The regrettable fact that the investigation has often required witnesses to
discuss sensitive personal matters has fueled this perception. 
All Americans, including the President, are entitled to enjoy a private
family life, free from public or governmental scrutiny. But the privacy
concerns raised in this case are subject to limits, three of which we
briefly set forth here. 
First. The first limit was imposed when the President was sued in federal
court for alleged sexual harassment. The evidence in such litigation is
often personal. At times, that evidence is highly embarrassing for both
plaintiff and defendant. As Judge Wright noted at the President's January
1998 deposition, "I have never had a sexual harassment case where there was
not some embarrassment."(22) Nevertheless, Congress and the Supreme Court
have concluded that embarrassment-related concerns must give way to the
greater interest in allowing aggrieved parties to pursue their claims.
Courts have long recognized the difficulties of proving sexual harassment
in the workplace, inasmuch as improper or unlawful behavior often takes
place in private.(23) To excuse a party who lied or concealed evidence on
the ground that the evidence covered only "personal" or "private" behavior
would frustrate the goals that Congress and the courts have sought to
achieve in enacting and interpreting the Nation's sexual harassment laws.
That is particularly true when the conduct that is being concealed --
sexual relations in the workplace between a high official and a young
subordinate employee -- itself conflicts with those goals. 
Second. The second limit was imposed when Judge Wright required disclosure
of the precise information that is in part the subject of this Referral. A
federal judge specifically ordered the President, on more than one
occasion, to provide the requested information about relationships with
other women, including Monica Lewinsky. The fact that Judge Wright later
determined that the evidence would not be admissible at trial, and still
later granted judgment in the President's favor, does not change the
President's legal duty at the time he testified. Like every litigant, the
President was entitled to object to the discovery questions, and to seek
guidance from the court if he thought those questions were improper. But
having failed to convince the court that his objections were well founded,
the President was duty bound to testify truthfully and fully. Perjury and
attempts to obstruct the gathering of evidence can never be an acceptable
response to a court order, regardless of the eventual course or outcome of
the litigation. 
The Supreme Court has spoken forcefully about perjury and other forms of
obstruction of justice: 
In this constitutional process of securing a witness' testimony, perjury
simply has no place whatever. Perjured testimony is an obvious and flagrant
affront to the basic concepts of judicial proceedings. Effective restraints
against this type of egregious offense are therefore imperative.(24) 

The insidious effects of perjury occur whether the case is civil or
criminal. Only a few years ago, the Supreme Court considered a false
statement made in a civil administrative proceeding: "False testimony in a
formal proceeding is intolerable. We must neither reward nor condone such a
'flagrant affront' to the truth-seeking function of adversary proceedings.
. . . Perjury should be severely sanctioned in appropriate cases."(25)
Stated more simply, "[p]erjury is an obstruction of justice."(26) 
Third. The third limit is unique to the President. "The Presidency is more
than an executive responsibility. It is the inspiring symbol of all that is
highest in American purpose and ideals."(27) When he took the Oath of
Office in 1993 and again in 1997, President Clinton swore that he would
"faithfully execute the Office of President."(28) As the head of the
Executive Branch, the President has the constitutional duty to "take Care
that the Laws be faithfully executed."(29) The President gave his testimony
in the Jones case under oath and in the presence of a federal judge, a
member of a co-equal branch of government; he then testified before a
federal grand jury, a body of citizens who had themselves taken an oath to
seek the truth. In view of the enormous trust and responsibility attendant
to his high Office, the President has a manifest duty to ensure that his
conduct at all times complies with the law of the land. 

In sum, perjury and acts that obstruct justice by any citizen -- whether in
a criminal case, a grand jury investigation, a congressional hearing, a
civil trial, or civil discovery -- are profoundly serious matters. When
such acts are committed by the President of the United States, we believe
those acts "may constitute grounds for an impeachment." 
The Scope of the Referral
1. Background of the Investigation. The link between the OIC's jurisdiction
-- as it existed at the end of 1997 -- and the matters set forth in this
Referral is complex but direct. In January 1998, Linda Tripp, a witness in
three ongoing OIC investigations, came forward with allegations that: (i)
Monica Lewinsky was planning to commit perjury in Jones v. Clinton, and
(ii) she had asked Ms. Tripp to do the same. Ms. Tripp also stated that:
(i) Vernon Jordan had counseled Ms. Lewinsky and helped her obtain legal
representation in the Jones case, and (ii) at the same time, Mr. Jordan was
helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain employment in the private sector. 
OIC investigators and prosecutors recognized parallels between Mr. Jordan's
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and his earlier relationship with a pivotal
Whitewater-Madison figure, Webster L. Hubbell. Prior to January 1998, the
OIC possessed evidence that Vernon Jordan -- along with other high-level
associates of the President and First Lady -- helped Mr. Hubbell obtain
lucrative consulting contracts while he was a potential witness and/or
subject in the OIC's ongoing investigation. This assistance took place,
moreover, while Mr. Hubbell was a target of a separate criminal
investigation into his own conduct. The OIC also possessed evidence that
the President and the First Lady knew and approved of the Hubbell-focused
assistance. 
Specifically, in the wake of his April 1994 resignation from the Justice
Department, Mr. Hubbell launched a private consulting practice in
Washington, D.C. In the startup process, Mr. Hubbell received substantial
aid from important public and private figures. On the day prior to Mr.
Hubbell announcing his resignation, White House Chief of Staff Thomas
"Mack" McLarty attended a meeting at the White House with the President,
First Lady, and others, where Mr. Hubbell's resignation was a topic of
discussion. 
At some point after the White House meeting, Mr. McLarty spoke with Vernon
Jordan about Mr. Jordan's assistance to Mr. Hubbell. Mr. Jordan introduced
Mr. Hubbell to senior executives at New York-based MacAndrews & Forbes
Holding Co. Mr. Jordan is a director of Revlon, Inc., a company controlled
by MacAndrews & Forbes. The introduction was successful; MacAndrews &
Forbes retained Mr. Hubbell at a rate of $25,000 per quarter. Vernon Jordan
informed President Clinton that he was helping Mr. Hubbell.(31) 
By late 1997, this Office was investigating whether a relationship existed
between consulting payments to Mr. Hubbell and his lack of cooperation
(specifically, his incomplete testimony) with the OIC's investigation.(32)
In particular, the OIC was investigating whether Mr. Hubbell concealed
information about certain core Arkansas matters, namely, the much-
publicized Castle Grande real estate project and related legal work by the
Rose Law Firm, including the First Lady. 
Against this background, the OIC considered the January 1998 allegations
that: (i) Ms. Lewinsky was prepared to lie in order to benefit the
President, and (ii) Vernon Jordan was assisting Ms. Lewinsky in the Jones
litigation, while simultaneously helping her apply for a private-sector job
with, among others, Revlon, Inc. 
Based in part on these similarities, the OIC undertook a preliminary
investigation. On January 15, 1998, this Office informed the Justice
Department of the results of our inquiry. The Attorney General immediately
applied to the Special Division of the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit for an expansion of the OIC's jurisdiction. The Special
Division granted this request and authorized the OIC to determine whether
Monica Lewinsky or others had violated federal law in connection with the
Jones v. Clinton case. 


Continue