John F. Harris, "In Political Washington, A Confession Consensus," Washington Post, Aug. 4, 1998, at A1 (quoting Quinn's statement on CBS's "Face the Nation"). 

The President echoed this theme in his address to the Nation on August 17, 1998, following his grand jury testimony: 

. . . I intend to reclaim my family life for my family. It's nobody's business but ours. Even Presidents have private lives. It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life. 

Testing of a President: In His Own Words, Last Night's Address, The New York Times, Aug. 18, 1998, at A12. 
22. Clinton 1/17/98 Depo. at 9. As two commentators have noted: "[T]o the extent that discovery is permitted with respect to the sexual activities of either the complainant or the alleged harasser, courts likely will freely entertain motions to limit
the availability of such information to the parties and their counsel and to prohibit general dissemination of such sensitive data to third parties." See Barbara Lindeman & David D. Kadue, Sexual Harassment in Employment Law 563 (1992). 
23. A sexual harassment case can sometimes boil down to a credibility battle between the parties, in which "the existence of corroborative evidence or the lack thereof is likely to be crucial." Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 912 n.25 (11th
Cir. 1982). If there are no eyewitnesses, it can be critical for a plaintiff to learn in discovery whether the defendant has committed the same kind of acts before or since. Thus, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission explained in a 1990 policy
statement that the plaintiff's allegations of an incident of sexual harassment "would be further buttressed if other employees testified that the supervisor propositioned them as well." EEOC Policy Guidance (1990). The rules of evidence establish
that such corroboration may be used to show the defendant's "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident." Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). In short, a defendant's sexual history, at least with respect
to other employees, is ordinarily discoverable in a sexual harassment suit. 
24. United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564, 576 (1975) (plurality opinion). 
25. ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. NLRB, 510 U.S. 317, 323 (1994). 
26. United States v. Norris, 300 U.S. 564, 574 (1937). There is occasional misunderstanding to the effect that perjury is somehow distinct from "obstruction of justice." While the crimes are distinct, they are in fact variations on a single theme:
preventing a court, the parties, and the public from discovering the truth. Perjury, subornation of perjury, concealment of subpoenaed documents, and witness tampering are all forms of obstruction of justice. 
27. See Eugene Lyons, Herbert Hoover: A Biography 337 (1964) (quoting Hoover). 
28. U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 8. 
29. U.S. Const., art. II, § 3; see also George Washington, Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1793: 

Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any
instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony. 

Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, H.R. Doc. No. 82-540, at 4 (1954). 
30. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 653-54 (Jackson, J., concurring). 
31. Jordan, House Testimony, 7/24/97, at 46. 
32. From April through November 1994, 17 different persons or entities retained Mr. Hubbell as a consultant. In 1994, he collected $450,010 for this work. In 1995, he collected $91,750, despite beginning a 28-month prison term in August of that year. 



I. Nature of President Clinton's 

Relationship with Monica Lewinsky 


A. Introduction 
This Referral presents substantial and credible information that President Clinton criminally obstructed the judicial process, first in a sexual harassment lawsuit in which he was the defendant and then in a grand jury investigation. The opening
section of the Narrative provides an overview of the object of the President's cover-up, the sexual relationship between the President and Ms. Lewinsky. Subsequent sections recount the evolution of the relationship chronologically, including the
sexual contacts, the President's efforts to get Ms. Lewinsky a job, Ms. Lewinsky's subpoena in Jones v. Clinton, the role of Vernon Jordan, the President's discussions with Ms. Lewinsky about her affidavit and deposition, the President's deposition
testimony in Jones, the President's attempts to coach a potential witness in the harassment case, the President's false and misleading statements to aides and to the American public after the Lewinsky story became public, and, finally, the
President's testimony before a federal grand jury. 
B. Evidence Establishing Nature of Relationship 
1. Physical Evidence 
Physical evidence conclusively establishes that the President and Ms. Lewinsky had a sexual relationship. After reaching an immunity and cooperation agreement with the Office of the Independent Counsel on July 28, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky turned over a
navy blue dress that she said she had worn during a sexual encounter with the President on February 28, 1997. According to Ms. Lewinsky, she noticed stains on the garment the next time she took it from her closet. From their location, she surmised
that the stains were the President's semen.(1) 
Initial tests revealed that the stains are in fact semen.(2) Based on that result, the OIC asked the President for a blood sample.(3) After requesting and being given assurances that the OIC had an evidentiary basis for making the request, the
President agreed.(4) In the White House Map Room on August 3, 1998, the White House Physician drew a vial of blood from the President in the presence of an FBI agent and an OIC attorney.(5) By conducting the two standard DNA comparison tests, the FBI
Laboratory concluded that the President was the source of the DNA obtained from the dress.(6) According to the more sensitive RFLP test, the genetic markers on the semen, which match the President's DNA, are characteristic of one out of 7.87 trillion
Caucasians.(7) 
In addition to the dress, Ms. Lewinsky provided what she said were answering machine tapes containing brief messages from the President, as well as several gifts that the President had given her. 
2. Ms. Lewinsky's Statements 
Ms. Lewinsky was extensively debriefed about her relationship with the President. For the initial evaluation of her credibility, she submitted to a detailed "proffer" interview on July 27, 1998.(8) After entering into a cooperation agreement, she was
questioned over the course of approximately 15 days. She also provided testimony under oath on three occasions: twice before the grand jury, and, because of the personal and sensitive nature of particular topics, once in a deposition. In addition,
Ms. Lewinsky worked with prosecutors and investigators to create an 11-page chart that chronologically lists her contacts with President Clinton, including meetings, phone calls, gifts, and messages.(9) Ms. Lewinsky twice verified the accuracy of the
chart under oath.(10) 
In the evaluation of experienced prosecutors and investigators, Ms. Lewinsky has provided truthful information. She has not falsely inculpated the President. Harming him, she has testified, is "the last thing in the world I want to do."(11) 
Moreover, the OIC's immunity and cooperation agreement with Ms. Lewinsky includes safeguards crafted to ensure that she tells the truth. Court-ordered immunity and written immunity agreements often provide that the witness can be prosecuted only for
false statements made during the period of cooperation, and not for the underlying offense. The OIC's agreement goes further, providing that Ms. Lewinsky will lose her immunity altogether if the government can prove to a federal district judge -- by
a preponderance of the evidence, not the higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt -- that she lied. Moreover, the agreement provides that, in the course of such a prosecution, the United States could introduce into evidence the statements made by
Ms. Lewinsky during her cooperation. Since Ms. Lewinsky acknowledged in her proffer interview and in debriefings that she violated the law, she has a strong incentive to tell the truth: If she did not, it would be relatively straightforward to void
the immunity agreement and prosecute her, using her own admissions against her. 

Continue