Introduction


As required by Section 595(c) of Title 28 of the United States Code, the
Office of the Independent Counsel ("OIC" or "Office") hereby submits
substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson
Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.(1) 
The information reveals that President Clinton: 
lied under oath at a civil deposition while he was a defendant in a sexual
harassment lawsuit; 

lied under oath to a grand jury; 

attempted to influence the testimony of a potential witness who had direct
knowledge of facts that would reveal the falsity of his deposition
testimony; 

attempted to obstruct justice by facilitating a witness's plan to refuse to
comply with a subpoena; 

attempted to obstruct justice by encouraging a witness to file an affidavit
that the President knew would be false, and then by making use of that
false affidavit at his own deposition; 

lied to potential grand jury witnesses, knowing that they would repeat
those lies before the grand jury; and 

engaged in a pattern of conduct that was inconsistent with his
constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. 
The evidence shows that these acts, and others, were part of a pattern that
began as an effort to prevent the disclosure of information about the
President's relationship with a former White House intern and employee,
Monica S. Lewinsky, and continued as an effort to prevent the information
from being disclosed in an ongoing criminal investigation. 

Factual Background


In May 1994, Paula Corbin Jones filed a lawsuit against William Jefferson
Clinton in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas.(2) Ms. Jones alleged that while he was the Governor of Arkansas,
President Clinton sexually harassed her during an incident in a Little Rock
hotel room.(3) President Clinton denied the allegations. He also challenged
the ability of a private litigant to pursue a lawsuit against a sitting
President. In May 1997, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the
President's legal argument. The Court concluded that Ms. Jones, "[l]ike
every other citizen who properly invokes [the District Court's]
jurisdiction . . . has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims,"
and that therefore Ms. Jones was entitled to pursue her claims while the
President was in office.(4) A few months later, the pretrial discovery
process began.(5) 
One sharply disputed issue in the Jones litigation was the extent to which
the President would be required to disclose information about sexual
relationships he may have had with "other women." Ms. Jones's attorneys
sought disclosure of this information, arguing that it was relevant to
proving that the President had propositioned Ms. Jones. The President
resisted the discovery requests, arguing that evidence of relationships
with other women (if any) was irrelevant. 
In late 1997, the issue was presented to United States District Judge Susan
Webber Wright for resolution. Judge Wright's decision was unambiguous. For
purposes of pretrial discovery, President Clinton was required to provide
certain information about his alleged relationships with other women. In an
order dated December 11, 1997, for example, Judge Wright said: "The Court
finds, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to information regarding
any individuals with whom the President had sexual relations or proposed or
sought to have sexual relations and who were during the relevant time frame
state or federal employees."(6) Judge Wright left for another day the issue
whether any information of this type would be admissible were the case to
go to trial. But for purposes of answering the written questions served on
the President, and for purposes of answering questions at a deposition, the
District Court ruled that the President must respond. 
In mid-December 1997, the President answered one of the written discovery
questions posed by Ms. Jones on this issue. When asked to identify all
women who were state or federal employees and with whom he had had "sexual
relations" since 1986,(7) the President answered under oath: "None."(8) For
purposes of this interrogatory, the term "sexual relations" was not
defined. 
On January 17, 1998, President Clinton was questioned under oath about his
relationships with other women in the workplace, this time at a deposition.
Judge Wright presided over the deposition. The President was asked numerous
questions about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, by then a 24-year-
old former White House intern, White House employee, and Pentagon employee.
Under oath and in the presence of Judge Wright, the President denied that
he had engaged in a "sexual affair," a "sexual relationship," or "sexual
relations" with Ms. Lewinsky. The President also stated that he had no
specific memory of having been alone with Ms. Lewinsky, that he remembered
few details of any gifts they might have exchanged, and indicated that no
one except his attorneys had kept him informed of Ms. Lewinsky's status as
a potential witness in the Jones case. 

The Investigation
On January 12, 1998, this Office received information that Monica Lewinsky
was attempting to influence the testimony of one of the witnesses in the
Jones litigation, and that Ms. Lewinsky herself was prepared to provide
false information under oath in that lawsuit. The OIC was also informed
that Ms. Lewinsky had spoken to the President and the President's close
friend Vernon Jordan about being subpoenaed to testify in the Jones suit,
and that Vernon Jordan and others were helping her find a job. The
allegations with respect to Mr. Jordan and the job search were similar to
ones already under review in the ongoing Whitewater investigation.(9) 
After gathering preliminary evidence to test the information's reliability,
the OIC presented the evidence to Attorney General Janet Reno. Based on her
review of the information, the Attorney General determined that a further
investigation by the Independent Counsel was required. 
On the following day, Attorney General Reno petitioned the Special Division
of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,
on an expedited basis, to expand the jurisdiction of Independent Counsel
Kenneth W. Starr. On January 16, 1998, in response to the Attorney
General's request, the Special Division issued an order that provides in
pertinent part: 
The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to
investigate to the maximum extent authorized by the Independent Counsel
Reauthorization Act of 1994 whether Monica Lewinsky or others suborned
perjury, obstructed justice, intimidated witnesses, or otherwise violated
federal law other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction in dealing
with witnesses, potential witnesses, attorneys, or others concerning the
civil case Jones v. Clinton.(10) 

On January 28, 1998, after the allegations about the President's
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky became public, the OIC filed a Motion for
Limited Intervention and a Stay of Discovery in Jones v. Clinton. The OIC
argued that the civil discovery process should be halted because it was
having a negative effect on the criminal investigation. The OIC represented
to the Court that numerous individuals then under subpoena in Jones,
including Monica Lewinsky, were integral to the OIC's investigation, and
that courts routinely stayed discovery in such circumstances.(11) 
The next day Judge Wright responded to the OIC's motion. The Court ruled
that discovery would be permitted to continue, except to the extent that it
sought information about Monica Lewinsky. The Court acknowledged that
"evidence concerning Monica Lewinsky might be relevant to the issues in
[the Jones] case."(12) It concluded, however, that this evidence was not
"essential to the core issues in this case," and that some of that evidence
"might even be inadmissible."(13) The Court found that the potential value
of this evidence was outweighed by the potential delay to the Jones case in
continuing to seek discovery about Ms. Lewinsky.(14) The Court also was
concerned that the OIC's investigation "could be impaired and prejudiced
were the Court to permit inquiry into the Lewinsky matter by the parties in
this civil case."(15) 
On March 9, 1998, Judge Wright denied Ms. Jones's motion for
reconsideration of the decision regarding Monica Lewinsky. The order
states: 
The Court readily acknowledges that evidence of the Lewinsky matter might
have been relevant to plaintiff's case and, as she argues, that such
evidence might possibly have helped her establish, among other things,
intent, absence of mistake, motive, and habit on the part of the President.
. . . Nevertheless, whatever relevance such evidence may otherwise have . .
. it simply is not essential to the core issues in this case . . . .(16) 

On April 1, 1998, Judge Wright granted President Clinton's motion for
summary judgment, concluding that even if the facts alleged by Paula Jones
were true, her claims failed as a matter of law.(17) Ms. Jones has filed an
appeal, and as of the date of this Referral, the matter remains under
consideration by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 
After the dismissal of Ms. Jones's lawsuit, the criminal investigation
continued. It was (and is) the view of this Office that any attempt to
obstruct the proper functioning of the judicial system, regardless of the
perceived merits of the underlying case, is a serious matter that warrants
further inquiry. After careful consideration of all the evidence, the OIC
has concluded that the evidence of wrongdoing is substantial and credible,
and that the wrongdoing is of sufficient gravity that it warrants referral
to Congress.(18) 

The Significance of the Evidence of Wrongdoing
It is not the role of this Office to determine whether the President's
actions warrant impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate; those
judgments are, of course, constitutionally entrusted to the legislative
branch.(19) This Office is authorized, rather, to conduct criminal
investigations and to seek criminal prosecutions for matters within its
jurisdiction.(20) In carrying out its investigation, however, this Office
also has a statutory duty to disclose to Congress information that "may
constitute grounds for an impeachment," a task that inevitably requires
judgment about the seriousness of the acts revealed by the evidence. 
From the beginning, this phase of the OIC's investigation has been
criticized as an improper inquiry into the President's personal behavior;
indeed, the President himself suggested that specific inquiries into his
conduct were part of an effort to "criminalize my private life."(21) 
Continue