David P. Schippers results of analysis and review House Judiciary Committee, October 5, 1998, There exists substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies which in turn may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry, 15 counts

 

The following report by David Schippers has apparently been scrubbed by the House Judiciary website.

It can no longer be found here:

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/schippers.htm

The report was retrieved from the Wayback Machine.

“Mr. Chairman, Mr. Conyers, Members of the Committee, as Chief Investigative Counsel for the Majority I have been called upon to advise the Judiciary Committee of the results of our analysis and review of the September 9, 1998 Referral from the Office of Independent Counsel, in which it concluded that there is substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.

In executing the task assigned to us, my staff and I have made a deliberate effort to discount the political aspects of our examination and to ignore any partisan tactics and strategy. The standard of review was set by me in our very first meeting following the delivery of the material. I reminded the staff that we are not advocates, but professionals asked to perform a professional, albeit distasteful duty. Therefore, I asked them to review the Referral and supporting data in the light most favorable to the President.

Throughout this effort we have been determined to avoid even the suggestion of preference. We view our responsibility as requiring an unbiased, full and expeditious review, untrammeled by any preconceived notions or opinions. Our approach has been solely in keeping with constitutional and legal standards of fairness and impartiality.

Before moving on to the substantive areas of the Report, I would like to address two elementary, but basic, concepts of our Constitutional Government. They will serve to put our conclusions in the proper perspective.

FIRST: The President of the United States enjoys a singular and appropriately lofty position in our system of government. But that position by its very nature involves equally unique and onerous responsibilities, among which are included affirmative obligations that apply to no other citizen.

Specifically, the Constitution of the United States imposes upon the President the explicit and affirmative duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . .” Article II, Section 3. Moreover, before entering upon the duties of his office, the President is constitutionally commanded to take the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

 

The President, then, is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Although he is neither above nor below the laws, he is, by virtue of his office, held to a higher standard than any other American. Furthermore, as Chief Executive Officer and Commander in Chief, he is the repository of a special trust.

SECOND: Many defendants who face legal action, whether it be civil or criminal, may honestly believe that the case against them is unwarranted and factually deficient. It is not, however, in the discretion of the litigant to decide that any tactics are justified to defeat the lawsuit in that situation. Rather, it is incumbent upon that individual to testify fully and truthfully during the truth seeking phase. It is then the function of the system of law to expose the frivolous cases. The litigant may not with impunity mislead, deceive or lie under oath in order to prevail in the lawsuit or for other personal gain. Any other result would be subversive of the American Rule of Law.

The principle that every witness in every case must tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is the foundation of the American System of Justice which is the envy of every civilized nation. The sanctity of the oath taken by a witness is the most essential bulwark of the truth seeking function of a trial, the American method of ascertaining the facts. If lying under oath is tolerated and, when exposed, is not visited with immediate and substantial adverse consequences, the integrity of this country’s entire judicial process is fatally compromised and that process will inevitably collapse. The subject matter of the underlying case, whether civil or criminal, and the circumstances under which the testimony is given are of no significance whatever. It is the oath itself that is sacred and must be enforced.

The Independent Counsel Act (Title 18, United States Code,

Section 591, et seq.) provides in relevant part:

An independent counsel shall advise the House of

Representatives of any substantial and credible

information . . . that may constitute grounds for

an impeachment.

 

In compliance with the statutory mandate, the Office of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, informed the House of Representatives on September 9, 1998, that it was prepared to submit a referral under the statute. On that day, the Independent Counsel’s Office delivered to the House the following material:

A. A Referral consisting of an Introduction, a Narrative of Relevant Events and an Identification and Analysis of the Substantial and Credible Information that may support grounds for impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton;

B. An Appendix in six three-ring binders totaling in excess of 2500 pages of the most relevant testimony and other material cited in the Referral; and

C. Seventeen transmittal boxes containing grand jury transcripts, deposition transcripts, FBI reports, reports of interviews, and thousand of pages of incidental back-up documents.

Pursuant to House Resolution 525, all of this material was turned over to the Committee on the Judiciary to be held in Executive Session until September 28, 1998. At that time the House ordered that all materials be released to the public, except those which were withheld by action of the Committee.

My staff and the Minority staff were instructed by the Committee to review the Referral, together with all of the other evidence and testimony that was submitted, for the purpose of determining whether there actually existed “substantial and credible” evidence that President William Jefferson Clinton may have committed acts that may constitute grounds to proceed to a resolution for an impeachment inquiry.

Because of the narrow scope of our directive, the investigation and analysis was necessarily circumscribed by information delivered with the Referral together with some information and analysis furnished by the counsel for the President. For that reason, we did not seek to procure any additional evidence or testimony from any other source. Particularly, we did not seek to obtain or review the material that remained in the possession of the OIC. In two telephone conversations with Mr. Bittman, Mr. Lowell and I were assured that the retained material was deemed unnecessary to comply with the statutory requirement under Section 595(c). Though Mr. Bittman offered to make available to both counsel all of that material, my staff and I did not deem it necessary or even proper to go beyond the submission itself. At the suggestion of the Minority Counsel, the retained material was reviewed by members of both staffs. The material was, as anticipated, irrelevant.

To support the Referral, the House has been furnished with grand jury transcripts, FBI interview memoranda, transcripts of depositions, other interview memoranda, statements, audio recordings, and, where available, video recordings of all persons named in the Referral. In addition, the House was provided with a copy of every document cited and a mass of documentary and other evidence produced by witnesses, the White House, the President, the Secret Service and the Department of Defense.

This Report is confined solely to that Referral and supporting evidence and testimony supplied to the House and then to this Committee, supplemented only by the information provided by the President’s Counsel. Although the original submission contained a transcript of the President’s deposition testimony, no video tape was included. Pursuant to a request by Chairman Hyde, a video tape of the entire deposition was later provided to the Committee by the District Judge. Both that video and the video of the President’s testimony before the grand jury have been thoroughly reviewed by all members of my staff and by me personally.

Apart from the thorough review of President Clinton’s deposition and grand jury testimony, the following functions were performed in preparation for this report:

1. All grand jury transcripts and memoranda of interview of Ms. Currie, Mr. Jordan, Ms. Lewinsky, the Secret Service Agents, and Ms. Tripp were independently reviewed, compared and analyzed by at least three members of the staff; and those of Ms. Currie, Mr. Jordan, Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Tripp and both appearances of the President by me personally.2. All of the remaining grand jury transcripts, deposition transcripts and memoranda of the others interviewed were likewise reviewed, compared and analyzed. This involved more than 250 separate documents, some consisting of hundreds of pages. In this regard, my staff was instructed to seek any information that might cast doubt upon the legal or factual conclusions of the Independent Counsel.3. The entire Appendix, consisting of in excess of two thousand pages, was systematically reviewed and analyzed against the statements contained in the Referral.4. I personally read the entire Evidence Reference and Legal Reference that accompanied the Referral. I analyzed the legal precepts and theories, and read at least the relevant portions of each case cited.5. In addition to other members of the staff, I personally

read and analyzed the eleven specific allegations made by the Independent Counsel, and reviewed the evidentiary basis for those allegations. Each footnote supporting the charges was checked to insure that it did, in fact, support the underlying evidentiary proposition. In cases where inferences were drawn in the body of the Referral, the validity of those inferences was tested under acceptable principles of federal trial practice.

6. Each of the literally thousands of back-up documents was reviewed in order to insure that no relevant evidence had been overlooked.7. Meetings of the entire staff were conducted on virtually a daily basis for the purpose of coordinating efforts and to synthesize the divergent material into a coherent report.

Having completed all of the tasks assigned to us, we are now prepared to report our findings to you, the Members of this Committee. We are fully aware that the purpose of this Hearing is solely for the Committee to decide whether there is sufficient credible and substantial evidence to proceed to an impeachment inquiry. This and nothing more. Of course, as Members of this Committee, you and only you are authorized and encouraged eventually to make your own independent judgment on what constitutes impeachable offenses and the standards of proof that might be applicable. My report, then, represents a distillation and consensus of the staff’s efforts and conclusions for your guidance and consideration.

At the outset, one point needs to be made. The witness, Monica Lewinsky’s credibility may be subject to some skepticism. At an appropriate stage of the proceedings, that credibility will, of necessity, be assessed together with the credibility of all witnesses in the light of all the other evidence. Ms. Lewinsky admitted to having lied on occasion to Linda Tripp and to having executed and caused to be filed a false affidavit in the Paula Jones case.

On the other hand, Ms. Lewinsky obtained a grant of immunity for her testimony before the grand jury and, therefore, had no reason to lie thereafter. Furthermore, the witness’ account of the relevant events could well have been much more damaging. For the most part, though, the record reflects that she was an embarrassed and reluctant witness who actually downplayed her White House encounters. In testifying, Ms. Lewinsky demonstrated a remarkable memory, supported by her personal diary, concerning dates and events. Finally, the record includes ample corroboration of her testimony by independent and disinterested witnesses, by documentary evidence, and, in part, by the grand jury testimony of the President himself. Consequently, for the limited purpose of this report, we suggest that Monica Lewinsky’s testimony is both substantial and credible.

It has been the considered judgment of my staff and myself that our main focus should be on those alleged acts and omissions by the President which affect the rule of law, and the structure and integrity of our court system. Deplorable as the numerous sexual encounters related in the evidence may be, we chose to emphasize the consequences of those acts as they affect the administration of justice and the unique role the President occupies in carrying out his oath faithfully to execute the laws of the nation.

The prurient aspect of the Referral is, at best, merely peripheral to the central issues. The assertions of Presidential misconduct cited in the Referral, though arising initially out of sexual indiscretions, are completely distinct and involve allegations of an ongoing series of deliberate and direct assaults by Mr. Clinton upon the justice system of the United States, and upon the Judicial Branch of our government, which holds a place in the constitutional framework of checks and balances equal to that of the Executive and the Legislative branches.

As a result of our research and review of the Referral and supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there exists substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies which, in turn, may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.

I will now present the catalog of those charges, together with a brief statement of the evidence supporting each.

Please understand that nothing contained in this report is intended to constitute an accusation against the President or anyone else; nor should it be construed as such. What follows is nothing more than a litany of the crimes that might have been committed based upon the substantial and credible evidence provided by the Independent Counsel, and reviewed, tested and analyzed by the staff.

With that caution in mind, I will proceed:

 

I.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have been part of a conspiracy with Monica Lewinsky and others to obstruct justice and the due administration of justice by:

(A) Providing false and misleading testimony under oath in a civil deposition and before the grand jury;

(B) Withholding evidence and causing evidence to be withheld and concealed; and

(C) Tampering with prospective witnesses in a civil lawsuit and before a federal grand jury.

The President and Ms. Lewinsky had developed a “cover story” to conceal their activities. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, at pp. 54-55, 234). On December 6, 1997, the President learned that Ms. Lewinsky’s name had appeared on the Jones v. Clinton witness list. (Clinton GJ, p. 84). He informed Ms. Lewinsky of that fact on December 17, 1997, and the two agreed that they would employ the same cover story in the Jones case. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 122-123;

M.L. 2/1/98 Proffer). The President at that time suggested that an affidavit might be enough to prevent Ms. Lewinsky from testifying. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 122-123). On December 19, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky was subpoenaed to give a deposition in the Jones case. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 128).

Thereafter, the record tends to establish that the following events took place:

1) In the second week of December, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky

told Ms. Tripp that she would lie if called to

testify and tried to convince Ms. Tripp to do

the same. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 127).

2) Ms. Lewinsky attempted on several occasions to

get Ms. Tripp to contact the White House before

giving testimony in the Jones case. (Tripp 7/16/98 GJ,

p. 75; M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 71).

3) Ms. Lewinsky participated in preparing a false

and intentionally misleading affidavit to be

filed in the Jones case. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ,

pp. 200-203).

4) Ms. Lewinsky provided a copy of the draft

affidavit to a third party for approval and

discussed changes calculated to mislead.

(M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 200-202).

5) Ms. Lewinsky and the President talked by phone

on January 6, 1998, and agreed that she would

give false and misleading answers to questions

about her job at the Pentagon. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ,

p. 197).

6) On January 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky signed the false

and misleading affidavit. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 203).

Conspirators intended to use the affidavit

to avoid Ms. Lewinsky’s giving a deposition.

(M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 122-123; M.L. 2/1/98 Proffer).

7) After Ms. Lewinsky’s name surfaced, conspirators

began to employ code names in their contacts. (M.L.

8/6/98 GJ, pp. 215-217).

8) On December 28, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky and the

President met at the White House and discussed

the subpoena she had received. Ms. Lewinsky

suggested that she conceal the gifts received

from the President. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 152).

9) Shortly thereafter, the President’s personal

secretary, Betty Currie, picked up a box of

the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky. (Currie 5/6/98 GJ,

pp. 107-108; M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 154-156).

10) Betty Currie hid the box of gifts under her bed

at home. (Currie 5/6/98 GJ, pp. 107-108;

Currie 1/27/98 GJ, pp. 57-58).

11) The President gave false answers to questions

contained in Interrogatories in the Jones case.

(V2-DC-53; V2-DC-104).

12) On December 31, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky, at the

suggestion of a third party, deleted 50 draft

notes to the President. (M.L. 8/1/98 OIC Interview,

p. 13). She had already been subpoenaed in

the Jones case.

13) On January 17, 1998, the President’s attorney

produced Ms. Lewinsky’s false affidavit at the President’s deposition and the President adopted

it as true.

14) On January 17, 1998, in his deposition, the

President gave false and misleading testimony

under oath concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky about the gifts she had given him

and several other matters. (Clinton Dep., pp. 49-84;

M.L. 7/27/98 OIC Interview, pp. 12-15).

15) The President, on January 18, 1998, and thereafter, coached his personal secretary, Betty Currie,

to give a false and misleading account of the

Lewinsky relationship if called to testify.

(Currie 1/27/98 GJ, pp. 71-74, 81).

16) The President narrated elaborate detailed

false accounts of his relationship with Monica

Lewinsky to prospective witnesses with

the intention that those false accounts would

be repeated in testimony. (Currie 1/27/98 GJ,

pp. 71-74, 81; Podesta 6/16/98 GJ, pp. 88-92;

Blumenthal 6/4/98 GJ, pp. 49-51; Blumenthal 6/25/98

GJ, p. 8; Bowles 4/2/98 GJ, pp. 83-84;

Ickes 6/10/98 GJ, p. 73; Ickes 8/5/98 GJ, p. 88).

17) On August 17, 1998, the President gave false

and misleading testimony under oath to a

federal grand jury on the following points:

his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, his testimony

in the January 17, 1998 deposition, his

conversations with various individuals and

his knowledge of Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit and its

falsity.

At this point, I would like to illustrate some of the details concerning the events immediately before and after the President’s deposition on January 17, 1998.

These facts appear in the Record:

On January 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky signed the false Affidavit, and it was furnished to Mr. Clinton’s civil lawyer. The President reviewed it, so he knew that she had denied their relationship when the deposition began.

During the questioning, however, it became more and more apparent to the President that Ms. Jones’ attorneys possessed a lot more specific detail than the President anticipated.

When the President returned to the White House, the calls began:

C H A R T

II.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have aided, abetted, counseled, and procured Monica Lewinsky to file and caused to be filed a false affidavit in the case of Jones v. Clinton, et al., in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1623 and 2.

 

The record tends to establish the following:

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Lewinsky on December 17, 1997, the President told her that her name was on the witness list in the Jones case. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p.123). The President then suggested that she might submit an affidavit to avoid testimony. (Id.). Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky knew that the affidavit would need to be false in order to accomplish that result. In that conversation, the President also suggested “You know, you can always say you were coming to see Betty or that you were bringing me letters.” (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p.123). Ms. Lewinsky knew exactly what he meant because it was the same “cover story” that they had agreed upon earlier. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p.124).

Thereafter, Ms. Lewinsky discussed the affidavit with and furnished a copy to a confidant of the President for approval. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 200-202). Ms. Lewinsky signed the false affidavit and caused her attorney to provide it to the President’s lawyer for use in the Jones case.

 

III.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have aided, abetted, counseled, and procured Monica Lewinsky in obstruction of justice when she executed and caused to be filed a false affidavit in the case of Jones v. Clinton, et al., with knowledge of the pending proceedings and with the intent to influence, obstruct or impede that proceeding in the due administration of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503 and 2.

 

The record tends to establish that the President not only aided and abetted Monica Lewinsky in preparing, signing and causing to be filed a false affidavit, he also aided and abetted her in using that false affidavit to obstruct justice.

Both Ms. Lewinsky and the President knew that her false affidavit would be used to mislead the Plaintiff’s attorneys and the court. Specifically, they intended that the affidavit would be sufficient to avoid Ms. Lewinsky being required to give a deposition in the Jones case. Moreover, the natural and probable effect of the false statement was interference with the due administration of justice. If the court and the Jones attorneys were convinced by the affidavit, there would be no deposition of Ms. Lewinsky, and the Plaintiff’s attorneys would be denied the ability to learn about material facts and to decide whether to introduce evidence of those facts.

Mr. Clinton caused his attorney to employ the knowingly false affidavit not only to avoid Ms. Lewinsky’s deposition, but to preclude the attorneys from interrogating the President about the same subject. (Clinton Dep., p. 54).

 

IV.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have engaged in misprision of Monica Lewinsky’s felonies of submitting a false affidavit and of obstructing the due administration of justice both by taking affirmative steps to conceal those felonies, and by failing to disclose the felonies though under a constitutional and statutory duty to do so, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 4.

 

The record tends to establish the following:

Monica Lewinsky admitted to the commission of two felonies: Signing a false affidavit under oath (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 204-205) and endeavoring to obstruct justice by using the false affidavit to mislead the court and the lawyers in the Jones case so that she would not be deposed and be required to give evidence concerning her activities with the President. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 122-123; M.L. 2/1/98 Proffer). In addition, the President was fully aware that those felonies had been committed when he gave his deposition testimony on January 17, 1998. (Clinton Dep.,

p. 54).

Nonetheless, Mr. Clinton took affirmative steps to conceal these felonies, including allowing his attorney, in his presence, to use the affidavit and to suggest that it was true. (Clinton Dep., p. 54). More importantly, the President himself, while being questioned by his own counsel referring to one of the clearly false paragraphs in Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit, stated, “That is absolutely true.” (Clinton Dep., p. 203).

More importantly, the President is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. He is under a Constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. When confronted with direct knowledge of the commission of a felony, he is required by his office, as is every other law enforcement officer, agent or attorney, to bring to the attention of the appropriate authorities the fact of the felony and the identity of the perpetrator. If he did not do so, the President could be guilty of misprision of felony.

 

V.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have testified falsely under oath in his deposition in Jones v. Clinton, et al. on January 17, 1998 regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621 and 1623.

 

The record tends to establish the following:

There are three instances where credible evidence exists that the President may have testified falsely about this relationship:

(1) when he denied a “sexual relationship” in sworn Answers to Interrogatories (V2-DC-53 and V2-DC-104);

(2) when he denied having an “extramarital sexual affair” in his deposition (Clinton Dep., p. 78); and

(3) when he denied having “sexual relations” or “an affair” with Monica Lewinsky in his deposition. (Clinton Dep., p. 78).

When the President denied a sexual relationship he was not bound by the definition the court had provided. There is substantial evidence obtained from Ms. Lewinsky, the President’s grand jury testimony, and DNA test results that Ms. Lewinsky performed sexual acts with the President on numerous occasions. Those terms, given their common meaning, could reasonably be construed to include oral sex. The President also denied having sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky (Clinton Dep., p. 78), as the court defined the term. (Clinton Dep., Ex. 1). In the context of the lawsuit and the wording of that definition, there is substantial evidence that the President’s explanation given to the grand jury is an afterthought and is unreasonably narrow under the circumstances. Consequently, there is substantial evidence that the President’s denial under oath in his deposition of a “sexual relationship”, a “sexual affair” or “sexual relations” with Ms. Lewinsky was not true.

VI.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have given false testimony under oath before the federal grand jury on August 17, 1998 concerning his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621 and 1623.

 

The record tends to establish the following:

During his grand jury testimony, the President admitted only to “inappropriate intimate contact” with Monica Lewinsky. (Clinton GJ, p. 10). He did not admit to any specific acts. He categorically denied ever touching Ms. Lewinsky on the breasts or genitalia for the purpose of giving her sexual gratification. There is, however, substantial contradictory evidence from Ms. Lewinsky. She testified at length and with specificity that the President kissed and fondled her breasts on numerous occasions during their encounters, and at times there was also direct genital contact. (M.L. 8/26/98 Dep., pp. 30-38, 50-53). Moreover, her testimony is corroborated by several of her friends. (Davis 3/17/98 GJ, p. 20; Erbland 2/12/98 GJ, p. 29, 45; Ungvari 3/19/98 GJ, pp. 23-24; Bleiler 1/28/98 OIC Interview, p. 3).

The President described himself as a non-reciprocating recipient of Ms. Lewinsky’s services. (Clinton GJ, p. 151). Therefore, he suggested that he did not engage in “sexual relations” within the definition given him at the Jones case deposition. (Id). He also testified that his interpretation of the word “cause” in the definition meant the use of force or contact with the intent to arouse or gratify. (Clinton GJ.,

pp. 17-18). The inference drawn by the Independent Counsel that the President’s explanation was merely an afterthought, calculated to explain away testimony that had been proved false by Ms. Lewinsky’s evidence, appears credible under the circumstances.

 

VII.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have given false testimony under oath in his deposition given in Jones v. Clinton, et al. on January 17, 1998 regarding his statement that he could not recall being alone with Monica Lewinsky and regarding his minimizing the number of gifts that they had exchanged in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621 and 1623.

 

The record tends to establish the following:

President Clinton testified at his deposition that he had “no specific recollection” of being alone with Ms. Lewinsky in any room at the White House. (Clinton Dep., p. 59). There is ample evidence from other sources to the contrary. They include: Betty Currie (1/27/98 GJ, pp. 32-33; 5/6/98 GJ, p. 98; 7/22/98 GJ, pp. 25-26); Monica Lewinsky (M.L. 2/1/98 Proffer;

M.L. 8/26/98 GJ); several Secret Service Agents and White House logs. Moreover, the President testified in the grand jury that he was “alone” with Ms. Lewinsky in 1996 and 1997 and that he had a “specific recollection” of certain instances when he was alone with her. (Clinton GJ, pp. 30-32). He admitted to the grand jury that he was alone with her on December 28, 1997, only three weeks prior to his deposition testimony. (Clinton GJ, p. 34).

The President was also asked at this deposition whether he had ever given gifts to Ms. Lewinsky. He responded, “I don’t recall.” He then asked the Jones attorney if he knew what they were. After the attorney named specific gifts, the President finally remembered giving Ms. Lewinsky something from the Black Dog. (Clinton Dep., p. 75). That testimony was given less than three weeks after Ms. Currie had picked up a box of the President’s gifts and hid them under her bed. (Currie 1/27/98 GJ, pp. 57-58; Currie 5/6/98 GJ, pp. 107-108).

In his grand jury testimony nearly seven months later, he admitted giving Ms. Lewinsky Christmas gifts on December 28, 1997 (Clinton GJ, p. 33) and “on other occasions.” (Clinton GJ,

p. 36). When confronted with his lack of memory at his deposition, the President responded that his statement “I don’t recall” referred to the identity of specific gifts, not whether or not he actually gave her gifts. (Clinton GJ, p. 52).

The President also testified at his deposition that Ms. Lewinsky gave him gifts “once or twice.” (Clinton Dep., pp. 76-77). Ms. Lewinsky says that she gave a substantial number of gifts to the President. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 27-28, Ex. M.L.-7). This is corroborated by gifts turned over by Ms. Lewinsky to the Independent Counsel and by a letter to the Independent Counsel from the President’s attorney. Thus, there is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have testified falsely about being alone with Monica Lewinsky and the gifts he gave to her.

 

VIII.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have testified falsely under oath in his deposition given in Jones v. Clinton on January 17, 1998, concerning conversations with Monica Lewinsky about her involvement in the Jones case, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621 and 1623.

The record tends to reflect the following:

The President was asked at his deposition if he ever talked to Ms. Lewinsky about the possibility that she would testify in the Jones case. He answered, “I’m not sure.” He then related a conversation with Ms. Lewinsky where he joked about how the Jones attorneys would probably subpoena every female witness with whom he has ever spoken. (Clinton Dep., p. 70). He was also asked whether Ms. Lewinsky told him that she had been subpoenaed. The answer was, “No, I don’t know if she had been.” (Clinton Dep.,

p. 68).

There is substantial evidence – much from the President’s own grand jury testimony – that those statements are false. The President testified before the grand jury that he spoke with Ms. Lewinsky at the White House on December 28, 1997 about the “prospect that she might have to give testimony.” (Clinton GJ,

p. 33). He also later testified that Vernon Jordan told him on December 19, 1997 that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. (Clinton GJ, p. 42). Mr. Jordan also recalled telling the same thing to the President twice on December 19, 1997, once over the telephone and once in person. (Jordan 5/5/98 GJ, p. 145; Jordan 3/3/98 GJ, pp. 167-170). Despite his deposition testimony, the President admitted that he knew Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed when he met her on December 28, 1997. (Clinton GJ, p. 36). There is substantial and credible evidence that his statement that he was “not sure” if he spoke with Ms. Lewinsky about her testimony is false.

IX.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have endeavored to obstruct justice by engaging in a pattern of activity calculated to conceal evidence from the judicial proceedings inJones v. Clinton, et al., regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503.

 

The record tends to establish that on Sunday, December 28, 1997, the President gave Ms. Lewinsky Christmas gifts in the Oval Office during a visit arranged by Ms. Currie. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 149-150). According to Ms. Lewinsky, when she suggested that the gifts he had given her should be concealed because they were the subject of a subpoena, the President stated, “I don’t know” or “Let me think about that.” (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 152).

Ms. Lewinsky testified that Ms. Currie contacted her at home several hours later and stated, “I understand you have something to give me” or “the President said you have something to give me.” (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 154-155). Later that same day, Ms. Currie picked up a box of gifts from Ms. Lewinsky’s home. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 156-158; Currie 5/6/98 GJ, pp. 107-108).

 

The evidence indicates that the President may have instructed Ms. Currie to conceal evidence. The President has denied giving that instruction, and he contended under oath that he advised Ms. Lewinsky to provide all of the gifts to the Jones attorneys pursuant to the subpoena. (Clinton GJ, pp. 44-45). In contrast, Ms. Lewinsky testified that the President never challenged her suggestion that the gifts should be concealed. (M.L. 8/26/98 Dep., pp. 58-59).

 

X.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have endeavored to obstruct justice in the case of Jones v. Clinton, et al., by agreeing with Monica Lewinsky on a cover story about their relationship, by causing a false affidavit to be filed by Ms. Lewinsky and by giving false and misleading testimony in the deposition given on January 17, 1998, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503.

 

The record tends to establish that the President and Ms. Lewinsky agreed on false explanations for her private visits to the Oval Office. Ms. Lewinsky testified that when the President contacted her and told her that she was on the Jones witness list, he advised her that she could always repeat these cover stories, and he suggested that she file an affidavit. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 123). After this conversation, Ms. Lewinsky filed a false affidavit. The President learned of Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit prior to his deposition in the Jones case. (Jordan 5/5/98 GJ, p. 24-25).

 

Subsequently, during his deposition, the President stated that he never had a sexual relationship or affair with Ms. Lewinsky. He further stated that the paragraph in Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit denying a sexual relationship with the President was “absolutely true,” even though his attorney had argued that the affidavit covered “sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form.” (Clinton Dep., pp. 54, 104).

 

XI.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Monica Lewinsky to obtain a job in New York City at a time when she would have given evidence adverse to Mr. Clinton if she told the truth in the case of Jones v. Clinton, et al., in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503 and 1512.

 

The record tends to establish the following:

In October, 1997, the President and Ms. Lewinsky discussed the possibility of Vernon Jordan assisting Ms. Lewinsky in finding a job in New York. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 103-104). On November 5, 1997, Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky discussed employment possibilities, and Mr. Jordan told her that she came “highly recommended.” (M.L. 7/31/98 Int., p. 15; e-mail from Lewinsky to Catherine Davis, 11/6/97).

However, no significant action was taken on Ms. Lewinsky’s behalf until December, when the Jones attorneys identified Ms. Lewinsky as a witness. Within days, after Mr. Jordan again met with Ms. Lewinsky, he contacted a number of people in the private sector who could help Ms. Lewinsky find work in New York. (Jordan 3/3/98 GJ, pp. 48-49).

Additional evidence indicates that on the day Ms. Lewinsky signed a false affidavit denying a sexual relationship with the President, Mr. Jordan contacted the President and discussed the affidavit. (Jordan 5/5/98 GJ, pp. 223-225). The next day, Ms. Lewinsky interviewed with MacAndrews & Forbes, an interview arranged with Mr. Jordan’s assistance. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 205-206). When Ms. Lewinsky told Mr. Jordan that the interview went poorly, Mr. Jordan contacted the CEO of MacAndrews & Forbes. (Perelman 4/23/98 Dep., p. 10; Telephone Calls, Table 37, Call 6). The following day, Ms. Lewinsky was offered the job, and Mr. Jordan contacted the White House with the message “mission accomplished.” (Jordan 5/28/98 GJ, p. 39).

In sum, Mr. Jordan secured a job for Ms. Lewinsky with a phone call placed on the day after Ms. Lewinsky signed a false affidavit protecting the President. Evidence indicates that this timing was not coincidental.

 

XII.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have testified falsely under oath in his deposition given in Jones v. Clinton, et al. on January 17, 1998, concerning his conversations with Vernon Jordan about Ms. Lewinsky, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621 and 1623.

 

The record tends to establish that Mr. Jordan and the President discussed Ms. Lewinsky on various occasions from the time she was served until she fired Mr. Carter and hired Mr. Ginsburg. This is contrary to the President’s deposition testimony. The President was asked in his deposition whether anyone besides his attorney told him that Ms. Lewinsky had been served. “I don’t think so,” he responded. He then said that Bruce Lindsey was the first person who told him. (Clinton Dep., pp. 68-69). In the Grand Jury, the President was specifically asked if Mr. Jordan informed him that Ms. Lewinsky was under subpoena. “No sir,” he answered. (Clinton GJ, p. 40). Later in that testimony, when confronted with a specific date (the evening of December 19, 1997), the President admitted that he spoke with Mr. Jordan about the subpoena. (Clinton GJ, p. 42; Jordan 5/5/98 GJ, p. 145; Jordan 3/3/98 GJ, pp. 167-170). Both the President and Mr. Jordan testified in the Grand Jury that Mr. Jordan informed the President on January 7 that Ms. Lewinsky had signed the affidavit. (Clinton GJ, p. 74; Jordan 5/5/98 GJ, 222-228). Ms. Lewinsky said she too informed the President of the subpoena. (M.L. 8/20/98 GJ, p. 66).

The President was also asked during his deposition if anyone reported to him within the past two weeks (from January 17, 1998) that they had a conversation with Monica Lewinsky concerning the lawsuit. The President said, “I don’t think so.” (Clinton Dep., p. 72). As noted, Mr. Jordan told the President on January 7, 1998, that Ms. Lewinsky signed the affidavit. (Jordan 5/5/98 GJ, pp. 222-228). In addition, the President was asked if he had a conversation with Mr. Jordan where Ms. Lewinsky’s name was mentioned. He said yes, that Mr. Jordan mentioned that she asked for advice about moving to New York. Actually, the President had conversations with Mr. Jordan concerning three general subjects: Choosing an attorney to represent Ms. Lewinsky after she had been subpoenaed (Jordan 5/28/98 GJ, p. 4); Ms. Lewinsky’s subpoena and the contents of her executed Affidavit (Jordan 5/5/98 GJ, pp. 142-145; Jordan 3/3/98 GJ, pp. 167-172; Jordan 3/5/98 GJ, pp. 24-25, 223, 225); and Vernon Jordan’s success in procuring a New York job for Ms. Lewinsky. (Jordan 5/28/98 GJ, p. 39).

XIII.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have endeavored to obstruct justice and engage in witness tampering in attempting to coach and influence the testimony of Betty Currie before the grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512.

 

The record tends to establish the following:

According to Ms. Currie, the President contacted her on the day he was deposed in the Jones case and asked her to meet him the following day. (Currie 1/27/98 GJ, pp. 65-66). The next day, Ms. Currie met with the President, and he asked her whether she agreed with a series of possibly false statements, including, “We were never really alone,” “You could always see and hear everything,” and “Monica came on to me and I never touched her, right?” (Currie 1/27/98 GJ, pp. 71-74). Ms. Currie stated that the President’s tone and demeanor indicated that he wanted her to agree with these statements. (Currie 1/27/98 GJ, pp. 73-74). According to Ms. Currie, the President called her into the Oval Office several days later and reiterated his previous statements using the same tone and demeanor. (Currie 1/27/98 GJ, p. 81). Ms. Currie later stated that she felt she was free to disagree with the President. (Currie 7/22/98 GJ, p.23).

The President testified concerning those statements before the grand jury, and he did not deny that he made them. (Clinton 8/17/98 GJ, pp. 133-139). Rather, the President testified that in some of the statements he was referring only to meetings with Ms. Lewinsky in 1997, and that he intended the word “alone” to mean the entire Oval Office Complex. (Clinton 8/17/98 GJ, pp. 133-139).

 

XIV.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have engaged in witness tampering by coaching prospective witnesses and by narrating elaborate detailed false accounts of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky as if those stories were true, intending that the witnesses believe the story and testify to it before a grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512.

 

The record tends to establish the following:

John Podesta, the President’s Deputy Chief of Staff, testified that the President told him that he did not have sex with Ms. Lewinsky “in any way whatsoever” and “that they had not had oral sex.” (Podesta 6/16/98 GJ, p. 92). Mr. Podesta repeated these statements to the grand jury. (Podesta 6/23/98 GJ, p. 80).

Sidney Blumenthal, an Assistant to the President, said that the President told him more detailed stories. He testified that the President told him that Ms. Lewinsky, who the President claimed had a reputation as a stalker, came at him, made sexual demands of him, and threatened him, but he rebuffed her. (Blumenthal 6/4/98 GJ, pp. 46-51). Mr. Blumenthal further testified that the President told him that he could recall placing only one call to Ms. Lewinsky. (Blumenthal 6/25/98 GJ, p. 27). Mr. Blumenthal mentioned to the President that there were press reports that he, the President, had made telephone calls to Ms. Lewinsky, and also left voice mail messages. The President then told Mr. Blumenthal that he remembered calling Ms. Lewinsky after Betty Currie’s brother died. (Blumenthal 6/4/98 GJ, p. 50).

XV.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have given false testimony under oath before the federal grand jury on August 17, 1998 concerning his knowledge of the contents of Monica Lewinsky’s affidavit and his knowledge of remarks made in his presence by his counsel in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621 and 1623.

The record tends to establish the following:

During the deposition, the President’s attorney attempted to thwart questions pertaining to Ms. Lewinsky by citing her affidavit and asserting to the court that the affidavit represents that there “is absolutely no sex of any kind, manner, shape or form, with President Clinton.” (Clinton Dep., p. 54). At several points in his grand jury testimony, the President maintained that he cannot be held responsible for this representation made by his lawyer because he was not paying attention to the interchange between his lawyer and the court. (Clinton GJ, pp. 25-26, 30, 59). The videotape of the deposition shows the President apparently listening intently to the interchange. In addition, Mr. Clinton’s counsel represented to the court that the President was fully aware of the affidavit and its contents. (Clinton Dep., p. 54).

 

The President’s own attorney asked him during the deposition whether Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit denying a sexual relationship was “true and accurate.” The President was unequivocal; he said, “This is absolutely true.” (Clinton Dep., p. 204). Ms. Lewinsky later said the affidavit contained false and misleading statements. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 204-205). The President explained to the grand jury that Ms. Lewinsky may have believed that her affidavit was true if she believed “sexual relationship” meant intercourse. (Clinton GJ, pp. 22-23). However, counsel did not ask the President if Ms. Lewinsky thought it was true; he asked the President if it was, in fact, a true statement. The President was bound by the court’s definition at that point, and under his own interpretation of that definition, Ms. Lewinsky engaged in sexual relations. An affidavit denying this, by the President’s own interpretation of the definition, is false.

 

That is my report to this Committee. The guiding object of our efforts over the past three weeks has been to search for the truth. We felt it our obligation to follow the facts and the law wherever they might lead, fairly and impartially. If this Committee sees fit to proceed to the next level of inquiry, we will continue to do so under your guidance.”

https://web.archive.org/web/20000816050629/http://www.house.gov/judiciary/schippers.htm