He was the one who had all the power in his relationship with Lewinsky. He was the leader of the free world, and she was a year-old intern. He was the one who had a responsibility not to pursue a relationship with her. The fact that he did anyway was an abuse of his power. Part of this more recent consensus is the idea that liberals and feminists got it wrong back in by rallying behind Clinton instead of publicly supporting Lewinsky, that they focused all their attention on the fact that Lewinsky said the affair was consensual rather than on the vast power disparity between Clinton and Lewinsky.
That has come to be the new conventional wisdom about the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. However, if we revisit the reactions people had to Monica Lewinsky in , it becomes clear that few were actually ignoring that power disparity back then. It was central to the story being told about Monica Lewinsky, though the associations it carried were far different from those it carries today.
The right-leaning Drudge Report was the outlet that broke the story of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. She had it coming. This version of the story is the one we are mostly thinking about when we suggest that American culture has moved past such outright vicious cruelty in the years since But there were other versions of the story floating around at the same time.
It also existed in , albeit as a minority view. It was, strikingly, a viewpoint held both by feminists on the left, where the opinion was politically unhelpful and hence unpopular, and by the conservative religious right, where the opinion was politically very useful indeed. I mean, and what her friends were saying at the time, and what her mother was saying. Obviously there was available to objective observers evidence of how painful this was for her no matter what she was saying about how she was fine.
In that viewpoint, Hirshman found an unlikely ally in conservative then-Sen. John Ashcroft. Other feminists made similar cases. There had been no quid pro quo; Lewinsky had by her own account consented. Clinton also faced disapproval from women within his administration. Shalala was a former college president, she explained to Slow Burn in , and she used to fire people for doing more or less what Clinton had done to Lewinsky.
And it was just unacceptable, and everybody was being a bit of an apologist for him in the room and I just blew up.
Yet in her later columns, Dowd would begin to criticize Lewinsky, too, in ways that show how this second narrative of the scandal could contain within it a cruel and vicious third narrative. In June , six months after the story broke, Monica Lewinsky posed for a series of portraits in Vanity Fair , wearing red lipstick and designer gowns.
What Dowd seemed to find pornographic and sickening about the photos was the way they played against her sense that Lewinsky was a victim and hence properly deserved to be in a state of humiliation. Shades of JonBenet Ramsey. This was the third narrative of the Monica Lewinsky story, and it functions as a synthesis of the first two.
Lewinsky was unquestionably taken advantage of, goes this version of the story, and Clinton was unquestionably in the wrong. But the fact that Lewinsky could be so easily manipulated proves that she was foolish and childlike. Her victimhood means that she deserves contempt and scorn.
At times, this narrative is able to veil itself in apparent pity for Lewinsky. The same logic also emerged on the feminist left. The many plaintiffs of the Clinton scandals are cast, or cast themselves, as girls.
Faludi did not dispute, in this particular article, accounts that Lewinsky, Jones, and Broaddrick had been injured by Clinton. To be a victim of a sexual predator is, according to this narrative, to be worthy of humiliation. That idea lay in the fourth version of the Monica Lewinsky story. In , when feminists like Hirshman made the claim that Clinton took advantage of Lewinsky, they were met with outrage from other feminists.
This failure cannot be used to support a charge of perjury. A separate perjury charge is based on the assertion that in his deposition the President "minimized" the number of gifts he exchanged with Ms. Again, the evidence simply does not support this allegation. To start with, even the charge of "minimizing" the number of gifts concedes the only potentially material issue -- the President acknowledged that he did exchange gifts with Ms.
There is not much that is safe from a perjury prosecution if mere "minimization" qualifies for the offense. As weak as the "minimization" charge is, it is also wrong. A fair reading of the President's deposition testimony makes clear that, when asked about particular gifts, the President honestly stated his recollection of the particular item. Do you remember giving her an item that had been purchased from The Black Dog store at Martha's Vineyard?
I do remember that Moreover, when the President could not recall the precise items that he had exchanged, he asked the Jones lawyers to tell him so that he could confirm or deny as the facts required. In essence, this allegation is yet another complaint that President Clinton was not more forthcoming or that he did not have a more precise memory on these issues , which is plainly not a ground for alleging perjury. Conversations with Ms. Both the Referral and Mr.
Schippers' presentation allege perjury in the Jones deposition with respect to President Clinton's conversations with Ms.
Lewinsky about her involvement in the Jones case. Specifically, it is alleged that the President committed perjury in his deposition when he failed to 1 acknowledge that he knew that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed at the time he had last seen and spoken to her; and 2 acknowledge that he had spoken to Ms. Lewinsky about the possibility that she would testify in the Jones case. Once again, the charge of false testimony is based on a wholly inaccurate reading of the President's deposition.
The President acknowledged that he knew that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed, that he was not sure when was the last time he had seen and spoken with her but that it was sometime around Christmas , and that he had discussed with her the possibility that she would have to testify. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed the last time he spoke to her illustrates the problem of taking selected pieces of testimony out of context.
Starr and Schippers isolate the following exchange in the deposition:. Did she tell you she had been served with a subpoena in this case? From this incomplete excerpt, they claim that the President perjured himself by denying that he knew that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed the last time he had spoken with her. The charge is unsupported by the evidence. First, the testimony immediately following this exchange demonstrates both that the President was not hiding that he knew Ms.
Lewinsky had been subpoenaed by the time of the deposition and that the Jones lawyers were well aware that this was the President's position:.
Did anyone other than your attorneys ever tell you that Monica Lewinsky had been served with a subpoena in this case? Bruce Lindsey, I think Bruce Lindsey told me that she was, I think maybe that's the first person [who] told me she was. I want to be as accurate as I can. Did you talk to Mr. Lindsey about what action, if any, should be taken as a result of her being served with a subpoena?
It is evident from the complete exchange on this subject that the President was not generally denying that he knew that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed in the Jones case. Second, the President's testimony cannot fairly be read as an express denial of knowledge that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed the last time he had spoken to her before the deposition. Most importantly, the President was not asked whether he knew that Ms.
Lewinsky had been subpoenaed on December 28 th , which was the last time he had seen her. When the President answered the question, "Did she tell you she had been served with a subpoena in this case? To the contrary, the President's testimony indicates that he was totally confused about the dates of his last meetings with Ms. Lewinsky, and he made that abundantly clear to the Jones lawyers:. When was the last time you spoke with Monica Lewinsky? I'm trying to remember.
Probably sometime before Christmas. She came by to see Betty sometime before Christmas. And she was there talking to her, and I stuck my head out, said hello to her.
Uh-huh, Betty said she was coming by and talked to her, and I said hello to her. I'm sorry, I don't remember. Been sometime in December, I think, and I believe -- that may not be the last time.
I think she came to one of the, one of the Christmas parties. His statement that he did not know whether she had been subpoenaed directly followed this confused exchange and was not tied to any particular meeting with her.
By that time it is totally unclear what date the answer is addressing. The Referral ignores this confusion by selectively quoting the President as testifying "that the last time he had spoken to Ms.
Lewinsky was in December Lewinsky about whether she might have to testify similarly is not a fair or accurate reading of the deposition. In response to the question, "Have you ever talked to Ms. Lewinsky about the possibility that she might have to testify in this lawsuit? Lewinsky about how Ms. Jones' lawyers and the Rutherford Institute were going to call every woman to whom he had ever talked. It is evident the President's answer referred to the time period before Ms.
Lewinsky was on a witness list -- i. Indeed, Ms. Lewinsky confirmed the accuracy of the President's recollection of this conversation in her testimony, a fact that also is missing from the Referral. See App. Thus, the President did in fact accurately describe a conversation with Ms.
Lewinsky about potential testimony. That the Jones lawyers failed to follow-up with questions that would elicit whether that was the only conversation, or whether there were additional conversations once Ms. Lewinsky was on the witness list and her testimony was no longer a mere possibility, is not perjury. It is simply a confused deposition record that could have been clarified contemporaneously. Conversations with Mr. Jordan About Ms. The pattern of mischaracterizing the President's deposition testimony to construct a perjury charge is repeated in a final perjury allegation regarding the President's deposition answers to questions about conversations with Mr.
Jordan about Ms. The Referral alleges that the President was "asked during his civil deposition whether he had talked to Mr. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case" and that he "stated that he knew Mr. Jordan had talked to Ms. Lewinsky about her move to New York, but stated that he did not recall whether Mr. The problem with this allegation is that President Clinton was never asked "whether he had talked to Mr.
Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case," and he did not deny doing so. In support of the charge, the Referral quotes the following exchange from the President's deposition about who told the President that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed:.
This exchange does not address whether the President spoke with Mr. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones suit. And the excerpt is itself misleading. The Referral omits the President's next answer, even though it is obvious from the text, and the OIC was told by the President in his grand jury testimony, App. Bruce Lindsey, I think Bruce Lindsey told me that she was, I think maybe that's the first person told me she was.
Plainly, the President was not testifying that no one other than his attorneys had told him that Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. The Jones lawyers did not pursue this by asking logical follow-up questions, such as whether, if Mr. Lindsey was the first person were there others, or whether Mr. Jordan had subsequently shared that information with him. The bottom line is that President Clinton did not deny, in the quoted passage or elsewhere, knowing that Mr. Jordan had spoken to Ms. Lewinsky about the Jones matter.
Nor do the other two cited passages of the President's deposition testimony help the OIC's case. In response to a question about whether in the two weeks before January 17 anyone had reported to him that they had had a conversation with Ms. Lewinsky about the Jones case, the President replied "I don't believe so. The President was not questioned specifically about whether he had ever spoken to Mr. Jordan or anyone else about Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case. The President's response, accordingly, did not rule out all conversations with Mr.
Lewinsky's involvement in the case, as the Referral suggests, but only in the two-week period prior to the deposition and only conversations relaying accounts of conversations with Ms. Even conversations with Mr. Jordan about her involvement in the case would not have been covered.
The Referral does not identify any reports to the President about any conversation that Mr. Jordan had with Ms. Lewinsky in that time period -- instead, it recounts only that, ten days before the deposition, Mr. Jordan may have told the President that the affidavit was signed.
Finally, the President's answer to the question whether it had been reported to him that Mr. Jordan had " met with Monica Lewinsky and talked about [the Jones ] case," Dep. In response to this question, the President acknowledged that he knew that Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky had met. The President's further response -- that he believed Mr. Jordan met with Ms. Lewinsky to give her advice about her move to New York was fully accurate.
Again, the President was not asked whether he was aware that Mr. Since he was not asked the question, it is implausible to suggest that he lied in the answer. Proponents of impeachment repeatedly contend in the most general terms that President Clinton committed perjury in the grand jury on August 17, When this allegation is framed in specific terms, it is often based on the false belief that President Clinton denied in the grand jury having had any sexual contact with Ms.
For example, in the Committee's perjury hearing held last week, Chairman Hyde discounted the Referral's charge that President Clinton had lied to the grand jury about the commencement date of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and then stated, "I don't rank that up with lying to the grand jury, saying he didn't have a sexual relationship. Subsequently the President acknowledged that his story was false or misleading and that he in fact had such a relationship with Ms.
These accounts of President Clinton's grand jury testimony are not accurate. In his August 17, grand jury testimony, President Clinton acknowledged that he had engaged in "inappropriate intimate contact" with Ms. Section II. C, supra. He also acknowledged that his conduct was "wrong. What the President denied in the grand jury was having "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky only as that term was defined by the Jones lawyers and substantially restricted by Judge Wright.
He did not go into the details of those encounters because of privacy considerations, although he did testify that they did not involve either sexual intercourse or "sexual relations" as defined at the Jones deposition after Judge Wright struck two-thirds of it. Lewinsky, on the other hand, was forced by the OIC to describe in graphic detail her recollection of these encounters.
See Schippers Presentation at This simply is not a case of perjury. In addition to the inconsequential subject matter of the allegation -- the precise nature of the admitted physical contact between the President and Ms. Lewinsky -- the factual record would not support a prosecution for perjury.
That record is one essentially of "oath against oath," a formula that centuries of common law jurisprudence has rejected as the basis for perjury. Hazard , U. Lewinsky's testimony only where there was corroboration. Transcript of November 19, Hearing at On the narrow point at issue here, however, there can be no independent corroboration. In sum, the facts do not support a perjury count based on the President's grand jury testimony. It is hard to imagine how what is at most a difference of recollection over the precise details of the admitted physical contact between President Clinton and Ms.
Lewinsky could be considered grounds for a perjury charge, much less grounds for impeachment. The term "obstruction of justice" usually refers to violations of 18 U. Bucey , F. Smith , F. Brown , F. Perhaps more significant is the "acting corruptly" element of the offense. Some courts have defined this term as acting with "evil and wicked purposes," see United States v.
Banks , F. See United States v. Moon , F. Bashaw , F. Anderson , F. Rasheed , F. That is, it is not enough to prove that the defendant knew that a result of his actions might be to impede the administration of justice, if that was not his intent.
Thomas , , F. Rankin , F. London , F. United States , F. Supp at McComb , F. Section specifically applies to "witness tampering. Wilson , F. The statute itself explains that "corruptly persuades" does not include "conduct which would be misleading conduct but for a lack of a state of mind.
It is also clear from the case law that "misleading conduct" does not cover scenarios where the defendant urged a witness to give false testimony without resorting to coercive or deceptive conduct.
Kulczyk , F. King , F. Subornation of perjury is addressed in 18 U. The elements of subornation are that the defendant must have persuaded another to perjure himself, and the witness must have actually committed perjury. Hairston , 46 F. If actual perjury does not occur, there is simply no subornation.
See id. See Rosen v. NLRB , F. The Referral alleges various actions that it claims amount to obstruction of justice. Evidence that is contained in the Appendices and Supplements -- although omitted from the Referral -- thoroughly undermines each of these claims. Lewinsky met and discussed what should be done with the gifts subpoenaed from Ms.
House of Representatives at The Referral claims that President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by engaging in a pattern of activity to conceal evidence, particularly gifts, regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. See also Schippers Presentation at The Appendices and Supplements contain a wealth of information contradicting this claim. Upon review, it is clear that the full record simply does not support an obstruction-by-gift-concealment charge at all.
First, among Ms. Lewinsky's ten different accounts of the meeting at which she and the President allegedly "discussed" concealing gifts, the Referral selectively and prejudicially chooses to cite the version most hurtful to the President without disclosing the existence of other, exculpatory accounts of the same events. Second, the Referral omits other relevant statements by Ms.
Lewinsky that would place the OIC's account in a sharply different light. Third, the Referral suppresses uncontested statements made by the President and by Ms. Betty Currie that contradict the OIC's concealment theory. Fourth, the Referral appropriates for itself the role of factfinder and -- by misleading characterizations of testimony -- attempts to deceive the Committee into adopting Ms. Lewinsky's version of events where it appears to conflict with Ms.
Currie's version. Finally, the Referral suppresses the OIC's doubts about its own theory -- doubts manifest in grand jury questioning but not acknowledged in the Referral itself.
Two events form the core of the OIC's allegation that the President orchestrated the concealment of gifts he had given Ms. The first is Ms. Lewinsky's December 28, , early morning meeting with the President. The second is Ms. Currie's receipt of a box of gifts from Ms. Lewinsky, supposedly on the afternoon of that day.
The Referral presents these events in a manner that is grossly one-sided and deeply prejudicial to the President. Lewinsky's December 28 Meeting with the President. On December 28, , Ms. Lewinsky came to the White House and met with the President to pick up her holiday gifts. According to Ms. Lewinsky, that was the only occasion on which an issue of the gifts' relation to her subpoena was raised. Lewinsky ; see also App. Lewinsky was asked several times by the OIC about her December 28, , meeting with the President, and in particular about discussions she may have had with the President about gifts she had received from him.
In response, Ms. Although the OIC claims that there was a discussion between Ms. Lewinsky's statements are set forth below, listed in the order in which they were given, from earliest to latest in time:. L then asked if she should put away outside her home the gifts he had given her, or maybe, give them to someone else. The President seemed to know what the JONES subpoena called for in advance and did not seem surprised about the hat pin.
And we spent maybe about five minutes or so, not very long, talking about the case. The President wouldn't have brought up Betty's name because he really didn't -- he really didn't discuss it. They also discussed the general subject of the gifts the President had given Lewinsky. These statements contain certain striking inconsistencies with the version of events presented by the OIC -- that the President and Ms.
Lewinsky "met and discussed what should be done with the gifts subpoenaed from Ms. In none of the statements did the President initiate a discussion relating to concealment of gifts. In none of the statements did the President tell Ms. Lewinsky to conceal gifts.
In none of the statements did the President suggest to Ms. Lewinsky that she conceal gifts. In none of the statements is the President alleged to have mentioned any gift other than a hat pin. The statements also display numerous internal inconsistencies and anomalies that are significant in light of the charge and that caution against selecting any particular one:. In seven of the ten statements numbers 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 the President either did not respond at all to Ms.
Lewinsky's concealment concerns or was described by Ms. Lewinsky as having given "no response" or "didn't really say anything" about what to do with the subpoenaed gifts. In two statements numbers 6 and 9 , Ms. In five of the ten statements numbers 2, 3, 4 and 6 and 9 the President responded "I don't know" to a Lewinsky suggestion that she give someone the gifts.
In two of the ten statements numbers 3 and 4 , the President was made to appear to contemplate further thought by saying in response to a suggestion of possible action that he will "think about it" or "Let me think about that.
In one statement number 6 , Ms. Lewinsky said that "I don't remember his response" to her suggestion that she conceal gifts. In Ms. With all these statements to draw on, the Starr Referral relied on number 4 above as if it were Ms. Lewinsky's only statement on the matter and thus characterized this pivotal conversation as follows:. Lewinsky's ten accounts in which the President's alleged comments might support the inference that he was even contemplating further thought though not action in response to Ms.
Lewinsky's suggestion. In so doing, the Referral failed to inform Congress that, in more than two-thirds of the different accounts given by Ms. Lewinsky, Ms. Lewinsky either described no response by the President at all or described his comment as "no response" or "didn't really say anything. Lewinsky's recollection he evidenced no intent to give the subject any thought.
The OIC also failed to acknowledge that in one of her accounts, Ms. Lewinsky stated that she did not really remember the President's response. Lewinsky reported that the President both did and did not respond to her suggestion. The OIC did not tell Congress that the only person ever to link Betty Currie's name with the idea of concealment and that in only three of her ten accounts in the December 28 conversation was Ms.
Lewinsky herself. Lewinsky's accounts did the President initiate discussion relating to concealment of gifts. Lewinsky's accounts did the President ask or tell Ms. Lewinsky's accounts does the President suggest to Ms. Lewinsky's ten accounts was there even the suggestion that the President wanted even to "think about it. Lewinsky's earliest and latest accounts of the December 28, meeting, she never mentioned any statement by the President suggesting any concealment of gifts from the Jones subpoena.
Instead the OIC simply picked the one account it liked best, misrepresented it, and presented it as though it were the whole truth. Those omissions and the resulting account of this "concealment" meeting result in a skewed version of events that professional prosecutors would notcondone.
Yet the Starr Referral not only presents a distorted picture of the evidence, it recommends that this Committee vote to impeach the President of the United States on this demonstrably thin record. The other incident said to support the obstruction-by-concealment theory was Ms. Again, to support its position the Starr Referral presents a highly selective and deceptively one-sided account of the evidence.
That account is distinguished by: 1 minimization of evidence favorable to the President concerning the origin of the idea of picking up gifts; 2 an outright falsehood as to the date of the gift pickup -- a falsehood obviously intended to suggest deep Presidential involvement in the events; and 3 a deceptive attempt to elevate the Referral's theory through misleading and improper bolstering of one witness's credibility. Lewinsky or the President. Starr takes the position that the President told or suggested to Ms.
Currie that she contact Ms. Lewinsky and pick up the gifts. But the President twice denied ever telling Ms. Currie to contact Ms. Lewinsky about the gifts. Currie herself has repeatedly said that it was Ms. Lewinsky not the President who asked her to pick up the gifts.
In short, the only two parties who could possibly have direct knowledge of such an instruction by the President have denied it. Lewinsky stated that Ms. Currie told her that the President had told her to contact Ms. Currie called Ms. L later that afternoon and said that the Pres. L wanted her to hold onto something for her. Currie's repeated statements that Ms. Lewinsky called her and asked her to pick up the gifts because people were asking "questions about stuff she had gotten.
The Referral does acknowledge one occasion on which Ms. Currie contradicted Ms. Lewinsky on this point, see Ref. Currie :. Did Ms Lewinsky tell you why she wanted to give you this box of items?
I think she was just getting concerned. I think people were asking questions about stuff she had gotten. But the Referral fails to quote Ms. Currie's repeated contradicting of Ms. Lewinsky on this point. First, in her January 24 interview Ms. Currie said that:. Then, before the grand jury:. The best I remember she said that she wanted me to hold these gifts -- hold this -- she may have said gifts, I'm sure she said gifts, box of gifts -- I don't remember -- because people were asking questions.
And I said, "Fine. And then again before the grand jury:. This fact -- that Ms. Currie early on and then thereafter repeatedly insisted that Ms. Lewinsky raised the issue of the gifts -- is not to be found in the Referral. The Referral also omits Ms.
Lewinsky's own testimony that it was she, and not the President, who first raised the prospect of Ms. Currie's involvement. Lewinsky herself testified that the idea of Ms. Currie's involvement originated with Ms.
Lewinsky and not with the President -- is nowhere to be found in the Referral's obstruction discussion. Finally, as to whether Ms. Currie ever spoke of gifts to the President after she had picked up the gifts, the President denied ever speaking with Ms. Currie and as to Ms. Currie, she recalled only one circumstance relevant to this issue. In the course of questioning Ms. Currie about a January 21, telephone call she received from the President, a juror not the OIC put the following question to Ms.
This exchange, and the fact that Ms. Currie stated her recollection with palpable certainty, are also entirely missing from the Referral. In view of the foregoing distortions and omissions, no fair-minded factfinder could conclude from the evidence that the President instructed Ms.
Currie to retrieve gifts from Ms. The Referral implies that the President told Ms. Currie to retrieve the gifts on Sunday, December 28, , Ref.
The plain purpose of this allegation is to suggest prompt action by the President to effectuate a concealment plan supposedly hatched with Ms. Lewinsky at that morning's visit. In support of that theory, the Referral makes the following assertion:. According to both Ms. Currie and Ms.
Currie drove to Ms. Lewinsky's home [to pick up the box of gifts] later on December This assertion -- that "[a]ccording to. Currie" she picked up gifts on December 28 -- is not true. The Referral's only authority is page of Ms. Currie's May 6, grand jury testimony. That page of transcript reads as follows:. How many times had you been to her residence before? I took her home one day after work, but never inside her residence. I just dropped her off in front of the Watergate.
And then when I picked up the box. So twice, that I remember, just twice. So it would be fair to say it was pretty important to pick it up. And it was the only other time you'd ever been to her apartment. CNN On this day in , the world had to dig deep and ask itself, "What does the word 'is' mean? TBT: What is the meaning of 'is'? The entire case was long, drawn-out and complicated, starting with the Whitewater investigation, winding into Paula Jones' sexual harassment charges and ending with the revelation of Clinton's affair with Lewinsky.
If you want to dive down that rabbit hole, I suggest CNN's timeline. Here are the basics: Independent counsel Ken Starr had been looking into the Clintons for years, starting with their Whitewater real estate investments.
The Paula Jones sexual harassment charges led to Starr uncovering the Lewinsky affair. Clinton denied having a sexual relationship with Lewinsky while he was under oath for a deposition for the Jones case.
0コメント