|
The President on Trial: Sifting Through the Evidence
Article II, Charge 6: The Four Questions
(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.
Another echo of charges from Article I (the fourth part), this charge concerns Clinton's motives during two conversations in January 1998 with secretary Betty Currie.
On January 18, 1998 Clinton made what is generally counted as four statements to Currie. Clinton claimed these were questions, that he was trying to refresh his memory about his and Lewinsky's interludes. Currie insisted his words were "more like statements than questions." However, Currie insisted she felt no pressure to agree with the president.
Prosecutors take issue with the tone of Clinton's statements and wonder why he would ask allegedly false questions if he wanted truthful answers.
But Article II never mentions Currie by name — it calls her a "potential witness" in Starr's investigation. That phrasing is the basis for one of Clinton's repeated defenses: the president couldn't possibly have known at the time that Currie would be called as a witness. Therefore, the argument follows, he couldn't have been trying to influence her testimony because he didn't know she would ever have to testify. (Internet columnist Matt Drudge first mentioned the Lewinsky story during a January 18, 1998 appearance on ABC's "This Week." Full reports about the Starr probe came from The Washington Post and ABC Radio the night of January 20, when the White House said it first heard about it.)
Both the prosecutors' and Clinton's arguments have weight. If accurate, the president's statements to Currie about his relationship contradict the findings of the Starr report. (For example, Starr's allegations about their sexual contacts would be false if, indeed, he "never touched her.") But the timing of the conversation — after Clinton's deposition, as the Lewinsky story began to break — makes Clinton's talk with Currie seem suspect. While it is possible that potential testimony from Currie was unknown, prosecutors have pointed out that Currie's name had already been mentioned in connection with Lewinsky during the Jones deposition on January 17, indicating that she was a likely witness. If Clinton's intent was to mislead Currie or sway her testimony, he would have had to believe she would be called to testify. Presumably, only Clinton knows for sure what his motives were.
If the House managers can demonstrate that Clinton intended to affect Currie's
eventual testimony, it might qualify as an obstruction case. But they are unlikely to find evidence that will expose Clinton's motives, which leaves another open question of fact for senators to decide.
The Senate may be aided by other events that occurred around the same time, including a January 15 visit by Currie to Vernon Jordan to discuss a call from Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff (Currie was driven there by Lewinsky) or the repeated attempts by Currie to contact Lewinsky after Currie's January 18 meeting with Clinton.
As with other charges, more testimony from Currie or Jordan may be sought
on these issues.
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
| 
Full Coverage