Cris Mooney
A Personal
Web Page: 

"Of course, that's just my opinion, and I may be full of shit"
- Dennis Miller -

Since this opinion was considered in great detail, it will be difficult to change my mind. However, it's not impossible. I am always open to reason. I welcome thoughtful, logical, response.

Recorded Sept 13, 1998, Update Feb 15, 1999

Clinton vs. Jones


This is an exercise for my mind; an evaluation of information in a reasoning way to keep my thoughts sharp. But, I also care. Not about consensual sexual relations, but about sexual harassment and obstruction of justice. If you don't care about possible sexual harassment, and obvious obstruction of justice, by your President... what do you care about? What kind of example are we building here?

Thanks to Steve & Robin, Zita, Chere and Marc who made me consider aspects of this issue that I would otherwise have taken for granted.


On the Ides of February, 1999, the US Senate voted not to remove Clinton from office. Though I have little faith in this outcome, I do applaud the system for at least making a go at it. I would have liked to see another outcome, but it could have been worse. Subsequently, charges were brought up against Starr (they have since failed). In the second matter, I hope the system worked better than it did in the Clinton and OJ trials, though I did not follow it closely. I hope that Starr's exoneration actually corresponded with reality - "that it was reasonable".


I am startled to discover that the majority of people believe Clinton is almost certainly guilty of lying under oath, obstructing justice, and probably sexual harassment, yet at the same time the majority also believe we should "move on" and do nothing about the issue. Somehow, people have come to the conclusion that it is OK to pick and choose when you are going to tell the truth (even when under oath), and that it is unimportant to prosecute illegal behavior. This attitude contributes to the predominant perception in our country that it is safe to break the law; the same contribution made by lawyers who have stunted our ability to prosecute obviously guilty individuals (like OJ and Clinton) and by local public servants that would "fix tickets".

To ease their conscious with respect to this issue, most people talk about Clinton's consensual relations, as if they are the central issue. In fact, they are a footnote - a red herring. To focus on Monica Lewinski misses the point, and is simply a technique meant to hide us from the fact that we are not acting responsibly to keep law and order.

The true issue here is allegation of sexual harassment, and lying under oath. It is about charges filed by a Clinton employee, and lies and obstruction to cover up and avoid prosecution. This issue is NOT about consenting relations with Monica Lewinski.

But we would not be here if...

It is not relevant how we got to the sexual harassment case, nor that Clinton could have avoided lying if not accused of sexual harassment. We wouldn't be here if Clinton was not born, nor if he did not like sex, nor if we hadn't outlawed sexual harassment, nor if bla, bla, bla. The fact is, he lied, under oath. To say this is OK because of what he lied about, or how he got there, would be like saying it is OK for the man running down the street  to turn and shoot a policeman who yells "hey, you, stop!" I mean, if the Cop had not said anything, then the man would not have shot him. Yes, if Clinton had not engaged in questionable sexual practices, and the independent council (that he re-instated in 1994) had not raised charges, then Clinton would not have lied, just like the man would not have shot the cop -- but so what? The point is, you can't justify lying under oath, the same way you can't justify shooting someone unless your life (and I don't mean your "way of life", or your "political image") is threatened.

To allow Clinton to claim it is OK to break the law (lie under oath) under "the cases" he thinks are "OK", is to accept that all individuals have the right to interpret any law as they see fit. This is the foundation for disaster. Laws are in place for both punitive, and deterrent. Failure to enforce them weakens both angles. No doubt, many individuals are now using Clinton as an example to justify all forms of wrong doing. Perhaps the individual who shot the cop in my example above feels it is OK to lie too?

A couple interesting points, raised by Marc, are that the Paula Jones case was a civil case, and that in a civil case you are not allowed to "take the 5th". These are very interesting points, but they still do not justify lying under oath - which I still believe to be a crimial offense (a crime against society, which is attempting to determine the truth on an issue). Clinton should not have engaged in activity that would put him in a position where he would have to lie, or he should have told the truth when confronted under oath. If he had taken credit for his own actions, then been judged guilty or innocent as appropriate, we could all determine if we wanted him removed from office based on that information. Instead, he lied and obstructed, and that is what we are considering now.

Finally, if in fact any laws were broken in bringing the case against Clinton, or if you think it was improper to do so, then take actions against those individuals (prosecute Starr and/or remove appropriate politicians from office, but you better know what the hell you are doing). In doing so, don't forget that Clinton is the one the re-instated the office of the independant council in 1994, so you better go after him too. However, none of this changes the fact that Clinton lied under oath.

Its OK to lie about sex (or, what's so bad about lying under oath)?

Our very ability to walk down the street, and pursue our lives in freedom, is based on the existence of laws and justice in our society. To allow individuals to interpret which laws they will follow, and for what reasons, is detrimental this system. For this reason, no one has a right to lie when they have taken an oath not to lie, no matter what they lie about.

I am very scared by the current wave of individuals who say it is "OK to lie" about whatever they feel is unimportant today (in this case sex). Frankly, I don't trust them (no myself) to know what it is OK to lie about. In this case, individuals are erroneously thinking about their own personal legal sex, and forgetting that these lies are about things relevant to alleged illegal sexual activity (sexual harassment). This is the very reason laws are written down, since everyone does not know right from wrong.

It is not OK for Clinton to have lied about anything, while under oath to tell the truth. In this case, it is not OK to lie about sex since the information is relevant to alleged sexual harassment. Because of the relevance, Clinton is lying about alleged illegal activity (it doesn't matter what the topic is).

What worries me as much as the fact that we clearly have whole society of individuals that think it is OK to interpret the laws as they see fit in a given day, is that they are loudly saying "we don't care", and that "this is all OK, let's move on", to the future generations. This is the prime figurehead in the world! What an example we are!

Is this what the 60s and 70s got us? A bunch of people who think lies are unimportant?

This is about a formal, legal, sexual harassment case! 

Some may claim that the sexual harassment allegation, filed by Paula Jones, has no merit and should be ignored (a case which Clinton subsequently agreed to settle out of court). However, keep in mind that the those who filed the charges know much more about the President than we do. In light of Ken Starr's report, there is clear reason to suspect that the sexual harassment allegation has merit - enough to warrant further  investigation.

Others will claim that we should not investigate details about Clinton's private sex life. However, it is a necessary, and standard, practice in sexual harassment cases to show a pattern of behavior. That it to say, if Clinton's alleged private sex life was legal, then it would be private. However, the allegations made by Paula Jones have established reasonable cause, which justifies extra investigation. Certainly, without reasonable cause, we have no reason to investigate personal sexual activity. However, given reasonable cause, relations with a 22-year-old White House intern are pertinent. 

Still others claim sexual harassment (if true), and lying to cover it up, is not a serious enough crime. However, sex and power are not trivial; they are basic. Infractions like these clearly demonstrate character. They let us know how the President handles other situations. Since the majority of presidential responsibilities are clandestine, we must be able to place trust in our President's character. Moreover, the president also has an obligation to set an example for the entire nation; he is a figurehead.

If Clinton had been forthcoming with information about his personal relationships, as they apply to the case, then the details would have remained confidential. The focus would have remained on the sexual harassment case. Perhaps this distraction was what Clinton wanted...? 

Again, if in fact any laws were broken in bringing the case against Clinton, or if you think it was improper to do so, then take actions against those individuals (prosecute Starr and/or remove appropriate politicians from office, but you better know what the hell you are doing). However, this does not change the fact that Clinton lied under oath.

But now, obstruction has eclipsed the sexual harassment 

The problem is that Clinton has intentionally obstructed our ability to determine the veracity of the sexual harassment charges. We should still be focused on the harassment case, but lies have made this impossible. This infraction is clearly documented in the recent "Ken Starr" report, and demonstrated WHY lying is unacceptable.

Moreover, acknowledged in Starr's report is the fact that his personal sexual relations were only a small portion of the sexual harassment case. And yet, Clinton obstructed this aspect. Why? Did he expect that his propensity for oral relations might lend more credence to Paula Jones allegations about that type of sex? 

If Clinton had not obstructed the investigation, then Starr would not have been forced to delve deeply into the Monica Lewinski matter; he would not have had to release details to prove obstruction. It was the President's reliance on technical jargon that forced investigation into the lurid details. But these details are not the issue, just supporting evidence, which Clinton is happy to try an make the main issue in hopes of derailing the original investigation.

But our economy is so good! 

This response not only greedy and absurd, it is very short sighted.

For the most part, our economy is the result of events well before Clinton was on the scene. Moreover, he barely has any control, since the congress is republican. To give Clinton credit for our current prosperity, is very short sighted. The current situation is long term, and has far more to do with previous administrations; the Clinton effect will not be measurable for years. 

Perhaps more important is the need for long term evaluation of the effect removing Clinton would have. Debatably, there might be some short term negative economic impact. However, what about the long term? Leave him in office and: 

 - what other unscrupulous deceptions will he undertake? 
 - will the world respect a country that knowingly accepts a President that intentionally obstructed justice? 
 - what will encourage honesty in future presidents? 

Most important, consider the absurd claim: "things are too good to do what is right". If things are "the best"... and we can't stand up for truth and justice, then when will we?

Let's Move On

Personally, I will be very happy to just move on. Put Clinton in jail, and we can just move right on. Oh? You don't agree to do that? Then you are the one slowing things down, so stop telling me to move on since you are the obstacle. This is about lying under oath, a huge issue, and I am not interested in moving on until it is resolved properly.

But who cares anyway? 

The bottom line is that obstruction of justice is a crime, and for good reason. In this case, it has inhibited our attempts to determine the truth in a sexual harassment case, in other situation it obstructs our ability to determine the truth about other alleged crimes. I hope all citizens recognize that one must prosecute obstruction of justice, in the same way we must prosecute sexual harassment. I personally do not care why he obstructed justice; he did it.

I care because this sort of blatant disregard for the law, especially by the head of our country who is by job title the example for our citizens, is a fundamental assault on the very fabric of our society. Clinton does not have the right to interpret the law as he sees fit, nor set that example for all our citizens. To do so eats at the very core of our being.

Again, this is about alleged sexual harassment, and obstruction of justice - not about consensual legal activity. 

If you believe that sexual harassment is not significant, then how do you feel about a President that would knowingly commit the high crime of perjury over an issue you consider to be trivial? How do you think such an individual would handle more serious issues? How do you think it effects our society when such behavior is advertised as acceptable?

If you believe that reasonable sexual harassment charges must be investigated, and you believe that obstruction of justice is a punishable crime, you have no choice but to call for removal of William Clinton from office. 

Clinton is a criminal. He intentionally broke the law knowing full well what he was doing to cover up alleged illegal activities. Leaving him in office is more dangerous than removing him. I do not believe he repents, nor will change his ways. He was branded "slick willy" by his own Arkansas constituency years back. He continues to be the spinmeister that will say whatever he thinks will placate us. He knew he was breaking the law, and he will continue to operate without conscience. 

Finally, just because everyone does it (other presidents have done worse), that is no reason to ignore this issue. Two wrongs don't make a right. If we are to improve, or even avoid getting worse, we must address each action on its own merit. Otherwise, there is a natural progression to the lowest common denominator. And, of course, this is what we are doing already, accepting that it is OK to lie...let's just move on.

Note that Clinton could have avoided this whole mess by being honest about the Lewinsky relationship. But...then he would have had to answer to the Sexual harassment charges. This is all simply another diversionary spinmeister tactic, but we can not fall prey. 

Clinton must go. 



My opinions are based on a fair amount of research, and conversations. Most recently, I have read a substantial portion of the Starr report, and all of the first White House rebuttal. These can be found online at, which has links to numerous places the reports have been published. 

If you read nothing else, read the first page of the "introduction" and "grounds" form Starr's report (given below). If you think that any of the "introduction" and "grounds" are "bull", then you are obliged to read the report, which I feel credibly supports these sections. 

If you are inclined to disagree with my analysis, then have you really examined the issue? If so, please tell me where I went wrong. 

Here are some excerpts from the Starr report that I find key. They are taken out of order, but not out of context. Names have not been changed, so the guilty can be held responsible: 


"Ms. Jones alleged that while he was the Governor of Arkansas, President Clinton sexually harassed her during an incident in a Little Rock hotel room" 

"Ms. Jones alleged that she suffered various job detriments after refusing Governor Clinton's advances" 

"A defendant's sexual history, at least with respect to other employees, is ordinarily discoverable in a sexual harassment suit." 

"For purposes of pretrial discovery, President Clinton was required to provide certain information about his alleged relationships with other women" 

"The Jones suit rested on the allegation that the President sought to have Ms. Jones perform oral sex on him. Yet the President now claims that the expansive definition devised for deposition questioning should be interpreted to exclude that very act." 

"The President's linguistic parsing is unreasonable. Under the President's interpretation (which he says he followed at his deposition), in an oral sex encounter, one person is engaged in sexual relations, but the other person is not engaged in sexual relations" 

"The President also had strong personal, political, and legal motives to lie in the Jones deposition: He did not want to admit that he had committed extramarital sex acts with a young intern in the Oval Office area of the White House. Such an admission could support Ms. Jones's theory of liability" 

"There is substantial and credible information that the President's lies about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky were abundant and calculating." 

"Section 595(c) of Title 28 of the United States Code -- 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" 


 As required by Section 595(c) of Title 28 of the United States Code, the Office of the Independent Counsel ("OIC" or "Office") hereby submits substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.(1) 

The information reveals that President Clinton:

lied under oath at a civil deposition while he was a defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit; 

lied under oath to a grand jury; 

attempted to influence the testimony of a potential witness who had direct knowledge of facts that would reveal the falsity of his deposition testimony; 

attempted to obstruct justice by facilitating a witness's plan to refuse to comply with a subpoena; 

attempted to obstruct justice by encouraging a witness to file an affidavit that the President knew would be false, and then by making use of that false affidavit at his own deposition; 

lied to potential grand jury witnesses, knowing that they would repeat those lies before the grand jury; and 

engaged in a pattern of conduct that was inconsistent with his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. 

The evidence shows that these acts, and others, were part of a pattern that began as an effort to prevent the disclosure of information about the President's relationship with a former White House intern and employee, Monica S. Lewinsky, and continued as an effort to prevent the information from being disclosed in an ongoing criminal investigation. 

Factual Background
 In May 1994, Paula Corbin Jones filed a lawsuit against William Jefferson Clinton in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.(2) Ms. Jones alleged that while he was the Governor of Arkansas, President Clinton sexually harassed her during an incident in a Little Rock hotel room.(3) President Clinton denied the allegations. He also challenged the ability of a private litigant to pursue a lawsuit against a sitting President. In May 1997, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the President's legal argument. The Court concluded that Ms. Jones, "[l]ike every other citizen who properly invokes [the District Court's] jurisdiction . . . has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims," and that therefore Ms. Jones was entitled to pursue her claims while the President was in office.(4) A few months later, the pretrial discovery process began.(5) 

One sharply disputed issue in the Jones litigation was the extent to which the President would be required to disclose information about sexual relationships he may have had with "other women." Ms. Jones's attorneys sought disclosure of this information, arguing that it was relevant to proving that the President had propositioned Ms. Jones. The President resisted the discovery requests, arguing that evidence of relationships with other women (if any) was irrelevant. 

In late 1997, the issue was presented to United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright for resolution. Judge Wright's decision was unambiguous. For purposes of pretrial discovery, President Clinton was required to provide certain information about his alleged relationships with other women. In an order dated December 11, 1997, for example, Judge Wright said: "The Court finds, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to information regarding any individuals with whom the President had sexual relations or proposed or sought to have sexual relations and who were during the relevant time frame state or federal employees."(6) Judge Wright left for another day the issue whether any information of this type would be admissible were the case to go to trial. But for purposes of answering the written questions served on the President, and for purposes of answering questions at a deposition, the District Court ruled that the President must respond. 

In mid-December 1997, the President answered one of the written discovery questions posed by Ms. Jones on this issue. When asked to identify all women who were state or federal employees and with whom he had had "sexual relations" since 1986,(7) the President answered under oath: "None."(8) For purposes of this interrogatory, the term "sexual relations" was not defined. 

On January 17, 1998, President Clinton was questioned under oath about his relationships with other women in the workplace, this time at a deposition. Judge Wright presided over the deposition. The President was asked numerous questions about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, by then a 24-year-old former White House intern, White House employee, and Pentagon employee. Under oath and in the presence of Judge Wright, the President denied that he had engaged in a "sexual affair," a "sexual relationship," or "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky. The President also stated that he had no specific memory of having been alone with Ms. Lewinsky, that he remembered few details of any gifts they might have exchanged, and indicated that no one except his attorneys had kept him informed of Ms. Lewinsky's status as a potential witness in the Jones case. 


                  There is Substantial and Credible Information that 

                       President Clinton Committed Acts that 

                    May Constitute Grounds for an Impeachment 


Pursuant to Section 595(c) of Title 28, the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President Clinton obstructed justice during the Jones v. Clinton sexual harassment lawsuit by lying under oath and concealing evidence of his relationship with a young White House intern and federal employee, Monica Lewinsky. After a federal criminal investigation of the President's actions began in January 1998, the President lied under oath to the grand jury and obstructed justice during the grand jury investigation. There also is substantial and credible information that the President's actions with respect to Monica Lewinsky constitute an abuse of authority inconsistent with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. 

There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment: 

1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. 

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. 

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him. 

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case. 

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys. 

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. 

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case. 

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case. 

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition. 

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury. 

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States. 

The first two possible grounds for impeachment concern the President's lying under oath about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The details associated with those grounds are, by their nature, explicit. The President's testimony unfortunately has rendered the details essential with respect to those two grounds, as will be explained in those grounds. 

I. There is substantial and credible information that President Clinton lied under oath as a defendant in Jones v. Clinton regarding his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. 

(1) He denied that he had a "sexual relationship" with Monica Lewinsky. 

(2) He denied that he had a "sexual affair" with Monica Lewinsky. 

(3) He denied that he had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. 

(4) He denied that he engaged in or caused contact with the genitalia of "any person" with an intent to arouse or gratify (oral sex performed on him by Ms. Lewinsky). 

(5) He denied that he made contact with Monica Lewinsky's breasts or genitalia with an intent to arouse or gratify. 

On May 6, 1994, former Arkansas state employee Paula Corbin Jones filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against President Clinton claiming that he had sexually harassed her on May 8, 1991, by requesting her to perform oral sex on him in a suite at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock. Throughout the pretrial discovery process in Jones v. Clinton, United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled, over the President's objections, that Ms. Jones's lawyers could seek various categories of information, including information about women who had worked as government employees under Governor or President Clinton and allegedly had sexual activity with him. Judge Wright's rulings followed the prevailing law in sexual harassment cases: The defendant's sexual relationships with others in the workplace, including consensual relationships, are a standard subject of inquiry during the discovery process. Judge Wright recognized the commonplace nature of her discovery rulings and stated that she was following a "meticulous standard of materiality" in allowing such questioning. 

At a hearing on January 12, 1998, Judge Wright required Ms. Jones to list potential trial witnesses. Ms. Jones's list included several "Jane Does."(1) Ms. Jones's attorneys said they intended to call a Jane Doe named Monica Lewinsky as a witness to support Ms. Jones's claims. Under Ms. Jones's legal theory, women who had sexual relationships with the President received job benefits because of the sexual relationship, but women who resisted the President's sexual advances were denied such benefits.(2) 

On January 17, 1998, Ms. Jones's lawyers deposed President Clinton under oath with Judge Wright present and presiding over the deposition. Federal law requires a witness testifying under oath to provide truthful answers. The intentional failure to provide truthful answers is a crime punishable by imprisonment 

and fine.(3) At the outset of his deposition, the President took an oath administered by Judge Wright: "Do you swear or affirm . . . that the testimony you are about to give in the matter before the court is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" The President replied: "I do."(4) At the beginning of their questioning, Ms. Jones's attorneys asked the President: "And your testimony is subject to the penalty of perjury; do you understand that, sir?" The President responded, "I do."(5) 

Based on the witness list received in December 1997 (which included Ms. Lewinsky) and the January 12, 1998, hearing, the President and his attorneys were aware that Ms. Jones's attorneys likely would question the President at his deposition about Ms. Lewinsky and the other "Jane Does." In fact, the attorneys for Ms. Jones did ask numerous questions about "Jane Does," including Ms. Lewinsky. 

There is substantial and credible information that President Clinton lied under oath in answering those questions. 

A. Evidence that President Clinton Lied Under Oath During the Civil Case 

1. President Clinton's Statements Under Oath About Monica Lewinsky 

During pretrial discovery, Paula Jones's attorneys served the President with written interrogatories.(6) One stated in relevant part: 

Please state the name, address, and telephone number of each and every [federal employee] with whom you had sexual relations when you [were] . . . President of the United States.(7) 

The interrogatory did not define the term "sexual relations." Judge Wright ordered the President to answer the interrogatory, and on December 23, 1997, under penalty of perjury, President Clinton answered "None."(8) 

At the January 17, 1998, deposition of the President, Ms. Jones's attorneys asked the President specific questions about possible sexual activity with Monica Lewinsky. The attorneys used various terms in their questions, including "sexual affair," "sexual relationship," and "sexual relations." The terms "sexual affair" and "sexual relationship" were not specially defined by Ms. Jones's attorneys. The term "sexual relations" was defined: 

For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes . . . contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. . . . "Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.(9) 

President Clinton answered a series of questions about Ms. Lewinsky, including: 

Q: Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky? 

WJC: No. 

Q: If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie? 

WJC: It's certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth. 

Q: I think I used the term "sexual affair." And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court? 

Mr. Bennett:(10) 

I object because I don't know that he can remember -- 

Judge Wright: 

Well, it's real short. He can -- I will permit the question and you may show the witness definition number one. 

WJC: I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her.(11) 

President Clinton reiterated his denial under questioning by his own attorney: 

Q: In paragraph eight of [Ms. Lewinsky's] affidavit, she says this, "I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship." Is that a true and accurate statement as far as you know it? 

WJC: That is absolutely true.(12) 

2. Monica Lewinsky's Testimony 

Monica Lewinsky testified under oath before the grand jury that, beginning in November 1995, when she was a 22-year-old White House intern, she had a lengthy relationship with the President that included substantial sexual activity. She testified in detail about the times, dates, and nature of ten sexual encounters that involved some form of genital contact. As explained in the Narrative section of this Referral, White House records corroborate Ms. Lewinsky's testimony in that the President was in the Oval Office area during the encounters. The records of White House entry and exit are incomplete for employees, but they do show her presence in the White House on eight of those occasions.(13) 

The ten incidents are recounted here because they are necessary to assess whether the President lied under oath, both in his civil deposition, where he denied any sexual relationship at all, and in his grand jury testimony, where he acknowledged an "inappropriate intimate contact" but denied any sexual contact with Ms. Lewinsky's breasts or genitalia. When reading the following descriptions, the President's denials under oath should be kept in mind. 

Unfortunately, the nature of the President's denials requires that the contrary evidence be set forth in detail. If the President, in his grand jury appearance, had admitted the sexual activity recounted by Ms. Lewinsky and conceded that he had lied under oath in his civil deposition, these particular descriptions would be superfluous. Indeed, we refrained from questioning Ms. Lewinsky under oath about particular details until after the President's August 17 testimony made that questioning necessary. But in view of (i) the President's denials, (ii) his continued contention that his civil deposition testimony was legally accurate under the terms and definitions employed, and (iii) his refusal to answer related questions, the detail is critical. The detail provides credibility and corroboration to Ms. Lewinsky's testimony. It also demonstrates with clarity that the Pres ident lied under oath both in his civil deposition and to the federal grand jury.(14) There is substantial and credible information that the President's lies about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky were abundant and calculating. 

(i) Wednesday, November 15, 1995 

Ms. Lewinsky testified that she had her first sexual contact with the President on the evening of Wednesday, November 15, 1995, while she was an intern at the White House. Two times that evening, the President invited Ms. Lewinsky to meet him near the Oval Office.(15) On the first occasion, the President took Ms. Lewinsky back into the Oval Office study, and they kissed.(16) On the second, she performed oral sex on the President in the hallway outside the Oval Office study.(17) During this encounter, the President directly touched and kissed Ms. Lewinsky's bare breasts.(18) In addition, the President put his hand down Ms. Lewinsky's pants and directly stimulated her genitalia (acts clearly within the definition of "sexual relations" used at the Jones deposition).(19)