In Re
Impeachment of
President William Jefferson Clinton
TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF THE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Now comes the United States House of Representatives,
by and through its duly authorized managers,
and respectfully submits to the United States Senate
its brief in connection with the impeachment
trial of William Jefferson Clinton, President of
the United States.
SUMMARY
The President is charged in two articles with: 1)
perjury and false and misleading testimony and
statements under oath before a Federal grand jury
(Article I), and 2) engaging in a course of conduct
or scheme to delay and obstruct justice (Article
II).
The evidence contained in the record, when viewed
as a unified whole, overwhelmingly supports both
charges.
Perjury and False Statements Under Oath
President Clinton deliberately and willfully testified
falsely under oath when he appeared before a
Federal grand jury on Aug. 17, 1998. Although what
follows is not exhaustive, some of the more overt
examples will serve to illustrate.
*At the very outset, the President read a prepared
statement, which itself contained totally false
assertions and other clearly misleading information.
*The President relied on his statement 19 times in
his testimony when questioned about his relationship
with Ms. Lewinsky.
*President Clinton falsely testified that he was
not paying attention when his lawyer employed Ms.
Lewinsky's false affidavit at the Jones deposition.
*He falsely claimed that his actions with Ms. Lewinsky
did not fall within the definition of "sexual
relations" that was given at his deposition.
*He falsely testified that he answered questions
truthfully at his deposition concerning, among other
subjects, whether he had been alone with Ms. Lewinsky.
*He falsely testified that he instructed Ms. Lewinsky to turn over the gifts if she were subpoenaed.
*He falsely denied trying to influence Ms. Currie after his deposition.
*He falsely testified that he was truthful to his
aides when he gave accounts of his relationship, which
accounts were subsequently disseminated to the media
and the grand jury.
Obstruction of Justice
The President engaged in an ongoing scheme to obstruct
both the Jones civil case and the grand jury.
Further, he undertook a continuing and concerted
plan to tamper with witnesses and prospective
witnesses for the purpose of causing those witnesses
to provide false and misleading testimony.
Examples abound:
*The President and Ms. Lewinsky concocted a cover
story to conceal their relationship, and the
President suggested that she employ that story if
subpoenaed in the Jones case.
*The President suggested that Ms. Lewinsky provide
an affidavit to avoid testifying in the Jones case,
when he knew that the affidavit would need to be
false to accomplish its purpose.
*The President knowingly and willfully allowed his
attorney to file Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit and to
use it for the purpose of obstructing justice in
the Jones case.
*The President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she
provide a false account of how she received her
job at the Pentagon.
*The President attempted to influence the expected
testimony of his secretary, Ms. Currie, by
providing her with a false account of his meetings
with Ms. Lewinsky.
*The President provided several of his top aides
with elaborate lies about his relationship with Ms.
Lewinsky, so that those aides would convey the false
information to the public and to the grand jury.
When he did this, he knew that those aides would
likely be called to testify, while he was declining
several invitations to testify. By this action,
he obstructed and delayed the operation of the grand jury.
*The President conspired with Ms. Lewinsky and Ms.
Currie to conceal evidence that . . . had been
subpoenaed in the Jones case, and thereby delayed
and obstructed justice.
*The President and his representatives orchestrated
a campaign to discredit Ms. Lewinsky in order to
affect adversely her credibility as a witness, and
thereby attempted to obstruct justice both in the
Jones case and the grand jury.
*The President lied repeatedly under oath in his
deposition in the Jones case, and thereby obstructed
justice in that case.
*The President's lies and misleading statements under
oath at the grand jury were calculated to, and
did obstruct, delay and prevent the due administration
of justice by that body.
*The President employed the power of his office to
procure a job for Ms. Lewinsky after she signed the
false affidavit by causing his friend to exert extraordinary
efforts for that purpose.
The foregoing are merely accusations of an ongoing
pattern of obstruction of justice, and witness
tampering extending over a period of several months,
and having the effect of seriously compromising
the integrity of the entire judicial system.
The effect of the President's misconduct has been devastating in several respects.
1. He violated repeatedly his oath to "preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States."
2. He ignored his constitutional duty as chief law-enforcement
officer to "take care that the laws be
faithfully executed."
3. He deliberately and unlawfully obstructed Paula
Jones's rights as a citizen to due process and the
equal protection of the laws, though he had sworn
to protect those rights.
4. By his pattern of lies under oath, misleading
statements and deceit, he has seriously undermined the
integrity and credibility of the Office of President
and thereby the honor and integrity of the United
States.
5. His pattern of perjuries, obstruction of justice
and witness tampering has affected the truth-seeking
process which is the foundation of our legal system.
6. By mounting an assault in the truth-seeking process,
he has attacked the entire judicial branch of
Government.
The articles of impeachment that the House has preferred
state offenses that warrant, if proved, the
conviction and removal from office of President
William Jefferson Clinton. The articles charge that the
President has committed perjury before a Federal
grand jury and that he obstructed justice in a Federal
civil rights action. The Senate's own precedents
establish beyond doubt that perjury warrants
conviction and removal. During the 1980's, the Senate
convicted and removed three Federal judges for
committing perjury. Obstruction of justice undermines
the judicial system in the same fashion that
perjury does, and it also warrants conviction and
removal.
Under our Constitution, judges are impeached under
the same standard as Presidents -- treason,
bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Thus,
these judicial impeachments for perjury set the
standard here. Finally, the Senate's own precedents
further establish that the President's crimes need
not arise directly out of his official duties. Two
of the three judges removed in the 1980's were removed
for perjury that had nothing to do with their official
duties. . . .
The House impeachment resolution charges the President
with high crimes and misdemeanors in two
articles. Article I alleges that President Clinton
"willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process
of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration,
impeding the administration of justice" in
that he willfully provided perjurious, false and
misleading testimony to a Federal grand jury on Aug. 17,
1998. Article II asserts that the President "has
prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration
of justice and engaged in a course of conduct or
scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up and
conceal the existence of evidence and testimony
related to a Federal civil rights action brought against
him." . . .
The Office of President represents to the American
people and to the world, the strength, the
philosophy and most of all, the honor and integrity
that makes us a great nation and an example for the
world. Because all eyes are focused upon that high
office, the character and credibility of any
temporary occupant of the Oval Office is vital to
the domestic and foreign welfare of the citizens.
Consequently, serious breaches of integrity and
duty of necessity adversely influence the reputation of
the United States.
This case is not about sex or private conduct. It
is about multiple obstructions of justice, perjury, false
and misleading statements, and witness tampering
-- all committed or orchestrated by the President of
the United States.
Before addressing the President's lies and obstruction,
it is important to place the events in the proper
context. If this were only about private sex we
would not now be before the Senate. But the manner in
which the Lewinsky relationship arose and continued
is important because it is illustrative of the
character of the President. . . .
The sexual details of the President's encounters
with Ms. Lewinsky, though relevant, need not be
detailed either in this document or through witness
testimony. It is necessary, though, briefly to outline
that evidence, because it will demonstrate that
the President repeatedly lied about that sexual
relationship in his deposition, before the grand
jury and in his responses to the Judiciary Committee's
questions. He has consistently maintained that Ms.
Lewinsky merely performed acts on him, while he
never touched her in a sexual manner. This characterization
not only directly contradicts Ms. Lewinsky's
testimony, but it also contradicts the sworn grand
jury testimony of three of her friends and the
statements by two professional counselors with whom
she contemporaneously shared the details of her
relationship.
While his treatment of Ms. Lewinsky was offensive,
it is much more offensive for the President to
expect the Senate to believe that in 1995, 1996
and 1997, his intimate contact with Ms. Lewinsky was
so limited that it did not fall within his narrow
interpretation of a definition of "sexual relations." . . .
THE EVIDENCE
We respectfully submit that the evidence and testimony
must be viewed as a whole; it cannot be
compartmentalized. It is essential to avoid considering
each event in isolation, and then treating it
separately. Events and words that may seem innocent
or even exculpatory in a vacuum may well take
on a sinister, or even criminal connotation when
observed in the context of the whole plot. For
example, everyone agrees that Monica Lewinsky testified
"No one ever told me to lie; nobody ever
promised me a job."
When considered alone this would seem exculpatory.
However, in the context of the other evidence,
another picture emerges. Of course no one said,
"Now, Monica, you go in there and lie." They didn't
have to. Ms. Lewinsky knew what was expected of
her. Similarly, nobody promised her a job, but once
she signed the false affidavit, she got one.
THE ISSUE
The ultimate issue is whether the President's course
of conduct is such as to affect adversely the
Office of the President and also upon the administration
of justice, and whether he has acted in a
manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive
to the rule of law. . . .
CONCLUSION
This is a defining moment for the Presidency as an
institution, because if the President is not convicted
as a consequence of the conduct that has been portrayed,
then no House of Representatives will ever
be able to impeach again and no Senate will ever
convict. The bar will be so high that only a convicted
felon or a traitor will need to be concerned.
Experts pointed to the fact that the House refused
to impeach President Nixon for lying on an income
tax return. Can you imagine a future President,
faced with possible impeachment, pointing to the
perjuries, lies, obstructions, and tampering with
witnesses by the current occupant of the office as not
rising to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors?
If this is not enough, what is? How far can the
standard be lowered without completely compromising
the credibility of the office for all time?