MR. APPERSON: Mr. Wisenberg, the grand jury is in
session. There is a quorum. There are
no unauthorized persons in the grand jury room and
they are prepared to receive the testimony
of the President.
MR. WISENBERG: Thank you, Mr. Apperson. If we could proceed with the oath, please?
WHEREUPON,
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON having been called for
examination by the Independent
Counsel, and having been first duly sworn, was examined
and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL BY MR. WISENBERG:
Q Good afternoon, Mr. President.
A Good afternoon.
Q Could you please state your full name for the record, sir?
A William Jefferson Clinton.
Q My name is Sol Wisenberg and I'm a Deputy Independent
Counsel with the Office of
Independent Counsel. With me today are some other
attorneys from the Office of Independent
Counsel.
At the courtroom are the ladies and gentlemen of
the grand jury prepared to receive your
testimony as you give it. Do you understand, sir?
A Yes, I do.
Q This proceeding is subject to Rule 6(e) of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as
modified by Judge Johnson's order. You are appearing
voluntarily today as a part of an
agreement worked out between your attorney, the
Office of the Independent Counsel, and with
the approval of Judge Johnson.
Is that correct, sir?
A That is correct.
MR. KENDALL: Mr. Wisenberg, excuse me. You referred
to Judge Johnson's order. I'm not
familiar with that order. Have we been served that,
or not?
MR. WISENBERG: No. My understanding is that that
is an order that the Judge is going to
sign today. She didn't have the name of a WHCA person.
And basically my understanding is
that it will cover all of the attorneys here today
and the technical people in the room, so that
they will be authorized persons permitted to hear
grand jury testimony that they otherwise
wouldn't be authorize to hear.
MR. KENDALL: Thank you.
BY MR. WISENBERG:
Q The grand jury, Mr. President, has been empaneled
by the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia. Do you understand that,
sir?
A I do.
Q And, among other things, is currently investigating
under the authority of the Court of
Appeals upon application by the Attorney General,
whether Monica Lewinsky or others
obstructed justice, intimidated witnesses, or committed
other crimes related to the case of
Jones v. Clinton.
Do you understand that, sir?
A I do.
Q And today, you will be receiving questions not
only from attorney. on the OIC staff, but
from some of the grand jurors, too. Do you understand
that?
A Yes, sir, I do.
Q I'm going to talk briefly about your rights and
responsibilities as a grand jury witness.
Normally, grand jury witnesses, while not allowed
to have attorneys in the grand jury room
with them, can stop and consult with their attorneys.
Under our arrangement today, your
attorneys are here and present for consultation
and you can break to consult with them as
necessary, but it won't count against our total
time.
Do you understand that, sir?
A I do understand that.
Q You have a privilege against self-incrimination.
If a truthful answer to any question would
tend to incriminate you, you can invoke the privilege
and that invocation will not be used
against you. Do you understand l that?
A I do.
Q And if you don't invoke it, however, any answer
I that you do give can and will be used
against you. Do you understand that, sir?
A I do.
Q Mr. President, you understand that your testimony here today is under oath?
A I do.
Q And do you understand that because you have sworn
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, that if you were to lie or
intentionally mislead the grand jury, you could
be prosecuted for perjury and/or obstruction of
justice?
A I believe that's correct.
Q Is there anything that you -- I've stated to you
regarding your rights and responsibilities that
you would like me to clarify or that you don't understand?
A No, sir.
Q Mr. President, I would like to read for you a portion
of Federal Rule of Evidence 603, which
discusses the important function the oath has in
our judicial system. It says that the purpose of
the oath is one, "calculated to awaken the witness'
conscience and impress the witness' mind
with the duty" to tell the truth.
Could you please tell the grand Jury what that oath means to you for today' a testimony?
A I have sworn an oath to tell the grand jury the truth, and that' a what I intend to do.
Q You understand that it requires you to give the
whole truth, that is, a complete answer to
each question, sir?
A I will answer each question as accurately and fully as I can.
Q Now, you took the same oath to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on
January 17th, l998 in a deposition in the Paula
Jones litigation; is that correct, sir?
A I did take an oath then.
Q Did the oath you took on that occasion mean the same to you then as it does today?
A I believed then that I had to answer the questions truthfully, that is correct.
Q I'm sorry. I didn't hear you, sir.
A I believed that I had to answer the questions truthfully. That 's correct.
Q And it meant the same to you then as it does today?
A Well, no one read me a definition then and we didn't
go through this exercise then. I swore
an oath to tell the truth, and I believed I was
bound to be truthful and I tried to be.
Q At the Paula Jones deposition, you were represented
by Mr. Robert Bennett, your counsel,
is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q He was authorized by you to be your representative there, your attorney, is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Your counsel, Mr. Bennett, indicated at page 5
of the deposition, lines 10 through 12, and
I'm quoting, "the President intends to give full
and complete answers as Ms. Jones is entitled to
have".
My question to you is, do you agree with your counsel
that a plaintiff in a sexual harassment
case is, to use his words, entitled to have the
truth?
A I believe that I was bound to give truthful answers, yes, sir.
Q But the question is, sir, do you agree with your
counsel that a plaintiff in a sexual harassment
case is entitled to have the truth?
A I believe when a witness is under oath in a civil
case, or otherwise under oath, the witness
should do everything possible to answer the questions
truthfully.
MR. WISENBERG: I'm going to turn over questioning
now to Mr. Bittman of our office, Mr.
President.
BY MR. BITTMAN:
Q Good afternoon, Mr. President.
A Good afternoon, Mr. Bittman.
Q My name is Robert Bittman. I'm an attorney with the Office of Independent Counsel.
Mr. President, we are first going to turn to some
of the details of your relationship with Monica
Lewinsky that follow up on your deposition that
you provided in the Paula Jones case, as was
referenced, on January 17th, 1998.
The questions are uncomfortable, and I apologize
for that in advance. I will try to be as brief
and direct as possible.
Mr. President, were you physically intimate with Monica Lewinsky?
A Mr. Bittman, I think maybe I can save the -- you
and the grand jurors a lot of time if I read
a statement, which I think will make it clear what
the nature of my relationship with Ma.
Lewinsky was and how it related to the testimony
I gave, what I was trying to do in that
testimony. And I think it will perhaps make it possible
for you to ask even more relevant
questions from your point of view.
And, with your permission, I'd like to read that statement.
Q Absolutely. Please, Mr. President.
A When I was alone with Ma. Lewinsky on certain occasions
in early 1996 and once in early
1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong. These
encounters did not consist of sexual
intercourse. They did not constitute sexual relations
as I understood that term to be defined at
my January 17th, 1998 deposition. But they did involve
inappropriate intimate contact.
These inappropriate encounters ended, at my insistence,
in early 1997. I also had occasional
telephone conversations with Ms. Lewinsky that included
inappropriate sexual banter.
I regret that what began as a friendship came to
include this conduct, and I take full
responsibility for my actions.
While I will provide the grand jury whatever other
information I can, because of privacy
considerations affecting my family, myself, and
others, and in an effort to preserve the dignity
of the office I hold, this is all I will say about
the specifics of these particular matters.
I will try to answer, to the best of my ability,
other questions including questions about my
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; questions about
my understanding of the term "sexual
relations", as I understood it to be defined at
my January 17th, 1998 deposition; and questions
concerning alleged subornation of perjury, obstruction
of justice, and intimidation of witnesses.
That, Mr. Bittman, is my statement.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. And, with that, we would like to take a break.
A Would you like to have this?
Q Yes, please. As a matter of fact, why don't we
have that marked as Grand Jury Exhibit
WJC-1.
(Grand Jury Exhibit WJC-1 was marked for identification.)
THE WITNESS: So, are we going to take a break?
MR. KENDALL: Yes. We will take a break. Can we have
the camera off, now, please? And
it's 1:14.
(Whereupon, the proceedings were recessed from 1:14 p.m. until 1:30 p.m.)
MR. KENDALL: 1:30, Bob.
MR. BITTMAN: It's 1:30 and we have the feed with the grand jury
BY MR. BITTMAN:
Q Good afternoon again, Mr. President.
A Good afternoon, Mr. Bittman. (Discussion off the record.)
BY MR. BITTMAN:
Q Mr. President, your statement indicates that your
contacts with Ms. Lewinsky did not
involve any inappropriate, intimate contact.
MR. KENDALL: Mr. Bittman, excuse me. The witness --
THE WITNESS: No, sir. It indicates --
MR. KENDALL: The witness does not have –
THE WITNESS: -- that it did involve inappropriate and intimate contact.
BY MR. BITTMAN:
Q Pardon me. That it did involve inappropriate, intimate contact.
A Yes, sir, it did.
MR. KENDALL: Mr. Bittman, the witness – the witness
dose not have a copy of the
statement. We just have the one copy.
MR. BITTMAN: If he wishes --
MR. KENDALL: Thank you.
MR. BITTMAN: -- his statement back?
BY MR. BITTMAN:
Q Was this contact with Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. President,
did it involve any sexual contact in any
way, shape, or form?
A Mr. Bittman, I said in this statement I would like
to stay to the terms of the statement. I
think it's clear what inappropriately intimate is.
I have said what it did not include. I -- it did not
include sexual intercourse, and I do not believe
it included conduct which falls within the
definition I was given in the Jones deposition.
And I would like to stay with that
characterization.
Q Let us then move to the definition that was provided
you during your deposition. We will
have that marked as Grand Jury Exhibit WJC-2.
(Grand Jury Exhibit WJC-2 we' marked for identification.)
BY MR. BITTMAN:
Q This is an exact copy, Mr. President, of the exhibit
that was provided you during that
deposition. And I'm sure you remember from the deposition
that paragraph (1) of the definition
remained in effect. Judge Wright ruled that that
was to be the guiding definition, and that
paragraph (2) and (3) were stricken.
Do you remember that, Mr. President?
A Yes. Specifically what I remember is there were
two different discussions, I think, of this.
There was guise an extended one in the beginning,
and everybody was entering into it. And in
the end, the Judge said that she would take the
first definition and strike the rest of it. That 'a
my memory.
Q Did you -- well, at page 19 of your deposition
in that case, the attorney who provided you
with the definition asked you, "Would you please
take whatever time you need to I read this
definition". And later on in the deposition, you
did, of course, refer to the definition several
times.
Were you, during the deposition, familiar with the definition?
A Yes, sir. My -- let me just ask a question. If
you are going to ask me about my deposition,
could I have a copy of it? Does anybody have a copy
of it?
Q Yes. We have a copy. We'll provide you with a copy.
BY MS. WIRTH: We will mark it as Grand Jury Exhibit WJC-3.
(Grand Jury Exhibit WJC-3 was marked for identification.)
THE WITNESS: Now, did you say that was on page 19,
Mr. Bittman?
BY MR. BITTMAN:
Q It was at page 19, Mr. President, beginning at
line 21, and I'll read it in full. This is from the
Jones attorney. "Would you please take whatever
time you need to read this definition, because
when I use the term 'sexual relations', this is
what I mean today".
A All right. Yes, that starts on 19. But let me say
that there is a -- just for the record, my
recollection was accurate. There is a long discussion
here between the attorney and the Judge.
It goes on until page 23. And in the end the Judge
says, "I'm talking only about part one in the
definition", and "Do you understand that"? And I
answer, "I do".
The judge says part one, and then the lawyer for
Ms. Jones says he's only talking about part
one and asked me if I understand it. And I say,
I do, and that was my understanding.
I might also note that when I was given this and
began to ask questions about it, I actually
circled number one. This is my circle here. I remember
doing that so I could focus only on
those two lines, which is what I did.
Q Did you understand the words in the first portion
of the exhibit, Mr. President, that is, "For
the purposes of this deposition, a person engages
in 'sexual relations' when the person
knowingly engages in or causes"?
Did you understand, do you understand the words there in that phrase?
A Yes. My -- I can tell you what my understanding of the definition is, if you want me to --
Q Sure.
A -- do it. My understanding of this definition as
it covers contact by the person being deposed
with the enumerated areas, if the contact is done
with an intent to arouse or gratify. That' a my
understanding of the definition.
Q What did you believe the definition to include and exclude? What kinds of activities
A I thought the definition included any activity
by the person being deposed, where the person
was the actor and came in contact with those parts
of the bodies with the purpose or intent or
gratification, and excluded any other activity.
For example, kissing is not covered by that, I don't think.
Q Did you understand the definition to be limited to sexual activity?
A Yes, I understood the definition to be limited
to, to physical contact with those areas of the
bodies with the specific intent to arouse or gratify.
That's what I understood it to be.
Q What specific acts did the definition include,
as you understood the definition on January 17,
1998?
A Any contact with the areas there mentioned, sir.
If you contacted, if you contacted those
parts of the body with an intent to arouse or gratify,
that is covered.
Q What did you understand -
A The person being deposed. If the person being deposed
contacted those parts of another
person's body with an intent to arouse or gratify,
that was covered.
Q What did you understand the word "causes", in the
first phrase? That is, "For the purposes
of this deposition, a person engaged in 'sexual
relations', when the person knowingly" causes
contact?
A I don't know what that means. It doesn't make any
l sense to me in this context, because -- I
think what I thought there was since this was some
sort of -- as I , remember, they said in the
previous discussion -- and I'm only remembering
now, so if I make a mistake you can correct I
me. As I remember from the previous discussion,
this was I some kind of definition that had
something to do with sexual harassment. So, that
implies it's forcing to me, and I --and there
was never any issue of forcing in the case involving,
well, any of these questions they were
asking me.
They made it clear in this discussion I just reviewed
that what they were referring to was
intentional sexual conduct, not some sort of forcible
abusive behavior.
So, I basically -- I don't think I paid any attention
to it because it appeared to me that that was
something that had no reference to the facts that
they admitted they were asking me about.
Q So, if I can be clear, Mr. President, was it your
understanding back in January that the
definition, now marked as Grand Jury Exhibit 2,
only included consensual sexual activity?
A No. My understanding -- let me go back and say
it. My understanding -- I'll tell you what it
did include. My understanding was, what I was giving
to you, was that what was covered in
those first two lines was any direct contact by
the person being deposed with those parts of
another person's body, if the contact was done with
an intent to arouse or gratify. That's what I
believed it meant.
That's what I believed it meant then reading it. That's what I believe it means today.
Q I'm just trying to understand, Mr. President. You
indicated that you put the definition in the
context of a sexual harassment case.
A No, no. I think it was not in the context of sexual
harassment. I just reread those four pages,
which obviously the grand jury doesn't have. But
there was some reference to the fact that this
definition apparently bore some, had some connection
to some definition in another context,
and that this was being used not in that context,
not necessarily in the context of sexual
harassment.
So, I would think that this "causes" would be, would
mean to force someone to do something.
That 's what I read it. That's the only point I'm
trying to make.
Therefore, I did not believe that anyone had ever
suggested that I had forced anyone to do
anything, and that I -- and I did not do that. And
so that could not have had any bearing on any
questions related to Ms. Lewinsky.
Q I suppose, since you have now read portions of
the transcript again, that you were reminded
that you did not ask for any clarification of the
terms. Is that correct? Of the definition?
A No, sir. I thought it was a rather -- when I read.
it, I thought it was a rather strange
definition. But it was the one the Judge decided
on and I was bound by it. So, I took it.
Q During the deposition, you remember that Ms. Lewinsky's
name came up and you were
asked several questions about her. Do you remember
that?
A Yes, sir, I do.
Q During those -- or before those questions actually
got started, your attorney, Mr. Bennett,
objected to any questions about Ms. Lewinsky, and
he represented to Judge Wright, who was
presiding -- that was unusual, wasn't it, that a
federal judge would come and actually -- in your
experience -- that a federal judge would come and
preside at a deposition?
MR. KENDALL: Mr. Bittman, excuse me. Could you identify
the transcript page upon which
Mr. Bennett objected to all testimony about Ms.
Lewinsky before it got started?
MR. BITTMAN: The objection, this quote that I'm referring
to, is going to begin at page 54 of
the deposition.
MR. KENDALL: That is into the testimony though, after
the testimony about Ms. Lewinsky
has begun, is it not?
BY MR. BITTMAN:
Q Mr. President, is it unusual for a federal judge to preside over a civil deposition?
A I think it is, but this was an unusual case. I believe I know why she did it.
Q Your attorney, Mr. Bennett, objected to the questions about Ms. Lewinsky, didn't he?
A What page is that on, sir?
Q Page 54, where he questions whether the attorneys
for Ms. Jones had a good faith basis to
ask some of the questions that they were posing
to you. His objections actually begin on page
53.
Since, as the President pointed out that the grand
jurors correctly do not have a copy of the
deposition, I will read the portion that I am referring
to. And this begins at line 1 on page 54.
"I question the good faith of counsel, the innuendo
in the question. Counsel is fully aware that
Ms. Lewinsky has filed, has an affidavit which they
are in possession of saying that there is
absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape
or form, with President Clinton".
A Where is that?
Q That is on page 54, Mr. President, beginning at line 1, about midway through line 1.
A Well, actually, in the present tense that is an
accurate statement. That was an, that was an
accurate statement, if -- I don't -- I think what
Mr. Bennett was concerned about, if I -- maybe
it would be helpful to you and to the grand jurors,
quite apart from these comments, if I could
tell you what his state of mind was, what my state
of mind was, and why I think the Judge was
there in the first place.
If you don't want me to do it, I won't. But I think it will help to explain a lot of this.
Q Well, we are interested, and I know from the questions
that we've received from the grand
jurors they are interested in knowing what was going
on in your mind when you were reading
Grand Jury Exhibit 2, and what you understood that
definition to include.
Our question goes to whether -- and you were familiar,
and what Mr. Bennett was referring to
obviously is Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit. And we will
have that marked, Mr. President, as Grand
Jury Exhibit WJC-4. (Grand Jury Exhibit WJC-4 was
marked for identification.)
BY MR. BITTMAN:
Q And you remember that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit
said that she had had no sexual
relationship with you. Do you remember that?
A I do.
Q And do you remember in the deposition that Mr.
Bennett asked you about that. This is at
the end of the -- towards the end of the deposition.
And you indicated, he asked you whether
the statement that Ms. Lewinsky made in her affidavit
was -
A Truthful.
Q -- true. And you indicated that it was absolutely correct.
A I did. And at the time that she made the statement,
and indeed to the present day because, as
far as I know, she was never deposed since the Judge
ruled she would not be permitted to
testify in a case the Judge ruled had no merit;
that is, this case we're talking about.
I believe at the time that she filled out this affidavit,
if she believed that the definition of sexual
relationship was two people having intercourse,
then this is accurate. And I believe that is the
definition that most ordinary Americans would give
it.
If you said Jane and Harry have a sexual relationship,
and you're not talking about people being
drawn into a lawsuit and being given definitions,
and then a great effort to trick them in some
way, but you are just talking about people in ordinary
conversations, I'll bet the grand jurors, if
they were talking about two people they know, and
said they have a sexual relationship, they
meant they were sleeping together; they meant they
were having intercourse together.
So, I'm not at all sure that this affidavit is not
true and was not true in Ms. Lewinsky's mind at
the time she swore it out.
Q Did you talk with Ms. Lewinsky about what she meant to write in her affidavit?
A I didn't talk to her about her definition. I did
not know what was in this affidavit before it
was filled out specifically. I did not know what
words were used specifically before it was filled
out, or what meaning she gave to them.
But I'm just telling you that it's certainly true
what she says here, that we didn't have -- there
was no employment, no benefit in exchange, there
was nothing having anything to do with
sexual harassment. And if she defined sexual relationship
in the way I think most Americans
do, meaning intercourse, then she told the truth.
Q My question -
A And that depends on what was in her mind. I don't
know what was in her mind. You'll have
to ask her that.
Q But you indicated before that you were aware of
what she intended by the term "sexual
relationship".
A No, sir. I said I thought that this could be a
truthful affidavit. And when I read it, since that's
the way I would define it, since -- keep in mind,
she was not, she was not bound by this sexual
relations definition, which is highly unusual; I
think anybody would admit that. When she used
a different term, sexual relationship, if she meant
by that what most people mean by it, then
that is not an untruthful statement.
Q So, your definition of sexual relationship is intercourse only, is that correct?
A No, not necessarily intercourse only. But it would
include intercourse. I believe, I believe
that the common understanding of the term, if you
say two people are having a sexual
relationship, most people believe that includes
intercourse. So, if that's what Ms. Lewinsky
thought, then this is a truthful affidavit. I don't
know what was in her mind. But if that's what
she thought, the affidavit is true.
Q What else would sexual relationship include besides intercourse?
A Well, that -- I think -- let me answer what I said
before. I think most people when they use
that term include sexual relationships and whatever
other sexual contact is involved in a
particular relationship. But they think it includes
intercourse as well. And I would have thought
so. Before I got into this case and heard all I've
heard, and seen all I've seen, I would have
thought that that's what nearly everybody thought
it meant.
Q Well, I ask, Mr. President, because your attorney,
using the very document, Grand Jury
Exhibit 4, WJC-4, represented to Judge Wright that
his understanding of the meaning of that
affidavit, which you've indicated you thought Ms.
Lewinsky thought was, she was referring
just to intercourse, he says to Judge Wright that
it meant absolutely no sex of any kind in any
manner, shape or form.
A Well, let me say this. I didn't have any discussion
obviously at this moment with Mr.
Bennett. I'm not even sure I paid much attention
to what he was saying. I was thinking, I was
ready to get on with my testimony here and they
were having these constant discussions all
through the deposition. But that statement in the
present tense, at least, is not inaccurate, if
that's what Mr. Bennett meant. That is, at the time
that he said that, and for some time before,
that would be a completely accurate statement.
Now, I don't believe that he was -- I don't know
what he meant. You'd have to talk to him,
because I just wasn't involved in this, and I didn't
pay much attention to what was being said. I
was just waiting for them to get back to me. So,
I can't comment on, or be held responsible
for, whatever he said about that, I don't think.
Q Well, if you -- do you agree with me that if he
mislead Judge Wright in some way that you
would have corrected the record and said, excuse
me, Mr. Bennett, I think the Judge is getting
a misimpression by what you're saying?
A Mr. Bennett was representing me. I wasn't representing
him. And I wasn't even paying much
attention to this conversation, which is why, when
you started asking me about this, I asked to
see the deposition. I was focusing on my answers
to the questions. And I've told you what I
believe about this deposition, which I believe to
be true.
And it's obvious, and I think by your questions you
have betrayed that the Jones lawyers'
strategy in this case had nothing to do with uncovering
or proving sexua1 harassment.
By the time this discovery started, they knew they
had a bad case on the law and they knew
what our evidence was. They knew they had a lousy
case on the facts. And so their strategy,
since they were being funded by my political opponents,
was to have this dragnet of discovery.
They wanted to cover everybody. And they convinced
the Judge, because she gave them strict
orders not to leak, that they should be treated
like other plaintiffs in other civil cases, and how
could they ever know whether there had been any
sexual harassment, unless they first knew
whether there had been any sex.
And so, with that broad mandate limited by time and
employment in the federal or state
government, they proceeded to cross the country
and try to turn up whatever they could; not
because they thought it would help their case. By
the time they did this discovery, they knew
what this deal was in their case, and they knew
what was going to happen and
Judge Wright subsequently threw it out. What they -
Q With all respect, Mister -
A Now, let me finish, Mr. Bennett [sic]. I mean, you brought this up. Excuse me, Mr. Bittman.
What they wanted to do, and what they did do, and
what they had done by the time I showed
up here, was to find any negative information they
could on me, whether it was true or not; get
it in a deposition; and then leak it, even though
it was illegal to do so. It happened repeatedly.
The Judge gave them orders.
One of the reasons she was sitting in that deposition
was because she was trying to make sure
that it didn't get out of hand.
But that was their strategy, and they did a good
job of it, and they got away with it. I've been
subject to quite a lot of illegal leaking, and they
had a very determined deliberate strategy,
because their real goal was to hurt me. When they
knew they couldn't win the lawsuit, they
thought, well, maybe we can pummel him. Maybe they
thought I'd settle. Maybe they just
thought they would get some political advantage
out of it. But that's what was going on here.
Now, I'm trying to be honest with you, and it hurts
me. And I'm trying to tell you the truth
about what happened between Ms. Lewinsky and me.
But that does not change the fact that
the real reason they were zeroing in on anybody
was to try to get any person in there, no
matter how uninvolved with Paula Jones, no matter
how uninvolved with sexual harassment,
so they could hurt me politically. That's what was
going on.
Because by then, by this time, this thing had been
l going on a long time. They knew what our
evidence was. They knew what the law was in the
circuit in which we were bringing this case.
And so they just thought they would take a wrecking
ball to me and see if they could do some
damage.
Q Judge Wright had ruled that the attorneys in the
Jones case were permitted to ask you
certain questions, didn't she?
A She certainly did. And they asked them and I did
my best to answer them. I'm just trying to
tell --
Q And was it your responsibility -
A -- you what my state of mind was.
Q -- to answer those questions truthfully, Mr. President?
A It was.
Q And was -
A But it was not my responsibility, in the face of
their repeated illegal leaking, it was not my
responsibility
to volunteer a lot of information. There are many
cases in this deposition where I gave -- and
keep in mind, I prepared, I treated them, frankly,
with respect. I prepared very well for this
deposition on the Jones matters. I prepared very
well on that. I did not know that Linda Tripp
had been involved in the preparation of this deposition,
or that all of you -
Q Do you know that now?
A No, I don't. I just know that -- what I read in
the papers about it But I had no way of
knowing that they would ask me all these detailed
questions. I did the best I could to answer
them.
Q Did you prepare -
A But in this deposition, Mr. Biteman, I was doing
my best to be truthful. I was not trying to
be particularly helpful to them, and I didn't think
I had an obligation to be particularly helpful to
them to further a -- when I knew that there was
no evidence here of sexual harassment, and I
knew what they wanted to do was to leak this, even
though it was unlawful to do so. That's -
Q Did you believe, Mr. President -
A -- what I knew.
Q -- that you had an obligation to make sure that
the presiding federal judge was on board and
had the correct facts? Did you believe that was
your obligation?
A Sir, I was trying to answer my testimony. I was
thinking about my testimony. I don't believe
I ever even focused on what Mr. Bennett said in
the exact words he did until I started reading
this transcript carefully for this hearing. That
moment, that whole argument just passed me by.
I was a witnesa. I was trying to focua on what I
said and how I said it.
And, believe me, I knew what the purpose of the deposition
was. And, sure enough, by the
way, it did all leak, just like I knew it would.
Q Let me ask you, Mr. President, you indicate in
your statement that you were alone with Ms.
Lewinsky. Is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q How many times were you alone with Ms. Lewinsky?
A Let me begin with the correct answer. I don't know
for sure. But if you would like me to
give an educated guess, I will do that, but I do
not know for sure. And I will tell you what I
think, based on what I remember. But I can't be
held to a specific time, because I don't have
records of all of it.
Q How many times do you think?
A Well, there are two different periods here. There
'a the period when she worked in the White
House until April of '96. And then there's the period
when she came back to visit me from
February '97 until late December `97.
Based on our records -- let' s start with the records,
where we have the best records and the
closest in time. Based on our records, between February
and December, it appears to me that
at least I could have seen her approximately nine
times. Although I do not believe I saw her
quite that many times, at least it could have happened.
There were -- we think there were nine or 10 times
when she was in, in the White House when
I was in the Oval Office when I could have seen
her. I do not believe I saw her that many
times, but I could have.
Now, we have no records for the time when she was
an employee at the White House,
because we have no records of that for any of the
employees at the White House, unless there
was some formally scheduled meeting that was on
the, on the calendar for the day.
I remember -- I'll tell you what I remember. I remember
meeting her, or having my first real
conversation with her during the government shutdown
in November of '95, when she -- as I
explained in my deposition, during the government
shutdown, the -- most federal employees
were actually prohibited from coming to work, even
in the White House. Most people in the
White House couldn't come to work. The Chief of
Staff could come to work. My National
Security Advisor could come to work. I could.
Therefore, interns were assigned to all offices And
I believe it was her last week as an intern.
Anyway, she worked in the Chief of Staff's Office.
One night she brought me some pizza. We
had some remarks.
Now, the next time I remember seeing her alone was
on a couple of occasions when she was
working in the Legislative Affairs Office as a full-time
employee. I remember specifically, I
have a specific recollection of two times. I don't
remember when they were, but I remember
twice when, on Sunday afternoon, she brought papers
down to me, stayed, and we were alone.
And I am frankly quite sure -- although I have no
specific memory, I am quite sure there were
a couple of more times, probably two times more,
three times more. That's what I would say.
That's what I can remember. But I do not remember
when they were, or at what time of day
they were, or what the facts were. But I have a
general memory that would say I certainly saw
her more than twice during that period between January
and April of 1996, when she worked
there.
Q So, if I could summarize your testimony, approximately
five times you saw her before she
left the White House, and approximately nine times
after she left the employment of the White
House?
A I know there were several times in ,97. I've told
you that I've looked at my calendar and I
tell you what I think the outer limits are. I would
think that would sound about right. There
could be, in that first four-month period, there,
maybe there' a one or two more, maybe there
there's one less. I just don't know. I don't remember.
I didn't keep records.
But I'm giving you what I specifically remember and
then what I generally remember. I'm
doing the beat to be helpful to you.
Q Have you reviewed the records for December 28th, 1997, Mr. President?
A Yes, sir, I have.
Q Do you believe that Ms. Lewinsky was at the White
House and saw you on December 28th,
1997?
A Yes, sir, I do.
Q And do you remember talking with Ms. Lewinsky about
her subpoena that she received for
the Paula Jones case on that day?
A I remember talking with Ms. Lewinsky about her
testimony, or about the prospect that she
might have to give testimony. And she, she talked
to me about that. I remember that.
Q And you also gave her Christmas gifts, is that not correct, Mr. President?
A That is correct. They were Christmas gifts and
they were going-away gifts. She was moving
to New York to, taking a new job, starting a new
life. And I gave her some gifts
Q And you actually requested this meeting, is that not correct?
A I don't remember that, Mr. Bittman, but it's quite
possible that I invited her to come by
before she left town. But usually when we met, she
requested the meetings. And my l
recollection is, in 1997, she asked to meet with
me several times when I could not meet with
her and did not do so. But it's quite possible that
I -- that because she had given me a
Christmas gift, and because she was leaving, that
I invited her to come by the White House and
get a couple of gifts before she left town.
I don't remember who requested the meeting though. I'm sorry, I don't.
Q You were alone with her on December 28, 1997, --
A Yes, sir.
Q -- right?
A I was.
Q The gifts that you gave her were a canvas bag from
The Black Dog restaurant at Martha's
Vineyard, is that right?
A Well, that was just, that was just something I
had in the place to, to contain the gifts. But I
believe that the gifts I gave her were -- I put
them in that bag. That's what I had there, and I
knew she liked things from The Black Dog. So, I
gave her -- I think that's what I put the
presents in.
I remember what the presents were. I don't remember what the bag was I gave them in.
Q Did you also give her a marble bear's head carving from Vancouver, Canada?
A I did do that. I remember that.
Q And you also gave her a Rockettes blanket; that is, the famous Rockettes from New York?
A I did do that. I had that, I had had that in my
possession for a couple of years but had never
used it, and she was going to New York. So, I thought
it would be a nice thing to give her.
Q You gave her a box of cherry chocolates, is that right?
A I don't remember that, sir. I mean, there could
have been. I, I just don't remember. I
remember giving the bear and the throw. I don't
remember what else. And it seems to me like
there was one other thing in that bag. I didn't
remember the cherry chocolates.
Q How about a pin of the New York skyline? Did you give -
A That -
Q -- her that?
A That could have been in there. I seem to remember I gave her some kind of pin.
Q What about a pair of joke sunglasses?
A I don't remember that. I'm not denying it. I just
-- I'm telling you what I remember and what
I don't.
Q You had given Ms. Lewinsky gifts on other occasions though, is that right, Mr. President?
A Yes, I had.
Q This, though, was -- you gave her the most gifts
that you had ever given her in a single day,
is that right?
A Well, that's probably true. It was sort of like
a going-away present and a Christmas present
as well. And she had given me a particularly nice
book for Christmas, an antique book on
Presidents. She knew that I collected old books
and it was a very nice thing. And I just thought
I ought to get up a few things and give them to
her before she left.
Q You mentioned that you discussed her subpoena in
the Paula Jones case. Tell us specifically,
what did you discuss?
A No, sir, that' a not what I said. I said, my recollection
is I knew by then, of course, that she
had gotten a subpoena. And I knew that she was,
therefore, was slated to testify. And she
mentioned to me -- and I believe it was at this
meeting. She mentioned -- I remember a
conversation about the possibility of her testifying.
I believe it must have occurred on the 25th.
She mentioned to me that she did not want to testify.
So, that' a how it came up. Not in the
context of, I heard you have a subpoena, let's talk
about it.
She raised the issue with me in the context of her
desire to avoid testifying, which I certainly
understood; not only because there were some embarrassing
facts about our relationship that
were inappropriate, but also because a whole lot
of innocent people were being traumatized and
dragged through the mud by these Jones lawyers with
their dragnet strategy. They -
Q So -
A And so I -- and since she didn't know Paula Jones
and knew nothing about sexual
harassment, and certainly had no experience with
that, I, I clearly understood why she didn't
want to be a part of it.
Q And you didn't want her to testify, did you? You
didn't want her to disclose these
embarrassing facts of this inappropriate intimate
relationship that you had, is that correct?
A Well, I did not want her to have to testify and
go through that. And, of course, I didn't want
her to do that, of course not.
Q Did you want those facts, not only the fact that
she would testify, but did you want the facts
that she had, about your embarrassing inappropriate
intimate relationship to be disclosed?
A Not there, but not in any context. However, I,
I never had any high confidence that they
wouldn't be.
Q Did anyone, as far as you knew, know about your
embarrassing inappropriate intimate
relationship that you had with Ms. Lewinsky?
A At that time, I was unaware that she had told anyone
else about it. But if, if I had known
that, it would not have surprised me.
Q Had you told anyone?
A Absolutely not.
Q Had you tried, in fact, not to let anyone else know about this relationship?
A Well, of course.
Q What did you do?
A Well, I never said anything about it, for one thing.
And I did what people do when they do
the wrong thing. I tried to do it where nobody else
was looking at it.
Q How many times did you do that?
A Well, if you go back to my statement, I remember
there were a few times in '96, I can't say
with any certainty. There was once in early '97.
After she left the
White House, I do not believe I ever had any inappropriate
contact with her in the rest of '96.
There was one occasion in '97 when, regrettably,
that we were together for a few minutes, I
think about 20 minutes, and there was inappropriate
contact. And after that, to the best of my
memory and belief, it did not occur again.
Q Did you tell her in the conversation about her
being subpoenaed -- she was upset about it,
you acknowledge that?
(Witness nodded indicating an affirmative response.)
Q I'm sorry, you have to respond for the record.
Yes or no? Do you agree that she was upset
about being subpoenaed?
A Oh, yes, sir, she was upset. She -- well, she -we
-- she didn't -- we didn't talk about a
subpoena. But she was upset. She said, I don't want
to testify; I know nothing about this; I
certainly know nothing about sexual harassment;
why do they want me to testify. And I
explained to her why they were doing this, and why
all these women were on these lists, people
that they knew good and well had nothing to do with
any sexual harassment.
I explained to her that it was a political lawsuit.
They wanted to get whatever they could under
oath that was damaging to me, and then they wanted
to leak it in violation of the Judge's
orders, and turn up their nose and say, well, you
can't prove we did it. Now, that was their
strategy. And that they were very frustrated because
everything they leaked so far was old
news. So, they desperately were trying to validate
this massive amount of money they'd spent
by finding some new news. And -
Q You were familiar -
A -- she didn't want to be caught up in that, and I didn't blame her.
Q You were familiar, weren't you, Mr. President,
that she had received a subpoena. You've
already acknowledged that.
A Yes, sir, I was.
Q And Mr. Jordan informed you of that, is that right?
A No, sir. I believe -- and I believe I testified
to this in my deposition. I think the first person
who told me that she had been subpoenaed was Bruce
Lindsey. I think the first -- and I was --
in this deposition, it's a little bit cloudy, but
I was trying to remember who the first person who
told me was, because the question was, again as
I remember it -- could we go to that in the
deposition, since you asked me that?
Q Actually, I think you're -- with all respect, I
think you may be confusing when Mr. Lindsey
-- well, perhaps Mr. Lindsey did tell you she was
subpoenaed, I don't know. But in your
deposition, you were referring to Mr. Lindsey notifying
you that she had been identified as a
witness.
A Where is that, sir? I don't want to get -- I just want -- what page is that?
Q Well, actually -
A No, it had to be, because I saw a witness list much earlier than that.
Q Much earlier than December 28?
A Oh, sure. And it had been earlier than -- she would -- I believe Monica -
MR. KENDALL: Page 69.
THE WITNESS: I believe Monica Lewinsky's name was
on a witness list earlier than she was
subpoenaed.
BY MR. BITTMAN:
Q Yes.
A So, I believe when I was answering this question,
at least I thought I was answering when I
found out -- yes. See, there's -- on page 68, "Did
anyone other than your attorneys ever tell
you that Monica Lewinsky had been served with a
subpoena in this case?. Then I said, "I don't
think so.. Then I [sic] said, "Did you ever talk.
to Monica about the possibility that she might
be asked to testify in this case?"
Then I gave an answer that was non-responsive, that
really tried to finish the answer above. I
said, "Bruce Lindsey, I think Bruce Lindsey told
me
that she was, I think maybe that's the first
person told me she was. I want to be as accurate
as I can..
And that -- I believe that Bruce is the first person
who told me that Monica had gotten a
subpoena.
Q Did you, in fact, have a conversation with Mr.
Jordan on the evening of December 19,
1997, in which he talked to you about Monica being
in Mr. Jordan's office, having a copy of
the subpoena, and being upset about being subpoenaed?
A I remembered that Mr. Jordan was in the White House
on December 19th and for an event
of some kind. That he came up to the Residence floor
and told me that he had, that Monica
had gotten a subpoena and, or that Monica was going
to have to testify. And I think he told me
he recommended a lawyer for her. I believe that's
what happened. But it was a very brief
conversation. He was there for some other reason.
Q And if Mr. Jordan testified that he had also spoken
to you at around 5 p.m., and the White
House phone logs reflect this, that he called you
at around the time he met with Ms. Lewinsky
and informed you then that she had been subpoenaed,
is that consistent with your memory?
Also on the 19th?
A I had a lot of phone conversations with Vernon
about this. I didn't keep records of them. I
now have some records. My memory is not clear and
my testimony on that was not clear. I
just knew that I talked to Vernon at some time.
but I thought that Bruce was the first person
who told me.
Q But Mr. Jordan had also told you, is that right?
A Yes. I now know I had a conversation with Mr. Jordan
about it where he said something to
me about that.
Q And that was probably on the 19th, December 19th?
A Well, I know I saw him on the 19th. So, I'm quite
sure. And if he says he talked to me on
the l9th, I believe he would have better records
and I certainly think he's a truthful person.
Q Getting back to your meeting with Ms. Lewinsky
on December 28, you are aware that she's
been subpoenaed. You are aware, are you not, Mr.
President, that the subpoena called for the
production of, among other things, all the gifts
that you had given Ms. Lewinsky? You were
aware of that on December 28th, weren't you?
A I'm not sure. And I understand this is an important
question. I did have a conversation with
Ms. Lewinsky at some time about gifts, the gift.
I'd given her. I do not know whether it
occurred on the 28th, or whether it occurred earlier.
I do not know whether it occurred in
person or whether it occurred on the telephone.
I have searched my memory for this, because I
know it's an important issue. Perhaps if you --
I can tell you what I remember about the
conversation and you can see why I'm having trouble
placing the date.
Q Please.
A The reason I'm not sure it happened on the 28th
is that my recollection is that Ms. Lewinsky
said something to me like, what if they ask me about
the gifts you've given me. That's the
memory I have. That's why I question whether it
happened on the 28th, because she had a
subpoena with her, I request for production.
And I told her that if they asked her for gifts,
she'd have to give them whatever she had, that
that's what the law was. And let me also tell you,
Mr. Bittman, if you go back and look at my
testimony here, I actually asked the Jones lawyers
for help on one occasion, when they were
asking me what gifts I had given her, so they could
-- I was never hung up about this gift issue.
Maybe it's because I have a different experience.
But, you know, the President gets hundreds
of gifts a year, maybe more. I have always given
a lot of gifts to people, especially if they give
me gifts. And this was no big deal to me. I mean,
it's nice. I enjoy it. I gave dozens of personal
gifts to people last Christmas. I give gifts to
people all the time. Friends of mine give me gifts all
the time, give me ties, give me books, give me other
things. So, it was just not a big deal. And I
told Ms. Lewinsky that, just -- I said, you know,
if they ask you for this, you'll have to give
them whatever you have. And I think, Mr. Bittman,
it must have happened before then,
because -- either that, or Ms. Lewinsky didn't want
to tell me that she had the subpoena,
because that was the language I remember her using.
Q Well, didn't she tell you, Mr. President, that
the subpoena specifically called for a hat pin
that you had produced, pardon me, that you had given
her?
A I don't remember that. I remember -- sir, I've
told you what I remember. That doesn't mean
that my memory is accurate. A lot of things have
happened in the last several months, and a lot
of things were happening then. But my memory is
she asked me a general question about gifts.
And my memory is she asked me in the hypothetical.
So, it's possible that I had a conversation
with her before she got a subpoena. Or it's possible
she didn't want to tell me that was part of
the subpoena. I don't know.
But she may have been worried about this gift business.
But it didn't bother me. My experience
was totally different. I told her, I said, look,
the way these things work is, when a person get a
subpoena, you have to give them whatever you have;
that's what's the rule, that's what the law
is.
And when I was asked about this in my deposition,
even though I was not trying to be helpful
particularly to these people that I thought were
not well-motivated, or being honest or even
lawful in their conduct via-a-via me, that is, the
Jones legal team, I did ask them specifically to
enumerate the gifts. I asked them to help me because
I couldn't remember the specifics.
So, all I'm saying is, it didn't -- I wasn't troubled by this gift issue.
Q And your testimony is that Ms. Lewinsky was concerned
about her turning over any gifts
that you had given her, and that your recommendation
to her was, absolutely, Monica, you
have to produce everything that I have given you.
Is that your teatimony?
A My testimony is what I have said, and let me I
reiterate it. I don't want to agree to a
characterization of it. I want to just say what
it was.
My testimony is that my memory is that on some day
in December, and I'm sorry I don't
remember when it was, she said, well, what if they
ask me about the gifts you have given me.
And I said, well, if you get a request to produce
those, you have to give them whatever you
have.
And it just, to me, it -- I don't -- I didn't then,
I don't now see this as a problem. And if she
thought it was a problem, I think it -- it must
have been from a, really, a misapprehension of
the circumstances. I certainly never encouraged
her not to, to comply lawfully with a
subpoena.
Q Mr. President, if your intent was, as you have
earlier testified, that you didn't want anybody
to know about this relationship you had with Ms.
Lewinsky, why would you feel comfortable
giving her gifts in the middle of discovery in the
Paula Jones case?
A Well, sir, for one thing, there was no existing
improper relationship at that time. I had, for
nearly a year, done my best to be a friend to Ms.
Lewinsky, to be a counselor to her, to give
her good advice, and to help her. She had, for her
part, most of the time, accepted the changed
circumstances. She talked to me a lot about her
life, her job ambitions, and she continued to
give me gifts. And I felt that it was a right thing
to do to give her gifts back.
I have always given a lot of people gifts. I have
always been given gifts. I do not think there is
anything improper about a man giving a woman a gift,
or a woman giving I a man a gift, that
necessarily connotes an improper relationship. So,
it didn't bother me.
I wasn't -- you know, this was December 28th. I was
-- I gave her some gifts. I wasn't worried
about it. I , thought it was an all right thing
to do.
Q What about notes and letters, cards, letters and
notes to Ms. Lewinsky? After this
relationship, this inappropriate intimate relationship
between you and Ms. Lewinsky ended, she
continued to send you numerous intimate notes and
cards, is that right?
A Well, they were -- some of them were, were somewhat
intimate. I'd say most of them, most
of the notes and cards were, were affectionate all
right, but, but she had clearly accepted the
fact that there could be no contact between us that
was in any way inappropriate.
Now, she, she sent cards sometimes that were just
funny, even a little bit off-color, but they
were funny. She liked to send me cards, and I got
a lot of those cards; several, anyway, I don't
know a lot. I got a few.
Q She professed her love to you in these cards after the end of the relationship, didn't she?
Well, -
A She said she loved you?
Sir, the truth is that most of the time, even when
she was expressing her feelings for me in
affectionate terms, I believed that she had accepted,
understood my decision to stop this
inappropriate contact. She knew from the very beginning
of our relationship that I was
apprehensive about it. And I think that in a way
she felt a little freer to be affectionate, because
she knew that nothing else was going to happen.
I can't explain entirely what was in her mind.
But most of these messages were not what you would
call over the top. They weren't things
that, if you read them, you would say, oh, my goodness,
these people are having some sort of
sexual affair.
Q Mr. President, the question - -
A But some of them were quite affectionate
Q My question was, did she or did she not profess
her love to you in those cards and letters
that she sent to you after the relationship ended?
A Most of them were signed, "Love", you know, "Love,
Monica." I don't know that I would
consider -- I don't believe that in most of these
cards and letters she professed her love, but she
might well have. I -- but, you know, love can mean
different things, too, Mr. Bittman. I have --
there are a lot of women with whom I have never
had any inappropriate conduct who are
friends of mine, who will say from time to time,
I love you. And I know that they don't mean
anything wrong by that.
Q Specifically, Mr. President, do you remember a
card she sent you after she saw the movie
'Titanic,' in which she said that she reminisced
or dreamed about the romantic feelings that
occurred in the movie, and how that reminded her
of you two? Do you remember that?
A No, sir, but she could have sent it. I -- just
because I don't remember it doesn't mean it
wasn't there.
Q You're not denying that, that -
A Oh, no. I wouldn't deny that. I just don't remember
it. You asked me if I remembered. I
don't. She might have done it.
Q Do you ever remember telling her, Mr. President,
that she should not write some of the
things that she does in those cards and letters
that she sends to you because it reveals, if
disclosed, this relationship that you had, and that
she shouldn't do it?
A I remember telling her she should be careful what
she wrote, because a lot of it was clearly
inappropriate and would be embarrassing if somebody
else read it. I don't remember when I
said that. I don't remember whether it was in '96
or when it was. I don't remember.
Q Embarrassing, in that it was revealing of the intimate
relationship that you and she had, is
that right?
A I do not know when I said this. So, I don't know
whether we did have any sort of
inappropriate relationship at the time I said that
to her. I don't remember. But it's obvious that
if she wrote things that she should not have written
down and someone else read it, that it
would be embarrassing.
Q She certainly sent you something like that after
the relationship began, didn't she? And so,
therefore, there was, at the time she sent it, something
inappropriate going on?
A Well, my recollection is that she -- that maybe
because of changed circumstances in her own
life in 1997, after there was no more inappropriate
contact, that she sent me more things in the
mail, and that there was sort of a disconnect sometimes
between what she was saying and the
plain facts of our relationship. And I don't know
what caused that. But it may have been
dissatisfaction with the rest of her life. I don't
know.
You know, she had, from the time I first met her
talked to me about the rest of her personal
life, and it may be that there was some reason for
that. It may be that when I did the right thing
and made it stick, that in a way she felt a need
to cling more closely, or try to get closer to me,
even though she knew nothing improper was happening
or was going to happen. I don't know
the answer to that.
Q After you gave her the gifts on December 28th,
did you speak with your secretary, Ms.
Currie, and ask her to pick up a box of gifts that
were some compilation of gifts that Ms.
Lewinsky would have -
A No, sir, I didn't do that.
Q -- to give to Ms. Currie?
A I did not do that.
Q When you testified in the Paula Jones case, this
was only two and a half weeks after you
had given her these six gifts, you were asked, at
page 75 in your deposition, lines 2 through 5,
"Well, have you ever given any gifts to Monica Lewinsky?"
And you answer, "I don't recall."
And you were correct. You pointed out that you --
I actually asked them, for prompting, "Do
you know what they were?"
A I think what I meant there was I don't recall what
they were, not that I don't recall whether I
had given them. And then if you see, they did give
me these specifics, and I gave them quite a
good explanation here. I remembered very clearly
what the facts were about The Black Dog.
And I said that I could have given her a hat pin
and a Walt Whitman book; that I did not
remember giving her a gold broach, which was true.
I didn't remember it. I may have given it
to her, I but I didn't remember giving her one.
They didn't ask me about the, about the Christmas
gifts, and I don't know why I didn't think to
say anything about them. But I have to tell you
again, I even invited them to have a list. It was
obvious to me by this point in the definition, in
this deposition, that they had, these people had
access to a lot of information from somewhere, and
I presume it came from Linda Tripp. And
I had no interest in not answering their questions
about these gifts. I do not believe that gifts are
incriminating, nor do I think they are wrong. I
think it was a good thing to do. I'm not, I'm still
not sorry I gave Monica Lewinsky gifts.
Q Why did you assume that that information came from Linda Tripp?
A I didn't then?
Q Well, you didn't? I thought you just testified you did then?
A No, no, no. I said I now assume that because -
Q You now assume?
A -- of all of the subsequent events. I didn't know. I just knew that --
Q Let me ask you about -
A -- that somebody had access to some information
and they may have known more about this
than I did.
Q Let me ask you about the meeting you had with Betty
Currie at the White House on
Sunday, January 18 of this year, the day after your
deposition. First of all, you didn't -Mrs.
Currie, your secretary of six-some years, you never
allowed her, did you, to watch whatever
intimate activity you did with Ms. Lewinsky, did
you?
A No, sir, not to my knowledge.
Q And as far as you know, she couldn't hear anything either, is that right?
A There were a couple of times when Monica was there
when I asked Betty to be places
where she could hear, because Monica was upset and
I -- this was after there was -- all the
inappropriate contact had been terminated.
Q No, I'm talking -
A But ---
Q -- about the times that you actually had the intimate contact.
A She was -- I believe that -- well, first of all,
on that one occasion in 1997, I do not know
whether Betty was in the White House after the radio
address in the Oval Office complex. I
believe she probably was, but I'm not sure. But
I'm certain that someone was there. I always
–always someone was there. In 1996, I think most
of the times that Ms. Lewinsky was there,
there may not have been anybody around except maybe
coming in and out, but not
permanently so. I--that's correct. I never -- I
didn't try to involve Betty in that in any way.
Q Well, not only did you not try to involve her,
you specifically tried to exclude her and
everyone else, isn't that right?
A Well, yes. I've never -- I mean, it's almost humorous,
sir. I'd, I'd, I'd have to be an
exhibitionist not to have tried to exclude everyone
else.
Q So, if Ms. Currie testified that you approached
her on the 18th, or you spoke with her and
you said, you were always there when she was there,
she wasn't was she? That is Mrs. Currie?
A She was always there in the White House, and I was concerned -- let me back up and say --
Q What about the radio address, Mr. President?
A Let me back up a second, Mr. Bittman. I knew about
the radio address. I was sick after it
was over and I, I was pleased at that time that
it had been nearly a year since any inappropriate
contact had occurred with Ms. Lewinsky. I promised
myself it wasn't going to happen again.
The facts are complicated about what did happen
and how it happened. But, nonetheless, I'm
responsible for it. On that night, she didn't.
I was more concerned about the times after that when
Ms. Lewinsky was upset, and I wanted
to establish at least that I had not -- because
these questions were -- some of them were off the
wall. Some of them were way out of line, I thought.
And what I wanted to establish was that
Betty was there at all other times in the complex,
and I wanted to know what Betty's memory
was about what she heard, what she could hear. And
what I did not know was -- I did not
know that. And I was trying to figure out, and I
was trying to figure out in a hurry because I
knew something was up.
Q So, you wanted -
A After that deposition.
Q --to check her memory for what she remembered, and that is --
A That's correct.
Q -- whether she remembered nothing, or whether she remembered an inappropriate intimate –
A Oh, no, no, no, no.
Q -- relationship?
A No. I didn't ask her about it in that way. asked
her about what the -- what I was trying to
determine was whether my recollection was right
and that she was always in the office complex
when Monica was there, and whether she thought she
could hear any conversations we had, or
did she hear any. And then I asked her specifically
about a couple of times when - -once when
I asked her to remain in the dining room, Betty,
while I met with Monica in my study. And
once when I took Monica in the, the small office
Nancy Hernreich occupies right next to
Betty's and talked to her there for a few minutes.
That's my recollection of that.
I was trying to -- I knew, Mr. Bittman, to a reasonable
certainty that I was going to be asked
more questions about this. I didn't really expect
you to be in the Jones case at the time. I
thought what would happen is that it would break
in the press, and I was trying to get the facts
down. I was trying to understand what the facts
were.
Q If Ms. Currie testified that these were not really
questions to her, that they were more like
statements, is that not true?
A Well, I can't testify as to what her perception
was. I can tell you this. I was trying to get
information in a hurry. I was downloading what I
remembered. I think Ms. Currie would also
testify that I explicitly told her, I once I realized
that you were involved in the Jones case --
you, the Office of Independent Counsel -- and that
she might have to be called as a witness,
that she should just go in there and tell the truth,
tell what she knew, and be perfectly truthful.
So, I was not trying to get Betty Currie to say something
that was untruthful. I was trying to
get as much information as quickly as I could.
Q What information were you trying to get from her
when you said, I was never alone with
her, right?
A I don't remember exactly what I did say with her. That's what you say I said
Q If Ms. Currie testified to that, if she says you told her, I was never alone with her, right?
A Well, I was never alone with her -
Q Did you not say that, Mr. President?
A Mr. Bittman, just a minute. I was never alone with
her, right, might be a question. And what
I might have meant by that is, in the Oval Office
complex. Could--
Q Well, you knew the answer to that, didn't you?
A We've been going for more than an hour. Would you
mind if we took a break? I need to go
to the restroom.
MR. BITTMAN: Let's take a break.
MR. KENDALL: It's 2:38.
(Whereupon, the proceedings were recessed from 2:38 p.m. until 2:48 p.m.)
MR. KENDALL: It is 2:38 -- sorry, 2:48.
BY MR. WISENBERG:
Q Mr. President, I want to, before I go into a new
subject area, briefly go over something you
were talking about with Mr. Bittman.
The statement of your attorney, Mr. Bennett, at the
Paula Jones deposition, "Counsel is fully
aware" -- it's page 54, line 5 – "Counsel is fully
aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed, has an
affidavit which they are in possession of saying
that there is absolutely no sex of any kind in
any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton..
That statement is made by your attorney in front of Judge Susan Webber Wright, correct?
A That's correct.
Q That statement is a completely false statement.
Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew of your
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the statement that
there was "no sex of any kind in any
manner, shape or form, with President Clinton,"
was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?
A It depends on what the meaning of the word "is"
is. If the –if he – if "is" means is and never
has been, that is not--- that is one thing. If it
means there is none, that was a completely true
statement.
But, as I have testified, and I'd like to testify
again, this is -- it is somewhat unusual for a client
to be asked about his lawyer's statements, instead
of the other way around. I was not paying a
great deal of attention to this exchange. I was
focusing on my own testimony.
And if you go back and look at the sequence of this,
you will see that the Jones lawyers
decided that this was going to be the Lewinsky deposition,
not the Jones deposition. And, given
the facts of their case, I can understand why they
made that decision. But that is not how I
prepared for it. That is not how I was thinking
about it.
And I am not sure, Mr. Wisenberg, as I sit here today,
that I sat there and followed all these
interchanges between the lawyers. I'm quite sure
that I didn't follow all the interchanges
between the lawyers all that carefully. And I don't
really believe, therefore, that I can say Mr.
Bennett's testimony or statement is testimony and
is imputable to me. I didn't -- I don't know
that I was even paying that much attention to it.
Q You told us you were very well prepared for the deposition.
A No. I said I was very well prepared to talk about
Paula Jones and to talk about Kathleen
Willey, because she had made a related charge. She
was the only person that I think I was
asked about who had anything to do with anything
that would remotely approximate sexual
harassment. The rest of this looked to me like it
was more of a way to harass me.
Q You are the President of the United States and
your attorney tells a United States District
Court Judge that there is no sex of any kind, in
any way, shape or form, whatsoever. And you
feel no obligation to do anything about that at
that deposition, Mr. President?
A I have told you, Mr. Wisenberg, I will tell you
for a third time. I am not even sure that when
Mr. Bennett made that statement that I was concentrating
on the exact words he used.
Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you
having any kind of sexual relations with
Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the
present tense, I would have said no. And it
would have been completely true.
Q Was Mr. Bennett aware of this tense-based distinction you are making now -
A I don't -
MR. KENDALL: I'm going to object to any questions
about communications with private
counsel.
MR. WISENBERG: Well, the witness has already testified,
I think, that Mr. Bennett didn't
know about the inappropriate relationship with Ms.
Lewinsky. I guess -
THE WITNESS: Well, you'll have to ask him that. you
know. He was not a sworn witness
and I was not paying that close attention to what
he was saying. I've told you that repeatedly. I
was -- I don't -- I never even focused on that until
I read it in this transcript in preparation for
this testimony.
When I was in there, I didn't think about my I lawyers.
I was, frankly, thinking about myself
and my testimony and trying to answer the questions.
BY MR. WISENBERG:
Q I just want to make sure I understand, Mr. President.
Do you mean today that because you
were not I engaging in sexual activity with Ms.
Lewinsky during the deposition that the
statement of Mr. Bennett might be literally true?
A No, sir. I mean that at the time of the deposition,
it had been -- that was well beyond any
point of improper contact between me and Ms. Lewinsky.
So that anyone generally speaking in
the present tense, saying there is not an improper
relationship, would be telling the truth if that
person said there was not, in the present tense;
the present tense encompassing many months.
That's what I meant by that.
Not that I was -- I wasn't trying to give you a cute
answer, that I was obviously not involved in
anything improper during a deposition. I was trying
to tell you that generally speaking in the
present tense, if someone said that, that would
be true. But I don't know what Mr. Bennett had
in his mind. I don't know. I didn't pay any attention
to this colloquy that went on. I was waiting
for my instructions as a witness to go forward.
I was worried about my own testimony.
Q I want to go back to some questions about Mr. Jordan
and we are going to touch a little bit
on the December 19th meeting and some others. Mr.
Jordan is a long-time friend of yours, is
that correct, Mr. President?
A Yes, sir. We've been friends probably 20 years, maybe more.
Q You said you consider him to be a truthful person, correct?
A I do.
Q If Mr. Jordan has told us that he visited you in
the Residence on the night of the 19th, after
a White House holiday dinner, to discuss Monica
Lewinsky and her subpoena with you, do
you have any reason to doubt it?
A No. I've never known him to say anything that wasn't
true. And his memory of these events,
I think, would be better than mine because I had
a lot of other things going on.
Q We have WAVE records that will show that, but in
the interest of time I'm not going to
-since you don't dispute that, I'm not going to
show them right now. And, in fact, that was the
very day Monica Lewinsky was subpoenaed, wasn't
it, the night that he came to see you?
A I don't have an independent memory of that, but
you would probably know that. I mean,
I'm sure there is a record of when she got her subpoena.
Q If Mr. Jordan has told us that he spoke with you
over the phone within about an hour of
Monica receiving her subpoena, and later visited
you that very day, the night at the White
House, to discuss it, again you'd have no reason
to doubt him, is that correct?
A I've already -- I believe I've already testified
about that here today, that I had lots of
conversations with Vernon. I'm sure that I had lots
of conversations with him that included
comments about this. And if he has a specific memory
of when 1 had some conversation on a
certain day, I would be inclined to trust his memory
over mine, because under the present
circumstances my head's probably more cluttered
than his, and my schedule is probably busier.
He's probably got better records.
Q And when Mr. Jordan met with you at the Residence
that night, sir, he asked you if you'd
been involved in a sexual relationship with Monica
Lewinsky, didn't he?
A I do not remember exactly what the nature of the
conversation was. I do remember that I
told him that there was no sexual relationship between
me and Monica Lewinsky, which was
true. And that -- then all I remember for the rest
is that he said he had referred her to a lawyer,
and I believe it was Mr. Carter, and I don't believe
I've ever met Mr. Carter. I don't think I
know him.
Q Mr. President, if Mr. Jordan has told us that he
had a very disturbing conversation with Ms.
Lewinsky that day, then went over to visit you at
the White House, and that before he asked
you the question about a sexual relationship, related
that disturbing conversation to you, the
conversation being that Ms. Lewinsky had a fixation
on you and thought that perhaps the First
Lady would leave you at the end of --that you would
leave the First Lady at the end of your
term and come be with Ms. Lewinsky, do you have
any reason to doubt him that it was on that
night that that conversation happened?
A All I can tell you, sir, is I, I certainly don't
remember him saying that. Now, he could have
said that because, as you know, a great many things
happened in the ensuing two or three
days. And I could have just forgotten it. But I
don't remember him ever saying that.
Q At any time?
A No, I don't remember him saying that. What I remember
was that he said that Monica came
to see him, that she was upset that she was going
to have to testify, that he had referred her to
a lawyer.
Q In fact, she was very distraught about the subpoena, according to Mr. Jordan, wasn't she?
A Well, he said she was upset about it. I don't remember
-- I don't remember any, at any time
when he said this, this other thing you just quoted
me. I'm sorry. I just don't remember that.
Q That is something that one would be likely to remember, don't you think, Mr. President?
A I think I would, and I'd be happy to share it with
you if I did. I only had one encounter with
Ms. Lewinsky, I seem to remember, which was somewhat
maybe reminiscent of that. But not
that, if you will, obsessive, if that's the way
you want to use that word.
Q Do you recall him at all telling you that he was
concerned about her fascination with you,
even if you don't remember the specific conversation
about you leaving the First Lady?
A I recall him saying he thought that she was upset
with -- somewhat fixated on me, that she
acknowledged that she was not having a sexual relationship
with me, and that she did not want
to be drug into the Jones lawsuit. That's what I
recall. And I recall getting, saying that he had
recommended a lawyer to her and she had gone to
see the lawyer. That's what I recall.
I don't remember the other thing you mentioned. I
just -- I might well remember it if he had
said it. Maybe he said it and I've forgotten it,
but I don't -- I can't tell you that I remember that.
Q Mr. President, you swore under oath in the Jones
l case that you didn't think anyone other
than your lawyers had ever told you that Monica
Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. Page 68,
line 22 [sic] through page 69, line 3. Here's the
testimony, sir.
Question -- we've gone over it a little bit before:
Did anyone other than your attorneys ever tell
you that Monica Lewinsky had been served with a
subpoena in this case?. Answer, I don't
think so..
Now, this deposition was taken just three and a half
weeks after, by your own testimony,
Vernon Jordan made a trip at night to the White
House to tell you, among other things, that
Monica Lewinsky had been subpoenaed and was upset
about it. Why did you give that
testimony under oath in the Jones case, sir?
A Well, Mr. Wisenberg, I think you have to - again,
you have to put this in the context of the
flow of questions, and I've already testified to
this once today. I will testify to it again.
My answer to the next question, I think, is a way
of finishing my answer to the question and
the answer you've said here. I was trying to remember
who the first person, other than Mr.
Bennett -- I don't think Mr. Bennett -- who the
first person told me that, who told me Paula
Jones had, I mean, excuse me, Monica Lewinsky had
a subpoena. And I thought that Bruce
Lindsey was the first person. And that's how I was
trying to remember that.
Keep in mind, sort of like today, these questions
are being kind of put at me rapid-fire. But,
unlike today, I hadn't had the opportunity to prepare
at this level of detail. I didn't -- I was
trying to keep a lot of things in my head that I
had remembered with regard to the Paula Jones
case and the Kathleen Willey matter, because I knew
I would be asked about them. And I gave
the best answers I could. Several of my answers
are somewhat jumbled.
But this is an honest attempt here -- if you read
both these answers, it's obvious they were both
answers to that question you quoted, to remember
the first person, who was not Mr. Bennett,
who told me. And I don't believe Vernon was the
first person who told me. I believe Bruce
Lindsey was.
Q Let me read the question, because I want to talk
I about the first person issue. The question
on line 25 of page 68 is, "Did anyone other than
your attorneys ever tell you that Monica
Lewinsky had been served with a subpoena in this
case?" Answer, "I don~t think so."
You would agree with me, sir, that the question doesn't
say, the question doesn't say anything
about who was the first person. It just says, did
anyone tell you. Isn't that correct?
A That's right. And I said Bruce Lindsey, because
I was trying to struggle with who -- where I
had heard this. And they were free to ask a follow-up
question, and they didn't.
Q Mr. President, three and a half weeks before, Mr.
Jordan had made a special trip to the
White House to tell you Ms. Lewinsky had been subpoenaed;
she was distraught; she had a
fixation over you. And you couldn't remember that,
three and a half weeks later?
A Mr. Wisenberg, if -- they had access to all this
information from their conversations with
Linda Trip, if that was the basis of it. They were
free to ask me more questions. They may
have been trying to trick me.
Now, they knew more about the details of my relationship
with Monica Lewinsky. I'm not sure
everything they knew was true, because I don't know.
I've not heard these tapes or anything.
But they knew a lot more than I did. And instead
of trying to trick me, what they should have
done is to ask me specific questions, and I invited
them on more than one occasion to ask
follow-up questions.
This is the third or fourth time that you seem to
be complaining that I did not do all their work
for them. That just setting here answering answering
questions to the beat of my memory, with
limited preparation, was not enough. That I should
have actually been doing all their work for
them.
Now, they~d been up all night with Linda Trip, who
had betrayed her friend, Monica
Lewinsky, autoed her in the back and given them
all this information. They could have helped
more. If they wanted to ask me follow-up questions,
they could. They didn't. I'm sorry. I did
the beat I could.
Q Can you tell the grand jury what ia tricky about
the question, ~Did anyone other than your
attorneys ever tell you. -
A No, there'squestion nothing -- I'm just telling
-- I have explained. I will now explain for the
third time, sir. I was being asked a number of question
here. I was struggling to remember
then. There were lot of things that had gone on
during this time period that had nothing to do
with Monica Lewinsky.
You know, I believed then, I believe now that Monica
Lewinsky could have sworn out an
honest affidavit, that under reasonable circumstances,
and without the benefit of what Linda
Tripp did to her, would have given her a chance
not to be a witness in this case.
So, I didn't have perfect memory of all these events
that have now, in the last seven months,
once Ms. Lewinsky was kept for several hours by
four or five of your lawyers and four or five
FBI agents, as if she were a serious felon, these
things have become the most important
matters in the world. At the moment they were occurring,
many other things were going on.
I honestly tried to remember when -- you know, if
somebody asked you, has anybody ever
talked to you about this, you normally think, well,
where was the first time I heard that. That's
all I was trying to do here. I was not trying to
say not Vernon Jordan, but Bruce Lindsey.
everybody knows Vernon Jordan is a friend of mine.
I probably would have talked to Vernon
Jordan about the Monica Lewinsky problem if he had
never been involved in it. But, I was not
trying to mislead them. I was trying to answer this
l question with the first person who told me
that.
Now, I realize that wasn't the specific question.
They were free to ask follow-ups, just like
you're asking follow-ups today. And I can't explain
why I didn't answer every question in the
way you seem to think I should have, and I certainly
can't explain why they didn't ask what
seemed to me to be logical follow-ups, especially
since they spent all that time with Linda Tripp
the night before.
Q You've told us that you understand your obligation
then, as it is now, is to tell the whole
truth, sir. Do you recall that?
A I took the oath here.
Q If Vernon Jordan -
A You even read me a definition of the oath.
Q If Vernon Jordan has told us that you have an extraordinary
memory, one of the greatest
memories he's ever seen in a politician, would that
be something you would care to dispute?
A No, I do have a good memory. At least, I have had a good memory in my life.
Q Do you understand that if you answered, "I don't
think so", to the question, has anyone
other than your attorneys told you that Monica Lewinsky
has been served with a subpoena in
this case, that if you answered, "I don't think
so", but you really knew Vernon Jordan had been
telling you all about it, you understand that that
would be a false statement, presumably
perjurious?
A Mr. Wisenberg, I have testified about this three
times. Now, I will do it the fourth time. I am
not going to answer your trick questions.
I -- people don't always hear the same questions
in the same way. They don't always answer
them in the same way. I was so concerned about the
question they asked me that the next
question I was asked, I went back to the previous
question, trying to give an honest answer
about the first time I heard about the Lewinsky
subpoena.
I -- look. I could have had no reasonable expectation
that anyone would ever know that, that
-or not, excuse me, not know if this thing -- that
I would talk to Vernon Jordan about nearly
everything. I was not interested in -- if the implication
of your question is that somehow I didn't
want anybody to know I had ever talked to Vernon
Jordan about this, that's just not so.
It's also -- if I could say one thing about my memory.
I have been blessed and advantaged in
my life with a good memory. Now, I have been shocked,
and so have members of my family
and friends of mine, at how many things that I have
forgotten in the last six years, I think
because of the pressure and the pace and the volume
of events in the President's life,
compounded by the pressure of your four year inquiry,
and all the other things that have
happened, I'm amazed there are lots of times when
I literally can't remember last week.
If you ask me, did you talk to Vernon -when was the
last time you talked to Vernon Jordan,
what time of day was it, when did you see him, what
did you ask, my answer was the last --
you know, if you answered [sic] me, when was the
last time you saw a friend of yours in
California, if you asked me a lot of questions like
that, my memory is not what it was when I
came here, because my life is so crowded.
And now that -- as I said, you have made this the
most important issue in America. I mean,
you have made it the most important issue in America
from your point of view. At the time this
was occurring, even though I was concerned about
it, and I hoped she didn't have to testify,
and I hoped this wouldn't come out, I felt -- I
will say again -- that she could honestly fill out
an affidavit that, under reasonable circumstances,
would relieve her of the burden of testifying.
I am not trying to exclude the fact that I talked
to Vernon here. I just -- all I can tell you is I
believe this answer reflects I was trying to remember
the first person who told me who was not
Mr. Bennett, and I believe it was Bruce Lindsey.
Q As you yourself recalled, just recalled, Mr. President,
Vernon Jordan not only discussed the
subpoena with you that night, but discussed Prank
Carter, the lawyer he had often for Ms.
Lewinsky. And also Mr. Jordan discussed with you
over the next few weeks, after the 19th of
December, in addition to the job aspects of Ms.
Lewinsky's job, he discussed with you her
affidavit that she was preparing in the case. Is
that correct, sir?
A I believe that he did notify us, I think, when
she signed her affidavit. I have a memory of
that. Or it seems like he said that she had signed
her affidavit.
Q If he's told us that he notified you around January
7th, when she signed her affidavit, and
that you generally understood that it would deny
a sexual relationship, do you have any reason
to doubt that?
A No.
Q So, that's the affidavit, the lawyer, and the subpoena.
And yet when you were asked, sir, at
the Jones deposition about Vernon Jordan, and specifically
about whether or not he had
discussed the lawsuit with you, you didn't reveal
that to the Court. I want to refer you to page
72, line 16.
It's -- It's going to go down, it might go down Line
16. Question, Has it ever been reported to
you that he. -- and that's referring to Mr. Jordan.
At line l 12 you were asked, "You know a
man named Vernon Jordan?, and you answer, "I know
him well."
Going down to 16, "Has it ever been reported to you
that he met with Monica Lewinsky and
talked about this case?"
This is your answer, or a portion of it: "I knew
that he met with her. I think Betty suggested
that he meet with her. Anyway, he met with her.
I, I thought that he talked to her about
something else".
Why didn't you tell the Court, when you were under
oath and sworn to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, that you had been
talking with Vernon Jordan about the case,
about the affidavit, the lawyer, the subpoena
A Well, that's not the question I was asked. I was
not asked any question about -- I was asked,
"Has it ever been reported to you that he met with
Monica Lewinsky and talked about this
case." I believe -- I may be wrong about this --
my impression was that at the time, I was
focused on the meetings. I believe the meetings
he had were meetings about her moving to
New York and getting a job.
I knew at some point that she had told him that she
needed some help, because she had gotten
a subpoena. I'm not sure I know whether she did
that in a meeting or a phone call. And I was
not, I was not focused on that. I know that, I know
Vernon helped her to get a lawyer, Mr.
Carter. And I, I believe that he did it after she
had called him, but I'm not sure. But I knew that
the main source of their meetings was about her
move to New York and her getting a job.
Q Are you saying, sir, that you forgot when you were
asked this question that Vernon Jordan
had come on December 19th, just three and a half
weeks before, and said that he had met that
day, the day that Monica got the subpoena?
A It's quite possible -- it's a sort of a jumbled
answer. It's quite possible that I had gotten mixed
up between whether she had met with him or talked
to him on the telephone in those three and
a half weeks.
Again, I say, sir, just from the tone of your voice
and the way you are asking questions here,
it's obvious that this is the most important thing
in the world, and that everybody was focused
on all the details at the time. That's not the way
it worked. I was, I was doing my best to
remember.
Now, keep in mind, I don't know if this is true,
I but the news reports are that Linda Tripp
talked to you, then went and talked to the Jones
lawyers, and, you know, that she prepared
them for this. Now, maybe -- you seem to be criticizing
me because they didn't ask better
questions and, as if you didn't prepare them well
enough to sort of set me up or something. I
don't know what's going on here.
All I can tell you is I didn't remember all the details
of all this. I didn't remember what -when
Vernon talked to me about Monica Lewinsky, whether
she talked to him on the telephone or
had a meeting. I didn't remember all those details.
I was focused on the fact that Monica went
to meet with Vernon after Betty helped him set it
up, and had subsequent meetings to talk
about her move to New York.
Now, keep in mind at this time, at this time, until
this date here when it's obvious that
something funny~s going on here and there's some
sort of a gotcha game at work in this
deposition, until this date, I didn't know that
Ms. Lewinsky's deposition [sic] wasn't going to be
sufficient for her to avoid testifying. I didn't,
you know -
MR. KENDALL: Excuse me, Mr. President, I think -
THE WITNESS: So, all these details -
MR. KENDALL: -- you mean her affidavit.
BY MR. WISENBERG:
Q You mean her affidavit
A Excuse me. I'm sorry. Her affidavit. Thank you.
So, I don't necessarily remember all the details
of all these questions you're asking me, because
there was a lot of other things going on, and at
the time they were going on, until all this came
out, this was not the most important thing in my
life. This was just another thing in my life.
Q But Vernon Jordan met with you, sir, and he reported
that he had met with Monica
Lewinsky, and the discussion was about the lawsuit,
and you didn't inform, under oath, the
Court of that in your deposition?
A I gave the best answer I could, based on the best
memory I had at the time they asked me
the question. That's the only answer I can give
you, sir.
Q And before -
A And I think I may have been confused in my memory,
because I've also talked to him on the
phone about what he said about whether he talked
to her or met with her. That's all I can tell
you.
But, let me say again, I don't have the same view
about this deposition -- I mean, this affidavit
-- that I think you do. I felt very strongly that
Ms. Lewinsky and everybody else that didn't
know anything about Paula Jones and anything about
sexual harassment, that she and others
were themselves being harassed for political purposes,
in the hope of getting damaging
information that the Jones lawyers could unlawfully
leak.
Now, I believed then, I believe today, that she could
execute an affidavit which, under
reasonable circumstances with fair-minded, non politically-oriented
people, would result in her
being relieved of the burden to be put through the
kind of testimony that, thanks to Linda
Tripp's work with you and with the Jones lawyers,
she would and I have been put through. I
don't think that's dishonest. I don't think that's
illegal. I think what they were trying to do to her
and all these other people, who knew nothing about
sexual harassment, was outrageous, just so
they could hurt me politically.
So, I just don't have the same attitude about it that you do.
Q Well, you're not telling our grand jurors that
because you think the case was a political case
or a setup, Mr. President, that that would give
you the right to commit perjury or
A No, sir.
Q -- not to tell the full truth?
A In the face of their, the Jones lawyers the people
that were questioning me, in the face of
their illegal leaks, their constant, unrelenting
illegal leaks in a lawsuit that I knew and, by the
time this deposition and this discovery started,
they knew was a bogus suit on the law and a
bogus suit on the facts.
Q The question is -
A In the face of that, I knew that in the face of
their illegal activity, I still had to behave
lawfully. I wanted to be legal without being particularly
helpful. I thought that was, that was
what I was trying to do. And this is the first --
you are the first person who ever suggested to
me that, that I should have been doing their lawyers'
work for them, when they were perfectly
free to ask follow-up questions. On one or two occasions,
Mr. Bennett invited them to ask
follow-up questions.
It now appears to me they didn't because they were
afraid I would give them a truthful answer,
and that there had been some communication between
you and Ms. Tripp and them, and they
were trying to set me up and trick me. And now you
seem to be complaining that they didn't
do a good enough job.
I did my best, sir, at this time. I did not know
what I now know about this. A lot of other
things were going on in my life. Did I want this
to come out? No. Was I embarrassed about it?
Yes. Did I ask her to lie about it? No. Did I believe
there could be a truthful affidavit?
Absolutely.
Now, that's all I know to say about this. I will continue to answer your questions as best I can.
Q You're not going back on your earlier statement
that you understood you were sworn to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth to the folks at that deposition, are you, Mr.
President?
A No, sir, but I think we might as well put this
out on the table. You tried to get me to give a
broader interpretation to my oath than just my obligation
to tell the truth. In other words, you
tried to say, even though these people are treating
you in an illegal manner in illegally leaking
these depositions, you should be a good lawyer for
them. And if they don't have enough sense
to write -- to ask a question, and even if Mr. Bennett
invited them to ask follow-up questions,
if they didn't do it, you should have done all their
work for them.
Now, I will admit this, sir. My goal in this deposition
was to be truthful, but not particularly
helpful. I did not wish to do the work of the Jones
lawyers. I deplored what they were doing. I
deplored the innocent people they were tormenting
and traumatizing. I deplored their illegal
leaking. I deplored the fact that they knew, once
they knew our evidence, that this was a bogus
lawsuit, and that because of the funding they had
from my political enemies, they were putting
ahead. I deplored it. But I was determined to walk
through the mine field of this deposition
without violating the law, and I believe I did.
Q You are not saying, are you, Mr. President, in
terms of doing the work for the Jones folks,
the Jones lawyers, that you could, you could say,
as part of your not helping them, "I don't
know" to a particular question, when you really
knew, and that it was up to them -- even if you
really knew the answer, it was up to them to do
the followup, that you kind of had a one free
"I don't know".
A No, sir.
Q If I could finish up? I've been very patient, Mr. President, in letting you finish.
You didn't think you had a free shot to say, "I don't
know", or "I don't recall", but when you
really did know and you did recall, and it was just
up to them, even if you weren't telling the
truth, to do a follow-up and to catch you?
A No, sir, I'm not saying that. And if I could give
you one example? That's why I felt that I
had to come back to that question where I said,
I don~t know that, and talk about Bruce
Lindsey, because I was trying, I was honestly trying
to remember how I had first heard this. I
wasn't hung up about talking about this.
All I'm saying is, the -- let me say something sympathetic
to you. I've been pretty tough. So, let
me say something sympathetic. All of you are intelligent
people. You've worked hard on this.
You've worked for a long time. You've gotten all
the facts. You've seen a lot of evidence that I
haven't seen. And it's, it's an embarrassing and
personally painful thing, the truth about my
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
So, the natural assumption is that while all this
was going on, I must have been focused on
nothing but this; therefore, I must remember everything
about it in the sequence and form in
which it occurred. All I can tell you is, I was
concerned about it. I was glad she saw a lawyer. I
was glad she was doing an affidavit. But there were
a lot of other things going on, and I don't
necessarily remember all. And I don't know if I
can convince you of that.
But I tried to be honest with you about my mindset,
about this deposition. And I'm just trying
to explain that I don't have the memory that you
assume that I should about some of these
things.
Q I want to talk to you for a bit, Mr. President,
about the incident that happened at the
Northwest Gate of the White House on December 5th
-- sorry, December 6th, 1997. If you
would give me just a moment?
That was a -- let me ask you first. In early nineteen
-- in early December 1997, the Paula Jones
case was pending, correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q You were represented by Mr. Bennett, of course?
A That's correct.
Q In that litigation?
A Yes, I did.
Q How -
A He was.
Q I'm sorry. Go ahead.
A No, no. Yes, he was representing me.
Q How often did you talk to him or meet with him,
if you can just recall, at that time in the
litigation?
A Well, we met, I would say -- I wish Mr. Ruff were
answering this question, instead of me.
His memory would be better. We met probably, oh,
for a long time we didn't meet all that
often, maybe once a month. And then the closer we
got to the deposition, we would meet more
frequently. So, maybe by this time we were meeting
more.
We also -- there was a period when we had been approached about -
MR. KENDALL: Again, the question only goes to the
number of meetings and not the content
of any conversations with your lawyer.
THE WITNESS: I understand. We're not talking about the content.
There was a, there was a period in which we, I think
back in the summer before this, when we
had met more frequently. But I would say normally
once a month. Sometimes something
would be happening and we'd meet more. And then,
as we moved toward the deposition, we
would begin to meet more.
BY MR. WISENBERG:
Q A witness list came out on December 5th of 1997,
with Monica Lewinsky's name on it. Mr.
President, when did you find out that Monica's name
was on that witness list?
A I believe that I found out late in the afternoon
on the 6th. That's what I believe. I've tried to
remember with great precision, and because I thought
you would ask me about this day, I've
tried to remember the logical question, which is
whether, whether I knew it on the 6th and, if
so, at what time.
I don't -- I had a meeting in the late afternoon
on the 5th, on the 6th -- excuse me, on the 6th --
and I believe that's when I learned about it.
Q Now, on the morning of the 6th, Monica Lewinsky
came to the Northwest Gate and found
out that you were being visited by Eleanor Mondale
at the time, and had an extremely angry
reaction. You know that, sir, now, don't you?
A I have, I have -- I know that Monica Lewinsky came
to the gate on the 6th and apparently
directly called in and wanted to see me and couldn't,
and was angry about it. I know that.
Q And she expressed that anger to Betty Currie over the telephone, isn't that correct, sir?
A That, Betty told me that.
Q And she then later expressed her anger to you in
one of her telephone conversations with
Betty Currie, is that correct?
A You mean did I talk to her on the phone?
Q Monica Lewinsky, that day, before she came in to visit in the White House?
A Mr. Wisenberg, I remember that she came in to visit
that day. I remember that she was
upset. I don't recall whether I talked to her on
the phone before she came in t visit, but I well
may have. I'm not denying it that I did. I just
don't recall that.
Q And Mrs. Currie and yourself were very irate that
Ms. Lewinsky had overheard that you
were in the Oval Office with a visitor on that day,
isn't that correct, that you and Mrs. Currie
were very irate about that?
A Well, I don't remember all that. What I remember
is that she was very -- Monica was very
upset. She got upset from time to time. And, and
I was, you know, I couldn't see her. I had, I
was doing, as I remember, I had some other work
to do that morning and she had just sort of
showed up and wanted to be let in, and wanted to
come in at a certain time and she wanted
everything to be that way, and we couldn't see her.
Now, I did arrange to see her later that
day. And I was upset about her conduct.
I'm not sure that I knew or focused on at that moment
exactly the question you asked. I
remember I was, I thought her conduct was inappropriate
that day.
Q I want to go back and I want to take them one at
a time. Number one, did you find out at
some point during that day that Monica had overheard
from somebody in the Secret Service
that you were meeting with Ms. Mondale, and that
Monica got very irate about that?
A I knew that at some point. I don't know whether
I found out that, that day. I knew that day,
I knew that somehow she knew that among, that, that
Eleanor Mondale was in to see us that
day. I knew that. I don't know that I knew how she
knew that on that day. I don't remember
that.
Q That leads into my second question, which is, weren't
you irate at the Secret Service
precisely because they had revealed this information
to Ms. Lewinsky on that very day, so irate
that you told several people, or at least one person,
that somebody should be fired over this, on
that very day?
A I don't remember whether it happened on that very
day. But, let me tell you that the
Uniformed Secret Service, I if that ia in fact what
happened and I will stipulate that that is, that
no one should be telling anybody, not anybody, not
a member of my staff, who the President
ia meeting with. That's an inappropriate thing to
do.
So, I would think that if that, in fact, ia what
I heard when I heard it, I would have thought.that
was a bad thing. I don't know that I said that.
I don~t, I don't remember what I said, and I
don't remember to whom I said it.
Q It would be an inappropriate thing, sir, and that
leads into my next question ia that why did
Mrs. Currie, on your instructions, later that day
tell many of the Secret Service Officers
involved that it never happened, to forget about
it?
A That what never happened?
Q The incident that you were so irate about earlier;
the incident of somebody disclosing to Ms.
Lewinsky that Ms. Mondale was in the Oval Office?
A I don't know the answer to that. I think maybe,
you know, I don't know. I don't know the
answer.
Q You don't recall that you later gave orders to
the effect that we are going to pretend this
never happened, or something --
A No, sir.
Q -- like that?
A No, sir. I don't recall it. First of all, I don't
recall that I gave orders to fire anybody, if that
was the implication of your first statement.
Q It wasn't an implication. Actually, the question
was that you initially wanted somebody fired.
You were so mad that you wanted somebody fired.
A I don't remember that, first of all. I remember
l thinking it was an inappropriate thing to do.
And I, I, I remember, as I usually do when I'm mad,
after awhile I wasn't so mad about it, and
I'm quite aware that Ms. Lewinsky has a way of getting
information out of people when she's
either charming or determined. And it -- I could
have just said, well, I,m not so mad about it
any more.
But I don't remember the whole sequence of events
you'rere talking to me about now, except I
do remember that somehow Monica found out Eleanor
Mondale was there. I learned either
that day or later that one of the Uniformed Division
personnel had told her. I do -- I thought
then it was a mistake. I think now it was a mistake.
I'm not sure it~s a mistake someone should
be terminated over. I think that, you know, you
could just tell them not to do that any more.
Q In fact, it would kind of be an overreaction, to
get irate or terminate somebody for revealing
to a former White House staffer who visits where
the President is, don't you think, sir?
A Well, it would depend upon the facts. I think on
the whole people in the Uniformed Secret
Service who are working on the gate have no business
telling anybody anything about the
President '~ schedule, just as a general principal.
I didn't mind anybody knowing that she was
there, if that's what you're saying. I could care
less about that. But I think that the schedule
itself -- these uniformed people, you know, somebody
shouldn't just be able to come up on the
street and, because they know who the Secret Service
agent is, he says who the President's
with. I don't think that's proper.
Q I agree, Mr. President.
A But, on the other hand, I didn't, you know, I,
I wanted to know what happened. I think we
found out what happened. And then they were, I think,'told
not to let it happen again, and I
think that's the way it should have been handled.
I think it was handled in the appropriate way.
Q You have no knowledge of the fact that Secret Service
officers were told later in the day
something to the effect of, this never happened,
this event never happened? You have no
knowledge of that?
A I'm not sure anybody ever told that to me. I mean,
I thought you were asking -- let me just
say, my interpretation of this, of your previous
question was different than what you're asking
now.
What I remember was being upset that this matter
would be discussed that -- by anybody. It's
incidental it happened to be Monica Lewinsky. And
that, that whatever I said, I don't recall.
But then thinking that the appropriate thing to
do was to say, look, just this, this is not an
appropriate thing for you to be talking about, the
President's schedule, and it shouldn't happen
again.
Now, the question you seem to be asking me now --
I just want to be sure I'm getting the right
question -- is whether I gave instructions, in effect,
to pretend that Monica Lewinsky was
never at the gate. And if --
Q To the effect of pretend --
A And if that is the question you are asking me,
I don't believe I ever did that, sir. I certainly
have no memory of doing that.
Q Or anything to that effect?
A I don't know what that means.
Q Is that your testimony?
A What does that mean, anything to that effect?
Q Well, Mr. President, you've told us that you were
not going to try to help the Jones
attorneys, and I think it's clear from your testimony
that you were pretty literal at times. So,
that's why I'm saying, I don't neceeearily know
the exact words. The question was, do you
have any knowledge of the fact --
A Of that?
Q -- of the fact that later in the day, on Saturday,
the 6th of December, 1997, Secret Service
people were then, were told something to this effect:
This event never happened, let's just
pretend This event did not happen. Do you have knowledge
of it, or not?
A No, sir. And I, I didn't instruct the Secret Service
in that regard. I have no memory of saying
anything to anybody in the Secret Service that would
have triggered that kind of instruction.
Q Did you tell Captain Purdy, while you were standing
in the doorway between the Oval
Office and Betty Currie's office, did you tell Captain
Purdy of the Uniformed Division, I hope I
can count on your discretion in this matter? At
the end of the day when you all were talking
about that earlier incident, did you tell him that
or anything like that, sir?
A I don't remember anything I said to him in that
regard. I have no recollection of that
whatever.
MR. WISENBERG: Let's take a break now.
MR. KENDALL: Thank you, 3:38.
(Whereupon, the proceedings were recessed from 3:38 p.m. l until 4:01 p.m.)
MR. KENDALL: It is 4:01.
BY MR. WISENBERG:
Mr. President, the next series of questions are from
the grand jurors. And let me tell you that
the grand jurors want you to be more specific about
the inappropriate conduct.
The first question was, one of the grand jurors has
said that you referred to what you did with
Ms. Lewinsky as inappropriate contact; what do you
mean by that?
A I mean just what I said. But I would like to ask
the grand jury, because I think I have been
quite specific and I think I've been willing to
answer some specific questions that I haven't been
asked yet, but I do not want to discuss something
that is intensely painful to me. This has been
tough enough already on me and on my family, although
I take responsibility for it. I have no
one to blame but myself.
What I meant was, and what they can infer that I
meant was, that I did things that were --
when I was alone with her, that were inappropriate
and wrong. But that they did not include
any activity that was within the definition of sexual
relations that I was given by Judge Wright
in the deposition. I said that I did not do those
things that were in that, within that definition,
and I testified truthfully to that. And that's all
I can say about it.
Now, you know, if there's any doubt on the part of
the grand jurors about whether I believe
some kind of activity falls within that definition
or outside that definition, I'd be happy to try to
answer that.
Q Well, I have a question regarding your definition
then. And my question is, is oral sex
performed on you within that definition as you understood
it, the definition in the Jones
A As I understood it, it was not, no.
Q The grand jurors would like to know upon what basis,
what legal basis you are declining to
answer more specific questions about this? I've
mentioned to you that obviously you have
privileges, privileges against self-incrimination.
There's no general right not to answer questions.
And so one of the questions from the grand jurors
is what basis, what legal basis are you
declining to answer these questions?
A I'm not trying to evade my legal obligations or
my willingness to help the grand jury achieve
their legal obligations. As I understand it, you
want to examine whether you believe I told the
truth in my deposition, whether I asked Ms. Lewinsky
not to tell the truth, and whether I did
anything else with evidence, or in any other way,
amounting to an obstruction of justice or a
subornation of perjury. And I'm prepared to answer
all questions that the grand jury needs to
draw that conclusion.
Now, respectfully, I believe the grand jurors can
ask me if I believe -- just like that grand juror
did - could ask me, do you believe that this conduct
falls within that definition. If it does, then
you are free to conclude , that my testimony is
that I didn't do that. And I believe that you can
achieve that without requiring me to say and do
things that I don't think are necessary and that
I think, frankly, go too far in trying to criminalize
my private life.
Q If a person touched another person, if you touched
another person on the breast, would that
be, in your view, and was it within your view, when
you took the deposition, within the
definition of sexual relations?
A If the person being deposed -
Q Yes.
A -- in this case, me, directly touched the breast
of another person, with the purpose to arouse
or gratify, under that definition that would be
included.
Q Only directly, sir, or would it be directly or through clothing?
A Well, I would -- I think the common sense definition
would be directly. That's how I would
infer what it means.
Q If the person being deposed kissed the breast of
another person, would that be in the
definition of sexual relations as you understood
it when you were under oath in the Jones case?
A Yes, that would constitute contact. I think that
would. If it were direct contact, I believe it
would. I -- maybe I should read it again, just to
make sure.
Because this basically says if there was any direct
contact with an intent to arouse or gratify, if
that was the intent of the contact, then that would
fall within the definition. That's correct.
Q So, touching, in your view then and now -- the
person being deposed touching or kissing the
breast of another person would fall within the definition?
A That's correct, sir.
Q And you testified that you didn't have sexual relations
with Monica Lewinsky in the Jones
deposition, under that definition, correct?
A That's correct, sir.
Q If the person being deposed touched the genitalia
of another person, would that be -- and
with the intent to arouse the sexual desire, arouse
or gratify, as defined in definition (1), would
that be, under your understanding then and now -
A Yes. sir.
Q -- sexual relations7
A Yes, sir.
Q Yes, it would?
A Yes, it would. If you had a direct contact with
any of these places in the body, if you had
direct contact with intent to arouse or gratify,
that would fall within the definition.
Q So, you didn't do any of those three things -
A You -
Q -- with Monica Lewinsky7
A You are free to infer that my testimony is that
I did not have sexual relations, as I
understood this term to be defined.
Q Including touching her breast, kissing her breast, or touching her genitalia?
A That's correct.
Q Would you agree with me that the insertion of an
object into the genitalia of another person
with the desire to gratify sexually would fit within
the definition used in the Jones case as sexual
relations?
A There's nothing here about that, is there? I don't
know that I ever thought about that one
way or the other.
Q The question is, under the definition as you understood
it then, under the definition as you
understand it now -- pardon me just a minute.
Pardon me, Mr. President.
(Pause)
Deposition Exhibit 1, question 1, under the -- in the Jones case, Definition of Sexual Relations -
MR. KENDALL: Do you have that before you, Mr. President? Excuse me.
THE WITNESS: I do, sir.
MR. KENDALL: Good.
THE WITNESS: I've got it right here. I'm looking at it.
BY MR. WISENBERG:
Q As you understood the definition then, and as you
understood it now, would it include
sticking an object into the genitalia of another
person in order to arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person? Would it constitute, in other
words, contact with the genitalia?
A I don't know the answer to that. I suppose you
could argue that since section 2, paragraph
(2) was eliminated, and paragraph (2) actually dealt
with the object issue, that perhaps whoever
wrote this didn't intend for paragraph (1) to cover
an object, and basically meant direct contact.
So, if I were asked -- I've not been asked this question
before. But I guess that's the way I
would read it.
Q If it -- that it would not be covered? That activity would not be covered?
A That's right. If the activity you just mentioned
would be covered in number (2), and number
(2) were stricken, I think you can infer logically
that paragraph (l) was not intended to cover it.
But, as I said, I've not been asked this before.
I'm just doing the best I can.
Q Well, if someone were to hold or a judge were to
hold that you are incorrect and that
definition (1) does include the hypo I've given
to you -- because we're talking in hypos, so that
you don't -- under your request here, if someone
were to tell you or rule that you are wrong,
that the insertion of an object into somebody else's
genitalia with the intent to arouse or gratify
the sexual desire of any person is within definition
(1)
MR. KENDALL: Mr. Wisenberg, excuse me. I have not
objected heretofore to any question
you've asked. I must tell you, I cannot understand
that question. I think it's improper. And, if
the witness can understand it, he may answer.
98
MR. WISENBERG: I'll be happy to rephrase it.
BY MR. WISENBERG:
Q If you're wrong and it's within definition (1),
did you engage in sexual relations under the
definition, with Monica Lewinsky?
A But, Mr. Wisenberg, I have said all along that
I would say what I thought it meant, and you
can infer that I didn't. This is an unusual question,
but it's a slippery slope. We can -- I have
tried to deal with some very delicate areas here,
and, and in one case I've given you a very
forthright answer about what I thought was not within
here.
All I can tell you is, whatever I thought was covered,
and I thought about this carefully. And let
me just point out, this was uncomfortable for me.
I had to acknowledge, because of this
definition, that under this definition I had actually
had sexual relations once with Gennifer
Flowers, a person who had spread all kinds of ridiculous,
dishonest, exaggerated stories about
me for money. And I knew when I did that, it would
be leaked. It was. And I was
embarrassed. But I did it.
So, I tried to read this carefully. I can tell you
what I thought it covered, and I can tell you that
I do not believe I did anything that I thought was
covered by this.
Q As I understand your testimony, Mr. President,
touching somebody's breast with the intent
to arouse, with the intent to arouse or gratify
the sexual desire of any person is covered; kissing
the breast is covered; touching the genitalia is
covered; correct?
MR. KENDALL: In fairness, the witness said directly in each one of those cases.
BY MR. WISENBERG:
Q Directly, is covered, correct?
A I believe it is, yes, sir.
Q Ora1 sex, in your view, is not covered, correct?
A If performed on the deponent.
Q Is not covered, correct?
A That's my reading of this number (1).
Q And you are declining to answer the hypothetical about insertion of an object.
I need to inform you, Mr. President -- we'll go on
at least for now. But I need to inform you
that the grand jury will consider your not answering
the questions more directly in their
determination of whether or not they are going to
issue another subpoena.
Let me switch the topic and talk to you about John
Podesta and some of the other aides you've
met with and spoke to after this story became public
on January 21st, 1998, the day of The
Washington Post story.
Do you recall meeting with him around January 23rd,
1998, a Friday a.m. in your study, two
days after The Washington Post story, and extremely
explicitly telling him that you didn't have,
engage in any kind of sex, in any way, shape or
form, with Monica Lewinsky, including oral
sex?
A I meet with John Podesta almost every day. I meet
with a number of people. The only thing
I -what happened in the couple of days after what
you did was revealed, is a blizzard to me.
The only thing I recall is that I met with certain
people, and a few of them I said I didn't have
sex with Monica Lewinsky, or I didn't have an affair
with her or something like that. I had a
very careful thing I said, and I tried not to say
anything else.
And it might be that John Podesta was one of them.
But I do not remember this specific
meeting about which you asked, or the specific comments
to which you refer. And -
Q You don't remember
A -- seven months ago, I'd have no way to remember, no.
Q You don't remember denying any kind of sex in any
way, shape or form, and including oral
sex, correct?
A I remember that I issued a number of denials to
people that I thought needed to hear them,
but I tried to be careful and to be accurate, and
I do not remember what I said to John
Podesta.
Q Surely, if you told him that, that would be a falsehood, correct7
A No, I didn't say that, sir. I didn't say that at
all. That is not covered by the definition and I
did not address it in my statement.
Q Well, let me ask you then. If you told him - perhaps
he thought it was covered, I don't
know. But if you told him, if you denied to him
sex in any way, shape or form, kind of similar
to what Mr. Bennett did at the deposition, including
oral sex, wouldn't that have been a
falsehood?
A Now, Mr. Wisenberg, I told you in response to a
grand juror's question, you asked me did I
believe that oral sex performed on the peraon being
deposed was covered by that definition,
and I said no. I don't believe it's covered by the
definition.
I said you are free to conclude that I did not do
things that I believe were covered by the
definition, and you have asked me a number of questions
and I have acknowledged things that
I believe are covered by the definition. Since that
was not covered by the definition, I want to
fall back on my statement.
Look, I'm not trying to be evasive here. I'm trying
to protect my privacy, my family's privacy,
and I'm trying to stick to what the deposition was
about. If the deposition wasn't about this and
didn't cover it, then I don't believe that I should
be required to go beyond my statement.
Q Mr. President, it's not our intent to embarrass
you. But since we have to look, among other
things, at obstruction of justice, questions of
obstruction of justice and perjury, the answer to
some of these delicate and unfortunate questions
are absolutely required. And that is the
purpose that we have to ask them for.
A It's not -
Q I'm unaware of any -
A Mr. Wisenberg, with respect, you don't need to
know the answer for that, if the answer, no
matter what the answer is, wouldn't constitute perjury
because it wasn't sexual relations as
defined by the Judge.
Q Mister -
A The only reason you need to know that is for some
other reason. It couldn't have anything
to do with perjury.
Q Mr. President, one of the, one of the nice things
about -- one of the normal things about an
investigation and a grand jury investigation is
that the grand jurors and the prosecutors get to
ask the questions unless they are improper, and
unless there is a legal basis.
As I understand from your answers, there is no legal
basis for which you decline to answer
these questions. And I'll ask you again to answer
the question. I'm unaware of any legal basis
for you not to. If you told -
MR. KENDALL: Mr. Wisenberg, could you just restate the question, please?
BY MR. WISENBERG:
Q The question is, if you told John Podesta two days
after the story broke something to this
effect, that you didn't have any kind of sex in
any way, shape or form, including oral sex with
Ms. Lewinsky, were you telling him the truth?
A And let me say again, with respect, this is an
indirect way to try to get me to testify to
questions that have no bearing on whether I committed
perjury. You apparently agree that it
has no bearing--
Q Oh, I don't -
A -- no bearing on whether I -
Q I don't agree.
A -- committed perjury.
Q Mr. President, I'm sorry, with respect, I don't
agree with that. I'm not going to argue with
you about it. I just am going to ask you again,
in fact direct you to answer the question.
A I'm not going to answer that question, because
I believe it's a question about conduct that,
whatever the answer to it is, would, does not bear
on the perjury because oral sex performed
on the deponent under this definition is not sexual
relations. It is not covered by this definition
MR. KENDALL: The witness is not declining to tell you anything he said to John Podesta.
BY MR. WISENBERG:
Q You denied the
MR. WISENBERG: The witness is not declining to tell me anything?
BY MR. WISENBERG:
Q Did you deny oral sex in any way, shape or form, to John Podesta?
A I told you, sir, before, and I will say again,
in the aftermath of this story breaking, and what
was told about it, the next two days, next three
days are just a blur to me. I don't remember to
whom I talked, when I talked to them, or what I
said.
Q So, you are not declining to answer, you just don't remember?
A
I honestly don't remember, no.
Q Okay.
A I'm not saying that anybody who had a contrary memory is wrong. I do not remember.
Q Do you recall denying any sexual relationship with
Monica Lewinsky to the following people:
Harry Thomasson, Erskine Bowles, Harold Ickes, Mr.
Podesta, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Jordan,
Ms. Betty Currie? Do you recall denying any sexual
relationship with Monica Lewinsky to
those individuals?
A I recall telling a number of those people that
didn't have, either I didn't have an affair with
Monica Lewinsky or didn't have sex with her. And
I believe, sir, that – you'll have to ask them
what they thought. But I was using those terms in
the normal way people use them. You'll
have to ask them what they thought I was saying.
Q If they testified that you denied sexual relations
or relationship with Monica Lewinsky, or if
they told us that you denied that, do you have any
reason to doubt them, in the days after the
story broke; do you have any reason to doubt them?
A No. The -- let me say this. It's no secret to anybody
that I hoped that this relationship would
never become public. It's a matter of fact that
it had been many, many months since there had
been anything improper about it, in terms of improper
contact.
Q Did you deny it to them or not, Mr. President?
A Let me finish. So, what -- I did not want to mislead
my friends, but I wanted to find
language where I could say that. I also, frankly,
did not want to turn any of them into
witnesses, because I -- and, sure enough, they all
became witnesses.
Q Well, you knew they might be -
A And so -
Q -- witnesses, didn't you?
A And so I said to them things that were true about
this relationship. That I used -- in the
language I used, I said, there's nothing going on
between us. That was true. I said, I have not
had sex with her as I defined it. That was true.
And did I hope that I would never have to be
here on this day giving this testimony? Of course.
But I also didn't want to do anything to complicate
this matter further. So, I said things that
were true. They may have been misleading, and if
they were I have to take responsibility for it,
and I'm sorry.
Q It may have been misleading, sir, and you knew
though, after January 21st when the Post
article broke and said that Judge Starr was looking
into this, you knew that they might be
witnesses. You knew that they might be called into
a grand jury, didn't you?
A That's right. I think I was quite careful what
I said after that. I may have said something to
all these people to that effect, but I'll also -whenever
anybody asked me any details, I said,
look, I don't want you to be a witness or I turn
you into a witness or give you information that
could get you in trouble. I just wouldn't talk.
I, by and large, didn't talk to people about this.
Q If all of these people -- let's leave out Mrs.
Currie for a minute. Vernon Jordan, Sid
Blumenthal, John Podesta, Harold Ickes, Erakine
Bowles, Harry Thomasson, after the story
broke, after Judge Starr's involvement was known
on January 21st, have said that you denied a
sexual relationship with them. Are you denying that?
A No.
Q And you've told us that you -
A I'm just telling you what I meant by it. I told
you what I meant by it when they started this
deposition.
Q You've told us now that you were being careful,
but that it might have been misleading. Is
that correct?
A It might have been. Since we have seen this four
year, $40-million-investigation come down
to parsing the definition of sex, I think it might
have been. I don't think at the time that I
thought that's what this was going to be about.
In fact, if you remember the headlines at the time,
even you mentioned the Post story. All the
headlines were -and all the talking, people who
talked about this, including a lot who have been
quite sympathetic to your operation, said, well,
this is not really a story about sex, or this is a
story about subornation of perjury and these talking
points, and all this other stuff.
So, what I was trying to do was to give them something
they could -- that would be true, even
if misleading in the context of this deposition,
and keep them out of trouble, and let's deal --
and deal with what I thought was the almost ludicrous
suggestion that I had urged someone to
lie or tried to suborn perjury, in other words.
Q I want to go over some questions again. I don't
think you are going to answer them, sir. And
so I don't need a lengthy response, just a yes or
a no. And I understand the basis upon which
you are not answering them, but I need to ask them
for the record.
If Monica Lewinsky says that while you were in the
Oval Office area you touched her breasts,
would she be lying?
A Let me say something about all this.
Q All I really need for you, Mr. President -
A I know.
Q -- is to say -
A But you -
Q -- I won't answer under the previous grounds, or
to answer the question, you see, because
we only have four hours, and your answers -
A I know.
Q -- have been extremely lengthy.
A I know that. I'll give you four hours and 30 seconds,
if you'll let me say something general
about this. I will answer to your satisfaction that
I won't -- based on my statement, I will not
answer. I would like 30 seconds at the end to make
a atatement, and you can have 30 seconds
more on your time, if you'll let me say this to
the grand jury and to you. And I don't think it's
disrespectful at all. I've had a lot of time to
think about this.
But, go ahead and ask your questions.
Q The question is, if Monica Lewinsky says that while
you were in the Oval Office area you
touched her breasts, would she be lying?
A That is not my recollection. My recollection is
that I did not have sexual relations with Ms.
Lewinsky and I'm staying on my former statement
about that.
Q If she said -
A My, my statement is that I did not have sexual relations as defined by that.
Q If she says that you kissed her breasts, would she be lying7
A I'm going to revert to my former statement.
Q Okay. If Monica Lewinsky says that while you were
in the Oval Office area you touched
her genitalia, would she be lying? And that calls
for a yes, no, or reverting to your former
statement.
A I will revert to my statement on that.
Q If Monica Lewinsky says that you used a cigar as
a sexual aid with her in the Oval Office
area, would she be lying? Yes, no, or won't answer?
A I will revert to my former statement.
Q If Monica Lewinsky says that you had phone sex with her, would she be lying?
A Well, that is, at least in general terms, I think,
is covered by my statement. I addressed that
in my statement, and that, I don't believe, is -
Q Let me define phone sex for purposes of my question.
Phone sex occurs when a party to a
phone conversation masturbates while the other party
is talking in a sexually explicit manner.
And the question is, if Monica Lewinsky says that
you had phone sex with her, would she be
lying?
A I think that is covered by my statement.
Q Did you, on or about January the 13th, 1998, Mr.
President, ask Erskine Bowles to ask
John Hilley if he would give a recommendation for
Monica Lewinsky?
A In 1998?
Q Yes. On or about January 13t'h, 1998, did you ask
Erskine Bowles, your Chief of Staff, if
he would ask John Hilley to give a recommendation
for Monica Lewinsky?
A At some point, sir, I believe I talked to Erskine
Bowles about whether Monica Lewinsky
could get a recommendation that was not negative
from the Legislative Affairs Office. I believe
I did.
Q I just didn't hear the very last part.
A I think the answer is, I think, yes. At some point I talked to Erskine Bowles about this.
Q Okay.
A I do not know what the date was. At some point I did talk to him.
Q And if Erskine Bowles has told us that he told
John Podesta to carry out your wishes, and
John Podesta states, that it was three or four days
before your deposition, which would be the
13th or the 14th, are you in a position to deny
that?
A The 13th or 14th of?
Q January, as to date.
A I don't know. I don't know when the date was
Q Okay.
A I'm not in a position to deny it. I won't deny
it. I'm sure that they are both truthful men. I
don't know when the date was.
Q Do you recall asking Erskine Bowles to do that?
A I recall talking to Erskine Bowles about that,
and my recollection is, sir, that Ms. Lewinsky
was moving to New York, wanted to get a job in the
private sector; was confident she would
get a good recommendation from the Defense Department;
and was concerned that because
she had been moved from the Legislative Affairs
Office, transferred to the Defense
Department, that her ability to get a job might
be undermined by a bad recommendation from
the Legislative Affairs Office.
So, I asked Erskine if we could get her a recommendation
that just was at least neutral, so that
if she had a good recommendation from the Defense
Department it wouldn't prevent her from
getting a job in the private sector.
Q If Mr. Bowles had told us that, in fact, you told
him that she already had a job and had
already listed Mr. Hilley as a reference and wanted
him to be available as a recommendation,
would you be in -is that inconsistent with your
memory?
A A little bit, but I think -- my memory is that
when you're, when you get a job like that you
have to give them a resume, which says where you've
worked and who your supervisor was.
And I think that that's my recollection. My recollection
is that -- slightly different from that.
Q And who was it that asked you to do that on Monica Lewinsky's behalf?
A I think she did. You know, she tried for months
and months to get a job back in the White
House, not so much in the West Wing but somewhere
in the White House complex, including
the Old Executive Office Building. And she talked
to Marsha Scott, among others. She very
much wanted to come back. And she interviewed for
some jobs but never got one. She was,
from time to time, upset about it.
And I think what she was afraid of is that she couldn't
get a -- from the minute she left the
White House she was worried about this. That if
she didn't come back to the White House and
work for awhile and get a good job recommendation,
that no matter how well she had done at
the Pentagon it might hurt her future employment
prospects.
Well, it became obvious that, you know, her mother
had moved to New York. She wanted to
go to New York. She wasn't going to get a job in
the White House. So, she wanted to get a job
in the private sector, and said, I hope that I won't
get a letter out of the Legislative Affairs
office that will prevent my getting a job in the
private sector. And that's what I talked to
Erskine about.
Now, that's my entire memory of this.
Q All right. I want to go back briefly to the December
28th conversation with Ms. Lewinsky. I
believe you testified to the effect that she asked
you, what if they ask me about gifts you gave
me. My question to you is, after that statement
by her, did you ever have a conversation with
Betty Currie about gifts, or picking something up
from Monica Lewinsky?
A I don't believe I did, sir. No.
Q You never told her anything to this effect, that Monica has something to give you?
A No, sir.
Q That is to say, Betty Currie?
A No, sir, I didn't. I don't have any memory of that whatever.
Q And so you have no knowledge that, or you had no
knowledge at the time, that Betty Currie
went and picked up, your secretary went and picked
up from Monica Lewinsky items that
were called for by the Jones subpoena and hid them
under her bed? You had no knowledge
that anything remotely like that was going to happen?
A I did not. I did not know she had those items, I believe, until that was made public.
Q And you agree with me that that would be a very
wrong thing to do, to hide evidence in a
civil case, or any case? Isn't that true?
A Yes. I don't know that, that Ms. Currie knew that that's what she had at all. But -
Q I'm not saying she did. I'm just saying -
A I had -- it is, if Monica Lewinsky did that after
they had been subpoenaed and she knew
what she was doing, she should not have done that.
Q And if you knew, you -
A And I -
Q -- shouldn't have done it7
A Indeed, I, myself, told her, if they ask you for
gifts you have to give them what you have.
And I don't understand if, in fact, she was worried
about this, why she was so worried about it.
It was no big deal.
Q I want to talk about a December 17th phone conversation
you had with Monica Lewinsky at
approximately 2:00 a.m. Do you recall making that
conversation and telling her initially about
the death of Betty' a brother, but then, telling
her that she was on the witness list, and that it
broke your heart that she was on the witness list?
A No, sir, I don't, but it would -- it, it would
-it is quite possible that that happened, because, if
you remember, earlier in this meeting you asked
me some questions about what I'd said to
Monica about testimony and affidavits, and I was
struggling to try to remember whether this
happened in a meeting or a phone call.
Now, I remember I called her to tell her Betty's
brother had died. I remember that. And I know
it was in the middle of December, and I believe
it was before Monica had been subpoenaed.
So, I think it is quite possible that if I called
her at that time and had not talked to her since the
6th -- and you asked me this earlier -- I believe
when I saw her on the 6th, I don't think I knew
she was on the witness list then, then it's quite
possible I would say something like that. I don't
have any memory of it, but I certainly wouldn't
dispute that I might have said that.
Q And in that conversation, or in any conversation
which you informed her she was on the
witness list, did you tell her, you know, you can
always say that you were coming to see Betty
or bringing me letters? Did you tell her anything
like that?
A I don't remember. She was coming to see Betty.
I can tell you this. I absolutely never asked
her to lie.
Q Sir, every time she came to see Betty and you were
in the Oval Office, she was coming to
see you, too, wasn't she, or just about every time?
A I think just about every time. I don't think every
time. I think there was a time or two where
she came to see Betty when she didn't see me.
Q So, do you remember telling her any time, any time
when you told her, or after you told her
that she was on the witness list, something to this
effect: You know, you can always say you
were coming to see Betty, or you were bringing me
letters?
A I don't remember exactly what I told her that night.
Q Did you -
A I don't remember that. I remember talking about
the nature of our relationship, how she got
in. But I also will tell you that I felt quite comfortable
that she could have executed a truthful
affidavit, which would not have disclosed the embarrassing
details of the relationship that we
had had, which had been over for many, many months
by the time this incident occurred.
Q Did you tell her anytime in December something
to that effect: You know, you can always
say that you were coming to see Betty or you were
bringing me letters? Did you say that, or
anything like that, in December '97 or January '98,
to Monica Lewinsky7
A Well, that's a very broad question. I do not recall
saying anything like that in connection with
her testimony. I could tell you what I do remember
saying, if you want to know. But I don't --
we might have talked about what to do in a non legal
context at some point in the past, but I
have no specific memory of that conversation.
I do remember what I said to her about the possible testimony.
Q You would agree with me, if you did say something
like that to her, to urge her to say that to
the Jones people, that that would be part of an
effort to mislead the Jones people, no matter
how evil they are and corrupt?
A I didn't say they were evil. I said what they were doing here was wrong, and it was.
Q Wouldn't that be misleading?
A Well, again, you are trying to get me to characterize
something that I'm -- that I don't know
if I said or not, without knowing whether the whole,
whether the context is complete or not. So, I would
have to know, what was the context, what
were all the surrounding facts.
I can tell you this: I never asked Ms. Lewinsky to
lie. The first time that she raised with me the
possibility that she might be a witness or I told
her -- you suggested the possibility in this
December 17th timeframe -- I told her she had to
get a lawyer. And I never asked her to lie.
Q Did you ever say anything like that, you can always
say that you were coming to see Betty
or bringing me letters? Was that part of any kind
of a, anything you said to her or a cover
story, before you had any idea she was going to
be part of Paula Jones?
A I might well have said that.
Q Okay.
A Because I certainly didn't want this to come out,
if I could help it. And I was concerned
about that. I was embarrassed about it. I knew it
was wrong. And, you know, of course, I
didn't want it to come out. But -
Q But you are saying that you didn't say anything
- I want to make sure I understand. Did you
say anything like that once you knew or thought
she might be a witness in the Jones case? Did
you repeat that statement, or something like it
to her?
A Well, again, I don't recall, and I don't recall
whether I might have done something like that,
for example, if somebody says, what if the reporters
ask me this, that or l the other thing. I can
tell you this: In the context of whether she could
be a witness, I have a recollection that she
asked me, well, what do I do if I get called as
a witness, and I said, you have to get a lawyer.
And that's all I said. And I never asked her to
lie.
Q Did you tell her to tell the truth?
A Well, I think the implication was she would tell
the truth. I've already told you that I felt
strongly that she could issue, that she could execute
an affidavit that would be factually
truthful, that might get her out of having to testify.
Now, it obviously wouldn't if the Jones
people knew this, because they knew that if they
could get this and leak it, it would serve their
larger purposes, even if the judge ruled that she
couldn't be a witness in the case. The judge
later ruled she wouldn't be a witness in the case.
The judge later ruled the case had no merit.
So, I knew that. And did I hope she'd be able to
get out of testifying on an affidavit?
Absolutely. Did I want her to execute a false affidavit?
No, I did not.
Q If Monica Lewinsky has stated that her affidavit
that she didn't have a sexual relationship
with you is, in fact, a lie, I take it you disagree
with that?
A No. I told you before what I thought the issue
was there. I think the issue is how do you
define sexual relationship. And there was no definition
imposed on her at the time she executed
the affidavit. Therefore, she was free to give it
any reasonable meaning.
Q And if she says she was lying -
A And I believe -
Q -- under your common sense ordinary meaning that
you talked about earlier, Mr. President,
that most Americana would have, if she says sexual
relationship, saying I didn't have one was a
lie because I had oral sex with the President, I
take it, you would disagree with that?
A Now, we're back to where we started and I have
to invoke my statement. But, let me just
say one thing. I've read a lot, and obviously I
don't know whether any of it's accurate, about
what she said, and what purports to be on those
tapes.
And this thing -- and I searched my own memory. This
reminds me, to some extent, of the
hearings when Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill were
both testifying under oath. Now, in some
rational way, they could not have both been telling
the truth, since they had directly different
accounts of a shared set of facts. Fortunately,
or maybe you think unfortunately, there was no
special prosecutor to try to go after one or the
other of them, to take sides and try to prove one
was a liar. And so, Judge Thomas was able to go
on and serve on the Supreme Court.
What I learned from that, I can tell you that I was
a citizen out there just listening. And when I
heard both of them testify, what I believed after
it was over, I believed that they both thought
they were telling the truth.
This is -- you're dealing with, in some ways, the
most mysterious area of human life. I'm doing
the best I can to give you honest answers.
Q Mr. President -
A And that's all I can say.
Q I'm sorry.
A And, you know, those people both testified under
oath. So, if there'd been a special
prosecutor, they could, one of them could have gone
after Anita Hill, another could have gone
after Clarence Thomas. I thank God there was no
such thing then, because I don't believe that
it was
A proper thing.
Q One of --
A And I think they both thought they were telling
the truth. So, maybe Ms. Lewinsky believes
she's telling the truth, and I'm glad she got her
mother and herself out of trouble. I'm glad you
gave her that sweeping immunity. I'm glad for the
whole thing. I, I, I -- it breaks my heart that
she was ever involved in this.
Q I want to go back to a question about Vernon Jordan.
I want to go back to late December
and early January, late December of '97 and early
January of '98. During this time, Mr.
President, you are being sued for sexual harassment
by a woman who claims, among other
things, that others got benefits that she didn't
because she didn't have oral sex with you. While
this is happening, your powerful friend, Vernon
Jordan, is helping to get Monica Lewinsky a
job and a lawyer. He's helping to get a job and
a lawyer for someone who had some kind of
sex with you, and who has been subpoenaed in the
very case, the Jones case.
Don't you see a problem with this? Didn't you see a problem with this?
A No. Would you like to know why?
Q Isn't that why -- I would. But isn't that why Vernon
Jordan asked you on December 19th
whether or not you had sexual relationships with
Monica Lewinsky and why he asked her,
because he knew it would be so highly improper to
be helping her with a lawyer and a job if, in
fact, she had had a relationship with you?
A I don't know. I don't believe that at all. I don't
believe that at all, particularly since, even if
you look at the facts here in their light most unfavorable
to me, no one has suggested that there
was any sexual harassment on my part. And I don't
think it was wrong to be helping her. Look
-
Q A subpoenaed witness in a case against you?
A Absolutely. Look, for one thing, I had already
proved in two ways that I was not trying to
influence her testimony. I didn't order her to be
hired at the White House. I could have done
so. I wouldn't do it. She tried for months to get
in. She was angry.
Secondly, after I -
Q Wasn't she kept -
A After I terminated the improper contact with her,
she wanted to come in more than she did.
She got angry when she didn't get in sometimes.
I knew that that might make her more likely to
speak, and I still did it because I had to limit
the contact.
And, thirdly, let me say, I formed an opinion really
early in 1996, and again -- well, let me
finish the sentence. I formed an opinion early in
1996, once I got into this unfortunate and
wrong conduct, that when I stopped it, which I knew
I'd have to do and which I should have
done a long time before I did, that she would talk
about it. Not because Monica Lewinsky is a
bad person. She's basically a good girl. She's a
good young woman with a good heart and a
good mind. I think she is burdened by some unfortunate
conditions of her, her upbringing. But
she's basically a good person.
But I knew that the minute there was no longer any
contact, she would talk about this. She
would have to. She couldn't help it. It was, it
was a part of her psyche. So, I had put myself at
risk, sir. I was not trying to buy her silence or
get Vernon Jordan to buy her silence. I thought
she was a good person. She had not been involved
with me for a long time in any improper
way, several months, and I wanted to help her get
on with her life. It's just as simple as that.
MR. WISENBERG: It's time for a break.
MR. KENDALL: Okay. 4:49.
(Whereupon, the proceedings were recessed from 4:49 p.m.until 5:05 p.m.)
MR. KENDALL: Bob, we are at 2 hours and 55
MR. BITTMAN: Two hours and 55 minutes, thank you.
BY MR. BITTMAN:
Q Mr. President.
A Mr. Bittman.
Q Apparently we have one hour and five minutes left, if we stick to the four-hour timeframe.
MR. KENDALL: Plus 30 seconds.
MR. BITTMAN: And 30 seconds, that's right.
THE WITNESS: You gave me my 30 seconds, soliloquy. So, I owe you 30 seconds.
BY MR. BITTMAN:
Q You are very generous. That actually segues very
nicely into one of the grand juror's asked,
pointed out actually, that you indicated at the
beginning of the deposition that you would, you
would answer all the grand jurors, you wanted to
answer all the grand jurors questions. And
they wanted to know whether you would be willing
to stay beyond the four-hour period to, in
fact, answer all their questions.
A Well, let's see how we do in the next hour, and then we'll decide.
Q Okay. Let me draw your attention to early January
of this year, after Christmas, before your
deposition. Do you remember talking to Betty Currie
about Monica, who had just called her
and said that she, Monica, needed to talk to you
before she signed something?
A I'm not sure that I do remember that. But, go ahead .
Q This is in early January. And then Betty Currie
relayed this to you that Monica called, it's
important, she needs to talk to you before she signs
something. And then you do, indeed, talk
to Monica that day on the telephone.
A I did talk to her that day7
Q Yes.
MR. KENDALL: Mr. President, excuse me. That's a question.
If you have a memory of that,
you can answer.
TNE WITNESS: I'm trying to remember when the last
time I talked to her was. I am aware,
sir, that she signed this affidavit about this time,
sometime in the first week in January. I may
have talked to her before she did it. I don't know.
I talked to her a number of times between
the time Betty's brother died and Christmas. Then
I saw her on December 28. I may have
talked to her, but I don't remember the specific
conversation.
BY MR. BITTMAN:
Q And you would have talked about the -- she had
just given you a gift actually in early
January, a book on the Presidents of the United
States. And you discussed this with her and
she said that you said you liked it a lot.
A I did like it a lot. I told you that. My impression,
my belief was that she gave me that book
for Christmas. Maybe that's not right. I think she
had that book delivered to me for Christmas.
And then, as I remember, I went to Bosnia and for
some reason she wasn't there around
Christmas time.
But, anyway, maybe I didn't get it until January.
My recollection was that I had gotten it right
before Christmas.
Q Let me see if I can jog your memory further. Monica
talked to you in that phone
conversation that told you that she had just met
with her attorney that Mr. Jordan arranged
with her, and the attorney said that if she is deposed
that they were going to ask her how she
got her job at the Pentagon. And Monica then asked
you, what do you think I should say, how
do I answer that question, how did I get the job
at the Pentagon. Did you talk to Monica about
that, about possibilities -
A I don't believe -- no. I don't remember her asking
me that. But if she, if she had asked me
that, I would have told her to tell the truth. I
-- and I didn't, you know, I don't know exactly
how she got her job at the Pentagon. I know Evelyn
Lieberman wanted to transfer her out of
the job she had, and somebody must have arranged
that. But I didn't arrange it.
Q Now, that's actually not my question. My question
is whether you remember talking to
Monica about her being concerned that, I may have
to answer some questions about how and
why I was transferred to the Pentagon out of the
White House, fearing that this would -
A No, I don't remember that at all.
Q -- lead to questions, or answers that would reveal your relationship?
A Oh, no, sir. I don't remember that. Maybe somebody
-- maybe she did. But I only
remember -- well, I don't remember that. That's
all I can tell you. I don't remember that.
Q Are you saying, Mr. President, that you did not
then say to Ms. Lewinsky that you could
always say that people in Legislative Affairs got
you the job, or helped you get it?
A I have no recollection of that whatever.
Q Are you saying you didn't say it?
A No, sir. I'm telling you, I want to say I don't
recall -- I don't have any memory of this as I sit
here today. And I can tell you this, I never asked
her to lie. I never did. And I don't have any
recollection of the specific l thing you are saying
to me.
Now, if I could back up, there were several times
when Monica Lewinsky talked to me on the
telephone in 1996, in person in 1997, about her
being concerned about what anybody would
say about her transfer from the White House to the
Pentagon. But I remember no conversation
in which she was concerned about it for the reasons
you just mentioned.
And all my memory is, she was worried about it because
she thought it would keep her from
getting a good job down the road, and she talked
to me about it constantly in 1997. She
thought, well, I'll never have my record clear unless
I work somewhere in the White House
complex where I can get a good recommendation. But
in the context that you mention it, I do
not recall a conversation.
Q Did you ever tell Ms. Lewinsky, or promise to her
that you would do your best to get her
back into the White House after the 1996 Presidential
elections?
A what I told Ms. Lewinsky was that I would, I would
do what I could to see, if she had a
good record at the Pentagon, and she assured me
she was doing a good job and working hard,
that I would do my best to see that the fact that
she had been sent away from the Legislative
Affairs section did not keep her from getting a
job in the White House, and that is, in fact, what
I tried to do. I had a conversation with Ms. Scott
about it, and I tried to do that.
But I did not tell her I would order someone to hire
her, and I never did, and I wouldn't do
that. It wouldn't be right.
Q When you received the book, this gift from Monica,
the Presidents of the United States, this
book that you liked and you talked with Monica about,
did it come with a note? Do you
remember the note that it came with, Mr. President?
A No, sir, I don't.
Q Do you remember that in the note she wrote that,
she expressed how much she missed you
and how much she cared for you, and you and she
later talked about this in this telephone
conversation, and you said -- and she apologized
for putting such emotional, romantic things in
this note, and you said, yeah, you shouldn't have
written some of those things, you shouldn't
put those things down on paper? Did you ever say
anything like that to Ms. Lewinsky?
A Oh, I believe I did say something like that to
Ms Lewinsky. I don't remember doing
something as late as you suggest. I'm not saying
I didn't. I have no recollection of l that.
Keep in mind now, it had been quite a long time since
I had had any improper contact with her.
And she was, in a funny way, almost more attached
to me than she had been . before. In '96,
she had a long relationship, she said, with a man
whom she liked a lot. And I didn't know what
else was going on in her private life in '97. But
she talked to me occasionally about people she
was going out with.
But normally her language at this point was, if affectionate,
was, was not improperly
affectionate, I would . say. So -- but, it could
have happened. I wouldn't say it didn't. I just
don't remember it at this late date.
Q Let me refer back to one of the subjects we talked
about at one of the earlier breaks, right
before one of the earlier breaks, and that is your
meeting with Mrs. Currie on January 18th.
This is the Sunday after your deposition in the
Paula Jones case.
You said that you spoke to her in an attempt to refresh
your own recollection about the events
involving Monica Lewinsky, is that right?
A Yes.
Q How did you making the statement, I was never alone
with her, right, refresh your
recollection?
A Well, first of all, let's remember the context
here. I did not at that time know of your
involvement in this case. I just knew that obviously
someone had given them a lot of
information, some of which struck me as accurate,
some of which struck me as dead wrong.
But it led them to write, ask me a whole serious
of questions about Monica Lewinsky.
Then on Sunday morning, this Drudge report came out,
which used Betty's name, and I
thought that we were going to be deluged by press
comments. And I was trying to refresh my
memory about what the facts were.
So, when I said, we were never alone, right, I think
I also asked her a number of other
questions, because l there were several times, as
I'm sure she would acknowledge, when I
either asked her to be around. I remember once in
l particular when I was talking with Ms.
Lewinsky when I asked Betty to be in the, actually,
in the next room in the dining room, and,
as I testified earlier, once in her own office.
But I meant that she was always in the Oval Office
complex, in that complex, while Monica
was there. And I believe that this was part of a
series of questions I asked her to try to quickly
refresh my memory. So, I wasn't trying to get her
to say something that wasn't so. And, in
fact, I think she would recall that I told her to
just relax, go in the grand jury and tell the truth
when she had been called as a witness.
Q So, when you said to Mrs. Currie that, I was never
alone with her, right, you just meant that
you and Ms. Lewinsky would be somewhere perhaps
in the Oval Office or many times in your
back study, is that correct?
A That's right. We were in the back study.
Q And then -
A Keep in mind, sir, I just want to make it -- I
was talking about 1997. I was never, ever trying
to get Betty Currie to claim that on the occasions
when Monica Lewinsky was there when she
wasn't anywhere around, that she was. I would never
have done that to her, and I don't think
she thought about that. I don't think she thought
I was referring to that.
Q Did you put a date restriction? Did you make it
clear to Mrs. Currie that you were only
asking her whether you were never alone with her
after 1997?
A Well, I don't recall whether I did or not, but
I assumed -- if I didn't, I assumed she knew
what I was talking about, because it was the point
at which Ms. Lewinsky was out of the
White House and had to have someone WAVE her in,
in order to get in the White House. And
I do not believe to this day that I was -- in 1997,
that she was ever there and that I ever aww
her unless Betty Currie was there. I don't believe
she was.
Q Do you agree with me that the statement, "I was
never alone with her", is incorrect? You
were alone with Monica Lewinsky, weren't you?
A Well, again, it depends on how you define alone.
Yea, we were alone from time to time,
even during 1997, even when there wee absolutely
no improper contact occurring. Yes, that ia
accurate.
But there were also a lot of times when, even though
no one could see us, the doors were open
to the halls, l on both ends of the halls, people
could hear. The Navy stewards could come in
and out at will, if they were around. Other things
could be happening. So, there were a lot of
times when we were alone, but I never really thought
we were.
And sometimes when we, when -- but, as far as I know,
what I was trying to determine, if I
might, is that Betty was always around, and I believe
she was always around . where I could
basically call her or get her if I needed her.
Q When you said to Mrs. Currie, you could see and
hear everything, that wasn't true either,
was it, as far as you knew? You've already -
A My memory of that -
Q -- testified that Betty was not there.
A My memory of that was that, that she had the ability
to hear what was going on if she came
in the Oval Office from her office. And a lot of
times, you know, when I was in the Oval
Office, she just had the door open to her office.
Then there was -- the door was never
completely closed to the hall. So, I think there
was -- I'm not entirely sure what I meant by
that, but I could have meant that she generally
would be able to hear conversations, even if she
couldn't see them. And I think that's what I meant.
Now, I could have been referring not generally to
every time she was there, but one, one
particular time I remember when Ms. Lewinsky was
there when I asked Betty -and I'm sorry
to say for reasons I don't entirely remember -to
actually stay in the dining room while I talked
with Monica. I do remember one such instance.
Q Well, you've already testified that this -- you
did almost everything you could to keep this
relationship secret. So, would it be fair to say
-- even from Mrs. Currie. She didn't know about
the nature, that is, your intimate, physically intimate
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, did she?
A As far as I know, she is unaware of what happened
on the, on the occasions when I saw her
in 1996 when something improper happened. And she
was unaware of the one time that I
recall in 1997 when something happened.
I think she was quite well aware that I was determined
to impose the appropriate limits on the
relationship when I was trying to do it. And the
-- you know, anybody would hope that this
wouldn't become public. Although I frankly, from
1996 on, always felt that if I severed
inappropriate contact with Ms. Lewinsky, sooner
or later it would get public. And I never
thought it would be part of the Jones case. I never
even thought about that. I never thought -- I
certainly never thought it would be part of your
responsibilities.
Q My question was -
A But I did believe that she would talk about it.
O My question was more simple than that. Mrs. Currie
did not know of the physically intimate
nature of your relationship, did she?
A I don't believe she did, no.
Q Okay. So, you would have done -- you tried to keep
that nature of the relationship from
Mrs. Currie?
A Absolutely. I -
Q So, you would not have engaged in those physically
intimate acts if you knew that Mrs.
Currie could see or hear that, is that correct?
A That 's correct. But, keep in mind, sir, I was
talking about 1997. That occurred, to the -- and
I believe that occurred only once in February of
1997. I stopped it. I never should have started
it, and I certainly shouldn't have started it back
after I resolved not to in 1996. And was
referring to 1997
And I -- what -- as I say, I do not know -her memory
and mine may be somewhat different. I
do not know whether I was asking her about a particular
time when Monica was upset and I
asked her to stand, stay back in the dining area.
Or whether I was, had reference to the fact
that if she kept the door open to the Oval Office,
because it was always -- the door to the
hallway was always somewhat open, that she would
always be able to hear something if
anything went on that was, you know, too loud, or
whatever.
I do not know what I meant. I'm just trying to reconcile
the two statements as best I can,
without being sure.
Q There was at least one event where Mrs. Currie
was definitely not even in the Oval Office
area, isn't that right? And I think you began to
testify about that before. That was at the radio
address.
A I'm not sure of that. But in that case, there was,
there was certainly someone else there. I
don't know -
Q Well, why would you be testing Mrs. Currie's memory
about whether someone else was
there?
A Well, I can say this. If I'm in the Oval Office
- my belief is that there was someone else
there, somewhere in the Oval Office complex. I've
looked at our -- I've looked at the film.
This, this night has become legendary now, you know.
I've looked at the, I've looked at the
film we have. I've looked at my schedules. I've
seen the people that were at the radio address.
I do believe that I was alone with her from 15 to
20 minutes. I do believe that things happened
then which l were inappropriate. I don't remember
whether Betty was there or not, but I can't
imagine that, since all this happened more or less
continuously in that time period, there must
have been someone who was working around the radio
address who stayed around
somewhere. That would be my guess. I don't know.
I'm sorry. I don't have records about who
it would be. But I doubt very seriously if we were
all alone in . that Oval Office complex then.
Q Mr. President, if there is a semen stain belonging
. to you on a dress of Ms. Lewinsky's,
how would you explain that?
A Well, Mr. Bittman, I, I don't -- first of all,
when l you asked me for a blood test, I gave you
one promptly. You came over here and got it. That's
-- we met that night and talked. So, that's
a question you already know the answer to. Not if,
but you know whether.
And the main thing I can tell you is that doesn't
affect the opening statement I made. The
opening statement I made is that I had inappropriate
intimate contact. I take full responsibility
for it. It wasn't her fault, it was mine. I do not
believe that I violated the definition of sexual
relations I was given by directly touching those
parts of her body with the intent to arouse or
gratify. And that's all I have to say.
I think, for the rest, you know, you know what the
evidence is and it doesn't affect that
statement.
Q Is it possible or impossible that your semen is on a dress belonging to Ms. Lewinsky?
A I have nothing to add to my statement about it,
sir. You, you know whether -- you know
what the facts are. There's no point in a hypothetical.
Q Don't you know what the facts are also, Mr. President?
A I have nothing to add to my statement, sir.
Q Getting back to the conversation you had with Mrs.
Currie on January 18th, you told her --
if she testified that you told her, Monica came
on to me and I never touched her, you did, in
fact, of course, touch Ms. Lewinsky, isn't that
right, in a physically intimate way?
A Now, I've testified about that. And that's one
of those questions that I believe is answered by
the statement that I made.
Q What was your purpose in making these statements
to Mrs. Currie, if they weren't for the
purpose to try to suggest to her what she should
say if ever asked?
A Now, Mr. Bittman, I told you, the only thing I
remember is when all this stuff blew up, I
was trying to figure out what the facts were. I
was trying to remember. I was trying to
remember every time I had seen Ms. Lewinsky. Once
this thing was in Drudge, and there was
this argument about whether it was or was not going
to be in Newsweek, that was a clear signal
to me, because Newsweek, frankly, was -had become
almost a sponsoring media outlook for
the Paula Jones case, and had a journalist who had
been trying, so far fruitlessly, to find me in
some sort of wrongdoing.
And so I knew this was all going to come out. I was
trying -- I did not know at the time -I will
say again, I did not know that any of you were involved.
I did not know that the Office of
Independent Counsel was involved. And I was trying
to get the facts and try to think of the
best defense we could construct in the face of what
I thought was going to be a media
onslaught.
Once you became involved, I told Betty Currie not
to worry, that, that she had been through a
terrible time. She had lost her brother. She had
lost her sister. Her mother was in the hospital. I
said, Betty, just don't worry about me. Just relax,
go in there and tell the truth. You'll be fine.
Now, that's all there was in this context.
Q Did the conversations that you had with Mrs. Currie,
this conversation, did it refresh your
recollection as to events involving Ms. Lewinsky?
A Well, as I remember, I do believe, in fairness,
I that, you know, she may have felt some
ambivalence about how ; to react, because there
were some times when she seemed to say yes,
when I'm not sure she meant yes. There was a time
-- it seems like there was one or two things
where she said, well, remember this, that or the
other thing, which did reflect my recollection.
So, I would say a little yes, and a little no.
Q Why was it then that two or three days later, given
that The Washington Post article came
out on January 21st, why would you have had another
conversation with Betty Currie asking
or making the exact same statements to her?
A I don't know that I did. I remember having this
one time. I was, I was -- I don't know that I
did.
Q If Mrs. Currie says you did, are you disputing that?
A No, sir, I'm not disputing -
MR. KENDALL: Excuse me. Is your representation that
she testified that that conversation
was – when?
MR. BITTMAN: I'm not making a representation as to
what Mrs. Currie said. I'm asking the
President if Mrs. Currie testified two or three
days later, that two or three days after the
conversation with the President on January 18th,
that he called her into the Oval Office and
went over the exact same statements that the President
made to her on the 18th.
BY MR. BITTMAN:
Q Is that accurate? Is that a Mrs. Currie, if she made it?
A I do not remember how many times Currie or when.
I don't. I can't possibly remember that.
I do remember, when I first heard about this story
breaking, trying to ascertain what the facts
were, trying to ascertain what Betty's perception
was. I remember that I was highly agitated,
understandably, I think.
And then I remember when I knew she was going to
have to testify to the grand jury, and I, I
felt terrible because she had been through this
loss of her sister, this horrible accident Christmas
that killed her brother, and her mother was in the
hospital. I was trying to do -- to make her
understand that I didn't want her to, to be untruthful
to the grand jury. And if her memory was
different from mine, it was fine, just go in there
and tell them what she thought. . So, that's all I
remember.
BY MR. BENNETT:
Q Mr. President, my name is Jackie Bennett. If I
understand your current line of testimony,
you are saying that your only interest in speaking
with Ms. Currie in the days after your
deposition was to refresh your own recollection?
A Yes.
0 It was not to impart instructions on how she was to recall things in the future?
A No, and certainly not under oath. That -every day,
Mr. Bennett, in the White House and in
every other political organization when you are
subject to a barrage of press questions of any
kind, you always try to make the best case you can
consistent with the facts; that is, while
being truthful.
But -- so, I was concerned for a day or two there
, about this as a press story only. I had no
idea you were l involved in it for a couple of days.
I think Betty Currie's testimony will be that I gave
her explicit instructions or encouragement to
just go in the grand jury and tell the truth. That
'a what I told her to do and I thought she
would.
Q Mr. President, when did you learn about the Drudge
Report reporting allegations of you
having a sexual relationahip with someone at the
White House?
A I believe it was the morning of the 18th, I think.
Q What time of day, sir?
A I have no idea.
Q Early morning hours?
A Yeah, I think somebody called me and told me about
it. Maybe Bruce, maybe someone else.
I'm not sure. But I learned early on the l8th of
the Drudge Report.
Q Very early morning hours, sir?
A Now, my deposition wee on the 17th, is that right?
Q On Saturday, the 17th, sir.
A Yeah, I think it was when I got up Sunday morning,
I think. Maybe it was late Saturday
night. I don't remember.
Q Did you call Betty Currie, sir, after the Drudge Report hit the wire?
A I did.
Q Did you call her at home?
A I did. Was that the night of the 17th?
Q Night of the 17th, early morning hours of the 18th?
A Okay, yes. That's because -- yes. I worked with
Prime Minister Netanyahu that night until
about midnight.
MR. KENDALL: Wait.
THE WITNESS: Isn't that right?
MR. KENDALL: Excuse me. I think the question is directed
-- Mr. Bennett, if you could help
out by putting the day of the week, I think that
would be helpful.
BY MR. BENNETT:
Q Saturday night, Sunday morning.
A Yes. I called Betty Currie as soon -- I think about
as soon as I could, after I finished with
Prime Minister Netanyahu, and in the aftermath of
that meeting planning where we were going
next in the Middle East peace process.
MR. KENDALL: Can we take a two-minute break please?
MR. BITTMAN: May I ask one other question first, Mr. Kendall?
MR. KENDALL: Certainly. I think the witness is confused on dates. That's all.
MR. BITTMAN: Okay.
THE WITNESS: That's what -- I didn't think it was the night of the 17th.
MR. KENDALL: Mr. President, I think we'll do it in a break.
THE WITNESS: Can we have a break and I could get straightened out?
MR. BITTMAN: Sure. May I ask one other guick this
is a question I forgot to ask from the
grand jurors.
THE WITNESS: I don't want to get mixed up on these dates now. Go ahead.
BY MR. BITTMAN:
Q This is -- they wanted to know whether, they want
us to clarify that the President's
knowledge, your knowledge, Mr. President, as to
the approach to our office this morning; that
is, we were told that you would give a general statement
about the nature of your relationship
with Ms. Lewinsky, which you have done. Yet that
you would -- you did not want to go in any
of the details about the relationship. And that
if we pressed on going into the details, that you
would object to going into the details.
And the grand jurors, before they wanted, they wanted
to vote on some other matters, they
wanted to know whether you were aware of that? That
we were told that?
MR. KENDALL: Well, Mr. Bittman, who told you that?
This is, this is, this is not a fair
question, when you say you were told. Who told you?
MR. BITTMAN: Who told me what, the question?
MR. KENDALL: You said, you said the grand jury was told.
MR. BITTMAN: We have kept the grand jury informed,
as we normally would, of the
proceedings here.
MR. KENDALL: Right. And, I'm sorry. Who, who are
you representing told you or the grand
jurors anything? Is that, is that our conversation?
MR. BITTMAN: Yes.
MR. STARR: Yes, our conversation.
MR. BITTMAN: Yes. That was in substance related to the grand jurors.
THE WITNESS:
And what's your question to me, Mr. Bittman?
BY MR. BITTMAN:
Q Whether you were aware of the facts that I just described?
A Yes, sir. Let me say this. I knew that Mr. Kendall
was going to talk with Judge Starr. What
we wanted to do was to be as helpful as we could
to you on the question of whether you felt I
was being truthful, when I said I did not have sexual
relations with Ms. Lewinsky, as defined in
that definition (1) in this, in my testimony.
And I thought the best way to do that, and still
preserve some measure of privacy and dignity,
would be to invite all of you and the grand jurors
to ask, well, would you consider this, that, or
the other thing covered by the definition. You asked
me several questions there, and I did my
best to answer whether I thought they were covered
by the definition, and said if I thought they
were covered, you could conclude from that that
my testimony is I did not do them.
If those things, if things are not covered by the
definition, and I don't believe they are covered,
then l could not -- then they shouldn't be within
this discussion one way or the other.
Now, I know this is somewhat unusual. But I would
say to the grand jury, put yourself in my
position. This is not a typical grand jury testimony.
I, I have to assume a report is going to
Congress. There 's a videotape being made of this,
allegedly because only one member of the
grand jury is absent. This is highly unusual. And,
in addition to that, I have sustained a
breathtaking number of leaks of grand jury proceedings.
And, so, I think I am right to answer all the questions
about perjury, but not to say things
which will be forever in the historic annals of
the United States because of this unprecedented
videotape and may be leaked at any time. I just
think it's a mistake.
And, so, I'm doing my best to cooperate with the
grand jury and still protect myself, my
family, and my office.
MR. BITTMAN: Thank you.
MR. KENDALL: This will be two minutes.
(Whereupon, the proceedings were recessed from 5:37 p.m. until 5:43 p.m.)
BY MR. BENNETT:
Q Mr. President, before we broke, we were talking
about the sequencing of your conversations
with Betty Currie following your deposition on Saturday,
January 17th. Do you recall that?
A I do.
Q All right. And you recall contacting Betty Currie,
calling her and instructing her on the
evening of Saturday night, after your deposition,
and telling her to come in the next day?
A Yes, sir, I do.
Q Sunday was normally her day off, isn't that so?
A Yes, it was.
Q And so you were making special arrangements for
her to come back into the White House,
isn't that so?
A Well, yes. I asked her to come back in and talk to me.
Q And it was at that time that you spoke with her,
and Mr. Bittman and Mr. Wisenberg have
asked you questions about what you said in that
conversation, isn't that so?
A Yes, they have -- I don't know whether that's the
time, but they -- I did talk to her as soon
as I realized that the deposition had become more
about Monica Lewinsky than Paula Jones. I
asked her, you know, if she knew anything about
this. I said, you know, it's obvious that this is
going to be a matter of press speculation, and I
was trying to go through the litany of what had
happened between us, and asked some questions.
Q On fairness, it would be more than a matter of
simple press speculation, isn't that so? Mr.
President, there was a question about whether you
had testified fully, completely, and honestly
on the preceding day in your deposition.
A Well, actually, Mr. Bennett, I didn't think that
then. I – this has been a rather unprecedented
development, and I wasn't even thinking about the
Independent Counsel getting into this. So, at
that moment, I knew nothing about it and I was more
interested in what the facts were and
whether Ms. Currie knew anything about it, knew
anything about what Monica Lewinsky
knew about it.
Q Mr. President, you've told us at least a little
bit about your understanding of how the term
sexual relations was used, and what you understood
it to mean in the context of your
deposition. Isn't that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And you've told us -- I mean, that was a lawsuit
Paula Jonea filed in which she alleged that
you asked her to perform oral sex, isn't that so?
A That was her allegation.
Q That was her allegation. And, notwithstanding that
that was her allegation, you've testified
that you understood the term sexual relations, in
the context of the questions you were being
asked, to mean something else, at least insofar
as you were the recipient rather than the
performer?
A Sir, Paula Jonea' lawyers pulled out that definition,
not me. And Judge Susan Webber
Wright ruled on it, just as she later ruled their
case had no merit in the first place, no legal
merit, and dismissed it.
I had nothing to do with the definition. I had nothing
to do with the Judge's rulings. I was
simply there answering the questions they put to
me, under the terms of reference they
imposed.
Q Well, the grand jury would like to know, Mr. President,
why it is that you think that oral sex
performed on you does not fall within the definition
of sexual relations as used in your
deposition.
A Because that is -- if the deponent is the person
who has oral sex performed on him, then the
contact is with -- not with anything on that list,
but with the lips of another person. It seems to
be self-evident that that's what it is. And I thought
it was curious.
Let me remind you, sir, I read this carefully. And
I thought about it. I thought about what
'contact' meant. I thought about what "intent to
arouse or gratify" meant.
And I had to admit under this definition that I'd
actually had sexual relations with Gennifer
Flowers. Now, I would rather have taken a whipping
than done that, after all the trouble I'd
been through with Gennifer Flowers, and the money
I knew that she had made for the story
she told about this alleged 12-year affair, which
we had done a great deal to disprove.
So, I didn't like any of this. But I had done my
best to deal with it and the -- that's what I
thought. And I think that's what most people would
think reading that.
Q Would you have been prepared, if asked by the Jones
lawyers, would you have been
prepared to answer a question directly asked about
oral sex performed on you by Monica
Lewinsky?
A If the Judge had required me to answer it, of course,
I would have answered it. And I would
have answered it truthfully, if I --
Q By the way, do you believe that the -
A -- had been required.
Q -- Jones litigants had the same understanding of sexual relations that you claim you have?
A I don't know what understanding was, sir. My belief
is that they thought they'd get this
whole thing in, and that they were going to -- what
they were trying to do is do just what they
did with Gennifer Flowers. They wanted to find anything
they could get from me or anyone
else that was negative, and then they wanted to
leak it to hurt me in the press, which they did
even though the Judge ordered them not to.
So, I think their -
Q Wouldn't it -- I'm sorry.
A I think their position, Mr. Bennett – you asked
the question -- their position was, we're going
to cast the widest net we can and get as much embarrassing
stuff as we can, and then dump it
out there and see if we can make him bleed. I think
that's what they were trying to do.
Q Don't you think, sir, that they could have done
more damage to you politically, or in
whatever context, if they had understood the definition
in the same way you did and asked the
question directly?
A I don't know, air. As I said, I didn't work with
their lawyers in preparing this case. I knew
the case was wrong. I knew what our evidence was.
By the time of this deposition, they knew
what their evidence was.
Their whole strategy was, well, our lawsuit's not
good, but maybe we can hurt him with the
discovery. And, you know, they did some. But it
didn't amount to much.
And did I want, if I could, to avoid talking about
Monica Lewinsky? Yes, I'd give anything in
the world not to be here talking about it. I'd be
giving -- I'd give anything in the world not to
have to admit what I've had to admit today.
But if you look at my answer in the Flowers [sic]
deposition, at least you know I tried to
carefully fit all my answers within the framework
there, because otherwise there was no reason
in the wide world for me to do anything other than
make the statements I'd made about
Gennifer Flowers since 1991, that I did not have
a 12-year affair with her, and that these, the
following accusations she made are false.
So, that's all I can tell you. I can't prove anything.
Q But you did have a great deal of anxiety in the
hours and days following the end of your
deposition on the 17th. Isn't that fair to say?
A Well, I had a little anxiety the next day, of course,
because of the Drudge Report. And I had
an anxiety after the deposition because it was more
about Monica Lewinsky than it was about
Paula Jones.
Q The specificity of the questions relating to Monica
Lewinsky alarmed you, isn't that fair to
say?
A Yes, and it bothered me, too, that I couldn't remember
the answers. It bothered me that I
couldn't -- as Mr. Wisenberg pointed out, it bothered
me that I couldn't remember all the
answers. I did the best I could. And so I wanted
to know what the deal was. Sure.
Q Mr. President, to your knowledge, have you turned
over, in response to the grand jury
subpoenea, all gifts that Monica Lewinsky gave you?
A To my knowledge, I have, air. As you know, on occasion,
Mr. Kendall has asked for your
help in identifying those gifts. And I think there
were a couple that we came across in our
search that were not on the list you gave us, that
I remembered in the course of our search had
been given to me by Monica Lewinsky and we gave
them to you.
So, to the best of my knowledge, we have given you everything we have.
Q Can you explain why, on the very day that Monica
Lewinsky testified in the grand jury on
August 6th of this year, you wore a necktie that
she had given you?
A No, sir, I don't believe I did. What necktie was it?
Q The necktie you wore on August 6th, sir.
A Well, I don't know that it was a necktie that Monica
Lewinsky gave me. Can you describe it
to me?
Q Well, I don't want to take time at this point,
but we will provide you with photographic
evidence of that, Mr. President.
A If you give me -- I don't believe that's accurate, Mr. Bennett.
Q So, let me ask the question --
A But if you give it to me, and I look at it and
I remember that she gave it to me, I'll be happy
to produce it. I do not believe that's right.
Q Well, if you remember that she gave it to you,
why haven't you produced it to the grand
jury?
A I don't remember that she gave it to me. That's why I asked you what the tie was. I have -
Q Can you --
A -- no earthly idea. I believe that, that I did not wear a tie she gave me on August the 6th.
Q Can you tell us why Bayani Nelvis wore a tie that
Monica Lewinsky had given you on the
day he appeared in the grand jury?
A I don't know that he did.
Q Have you given Bayani Nelvis any ties, sir?
Oh, yes, a lot of ties.
Q And so if he wore the tie that you gave him, that
Monica Lewinsky had given you, that
would not have been by design, is that what you
are telling us?
A Oh, absolutely not. Let me -
Q You are not -
A May I explain, Mr. Bennett? It won't -
Q Yes.
A-- take long. Every year, since I've been President,
I've gotten quite a large number of ties, as
you might imagine. I get, I have a couple of friends,
one in Chicago and one in Florida who
give me a lot of ties, a lot of other people who
send me ties all the time, or give them to me
when I see them.
So, I always have the growing number of ties in my
closet. What I normally do, if someone
gives me a tie as a gift, is I wear it a time or
two. I may use it. But at the end of every year,
and sometimes two times a year, sometimes more,
I go through my tie closet and I think of all
the things that I won't wear a lot or that I might
give away, and I give them mostly to the men
who work there.
I give them to people like Glen and Nelvis, who work
in the kitchen, back in the White House,
or the gentlemen who are my stewards or the butlers,
or the people who run the elevators. And
I give a lot of ties away a year. I'll bet I --
excluding Christmas, I bet I give 30, 40, maybe
more ties away a year, and then, of course, at Christmas,
a lot.
So, there would be nothing unusual if, in fact, Nelvis
had a tie that originally had come into my
tie closet from Monica Lewinsky. It wouldn't be
unusual. It wouldn't be by design. And there
are several other people of whom that is also true.
Q Mr. President, I'd like to move to a different
area right now. I'd like to ask you some
questions about Kathleen Willey. You met Kathleen
Willey during your 1992 campaign, isn't
that so?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q As a matter of fact, you first saw her at a rope
line at the Richmond, Virginia airport on
October 13, 1992, . is that not correct?
A I don't believe that is correct.
Q When did you first meet her, sir?
A Well, let me ask you this. When was the debate in Richmond?
Q I believe it wee October 13, 1992, sir.
A Well, I believe that I had met her -- I believe
I had met her before then, because Governor
Wilder, I believe that was his last year as governor
-- I think that's right, 92-93. I believe that I
met her in connection with her involvement with
Governor Wilder.
And I have the impression -- it's kind of a vague
memory, but I have the impression that I had
met her once before, at least once before I came
to that Richmond debate. Now, I'm not sure
of that.
Q Well, at least if you have met her before --
A But I am quite sure she was at the Richmond debate
and I did meet her there. I'm quite sure
of that.
Q Mr. President, you've seen television footage of
you standing on a rope line with Donald
Beyer, Lt. Governor Donald Beyer -
A I have.
Q -- asking Mr. Beyer for the name of Kathleen Willey?
You've seen that footage, haven't
you?
A I don't know that I've seen it, but I am aware that it exists.
Q All right. And you can see him, you can read his
lips. He's saying the name Kathleen Willey
in response to a question from you, isn't that so?
A That's what I've heard.
Q And, as a matter of fact, you sent Nancy Hernreich,
who was present on that day, to go get
her telephone number, didn't you, sir?
A I don't believe so.
Q You don't believe so?
A Well, let me say this. If that is true, then I'm
quite certain that I had met her before. I would
never call someone out of the blue that I saw on
a rope line and send Nancy Hernreich to get
her number to do it.
Q Even if you were just learning her name for the first time?
A That's correct. I'm not so sure that I didn't ask
Don Beyer, if he was on the rope line with
me, who she was because I thought I had seen her
before or I knew I had seen her before and
I didn't remember her name. Now, I do that all the
time. For men -
Q Mr. President --
A -- and women.
Q I'm sorry. Do you recall that you sent Nancy Hernreich for her telephone number?
A No, I don't.
Q All right. Do you recall, having received her telephone number, calling her that night?
A No, sir, I don't.
Q Do you recall inviting her to meet with you at your hotel that night?
A No, sir, I do not.
Q Do you recall where you stayed in Richmond, Virginia
during the debates you've told us
about?
A Well, I stayed at some hotel there, I believe.
Q Actually, did you stay at the Williamsburg Inn, not in Richmond?
A Yeah, that's right. We prepared in Williamsburg.
That' a correct. I believe we prepared in
Williamsburg and then went to Richmond for the debate,
and then I think we spent the night in
Richmond. And the next day, I think we had a rally
before we left town. I believe that's right.
Q Do you know of any reason Kathleen Willey's telephone
number would appear on your toll
records from your room in Williamsburg?
A No, there - -
Q If you didn't call her?
A No, I'm not denying that I called her, sir. You
asked me a specific question. I won't deny
that I called her. I don't know whether I did or
not.
Q As a matter of fact, you called her twice that day, didn't you, sir?
A I don't recall. I may well have done it and I don't know why I did it.
Q Well, does it refresh your recollection that you
called her and invited her to come to your
room that night?
A I don't believe I did that, sir.
Q If Kathleen Willey has said that, she's mistaken or lying, is that correct, Mr. President?
A I do not believe I did that. That's correct.
Q But what is your best recollection of that conversation, those conversations7
A I don't remember talking to her. But I -- it seems
to me that at some point -- this is why I
believe I had met her before, too. But at some point
I had some actual person-to-person
conversation with her about my sore throat, or what
she thought would be good for it, or
something like that. I have some vague memory of
that. That's it.
Q Is this the chicken soup conversation, Mr. President?
A Well, I don't know if I would -- maybe that's what
she said I should have. I don't remember.
But I have no recollection, sir, of asking her to
come to my room. I -and I -- I'm sorry, I don't.
I can't -- I won't deny calling her. I don't know
if I did call her. I don't know if she tried to call
me first. I don't know anything about that. I, I
just -- I met her and Doug Wilder. I remember
that she
and her husband were active for Governor Wilder,
and that's about all I remember, except that
I had a conversation with her around the Richmond
debate. I do remember talking to her there.
Q Mr. President, let's move ahead to the episode
on November 29, 1993, in which Mrs. Willey
met you in your office at the Oval, the subject
matter of the '60 Minutes' broadcast a few
months ago. You recall that episode?
A I certainly do.
Q Mr. President, in fact, on that date you did make
sexual advances on Kathleen Willey, is that
not correct?
A That's false.
Q You did grab her breast, as she said?
A I did not.
Q You did place your hand on her groin area, as she said?
A No, I didn't.
Q And you placed her hand on your genitals, did you not?
A Mr. Bennett, I didn't do any of that, and the questions
you're asking, I think, betray the bias
of this operation that has troubled me for a long
time. You know what evidence was released
after the '60 Minutes' broadcast that I think pretty
well shattered Kathleen Willey's credibility.
You know what people down in Richmond said about
her. You know what she said about
other people that wasn't true. I don't know if you've
made all of this available to the grand jury
or not.
She was not telling the truth. She asked for the
appointment with me. She asked for it
repeatedly.
Q Did she make a sexual advance on you, Mr. President7
A On that day, no, she did not. She was troubled.
Q On some other day?
A I wouldn't call it a sexual advance. She was always
very friendly. But I never took it
seriously.
Q Mr. President, you mentioned the documents that
were released and information that came
out from people in Richmond, et cetera, after the
'60 Minutes' piece was broadcast. As a
matter of fact, you were required, under the Court's
rulings, to produce those documents in
response to document requests by the Jones litigants,
isn't that correct?
A No. I believe the Jones litigants' request for
production of documents to me ran to
documents that were in my personal files and in
my personal possessions, and did not cover
documents that were White House files. So, I don't
believe we were required to produce them.
As a matter of fact, when that story first ran, sir,
before '60 Minutes', back in July or so of '97,
I was aware that we had some letters. I didn't --
I didn't remember that she'd written to us as
much as she had and called as much as she had, and
asked to see me as often as
she had, after this alleged incident. I didn't know
the volume of contact that she had which
undermined the story she has told. But I knew there
was some of it. And I made a decision
that I did not want to release it voluntarily after
the Newsweek ran the story, because her
friend Julie Steele was in the story saying she
asked her -- she, Kathleen Willey -- asked her to
lie. And because, frankly, her husband had committed
suicide. She apparently was out of
money. And I thought, who knows how anybody would
react under that. So, I didn't. But,
now when '60 Minutes' came with the story and everybody
blew it up, I thought we would
release it. But I do not believe we were required
to release White House documents to the
Jones lawyers.
Q Mr. President, have you made a decision on whether
to stay beyond the four hours we
agreed to, to accept questions from the grand jury?
MR. KENDALL: We have made an agreement, Mr. Bennett,
to give you four hours. We're
going to do that. By my watch, there are about 12
minutes left.
MR. BENNETT: I guess that's no. Is that correct, Mr. Kendall?
MR. KENDALL: Yes, that's correct.
THE WITNESS: May I ask this question? Could I have a two-minute break?
MR. BENNETT: Sure.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry to bother you with this. I
know we're getting to the end, but I need
a little break.
(Whereupon, the proceedings were recessed from 6:04 p.m. until 6:09 p.m.)
BY MR. STARR:
Q Mr. President, at various times in this investigation,
officials have invoked executive privilege
in response to questions that have been posed to
them by the grand jury and in the grand jury.
One of the grand jurors has posed the question,
did you personally authorize the invocation of
executive privilege?
A If the answer is authorized, I think the answer
to that would be yes. But I would like the
grand jury to know something. In the cases where
we raised the lawyer/client privilege, or
executive privilege, or where the Secret Service
raised their privilege, and when I say -- I had
nothing to do with that. I did not authorize it,
approve it, or anything else. That was something
they asked to be free to make their decision on
by themselves. In none of those cases did I
actually have any worry about what the people involved
would say. The reason those privileges
were advanced and litigated was that I believed
that there was an honest difference between
Judge Starr and the Office of Independent Counsel,
and Mr. Ruff, my counsel, and I about
what the proper balance was in the Constitutional
framework. And I did not want to put the
Presidency at risk of being weakened as an institution
without having those matters litigated.
Now, we've lost some of those matters. Our people
have testified and the grand jury is free to
conclude whether they believe that the testimony
they gave wes damaging to me. But I don't, I
don't imagine it was and I wasn't worried about
it. It was an honest difference of Constitutional
principle between Judge Starr and the Office of
Independent Counsel and the White House.
Q Mr. President, a couple of very brief questions,
given our time. The White House's outside
counsel, Mr. Eggleston, withdrew the White House's
appeal from Chief Judge Johnson's ruling
that the invocation of executive privilege had to
give way to the grand jury's right to the
information, that ruling in connection with the
testimony of Mr. Blumenthal and Mr. Lindsey.
Were you informed of that fact that the appeal had been withdrawn?
A I was informed of it and, as a matter of fact,
I was consulted about it and I strongly
supported it. I didn't want to appeal it.
Q Okay.
A It was -- I had -- my main difference, Judge Starr,
as you know with you, is, and with some
of the Court decisions, is on the extent to which
members of the White House Counsel's staff,
like Mr. Lindsey, should be able to counsel the
President on matters that may seem like they
are private, like the Jones case, but inevitably
intrude on the daily work of the President. But I
didn't really want to advance an executive privilege
claim in this case beyond having it litigated,
so that we, we had not given up on principle this
matter, without having some judge rule on it.
So, I made -
Q Excuse me. And you are satisfied that you now have
the benefit of that ruling, is that
correct?
A Well, yes. I just didn't want to, I didn't want
to -- yes. And I didn't -- I made the -- I
actually, I think, made the call, or at least I
supported the call. I did not, I strongly felt we
should not appeal your victory on the executive
privilege issue.
MR. STARR: Thank you.
BY MR. WISENBERG:
Q Mr. President, among the many remaining questions
of the grand jurors is one that they
would like answered directly without relation to,
without regard to inferences, which is the
following: Did Monica Lewinsky perform oral sex
on you? They would like a direct answer to
that, yes or no?
A Well, that's not the first time that question's
been asked. But since I believe, and I think any
person, reasonable person would believe that that
is not covered in the definition of sexual
relations I wee given, I'm not going to answer,
except to refer to my statement. I had intimate
contact with her that was inappropriate. I do not
believe any of the contacts I had with her
violated the definition I was given. Therefore,
I believe I did not do anything but testify
truthfully on these matters.
Q We have a couple of photos of the tie that you wore.
A Would you please give them to me?
Q Yes.
A Now, this is August 6th, is that correct?
Q 1998, the day that Monica Lewinsky appeared at
the grand jury. And my question to you on
that is, were you sending some kind of a signal
to her by wearing -
A No, sir.
Q -- one of the ties – let me finish, if you don't mind, sir.
A Sure. I'm sorry. My apology.
Q Were you sending some kind of a signal to her by
wearing a tie she had given you on the
day that she appeared in front of the grand jury?
A No, sir. I don't believe she gave me this tie.
And if I was sending a signal, I'm about to send
a terrible signal, and maybe you ought to invite
her to talk again. I don't, I don't want to make
light about this. I don't believe she gave me this
tie. I don't remember giving, her giving me this
tie. And I had absolutely no thought of this in
my mind when I wore it. If she did, I, I, I, I
don't remember it, and this is the very first I've
ever heard of it.
Q Did you realize when you --
MR. WISENBERG: Can I just have for the record, what are the exhibit numbers?
MS. WIRTH: Yes. They should be WJC-5 and 6.
(Grand Jury Exhibits WJC-5 and WJC-6 were marked for identification.)
MR. WISENBERG: Mr. Bennett has some more questions.
BY MR. BENNETT:
Q Mr. President, we were talking about your responses
to document requests in the Jones
litigation, and I had just asked you about turning
over the Kathleen Willey correspondence. Do
you recall that?
A Yes, sir, I do.
Q And, if I understand your testimony, you did not
believe that the request for documents
compelled you to search for those documents in the
White House?
A Mr. Bennett, I want to answer this question in
way that is completely satisfactory to you and
the grand jury, without violating the lawyer/client
privilege, which is still intact. It was my
understanding that in the request for production
of documents, that those requests ran against
and operated against my personal files. Now, I have
some personal files in the White House.
And, I'm sorry. In this case I'm not my own lawyer,
and I don't know how the distinction is
made between files which are the personal files
of the President, and files which are White
House files. But I do have a very clear memory that
we were duty-bound to search and turn
over evidence or, excuse me, documents that were
in my personal file, but not in the White
House files. And I believe that the letters to which
you refer, Ms. Willey's letters and Ms.
Willey's phone messages, were in the White House
files. And, therefore, I was instructed at
least that they were, that we had fully compiled
with the Jones lawyers' request, and that these
documents were outside the request.
Q Mr. President, you're not contending that White
House documents, documents stored in the
fashion that these were stored, are beyond your
care, custody or control, are you?
A Mr. Bennett, that may be a legal term of art that
don't have the capacity to answer. I can
only tell you what I remember. I remember being
told in no uncertain terms that if these were
personal files of the President, we had to produce
documents. If they were essentially White
House files, we were not bound to do so. So, we
didn't.
Q So, you are saying somebody told you that you didn't
have to produce White House
documents?
A That's --
MR. KENDALL: I'm going to caution the witness that
this question should not invade the
sphere of the attorney/client privilege, and any
conversations with counsel are privileged.
THE WITNESS: Let me say, and maybe, Mr. Kendall,
we need a break here. I'm not trying --
I'm trying to avoid invading the lawyer/client privilege.
I can just tell you that I did, I did the
best I could to comply with this. And eventually
we did make, of course, all of this public. And
it was damaging to Ms. Willey and her credibility.
It was terribly damaging to her. And the first
time she came out with this story, I didn't do it.
I only did it when they went back on "60
Minutes'' and they made this big deal of it. It
turned out she had tried to sell this story and
make all this money. And, I must say, when I saw
how many letters and phone calls and
messages there were that totally undercut her account,
I, myself, was surprised.
BY MR. BENNETT: But you knew there were letters?
A I did, sir.
Q And the White House –
A I knew that -
Q -- is under your control, isn't it, Mr. President?
A Well, Mr. Bennett, again, I'm not trying to be
- I think it's under my control and some days
I'm not so sure. But, if you're asking me, as a
matter of law, I don't want to discuss that
because that's -- I mean, I'll be glad to discuss
it, but I'm not the person who should make that
decision. That decision should be made by someone
who can give me appropriate advice, and I
don't want to violate the lawyer/client privilege
here.
Q Well, Mr. President, how are the letters from Kathleen
Willey that surfaced after the "60
Minutes" episode aired any different from the correspondence
and other matters, tangible
items, tangible things, of Monica Lewinsky?
A Well, the items you asked for from Monica Lewinsky
that I produced to you, you know that
there was a tie, a coffee cup, a number of other
things I had. Then I told you there were some
things that had been in my possession that I no
longer had, I believe. I don't remember if I did
that. There was one book, I remember, that I left
on vacation last summer.
Q The same documents that the Jones litigants had asked you for?
A Yes. But at any rate, they were different. They
were in my – the gifts were in my personal
possession, clearly.
Q In your office at the Oval?
A Well, in the books, now, the Presidential books
were with my other books that belong to me
personally. They were in the Oval.
Q Where do you draw the line, sir, between personal
and White House? Now, you are talking
about some documents that are in the Oval Office
and we don't see where you are drawing the
line?
A Well, Mr. Bennett, I don't think these – I think
the Lewinsky gifts were all non-documents.
And you can –
MR. KENDALL: Is that the time?
THE WITNESS: Just a moment.
MR. KENDALL: Excuse me, Mr. Bennett.
THE WITNESS: Well, I'd like to –
MR. KENDALL: You've got thirty more seconds.
THE WITNESS: -- finish answering the question, please,
because this is a legitimate question,
I think. There is somebody in the White House, Mr.
Bennett who can answer your question,
and you could call them up and they could answer
it, under oath, for you. There is some way
of desegregating what papers are personal to the
President and what papers are part of the
White House official archives papers. And I don't
know how the distinction is made. I just
don't know.
BY MR. BENNETT:
Q Did you direct personnel, Nancy Hernreich or anyone
else, to make a search for
correspondence from Kathleen Willey and Monica Lewinsky
when those documents were
called for in the Jones litigation, sir? Did you
direct that somebody on the White House staff
look for those documents?
A I don't believe that I was in charge of doing that,
the document search, sir. So, the strict
answer to that question is that I didn't.
Q So, you sat back and relied on this legalistic
distinction between your personal, which you
are in control l of, and the White House which,
by the way, you are also in control of; is that
not correct?
MR. KENDALL: I won't object to the argumentative
form of the question. We'll allow the
witness to answer it. We're now over time, even
the 30 seconds. So, this will be it.
THE WITNESS: Mr. Bennett, I haven't said this all
day long, but I would like to say it now.
Most of my time and energy in the last five and
a half years have been devoted to my job.
Now, during that five and a half years, I have also
had to contend with things no previous
President has ever had to contend with: a lawsuit
that was dismissed for lack of legal merit, but
that cost me a fortune and was designed to embarrass
me; this independent counsel inquiry,
which has gone on a very long time and cost a great
deal of money, and about which serious
questions have been raised; and a number of other
things. And, during this whole time, I have
tried as best I could to keep my mind on the job
the American people gave me. I did not make
the legal judgment about how the documents were
decided upon that should be given to the
Jones lawyers, and ones that shouldn't. And, I might
add that Ms. Willey would have been
very happy that these papers were not turned over,
because they damaged her credibility so
much, had they not ultimately been turned over after
she made, I think, the grievous error of
going on '60 Minutes' and saying all those things
that were not true. But I did not make the
decision. It was not my job. This thing is being
managed by other people. I was trying to do
my job.
BY MR. BENNETT:
Q Mr. President, the grand jury, I am notified, still
has unanswered questions of you, and we
appeal to you again to make yourself available to
answer those questions.
MR. KENDALL: Mr. Bennett, our agreement was for four
hours and we have not counted
the break time against that, and I think that will
be -
THE WITNESS: You know, Mr. Bennett, I wish I could
do it. I wish the grand jurors had
been allowed to come here today as we invited them
to do. I wanted them down here. I
wanted them to be able to see me directly. I wanted
them to l be able to ask these questions
directly. But, we made an agreement that was different,
and I think I will go ahead and stick
with the terms of it.
BY MR. BENNETT:
Q The invitation was made after there was political
fallout over the deposition circumstances
with the satellite transmission and the taping.
Isn't that so?
A I don't know about the taping, Mr. Bennett. I understood
that the prospect of the grand
jurors coming down here was raised fairly early.
I don't know.
Q Just for the record --
A But, anyway, I wish they could have. I respect the grand jury. I respect the –
MR. WISENBERG: Just for the record, the invitation
to the grand jury was contingent upon
us not videotaping, and we had to videotape because
we have an absent grand juror.
MR. KENDALL: Is that the only reason, Mr. Wisenberg, you have to videotape?
THE WITNESS: Well, yes. Do you want to answer that?
MR. BITTMAN: Thank you, Mr. President.
(Whereupon, at 6:25 p.m., the proceedings were concluded.)
* * * * *
CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER - NOTARY PUBLIC
I, Elizabeth A. Eastman, the officer before whom
the foregoing proceedings were taken, do
hereby certify that the witness whose testimony
appears in the foregoing was duly sworn by
me; that the testimony of said witness was taken
by me electronically and thereafter reduced to
typewriting by me; that this is a true record of
the testimony given by said witness; that I am
neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by
any of the parties to the action in which this
deposition was taken; and, further, that I am not
a relative or employee of any attorney or
counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially
or otherwise interested in the outcome
of the action.
NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
My Commission Expires:
July 31, 2000
Deposition Concluded
SOURCE: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/transcr.htm