2. Current Status of the Investigation. When the OIC's jurisdiction was
expanded to cover the Lewinsky matter in January 1998, several matters
remained under active investigation by this Office. Evidence was being
gathered and evaluated on, among other things, events related to the Rose
Law Firm's representation of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association;
events related to the firings in the White House Travel Office; and events
related to the use of FBI files. Since the current phase of the
investigation began, additional events arising from the Lewinsky matter
have also come under scrutiny, including possible perjury and obstruction
of justice related to former White House volunteer Kathleen Willey, and the
possible misuse of the personnel records of Pentagon employee Linda Tripp. 
From the outset, it was our strong desire to complete all phases of the
investigation before deciding whether to submit to Congress information --
if any -- that may constitute grounds for an impeachment. But events and
the statutory command of Section 595(c) have dictated otherwise. As the
investigation into the President's actions with respect to Ms. Lewinsky and
the Jones litigation progressed, it became apparent that there was a
significant body of substantial and credible information that met the
Section 595(c) threshold. As that phase of the investigation neared
completion, it also became apparent that a delay of this Referral until the
evidence from all phases of the investigation had been evaluated would be
unwise. Although Section 595(c) does not specify when information must be
submitted, its text strongly suggests that information of this type belongs
in the hands of Congress as soon as the Independent Counsel determines that
the information is reliable and substantially complete. 
All phases of the investigation are now nearing completion. This Office
will soon make final decisions about what steps to take, if any, with
respect to the other information it has gathered. Those decisions will be
made at the earliest practical time, consistent with our statutory and
ethical obligations. 
The Contents of the Referral 
The Referral consists of several parts. Part One is a Narrative. It begins
with an overview of the information relevant to this investigation, then
sets forth that information in chronological sequence. A large part of the
Narrative is devoted to a description of the President's relationship with
Monica Lewinsky. The nature of the relationship was the subject of many of
the President's false statements, and his desire to keep the relationship
secret provides a motive for many of his actions that apparently were
designed to obstruct justice. 
The Narrative is lengthy and detailed. It is the view of this Office that
the details are crucial to an informed evaluation of the testimony, the
credibility of witnesses, and the reliability of other evidence. Many of
the details reveal highly personal information; many are sexually explicit.
This is unfortunate, but it is essential. The President's defense to many
of the allegations is based on a close parsing of the definitions that were
used to describe his conduct. We have, after careful review, identified no
manner of providing the information that reveals the falsity of the
President's statements other than to describe his conduct with precision. 
Part Two of the Referral is entitled "Information that May Constitute
Grounds for An Impeachment." This "Grounds" portion of the Referral
summarizes the specific evidence that the President lied under oath and
attempted to obstruct justice. This Part is designed to be understandable
if read without the Narrative, although the full context in which the
potential grounds for impeachment arise can best be understood if
considered against the backdrop of information set forth in Part One. 
Several volumes accompany the Referral. The Appendix contains relevant
court orders, tables, a discussion of legal and evidentiary issues,
background information on the Jones litigation, a diagram of the Oval
Office, and other reference material. We next set forth a series of
"Document Supplements," which attempt to provide some of the most important
support material in an accessible format. Document Supplement A contains
transcripts of the President's deposition testimony and grand jury
testimony; Document Supplement B contains transcripts of Monica Lewinsky's
testimony and interview statements. Document Supplements C, D, and E set
forth the full text of the documents cited in the Referral. Although every
effort has been made to provide full and accurate quotations of witnesses
in their proper context, we urge review of the full transcripts of the
testimony cited below. 
1. Section 595(c) of Title 28 of the United States Code is part of the
Ethics in Government Act. The section provides: 

(c) Information relating to impeachment. -- An independent counsel shall
advise the House of Representatives of any substantial and credible
information which such independent counsel receives, in carrying out the
independent counsel's responsibilities under this chapter, that may
constitute grounds for an impeachment. Nothing in this chapter or section
49 of this title [concerning the assignment of judges to the Special
Division that appoints an independent counsel] shall prevent the Congress
or either House thereof from obtaining information in the course of an
impeachment proceeding. 
2. Ms. Jones also named Arkansas State Trooper Danny Ferguson as a
defendant. For a detailed background of the Jones v. Clinton lawsuit, see
the accompanying Appendix, Tab C. 
3. In 1991, Ms. Jones was an employee of the Arkansas Industrial
Development Corporation. Ms. Jones alleged that while at work at a meeting
at the Excelsior Hotel that day, she was invited into a hotel room with
Governor Clinton, and that once she was there, the Governor exposed his
genitals and asked her to perform oral sex on him. Ms. Jones alleged that
she suffered various job detriments after refusing Governor Clinton's
advances. This Referral expresses no view on the factual or legal merit, or
lack thereof, of Ms. Jones's claims. 
4. Jones v. Clinton, 117 S. Ct. 1636, 1652 (1997). 
5. The purpose of discovery in a civil lawsuit is "to allow a broad search
for facts, the names of witnesses, or any other matters which may aid a
party in the preparation or presentation of his case." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26
advisory committee notes (1946). The discovery process allows the parties
to obtain from their respective opponents written answers to
interrogatories, oral testimony in depositions under oath, documents, and
other tangible items so long as the information sought "appears reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(b)(1). 
6. 921-DC-00000461 (Dec. 11, 1997 Order at 3). Similarly, in a December 18,
1997 Order, Judge Wright noted that "the issue [was] one of discovery, not
admissibility of evidence at trial. Discovery, as all counsel know, by its
very nature takes unforeseen twists and turns and goes down numerous paths,
and whether those paths lead to the discovery of admissible evidence often
simply cannot be predetermined." 1414-DC-00001012-13 (Dec. 18, 1997 Order
at 7-8). 
7. V002-DC-00000020 (President Clinton's Responses to Plaintiff's Second
Set of Interrogatories at 5). 
8. V002-DC-00000053 (President Clinton's Supplemental Responses to
Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories at 2). During discovery in a
civil lawsuit, the parties must answer written questions
("interrogatories") that are served on them by their opponent. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 33. The answering party must sign a statement under penalty of perjury
attesting to the truthfulness of the answers. Id. 
9. For a brief discussion of the scope of the OIC's jurisdiction, see "The
Scope of the Referral," below. 
10. The full text of the Special Division's Order is set forth in the
Appendix, Tab A. 
11. Jones v. Clinton, Motion of the United States for Limited Intervention
and a Stay of Discovery, at 6. The overlap in the proceedings was
significant. Witnesses called before the grand jury in the criminal
investigation had been subpoenaed by both parties to the civil case;
defendant's counsel had subpoenaed information from the OIC; and the
plaintiff's attorneys had subpoenaed documents directly related to the
criminal matter. 
12. Jones v. Clinton, Order, Jan. 29, 1998, at 2. 
13. Id. 
14. Id. at 2-3. 
15. Id. at 3. 
16. Jones v. Clinton, 993 F. Supp. 1217, 1222 (E.D. Ark. 1998) (footnote
and emphasis omitted). 
17. Jones v. Clinton, 990 F. Supp. 657, 679 (E.D. Ark. 1998). 
18. In the course of its investigation, the OIC gathered information from a
variety of sources, including the testimony of witnesses before the grand
jury. Normally a federal prosecutor is prohibited by Rule 6(e) of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure from disclosing grand jury material,
unless it obtains permission from a court or is otherwise authorized by law
to do so. This Office concluded that the statutory obligation of disclosure
imposed on an Independent Counsel by 28 U.S.C. §595(c) grants such
authority. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the OIC obtained
permission from the Special Division to disclose grand jury material as
appropriate in carrying out its statutory duty. A copy of the disclosure
order entered by the Special Division is set forth in the Appendix, Tab B.
We also advised Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, who supervises the
principal grand jury in this matter, of our determination on that issue. 
19. U.S. Const., art. I, § 2, cl. 5; art. I, § 3, cl. 6. 
20. 28 U.S.C. § 594(a). 
21. Before the grand jury, the President refused to answer certain
questions about his conduct with Ms. Lewinsky on the ground that he
believed the inquiries were unnecessary "and . . . I think, frankly, go too
far in trying to criminalize my private life." Clinton 8/17/98 GJ at 94. 

Others have argued that alleged "lies about sex" have nothing to do with
the President's performance in office, and thus, are inconsequential.
Former White House Counsel Jack Quinn articulated this view: 

This is a matter of sex between consenting adults, and the question of
whether or not one or the other was truthful about it. . . . This doesn't
go to the question of his conduct in office. And, in that sense, it's
trivial. 

Continue