_______________________________
In re
Impeachment of
William Jefferson Clinton
President of the United States
_______________________________ |
)
)
)
)
)
) |
ANSWER OF
PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United
States, in
response to the summons of the Senate of the United States, answers the
accusations made by the House of Representatives of the United States in
the two
Articles of Impeachment it has exhibited to the Senate as follows:
PREAMBLE
THE CHARGES IN THE ARTICLES DO NOT CONSTITUTE HIGH CRIMES OR
MISDEMEANORS
The charges in the two Articles of Impeachment do not permit the
conviction
and removal from office of a duly elected President. The President has
acknowledged conduct with Ms. Lewinsky that was improper. But Article II,
Section 4 of the Constitution provides that the President shall be
removed from
office only upon “Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,
Bribery or
other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The charges in the articles do not
rise to the level of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” as
contemplated by
the Founding Fathers, and they do not satisfy the rigorous constitutional
standard applied throughout our Nation’s history. Accordingly, the
Articles
of Impeachment should be dismissed.
THE PRESIDENT DID NOT COMMIT PERJURY OR OBSTRUCT
JUSTICE
The President denies each and every material allegation of the two
Articles
of Impeachment not specifically admitted in this ANSWER.
ARTICLE I
President Clinton denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading
statements before the federal grand jury on August 17, 1998.
FACTUAL RESPONSES TO ARTICLE I
Without waiving his affirmative defenses, President Clinton offers the
following factual responses to the allegations in Article I:
- The President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading
statements to the grand jury about “the nature and details of his
relationship” with Monica Lewinsky.
There is a myth about President Clinton’s testimony before the grand
jury. The myth is that the President failed to admit his improper intimate
relationship with Ms. Monica Lewinsky. The myth is perpetuated by Article I,
which accuses the President of lying about “the nature and details
of his
relationship” with Ms. Lewinsky.
The fact is that the President specifically acknowledged to the grand jury
that he had an improper intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He said so,
plainly and clearly: “When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain
occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was
wrong. These encounters . . . did involve inappropriate intimate
contact.”
The President described to the grand jury how the relationship began and
how it
ended at his insistence early in 1997 -- long before any public attention or
scrutiny. He also described to the grand jury how he had attempted to
testify in
the deposition in the Jones case months earlier without having to
acknowledge to the Jones lawyers what he ultimately admitted to the
grand jury -- that he had an improper intimate relationship with Ms.
Lewinsky.
The President read a prepared statement to the grand jury
acknowledging his
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The statement was offered at the
beginning of
his testimony to focus the questioning in a manner that would allow the
Office
of Independent Counsel to obtain necessary information without unduly
dwelling
on the salacious details of the relationship. The President’s
statement was
followed by almost four hours of questioning. If it is charged that his
statement was in any respect perjurious, false and misleading, the President
denies it. The President also denies that the statement was in any way an
attempt to thwart the investigation.
The President states, as he did during his grand jury testimony, that he
engaged in improper physical contact with Ms. Lewinsky. The President was
truthful when he testified before the grand jury that he did not engage in
sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky as he understood that term to be
defined by
the Jones lawyers during their questioning of him in that deposition.
The President further denies that his other statements to the grand jury
about
the nature and details of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky were perjurious,
false, and misleading.
- The President denies that he made perjurious,
false and misleading statements to the grand jury when he testified about
statements he had made in the Jones deposition.
There is a second myth about the President’s testimony before the
grand
jury. The myth is that the President adopted his entire Jones
deposition
testimony in the grand jury. The President was not asked to and did not
broadly
restate or reaffirm his Jones deposition testimony. Instead, in the
grand jury he discussed the bases for certain answers he gave. The President
testified truthfully in the grand jury about statements he made in the
Jones
deposition. The President stated to the grand jury that he did not
attempt to be
helpful to or assist the lawyers in the Jones deposition in their
quest
for information about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He truthfully
explained to the grand jury his efforts to answer the questions in the
Jones
deposition without disclosing his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
Accordingly,
the full, underlying Jones deposition is not before the Senate.
Indeed, the House specifically considered and rejected an article of
impeachment based on the President’s deposition in the Jones
case.
The House managers should not be allowed to prosecute before the Senate an
article of impeachment which the full House has rejected.
- The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury about “statements he allowed his
attorney to make” during the Jones deposition.
The President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading
statements to the grand jury about the statements his attorney made
during the
Jones deposition. The President was truthful when he explained to the
grand jury his understanding of certain statements made by his lawyer, Robert
Bennett, during the Jones deposition. The President also was truthful
when he testified that he was not focusing on the prolonged and complicated
exchange between the attorneys and Judge Wright.
- The President denies that he made perjurious, false and
misleading statements to the grand jury concerning alleged efforts “to
influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of
evidence”
in the Jones case.
For the reasons discussed more fully in response to ARTICLE II, the
President denies that he attempted to influence the testimony of any
witness or
to impede the discovery of evidence in the Jones case. Thus, the
President denies that he made perjurious, false and misleading statements
before
the grand jury when he testified about these matters.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
ARTICLE I DOES NOT MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD FOR CONVICTION AND
REMOVAL
For the same reasons set forth in the PREAMBLE of this
ANSWER,
Article I does not meet the rigorous constitutional standard for
conviction and
removal from office of a duly elected President and should be dismissed.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
ARTICLE I IS TOO VAGUE TO PERMIT CONVICTION AND REMOVAL
Article I is unconstitutionally vague. No reasonable person could know
what
specific charges are being leveled against the President. It alleges that the
President provided the grand jury with “perjurious, false, and
misleading
testimony” concerning “one or more” of four subject areas.
But it
fails to identify any specific statement by the President that is alleged
to be
perjurious, false and misleading. The House has left the Senate and the
President to guess at what it had in mind.
One of the fundamental principles of our law and the Constitution is
that a
person has a right to know what specific charges he or she is facing. Without
such fair warning, no one can prepare the defense to which every person is
entitled. The law and the Constitution also mandate adequate notice to
jurors so
they may know the basis for the vote they must make. Without a definite and
specific identification of false statements, a trial becomes a moving
target for
the accused. In addition, the American people deserve to know upon what
specific
statements the President is being judged, given the gravity and effect of
these
proceedings, namely nullifying the results of a national election.
Article I sweeps broadly and fails to provide the required definite and
specific identification. Were it an indictment, it would be dismissed. As an
article of impeachment, it is constitutionally defective and should fail.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
ARTICLE I CHARGES MULTIPLE OFFENSES IN ONE ARTICLE
Article I is fatally flawed because it charges multiple instances of
alleged
perjurious, false and misleading statements in one article. The Constitution
provides that “no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence
of two
thirds of the Members present,” and Senate Rule XXIII provides that
“an
article of impeachment shall not be divisible for the purpose of voting
thereon
at any time during the trial.” By the express terms of Article I, a
Senator
may vote for impeachment if he or she finds that there was perjurious,
false and
misleading testimony in “one or more” of four topic areas. This
creates the very real possibility that conviction could occur even though
Senators were in wide disagreement as to the alleged wrong committed. Put
simply, the structure of Article I presents the possibility that the
President
could be convicted even though he would have been acquitted if separate votes
were taken on each allegedly perjurious statement. For example, it would be
possible for the President to be convicted and removed from office with
as few
as 17 Senators agreeing that any single statement was perjurious, because 17
votes for each of the four categories in Article I would yield 68 votes, one
more than necessary to convict and remove.
By charging multiple wrongs in one article, the House of
Representatives has
made it impossible for the Senate to comply with the Constitutional
mandate that
any conviction be by the concurrence of two-thirds of the members.
Accordingly,
Article I should fail.
ARTICLE II
President Clinton denies that he obstructed justice in either the Jones
case or the Lewinsky grand jury investigation.
FACTUAL RESPONSES TO ARTICLE II
Without waiving his affirmative defenses, President Clinton offers the
following factual responses to the allegations in Article II:
- The President denies that on or about December 17, 1997, he
“corruptly
encouraged” Monica Lewinsky “to execute a sworn affidavit in that
proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and
misleading.”
The President denies that he encouraged Monica Lewinsky to execute
a false affidavit in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky, the only witness
cited in support of this allegation, denies this allegation as well. Her
testimony and proffered statements are clear and unmistakable:
- “[N]o one ever asked me to lie and I was never promised a job
for my silence.”
- “Neither the President nor anyone ever directed Lewinsky to say
anything or to lie . . .”
- “Neither the Pres[ident] nor Mr. Jordan (or anyone on their behalf)
asked or encouraged Ms. L[ewinsky] to lie.”
The President states that, sometime in December 1997, Ms. Lewinsky
asked him
whether she might be able to avoid testifying in the Jones case
because
she knew nothing about Ms. Jones or the case. The President further
states that
he told her he believed other witnesses had executed affidavits, and
there was a
chance they would not have to testify. The President denies that he ever
asked,
encouraged or suggested that Ms. Lewinsky file a false affidavit or lie. The
President states that he believed that Ms. Lewinsky could have filed a
limited
but truthful affidavit that might have enabled her to avoid having to
testify in
the Jones case.
- The President denies that on or about December 17,
1997, he “corruptly encouraged” Monica Lewinsky “to give
perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify
personally” in the Jones litigation.
Again, the President denies that he encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to lie if and
when called to testify personally in the Jones case. The testimony and
proffered statements of Monica Lewinsky, the only witness cited in
support of
this allegation, are clear and unmistakable:
- “[N]o one ever asked me to lie and I was never promised a job
for my silence.”
- “Neither the President nor anyone ever directed Lewinsky to say
anything or to lie . . .”
- “Neither the Pres[ident] nor Mr. Jordan (or anyone on their behalf)
asked or encouraged Ms. L[ewinsky] to lie.”
The President states that, prior to Ms. Lewinsky’s involvement in the
Jones case, he and Ms. Lewinsky might have talked about what to do to
conceal their relationship from others. Ms. Lewinsky was not a witness in any
legal proceeding at that time. Ms. Lewinsky’s own testimony and
statements
support the President’s recollection. Ms. Lewinsky testified that
she “pretty
much can” exclude the possibility that she and the President ever had
discussions about denying the relationship after she learned she was a
witness
in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky also stated that “they did not
discuss the issue [of what to say about their relationship] in specific
relation
to the Jones matter,” and that “she does not believe they
discussed the content of any deposition that [she] might be involved in
at a
later date.”
- The President denies that on or about December 28, 1997,
he “corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal
evidence” in the Jones case.
The President denies that he engaged in, encouraged, or supported any
scheme
to conceal evidence from discovery in the Jones case, including any
gifts he had given to Ms. Lewinsky. The President states that he gave
numerous
gifts to Ms. Lewinsky prior to December 28, 1997. The President states that,
sometime in December, Ms. Lewinsky inquired as to what to do if she were
asked
in the Jones case about the gifts he had given her, to which the
President responded that she would have to turn over whatever she had. The
President states that he was unconcerned about having given her gifts
and, in
fact, that he gave Ms. Lewinsky additional gifts on December 28, 1997. The
President denies that he ever asked his secretary, Ms. Betty Currie, to
retrieve
gifts he had given Ms. Lewinsky, or that he ever asked, encouraged, or
suggested
that Ms. Lewinsky conceal the gifts. Ms. Currie told prosecutors as early as
January 1998 and repeatedly thereafter that it was Ms. Lewinsky who had
contacted her about retrieving gifts.
- The President denies that he obstructed justice in
connection with Monica Lewinsky’s efforts to obtain a job in New
York to “corruptly
prevent” her “truthful testimony” in the Jones case.
The President denies that he obstructed justice in connection with Ms.
Lewinsky’s job search in New York or sought to prevent her truthful
testimony in the Jones case. The President states that he
discussed with
Ms. Lewinsky her desire to obtain a job in New York months before she was
listed
as a potential witness in the Jones case. Indeed, Ms. Lewinsky was
offered a job in New York at the United Nations more than a month before
she was
identified as a possible witness. The President also states that he believes
that Ms. Lewinsky raised with him, again before she was ever listed as a
possible witness in the Jones case, the prospect of having Mr. Vernon
Jordan assist in her job search. Ms. Lewinsky corroborates his
recollection that
it was her idea to ask for Mr. Jordan’s help. The President also states
that he was aware that Mr. Jordan was assisting Ms. Lewinsky to obtain
employment in New York. The President denies that any of these efforts
had any
connection whatsoever to Ms. Lewinsky’s status as a possible or actual
witness in the Jones case. Ms. Lewinsky forcefully confirmed the
President’s denial when she testified, “I was never promised a
job for
my silence.”
- The President denies that he “corruptly allowed his
attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge”
concerning Monica Lewinsky’s affidavit.
The President denies that he corruptly allowed his attorney to make false
and misleading statements concerning Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit to a
Federal
judge during the Jones deposition. The President denies that he was
focusing his attention on the prolonged and complicated exchange between his
attorney and Judge Wright.
- The President denies that he obstructed justice by
relating “false and misleading statements” to “a potential
witness,” Betty Currie, “in order to corruptly influence [her]
testimony.”
The President denies that he obstructed justice or endeavored in any
way to
influence any potential testimony of Ms. Betty Currie. The President
states that
he spoke with Ms. Currie on January 18, 1998. The President testified
that, in
that conversation, he was trying to find out what the facts were, what Ms.
Currie’s perception was, and whether his own recollection was
correct about
certain aspects of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Ms. Currie
testified that
she felt no pressure “whatsoever” from the President’s
statements
and no pressure “to agree with [her] boss.” The President denies
knowing or believing that Ms. Currie would be a witness in any proceeding
at the
time of this conversation. Ms. Currie had not been on any of the witness
lists
proffered by the Jones lawyers. President Clinton states that,
after the
Independent Counsel investigation became public, when Ms. Currie was
scheduled
to testify, he told Ms. Currie to “tell the truth.”
- The President denies that he obstructed justice when he
relayed allegedly “false and misleading statements” to his
aides.
The President denies that he obstructed justice when he misled his aides
about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky in the days
immediately
following the public revelation of the Lewinsky investigation. The President
acknowledges that, in the days following the January 21, 1998 Washington
Post article, he misled his family, his friends and staff, and the
Nation to
conceal the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He sought to avoid
disclosing his personal wrongdoing to protect his family and himself from
hurt
and public embarrassment. The President profoundly regrets his actions,
and he
has apologized to his family, his friends and staff, and the Nation. The
President denies that he had any corrupt purpose or any intent to
influence the
ongoing grand jury proceedings.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
ARTICLE II DOES NOT MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD FOR CONVICTION AND
REMOVAL
For the reasons set forth in the PREAMBLE of this ANSWER,
Article II does not meet the constitutional standard for convicting and
removing
a duly elected President from office and should be dismissed.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
ARTICLE II IS TOO VAGUE TO PERMIT CONVICTION AND REMOVAL
Article II is unconstitutionally vague. No reasonable person could
know what
specific charges are being leveled against the President. Article II alleges
that the President “obstructed and impeded the administration of
justice”
in both the Jones case and the grand jury investigation. But it
provides
little or no concrete information about the specific acts in which the
President is alleged to have engaged, or with whom, or when, that allegedly
obstructed or otherwise impeded the administration of justice.
As we set forth in the SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ARTICLE I, one
of the fundamental principles of our law and the Constitution is that a
person
has the right to know what specific charges he or she is facing. Without such
fair warning, no one can mount the defense to which every person is entitled.
Fundamental to due process is the right of the President to be adequately
informed of the charges so that he is able to confront those charges and
defend
himself.
Article II sweeps too broadly and provides too little definite and
specific
identification. Were it an indictment, it would be dismissed. As an
article of
impeachment, it is constitutionally defective and should fail.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
ARTICLE II CHARGES MULTIPLE OFFENSES IN ONE ARTICLE
For the reasons set forth in the THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
ARTICLE I,
Article II is constitutionally defective because it charges multiple
instances
of alleged acts of obstruction in one article, which makes it impossible
for the
Senate to comply with the
Constitutional mandate that any conviction be by the concurrence of the
two-thirds of the members. Accordingly, Article II should fail.
Respectfully submitted,
David
E. Kendall
Nicole K. Seligman
Emmet T. Flood
Max Stier
Glen Donath
Alicia Marti
Williams & Connolly
725 12th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 |
Charles F.C. Ruff
Gregory B. Craig
Bruce R. Lindsey
Cheryl D. Mills
Lanny A. Breuer
Office of the White House Counsel
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20502 |
Submitted: January 11, 1999
