, 18 USC 1512 [Chart: 18 USC 1512].
Ms. Lewinsky knew full well her only hope of not having to testify in the Jones case was to file an affidavit that did not truthfully reflect her relationship with the President. The President also knew that if Monica Lewinsky had filed a true affidavit, without any doubt, it would have caused the Jones lawyers to seek her further testimony; something both co-conspirators desperately sought to a void. In encouraging her to file an affidavit that would prevent her from having to testify, President Clinton was, of necessity, asking her to testify falsely in an official proceeding. He was attempting to prevent, and in fact did prevent, the plaintiff in that case from discovering facts which may have had a bearing on her claim against the President. His motive was improper -- in language of the law, "corrupt" -- and his actions did influence the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky as a witness in the pending official proceeding. Under both Section 1503 [Chart: 18 USC 1503] and Section 1512 [Chart: 18 USC 1512] of Title 18, the President's conduct constituted a federal a crime.
2. Perjury Before the Grand Jury About the Affidavit.
When asked before the grand jury whether he had instructed Ms. Lewinsky to file a truthful affidavit, President Clinton testified, "Did I hope she'd be able to get out of testifying on an affidavit? Absolutely. Did I want her to execute a false affidavit? No I did not." The evidence clearly establishes that the President's statement constitutes perjury in violation of Section 1623 of Title 18, USC, for the simple reason, the only realistic way Ms. Lewinsky could get out of having to testify based on her affidavit, would be to execute a false affidavit. He knew this. She knew this. And the President's testimony on this point is perjury within the clear meaning of the statute. It was willful, knowing, material, and false.
3. Agreement to Use Cover Stories.
We believe that the evidence presently to you also establishes that on December 17th, the President 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. This was, in essence, the conspiracy to commit both obstruction and perjury.
Throughout their relationship, the President and Ms. Lewinsky understandably wished to keep it secret. And they took steps to keep it secret; steps that ultimately turned out to be criminal acts. For some time, in fact until Ms. Lewinsky testified under oath and under a grant of immunity, their efforts were remarkably successful -- associates and employees testified in support of the President's stories, and even several Secret Service officers testified to the grand jury that they understood Ms. Lewinsky to be in the Oval Office to "pick up papers." Yet, as Ms. Lewinsky testified, her White House job never required her to deliver papers or obtain the President's signature on any documents; it was all a sham; a cover story; a conspiracy to obstruct.
Ms. Lewinsky testified that later, after she left her White House job to go to work at the Pentagon. Phase Two of the cover up went into effect. The two co-conspirators began to use Mrs. Currie as a source of clearance into the White House. This was so even though the purpose of Ms. Lewinsky's visits were almost always to see the President.
As my colleagues have told you, on December 17th, during the 2. a.m. telephone conversation, the President told Ms. Lewinsky her name appeared on the witness list in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky testified that at some point in the conversation the President told her, "You know, you can always say you were coming to see Betty or that you were bringing me letters." Ms. Lewinsky testified she understood this to be, "really a reminder of things that they had discussed before." She described the President's statement as something that was, "instantly familiar to me." As she put it even more clearly, "I knew exactly what he meant"; so, I respectfully submit, do all of us here know exactly what the President meant.
When the President was questioned about before the grand jury if he ever had said something like this to Ms. Lewinsky, he admitted that, "I might well have said that. Because I certainly didn't want this to come out, if I could help it. And I was concerned about that."
A cover story between two teenagers trying to steal a date without their parents knowledge, is one thing. Such would not constitute a crime; it would be something we might wink at. However, we are not here dealing with two love-struck teenagers trying to circumvent their parents' watchful eyes. We are dealing with the President of the United States and a subservient employee, concocting and implementing a scheme that, while perhaps not illegal at its inception, deteriorated into illegality once it left the realm of private lie to that of public obstruction.
However -- and this is critical in terms of establishing the illegality of the President's actions -- the situation at the time of that early morning phone call from the President to Ms. Lewinsky was very different from that facing the President during any earlier discussions of a "cover story." Now, in early December 1997, Ms. Lewinsky had been officially named as a witness in a pending judicial proceeding. She was now under an obligation to give complete and truthful testimony as part of that proceeding; and he was under a legal obligation at that time, not to tamper with her or her possible testimony. This is precisely where private lies become public obstruction. This is the bright line between child-like pranks, and deadly serious obstruction of our legal system. The President and Ms. Lewinsky at that point, were in the big leagues; and the President, a highly skilled lawyer, knew it; which is why he went to such lengths to continue the cover up for so many months.
The President knew that if Monica Lewinsky were to testify that she only brought papers to the President or that she only came to see Betty, her testimony would have been neither complete nor truthful. Yet, the President encouraged her to give that untruthful testimony. And in so doing, he broke the law of obstruction of justice; and in lying about it, he compounded the problem by breaking the law of perjury.
As Mr. Cannon made clear [Chart: 18 USC 1503], a person commits the crime of obstruction of justice when he attempts to influence the due administration of justice, which includes all aspects of any civil or criminal case, including pre-trial discovery. Mr. Clinton's encouragement to Ms. Lewinsky to tell something other than the truth certainly would have influenced the discovery process in the Jones case. Courts have consistently held that civil discovery is part of the "due administration of justice" protected by the obstruction statutes.
And as Mr. Cannon also made clear [Chart: 18 USC 1512], a person commits witness tampering when he attempts to influence another person to give false testimony in an official proceeding. Mr. Clinton encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to give false testimony about her reasons for being in the White House with the President.
By encouraging Ms. Lewinsky to lie, the President committed the crimes of obstruction of justice under Section 1503 and the crime of witness tampering under Section 1512.
4. The President's Statements to Mrs. Betty Currie.
On January 18th and again on January 20th or 21st, President Clinton attempted to influence another potential witness in the civil rights action pending against him, by relating to her a false and misleading account of events about that case, and again, with the intent that his recitation of facts would corruptly influence her testimony. As the Managers have previously described to you, the evidence in this case shows that on Saturday, January 17th, only two and half hours after the President had been deposed in the Jones case, President Clinton called his secretary, Betty Currie at home, and asked her to come to the White House the next day, a Sunday. Mrs. Currie testified to the grand jury that the President's request was unusual because it was rare for the President to ask her to come in on a weekend. She met with the President about at 5:00 p.m. the next day, Sunday, January 18th.
Mrs. Currie testified to the grand jury that during her meeting with the President, he said to her, "There are several things you may want to know." He then proceeded to ask her a number of questions in succession. You were presented evidence of these five statements by other Managers. I will not repeat the evidence here. But I will emphasize that it was at that time, and in that way, the President led Mrs. Currie through a series of statements and determinate questions to establish a set of facts describing his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky at the White House that supported completely his [false] testimony. As you have heard, Mrs. Currie stated under oath she indicated her agreement with each of the President's statements, even though she knew that the President and Ms. Lewinsky had, in fact, been alone in the Oval Office and in the President's study. Prosecutors frequently see this pattern where you have a dominant person "suggesting" testimony to another person in a subordinate relationship.
During the President's grand jury testimony, he was asked about his statements to Mrs. Currie. He testified he was trying to determine whether his recollection was accurate. As he put it, "I was trying to get the facts down, I was trying to understanding what the facts were." This fits the pattern of the classic obstruction prosecution, in which the defendant "suggests" a story to someone in the hopes they will later testify consistent with that earlier "suggestion." When defendants in federal courts defend against obstruction prosecutions in such cases, they frequently rely on the same defense the President raises here; that he was merely and oh-so-innocently encouraging the other person to "tell the truth." You may want to see, as an example of this unsuccessful defense, United States v. O'Keefe, 722 F2d 1175, 1181 (5th Cir. 1983). Mr. O'Keefe did not "ask someone to lie"; he did not even say, "I suggest you lie"; rather, as is almost always the case in white collar obstruction prosecutions, his words, and their setting and context, suggested a certain story. Just as Mr. O'Keefe did not expressly ask someone to lie, Mr. Clinton never "asked someone to lie." He didn't have to. He was too smart for that. And, he had witnesses who were willingly, ready and able to do his bidding.
The President lied to the grand jury when he made these statements mischaracterizing his earlier statements to Mrs. Currie, just as he tampered with her as a likely witness nine months earlier.
The President's assertion -- that he simply was trying to understand what the facts were -- lacks even colorable credibility, when one considers that he had already testified. It was obviously too late to try to recollect what the "facts" were. He supposedly had already testified under oath what the "facts" were. In any event, Mrs. Currie could not have told him what the true facts were; he alone knew what they were.
The defenses and explanations the Presidents defenders raise to justify why the President would make factual assertions to Mrs. Currie about the circumstances of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, are many. For example, one Administration witness who appeared before the House Judiciary Committee actually suggested such "coaching" is proper, as a method whereby an attorney "prepares" a client or witness for testimony. Such a suggestion in this instance would be ludicrous. President Clinton obviously did not and could not represent Mrs. Currie as her attorney. Yet, this sort of explanation illustrates the lengths to which the President's defenders have gone to try and explain away the obvious -- there was no legitimate reason the President made the statements to Mrs. Currie after his grand jury testimony, other than to "suggest" to her what her testimony should be. In federal criminal trials, defendants go to jail for such obstruction. In the case before you, we submit this clearly forms a proper basis on which to convict this President of obstruction of justice for witness tampering, and for subsequent perjury.
Please keep in mind, also, it is not required that the target of the defendant's actions actually testify falsely. In fact, the witness tampering statute can be violated even when there is no proceeding pending at the time the defendant acted. And as the cases discussed by Mr. Cannon demonstrate, for a conviction under either Section 1503 or 1512, it is necessary only to show it was possible the target of the defendant's actions might be called as a witness. That element has been more than met under the facts of this case.
In the case of Mrs. Currie, it was in fact quite likely she would be called as a defendant in the Jones case, or in some later proceeding. The President's own testimony on January 17th pretty much guaranteed this. On several occasions during his testimony in his Jones deposition, the President referred to Mrs. Currie or made comments such as, "you'll have to ask Betty." Even in the absence of the President's suggestive deposition testimony, simply from her position, where she works closely with the President, it was foreseeable that Mrs. Currie would be called as a witness in the Jones case. Most importantly, the President knew Mrs. Currie had some knowledge about some of the instances when he was alone with Ms. Lewinsky. From that knowledge alone, the President could have foreseen Mrs. Currie likely would be called as a witness in some later proceeding involving his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. This is exactly what President Clinton wanted; a friendly witness corroborating his false testimony. However, for this plan to succeed, it required consistent testimony from both him and Mrs. Currie. Thus, the meeting Sunday to "suggest" testimony.
His actions clearly, we believe, violated both the general obstruction statute and the witness tampering statute.
4. Obstruction Regarding the Subpoena for the President's Gifts to Monica Lewinsky.
As has been discussed, while the witness tampering statute makes it a crime to attempt to influence the testimony of a person, it also makes it a crime to influence a person to withhold an object from an official proceeding; in order words, to tamper with evidence [Chart: 18 USC 1512]. The facts of this case show the President corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme with Monica Lewinsky to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in the Jones case.
On December 19, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky was served with a subpoena in the Jones case. The subpoena required her to produce each and every gift given to her by the President. On December 28, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky again met with the President in the Oval Office, at which time they exchanged Christmas gifts. They also discussed the fact that the lawyers in the Jones case had subpoenaed all the President's gifts to Ms. Lewinsky, and specifically a hatpin he had given her. The hatpin had sentimental significance to both of them, in that it was the first gift the President gave to Ms. Lewinsky. During the conversation, Ms. Lewinsky asked the President whether she should put the gifts away outside her house some place, or give them to someone, maybe "Betty." At that time, according to Ms. Lewinsky, the President responded, "let me think about that"; apparently, he did think about it; because later that very same day, only a few hours after Monica Lewinsky and the President had met, Mrs. Currie called Ms. Lewinsky, setting motion the great gift exchange.
According to Ms. Lewinsky, Mrs. Currie said, "I understand that you have something to give me," or "[t]he President said you have something to give me." In her earlier proffer to the Independent Counsel, prior to her testimony before the grand jury, Ms. Lewinsky stated Mrs. Currie had said the President had told her Ms. Lewinsky wanted her to hold on to something for her. After their conversation, Mrs. Currie drove to Ms. Lewinsky's apartment for only the second time in her life. There she picked up a box sealed with tape, and on which was written, "[p]lease do not throw away." Mrs. Currie then took the box, drove to her own home, and placed the box under her bed. At her grand jury testimony, Mrs. Currie testified she and Ms. Lewinsky did not discuss the content of the box; nor did she open it once she got it to her home; but she knew ("understood") the box contained gifts from the President. Ms. Lewinsky testified Mrs. Currie did not seem at all confused or surprised when Ms. Lewinsky handed over a sealed box.
There is no question that if the gifts had actually been produced to the Jones lawyers, they would have established a significant relationship between the President and Ms. Lewinsky; knowledge of the gifts, at a minimum, would have caused the Jones lawyers to inquire further as to the nature of that relationship. Ms. Lewinsky's failure to turn over the gifts as required by the subpoena served on her was, in the words of the witness tampering statute, the withholding of an object from an official proceeding [Chart: 18 USC 1512]. We believe the evidence shows the President corruptly persuaded Ms. Lewinsky to withhold these objects from the proceedings in the Jones case.
In his grand jury testimony, the President asserted he encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to turn over the gifts to the Jones attorneys. Ms. Lewinsky's testimony directly contradicts that assertion, and all other evidence of subsequent acts corroborates her testimony. In fact, Ms. Lewinsky testified she was never under any impression from anything the President said, that she should turn over the gifts to Ms. Jones' attorneys; quite the opposite.
Also, the President asserts he never spoke about this matter with Betty Currie. Instead, the President would have you believe his personal, confidential secretary would drive to the home of the woman with whom he was having an "inappropriate intimate relationship," take possession of a sealed box which she believed to contain gifts given by the President, hide the box under the bed in her own home, never question the person giving her the box as to why she was being asked to take the gifts, and never even mention to the President she had received the box of gifts. The President's position is simply not credible. It defies the evidence. It defies any reasonable interpretation of the evidence. It defies common sense. And it defies the law [Chart: 18 USC 1512].
The only reasonable interpretation of the facts is that, following the discussion between the President and Ms. Lewinsky earlier in the day on December 28th, the President decided Ms. Lewinsky's suggestion about the gifts was a pretty good one; the gifts should be put away outside her home. As jurors, you may reasonably presume, based on the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, along with common sense, that it was the President who directed Mrs. Currie to call Ms. Lewinsky to tell her she understood Ms. Lewinsky "had something for her."
This is an entirely reasonable inference from the evidence. For example, because Mrs. Currie would have no independent reason to even consider such a course of action. Mrs. Currie drove to Ms. Lewinsky's home only for the second time in her life, not because she developed a sudden hankering to do so, or because she routinely visited interns at their homes, or because she had a vision; but because the President would have asked her to. Mrs. Currie did not ask about the contents of the box; she didn't have to. She knew what was in the box. Mrs. Currie took the box and hid it under her bed because the President had asked her to hide the gifts in a place no one else could find. These inferences are plausible. They are reasonable. They are consistent with common sense and with the evidence. And they constituted a criminal endeavor by the President.
The President points out Mrs. Currie has testified that Ms. Lewinsky called her to arrange to pick up the gifts, rather than the other way around. In fact, Mrs. Currie has testified inconsistently as to whether Ms. Lewinsky called her or she called Ms. Lewinsky; actually deferring to Ms. Lewinsky's superior knowledge of these facts. However, even if one were to accept for purposes of argument that it was Ms. Lewinsky who initiated the call, the President's avowal that he had no knowledge of or involvement with the hiding of gifts is still not plausible. It is totally unreasonable to presume that the private secretary to the President of the United States would drop what she was doing, leave the White House or wherever she was on duty on a normal work day, travel to the home of a former intern, pick up a box and hide it in her home, simply because that former intern demanded she do these things, without either checking with the President or having prior knowledge from him as to this course of action.
We therefore believe and respectfully urge you to conclude the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the President directed Betty Currie to drive to Ms. Lewinsky's home, pick up the gifts, and hide them; which is what ultimately happened. In so doing, he persuaded a person to withhold objects from an official proceeding and obstructed the due administration of justice [Chart: 18 USC 1512]. In so acting, he committed the crime of witness tampering under Sections 1512 and 1503 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
Further, and without repeating all the arguments of my colleague Managers, when the President testified falsely as to these transactions involving the secreting of the gifts, his statements to the grand jury on this matter constitute perjury in violation of Section 1623.
But there's more on this point.
Ms. Lewinsky testified she met with the President for 45 minutes on December 28th, at which time they discussed the fact she had been subpoenaed, along with the need to conceal the gifts. The President's testimony directly conflicts with Ms. Lewinsky's on this point and constitutes perjury.
First, the evidence establishes that his professed inability to remember whether she and the gifts had been subpoenaed is false. Please keep in mind: when evaluating the circumstantial evidence to determine whether a false statement was made intentionally, the most important evidence to consider is the existence of a motive to lie. It is the calculated falsehood, combined with a clear motive to lie that leads to the conclusion that it was an intentional false statement. Also, please bear in mind the law will not allow someone to testify "I don't recall" or "I'm not sure" when such answer is unreasonable under the circumstances. Former United States Representative Patrick Swindall tried this course of action when he appeared before a grand jury in the Northern District of Georgia in 1988. His evasive and false answers to the grand jury provided the basis for his subsequent conviction. See, for example, U.S. v. Swindall, 971 F 2d 1531 (11th Cir. 1992).
Feigned forgetfulness, or feigned assertions that grand jury questions are ambiguous, cannot, and in fact in federal criminal proceedings, do not, shield defendants from criminal liability for perjury or impeding the conduct of a federal grand jury. Nor should such efforts be allowed to shield President Clinton from conviction on these two Articles of Impeachment. The President, a man of considerable intelligence and gifted with an exceptional memory, can and should be inferred [Chart: Definition of Inference] to have clearly understood what he was doing, the logical and reasonable consequences of his actions, and the questions put to him by the Independent Counsel in the grand jury questioning.
He had a clear motive to falsely state to the grand jury that he could not recall that he knew on December 28th that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed and that the subpoena called for her to produce the gifts. To have acknowledged as much would have helped to establish a motive on his part for orchestrating the concealment of the gifts.
And there is no doubt the President's statement of feigned forgetfulness was material. Again, to have acknowledged the truth would have helped to establish a clear motive to conceal the gifts; precisely the kind of wrongdoing being investigated by the grand jury. But the President didn't just feign forgetfulness, he testified that he wasn't concerned about the gifts, and that he told Ms. Lewinsky she would have to turn over whatever gifts she had. The President's testimony is not credible.
The President's counsel will likely argue the fact that the President gave Ms. Lewinsky additional gifts on that same day is proof of the President's assertions. Their argument cannot be sustained in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. The evidence points to a much more plausible explanation. The additional gifts given that day demonstrate the President's continued confidence that Ms. Lewinsky would keep to their earlier agreement to conceal their relationship. It is also plausible that the additional gifts were intended as a gesture of affection by President Clinton to Ms. Lewinsky, to help ensure she would not testify against him.
Ms. Lewinsky clearly understood the dangers of being truthful, as did the President. And that is why he testified he could not remember whether he knew at their December 28th meeting she and the gifts had been subpoenaed, even though he really -- and obviously -- could remember. And that's why he was concerned about the gifts, even though he testified he wasn't. And that's why he clearly conveyed to her the need for concealing the gifts, even though he testified he didn't. And that's why he orchestrated, or at a minimum participated in, an illegal scheme to conceal the gifts, even though he testified he didn't.
The President's testimony on these points before the grand jury was knowingly false as to material matters under investigation. As such, the President committed perjury in violation of Section 1623.
5. Intensification of the Job Search.
We believe the evidence shows that beginning on about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, the President intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance for a witness in a federal civil rights action brought against him, in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of the witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of the witness would have been harmful to him.
As my colleagues have detailed for you, after Ms. Lewinsky lost her job at the White House, she made several attempts to convince the President to return her to the White House. Eventually she learned a decision had been made on a staff level to prevent her from returning. She decided to change tack. She wrote directly to the President, asked for, and received a meeting in which she asked him to find her a job in New York City.
The day before the President filed his answers to the interrogatories in the Jones case, he asked Mrs. Currie to set up a meeting for Ms. Lewinsky with Mr. Vernon Jordan. Two days after he filed his answers in which he refused to answer whether he ever had any extra-marital relationships, that meeting occurred. But Mr. Jordan made no efforts to assist her in November. In fact, Mr. Jordan later testified that he "had no recollection of an early November meeting." There was, of course, at that early stage, no urgency.
The situation changed dramatically in early December 1997. On the afternoon of December 6th, the President became aware Ms. Lewinsky had been named as a witness in the Jones case. Earlier that day, she had thrown a tantrum at the White House's Northwest gate when she was unable to meet with the President because he was meeting with Eleanor Mondale. Despite the President's initial anger over Ms. Lewinsky's behavior and over the acts of some of the Secret Service officers, just five days later, Ms Lewinsky had her second meeting with Mr. Jordan. But this time, unlike previously, this powerful Washington lawyer jumped for the former intern. He immediately placed calls to three major corporations on her behalf.
Also, on December 11th, Judge Wright ordered the President to answer Paula Jones' interrogatory regarding extra-marital relationships. On December 17th, the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky she file the affidavit and continue to use their cover stories in the event she was asked about her relationship with the President. The next day she had two interviews in New York City arranged by Mr. Jordan. On December 22nd, Ms. Lewinsky met with an attorney at a meeting arranged by Mr. Jordan. The following day, she had another job interview arranged by Mr. Jordan.
On January 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky signed the false affidavit and proudly showed the executed copy to Mr. Jordan; the next day, Ms. Lewinsky had an interview arranged by Mr. Jordan with MacAndrews and Forbes in New York; an interview that went poorly. To remedy this, she called Mr. Jordan and informed him. Mr. Jordan then called the CEO of MacAndrews and Forbes, Ron Perelman, to, in his word, "make things happen, if they could happen." After Mr. Jordan's call to Mr. Perelman, Ms. Lewinsky was called and told she would be interviewed again the next morning. The following day she was re-interviewed and immediately offered a job. She then called Mr. Jordan to tell him and he passed the information on to Mrs. Currie: "Tell the President, "Mission Accomplished."
What are you, as jurors, entitled to conclude from all of this, as a matter of law and of fact? Until it became clear Ms. Lewinsky would be a witness in the Jones case, little was done to help her with her job search. But once she was listed as a witness, things changed dramatically and rapidly. Just days after she is listed on the Jones witness list, she gets a second meeting with one of the most influential men in Washington. But, unlike their first meeting, Vernon Jordan now makes three calls on her behalf to get her job interview. A week later the President proposed the affidavit and cover stories. The next day Ms. Lewinsky has two job interviews in New York. A few days later, Mr. Jordan arranges for an attorney to represent her. The next day she has another job interview he arranged. Two weeks later, she signs the affidavit. The next day another interview. When that doesn't go well, Mr. Jordan gets her another interview the next day. And on that very day, she gets a job. "Mission Accomplished." Obstruction Accomplished. Another potentially embarrassing witness in the bag.
Were Monica Lewinsky to get a job and move to New York, this would help the President substantially in two ways. First, it would, presumably, create a happy and probably compliant witness; one willing if not eager, to support the President's false testimony. Second, it would make Ms. Lewinsky much more difficult, if not impossible, to reach as a witness. In fact, this is precisely what the President himself suggested to Ms. Lewinsky during their December 28th meeting, according to her sworn testimony.
To put it plainly, but respectfully, if that is not obstruction by witness tampering, one would be hard pressed to find a fact pattern that was.
This aspect of the case against the President is important. She gets the job, even after she flubs the interview. And what did the President get? The key affidavit to throw the Jones lawyers off the trail, asserting that there was no sexual relationship between them. And possibly a witness outside the practical reach of the Jones lawyers; much like the absent witnesses we've seen in large numbers in the campaign finance investigations.
The President's efforts were designed to and did obstruct justice and tamper with a witness. His actions were crimes under section 1503 and section 1512.
6. The President's False Statements to his Senior Aides.
As previously discussed, under the statute and federal case law, the witness tampering statute may be violated even if there is no proceeding pending at the time the defendant attempts to intimidate or influence the testimony of a potential witness. All that need be shown to prove a violation of the statute, is that the defendant engaged in "misleading conduct" toward another person with the intent to influence that person's testimony in an official proceeding. "Misleading conduct" is specifically defined at Paragraph (a) (3) of Section 1515 [Chart: 18 USC 1515], and includes, among other elements, "knowingly making a false statement" or "intentionally omitting information from a statement." When you, as jurors, properly apply these definitions to the terms of Section 1512, the federal witness tampering statute, and then turn your attention to the facts of this case, wherein the President repeatedly and deliberately gave false explanations to aides he knew or should reasonably have known, would be witnesses in federal judicial proceedings, the conclusion he violated this statute, is, we respectfully submit, unavoidable.
Importantly under federal case law, "misleading conduct" had been interpreted to involve a situation where a defendant tells a potential witness a false story as if the story were true, intending that the witness believe the story and testify to it before the grand jury. See, for example, O'Keefe, supra.
In January 1998, the President made statements to a number of his senior aides, we believe, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those persons in an official proceeding, whether that be the Jones case or some later proceeding.
It is not necessary to recount here the evidence and arguments already presented to you, concerning the documented efforts by the President, to convince several of his top aides (to say nothing of the entire population of the country), that his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky was something other than what it was in fact. Insofar as several of these attempts were made in the context of possible witnesses in judicial proceedings, they in fact fall within the ambit of the federal obstruction statutes, Sections 1503 and 1512. We respectfully argue this jury would be on sound legal ground to so find as the basis for conviction of the President on the Second Article of Impeachment.
As has already been presented to you, the President's statements to Messrs. Ickes, Podesta, Bowles, Blumenthal, and others, were all lies; misleading statements; all statements intended to create a false impression. They all constitute witness tampering within the terms of section 1512 as further defined by section 1515 [Chart: 18 USC 1515].
We believe the President made all these statements with the intent to influence the testimony of these aides in the event they were called to testify about their knowledge of the President's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Given that the Lewinsky story had just become known throughout the nation, it was clearly likely, and reasonably anticipated by the President, that the Jones lawyers would seek to depose Ms. Lewinsky. It was also reasonably foreseeable they would seek to depose Mr. Clinton's senior aides to learn what they knew about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, and especially concerning whether they had seen the two of them together at the White House.
Each of these individuals then, was a potential witness in the Jones case. It was also reasonably foreseeable this matter might result in some other judicial proceeding at a later time, given that the President had made statements under oath denying his relationship to Ms. Lewinsky; statements which exposed him to potential criminal penalty. Thus, it was likely his senior aides would be called as witnesses in a later judicial proceeding concerning the President's false statements. Indeed, they were later called to testify before a judicial proceeding. Each of them relayed the story the President told them. Thus, the tampering "succeeded"; the intended result happened. And the administration of justice was -- temporarily -- thwarted.
In making these statements to his aides, the President was engaging in "misleading conduct" (as defined and contemplated by federal statute) toward those aides, with the intent to influence their testimony in an official proceeding. When he did this -- and he did this -- the President committed witness tampering in violation of federal law (18 USC Section 1512).
7. Statements by the President and his Lawyer About the Affidavit During the Jones Deposition.
The obstruction statute may also be violated by a person who gives false testimony. In the Jones case, the President allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a federal judge. This part of the obstruction scheme was accomplished by characterizing as true the false affidavit filed by Ms. Lewinsky, in order to prevent questioning by the Jones lawyers which had already been deemed relevant by the judge in the case.
As has already been discussed, during the President's deposition on January 17, 1998, an attorney for Paula Jones began to ask the President questions concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The President's lawyer, Robert Bennett, objected to the "innuendo" of the questions and pointed out Ms. Lewinsky had signed an affidavit denying a sexual relationship with the President. He then asserted "there is no sex of any kind in any manner, shape, or form." Following the statement, Judge Wright warned Mr. Bennett about making an assertion of fact in front of the witness, to which he replied, "I am not coaching the witness. In preparation of the witness for this deposition, the witness is fully aware of [the] affidavit, so I have not told him a single thing he doesn't know." The President's lawyer didn't know what an understatement that was.
On September 30, 1998, long after the deposition, and after the full evidence of Ms. Lewinsky's relationship with the President became public, Mr. Bennett wrote to Judge Wright [Chart: Bennett Letter] to inform her that she should not rely on the statements he made during the President's deposition, because parties of the Affidavit were "misleading and not true" [Chart: 18 USC 1515]. "Misleading and not true." Sounds like 18 USC 1515.
Which brings us full circle. Full circle from a false affidavit confirming earlier concocted cover stories, through a web of obstruction, to a letter from a distinguished lawyer forced to do what no lawyer wants to do, but every honorable lawyer must do when confronted with clear evidence their client has misled the court, and that is, to correct the record of falsity to the court, to the detriment of his client.
Closing.
What we have before us, Senators, and Mr. Chief Justice, is really not complex. Critically important, yes. But not essentially complex. Virtually every federal or state prosecutor -- and there are many such distinguished persons on this jury -- has seen such cases of obstruction before in their careers, probably repeated -- a pattern of obstruction of justice compounded by subsequent perjury to cover it up.
The President's lawyers will almost certainly try to weave a spell of complexity over the facts of this case. They will nit pick the time of a call, or parse a specific word or phrase of testimony, much as the President has done. We urge you, the distinguished jurors in this case, not to be fooled. Use your common sense. Your reason. Your varied and successful career experiences. Just as any juror in any jury box anywhere in America does each day a court is in session. Just as does the average juror, so too have each of you sworn to decide these momentous matters impartially. Your oath to look to the law and our majestic Constitution demand this of you. As this great body has done so many times in the course of our nation's history, I am confident you will neither shirk from nor cast aside that duty.
Rather, I urge, and fully anticipate you will look at the volume of facts, hopefully supplemented by live witnesses, and to the clear and fully applicable statutes; and conclude that William Jefferson Clinton in fact and under the law, violated his oath and violated the laws of this land, and convict him on both Articles of Impeachment, of Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. Even though such a high burden is not required of you under the Law of Impeachment, in fact it is there; it is met. The perjury is there. The obstruction is there. We ask you to strike down these insidious cancers that eat at our system of government and laws. Strike it down with the Constitution so it might not fester as a gaping wound; poisoning future generations of children; poisoning our court system; and perhaps even poisoning future generations of political leaders. Just as Members of both Houses of Congress have been convicted and removed from office for perjury and obstruction; and just as federal judges have been removed by you from life tenure for perjury and obstruction, so must a president; so, sadly, should this President.
Thank you Mr. Chief Justice. And thank you members of the United States Senate, sitting as jurors in the Trial of President William Jefferson Clinton.
SOURCE
Clinton Says Will Not Resign, Denies Perjury
Open letter to Mrs. Hillary Clinton
Dear Mrs. Clinton:
In February 1974 the staff of the Nixon impeachment inquiry issued a report produced by a group of lawyers and researchers assigned with developing a scholar mmorandum setting forth the "constitutional grounds for presidential impeachmnt."
You were a member of that group of lawyers and researchers, barely, I am sure, able to conceal your dislike for President Nixon. Within the year, Nixon would leave offic disgraced , having witnessed articles of impeachment voted against him by the House Judiciary Committee, based in part on your report.
Relevant Today
I must give you and your colleagues credit. You did not appear to have let personal animus influence your work product, at least not the final, published report. In fact, the report you and your colleagues produced appears objective, fair, well researched and consistent with other materials reflecting and commenting on impeachment. And it is every bit as relevant today as it was 23 years ago.
I presume -- but I must ask whether -- you stand by your research and analysis today. You said in 1974 that impeachment, as understood by the framers of our constitution, reflected the long history of the term used at least since late-14th-century England: "one of the tools used by the English" to make government "more responsive and responsible" (page 4 of your report). You also noted then -- clearly in response to those who mistakenly claimed impeachment as a tool to correct "corruption in office" that "alleged damage to the state," was "not necessarily limited to common law or statutory ... Crimes" (page 7)
You quoted James Wilson, who at the Pennsylvania ratification convention described the executive (that is, the president) as not being above the law, but rather "in his public character" subject to it "by impeachment" (page 9)
You also -- quite correctly -- noted then that the constitutional draftsmen chose the terms describing the circumstances under which a president could be impeached very carefully and deliberately. You noted that "high crimes and misdemeanors" did not denote criminal offenses in the sense that prosecutors employ such terms in modern trials. Rather, in your well-researched memorandum, you correctly noted that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was substituted for George Mason's less precise term in an earlier draft of the Constitution: "Maladministration" (page 12 of your report). Not only that, but your further research led you to quote Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" in support of your conclusion that "high crimes and misdemeanors" meant not a criminal offense but an injury to the state or system of government (page 12).
I applaud the extent and clarity of your research. You even note that the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding questions of intent, must construe phrases such as "high crimes and misdemeanors" not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them (page 12 once again).
Magnificent research!
Even Alexander Hamilton finds a place in your research. You quote from his Federalist No. 65 that impeachment relates to "misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of public trust" that is "of a nature ... POLITICAL [emphasis in original]" (page 13 of your report).
Finally, in bringing your research forward from the constitutional drafting documents themselves, you find support for your properly broad interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in no less a legal scholar than Justice Joseph Story. I was in awe of your use of Justice Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution" (1833) supporting your proposition that "impeachment ... applies to offenses of a political character ... [that] must be examined upon very broad and comprehensive principles of public policy and duty" (pages 16 and 17 of your report). I could not have said it better.
You even note that the specific instances on which impeachment has been employed in our country's history "placed little emphasis on criminal conduct" and were used to remove public officials who had "seriously undermined public confidence" through their "course of conduct" (page 21).
Clear Basis
Mrs. Clinton, when I first raised the notion last month that the House should take but the first step in determining whether impeachment might lie against President Clinton for a pattern of abuse of office and improper administration of his duties, little did I realize your scholarly work 23 years ago would provide clear historical and legal basis and precedent for my proposition.
Amazingly, the words you used in your report are virtually identical to those I use today. For example, you said in 1974, much as I did in my March 11, 1997, letter to Judiciary Chairman Hyde, that "[i]mpeachment is the first step in a remedial process" (page 24 of your report) to correct "serious offenses" that "subvert" our government and "undermine the integrity of office" (page 26). Thank you, Mrs. Clinton, for giving Congress a road map for beginning our inquiry.
Sincerely,
Bob Barr (R., GA.) Member of Congress
Rep. Barr (R., Ga.) serves on the House Judiciary
and Government Reform Committees.
He was the U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Georgia
under Presidents Reagan and Bush
His open letter appeared in the Wall Street Journal, on April 25, 1997
Clinton Helped Shape 'Every Clause, Every Word and Every Comma' in deal w/Ray
The deal spares the country the prospect of seeing Bill Clinton put on criminal trial
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE: RAY DEAL WITH CLINTON OUTRAGEOUS AND ABUSE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL OFFICE
RAY DEAL WITH CLINTON OUTRAGEOUS AND ABUSE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL OFFICE
Judicial Watch Slams Ray-Clinton Deal
Robert Ray Finishes in the Sink
Ray Decision Was Political - Didn't Do His Job
TO RAY, NOTHING BUT UNDERBRUSH! Vince Foster, Whitewater, Travelgate, FBI Files
Ray says 'pressure was applied' on deal with Clinton
I.C. Robert Ray shuts down Project X E-Mail probe
OFF THE HOOK: BILL CLINTON AND INDEPENDENT COUNSEL ROBERT RAY STRIKE DEAL
Ray aborts missing White House e-mail probe
From The Daily Republican:
Perjury is a high crime - So how is it that president Clinton is still in office?
Wrong question. HOW IS IT HIS BUTT IS NOT IN PRISON?
U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright of Little Rock dismissed Paula Jones's sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton on April 1, 1998. April Fool's Day. 
"Democrats and Republicans alike are celebrating over the 11th-hour deal struck between Independent Counsel Robert Ray and our 42nd president, a deal that allowed Bill Clinton to beat his perjury and obstruction of justice raps growing out of the investigation of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. 
"There have been no scandals in this administration. And I was governor for 12 years, not a hint of scandal"