Cases in the News
nav buttons


Clinton in Crisis: Reno's Request

  A legal guide to the crisis  
  Background of the investigation  

On January 16, 1998 Attorney General Janet Reno petitioned a panel of three federal judges to have Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr's authority expanded to look into allegations that former White House intern Monica Lewinsky may have "submitted a false affidavit and suborned perjury."

Reno argued that Starr should look into the matter because "potential subjects and witnesses in this matter overlap with those in his ongoing investigation" -- a possible reference to his reported investigation of Vernon Jordan and President Clinton and consulting contracts arranged for former Justice Department official and long-time Clinton friend Webster Hubbell.

Petition by Reno

Below is the text of Attorney General Reno's request to the court. Following that is the judges' authorization of Reno's request.

In accordance with the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994, I hereby notify in writing the special division of the court that I have commenced a preliminary investigation ... into whether violations of federal criminal law were committed by Monica Lewinsky or any other individual, as described below.

As a result of my inquiry into this matter, I request expansion of the jurisdiction of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to further investigate and determine whether prosecution is warranted. The court has already been informed of this matter and my request orally.

The Department of Justice has received information from Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr that Monica Lewinsky, a former White House employee and witness in the civil case Jones v. Clinton, may have submitted a false affidavit and suborned perjury from another witness in the case.

In a taped conversation with a cooperating witness, Ms. Lewinsky states that she intends to lie when deposed. In the same conversation, she urges the cooperating witness to lie in her own upcoming deposition.

I have determined that it would be a conflict of interest for the Department of Justice to investigate Ms. Lewinsky for perjury and suborning perjury as a witness in this civil suit involving the president, in light of the allegations involved in the lawsuit.

I have also determined that the taped conversation establishes that further investigation of this matter is warranted.

It would be appropriate for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to handle this matter because he is currently investigating similar allegations involving possible efforts to influence witnesses in his own investigation. Some potential subjects and witnesses in this matter overlap with those in his ongoing investigation. Independent Counsel Starr has requested that this matter be referred to him.

Judges' Order

Below is the order by Judges David Sentelle, John Butzner and Peter Fay giving Starr the authority to expand his investigation. It was originally sealed, but released on January 29 when the Justice Department released Attorney General Reno's original request.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Division for the Purpose of
Appointing Independent Counsels

In re: Madison Guaranty Savings          Division No. 94-1
         & Loan Association

Before: Sentelle, Presiding, Butzner and Fay, Senior Circuit
            Judges

UNDER SEAL

ORDER

Upon consideration of an oral application for the expansion of jurisdiction of an Independent Counsel provided to this Court on behalf of the Attorney General on January 16, 1998, it is hereby
ORDERED that the investigative and prosecutorial jurisdiction over the following matters be referred to Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr and to the Office of the Independent Counsel as an expansion of prosecutorial jurisdiction in lieu of the appointment of another Independent Counsel pursuant to 593(c)(1):

(1) The Independent Counsel shall continue to enjoy the full jurisdiction initially conferred upon him as a result of the August 5, 1994, order of the Special Division of the Court and all subsequent orders concerning jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 593(c)(1), the Independent Counsel's jurisdiction shall be expanded to include the following:

(2) The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate to the maximum extent authorized by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994 whether Monica Lewinsky or others suborned perjury, obstructed justice, intimidated witnesses, or otherwise violated federal law other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction in dealing with witnesses, potential witnesses, attorneys, or others concerning the civil case Jones v. Clinton.

(3) The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate related violations of federal criminal law, other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction, including any person or entity who has engaged in unlawful conspiracy or who has aided or abetted any federal offense, as necessary to resolve the matter described above.

(4) The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate crimes, such as any violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1826, any obstruction of the due administration of justice, or any material false testimony or statement in violation of federal criminal law, arising out of his investigation of the matter described above.

(5) The Independent Counsel shall have all the powers and authority provided by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994.

It is further ORDERED that this document and its contents be and remain UNDER SEAL absent further Order of this Court.

This is the 16th day of January, 1998.
Per Curiam
For the Court:

/s/

Marilyn Sargent
Chief Deputy Clerk


  A legal guide to the crisis  
  Background of the investigation  


HOMEPAGE | VERDICTS | FAMOUS CASES | TRIAL TRACKING | LEGAL DOCUMENTS | PROGRAM GUIDE | CTTV STORE | GAMES/CONTEST | LEGAL TERMS | SEARCH | INDEX | HOW TO GET CTTV | COMMENTS



Copyright© 1999 by the Courtroom Television Network LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this site may be reproduced in any form without permission of Court TV.Nothing in this site is intended to constitute legal advice. COURT TV is a registered trademark and COURT TV ONLINE is a service mark of the Courtroom Television Network.