The President on Trial: Sifting Through the Evidence            Full Coverage Search Clinton in Crisis The Trial Trial Guide Evidence Guide Transcripts Video Discuss the Trial The Starr Report and Rebuttals Video Index Documents Starr Investigation Jones v. Clinton Whitewater Jones v. Clinton Whitewater Article II, Charge 5: Speak No Evil, Hear No Evil? (Part II) (5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge. This charge essentially parallels the third part of Article I, but while Article I concerns grand jury testimony, this charge deals with Clinton's actions during the Jones deposition itself. Briefly: the president sat silently as his lawyer Robert Bennett told Judge Susan Webber Wright that Lewinsky's affidavit affirmed that "there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form" between Clinton and Lewinsky. Though Clinton told grand jurors he wasn't sure he "paid much attention" to Bennett during this colloquy, the deposition video shows Clinton apparently looking on intently. The president also told grand jurors that Bennett was technically accurate in his use of the present tense, the genesis of his infamous hair-splitting about "what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Clinton stands accused of obstruction through silence. On the facts, Clinton's defense — that he wasn't paying attention, but even if he was, Bennett's statement was literally true — is somewhat difficult to absorb. (He also claimed that Bennett's statement was not testimony and was therefore not "imputable" to him.) Bennett's statement is factually true (the sexual relationship had ended by that point) and, without getting inside the president's head, it is almost impossible to prove that Clinton was paying attention as Bennett spoke. Senators will have to decide for themselves of course, but the video seems to contradict Clinton. And his defense, if it is used during the Senate trial, would require his lawyers to claim the following: during this incendiary moment of testimony in the Jones case, when he was confronted with the specific issue of sexual contact with Lewinsky — a matter about which he has been accused at best of splitting legal hairs and at worst of outright lying — he either didn't hear what his lawyer said or saw nothing wrong with Bennett's characterization that no sex took place. While this might work in a standard obstruction case, House prosecutors may argue that Clinton's behavior during this episode shows that he did not act in a manner befitting his office — by allowing a deceptive pattern of facts to be presented to a federal judge as truth. That the Senate has no firm burden of proof during his trial does not help the president on this point. Introduction Article I Charges 1 & 2: What is Sex? | Charge 3: Speak No Evil, Hear No Evil? | Charge 4: A Man of Influence? | In Sum...A Man of Honor? Article II Charges 1 & 2: Greasing the Wheels? | Charge 3: The Trail of the Gift Horse | Charge 4: Escape to New York | Charge 5: Speak No Evil, Hear No Evil? (Part II) | Charge 6: The Four Questions | Charge 7: An Influential Man (Pt. II) | In Sum...All or Nothing? Version for Printing