“…the OIC subpoenaed a Washington bookstore, Kramerbooks & afterwords, for receipts of all her book purchases since 1995. “It was such a violation,” she complains. “It seemed that everyone in America had rights except for Monica Lewinsky. I felt like I wasn’t a citizen of this country anymore.”[xv]

The investigation of the President was authorised under the United States Legal Code as prescribed in the Independent Counsel Act. Originally Attorney General Janet Reno chose Robert Fiske to act as Independent Counsel and investigate whether there was any wrongdoing within the executive branch concerning a failed real estate deal in Arkansas, known as Whitewater.[xvi] Initial investigations surrounding this matter had appeared to implicate Clinton whilst he was governor of the state.

On August 9^th 1994, Kenneth Starr replaced Fiske after lobbying by Republican politicians complaining that Fiske was ‘soft’ on Clinton. Starr was a former Solicitor General in the Bush administration and clearly a Republican. Much has been made of this by Clinton supporters in an attempt to portray Starr as ideologically akin to those anti-Clintonites behind the Jones suit. But considering that no-one had heard of Lewinsky in August 1994 (not even Clinton) and that nobody had any idea that what did happen would happen it is churlish to suggest that Starr was premeditated in his determination to set out to trap Clinton over sexual peccadillo’s. 

How did an investigation into a land deal turn into one of the greatest sex scandal stories of the century? The seeds for this were sown even before Starr was appointed as Independent Counsel and were planted on the President’s home soil in Arkansas.

On May 6^th 1994, Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state government employee, filed a sexual harassment suit against President Clinton accusing him of an unwanted sexual advance in a Little Rock hotel room on May 8^th 1991. This suit was eventually dismissed on April 1^st 1998, Judge Susan Webber Wright ruling that even if proven, Jones did not suffer any form of hardship or injury as a result, so was due no damages. Clinton later settled with Jones with no apology or admission of guilt.[xvii] It was not however, the guilt or innocence of the President in this particular matter that caused him so many problems later on.

The trials and tribulations that beset Clinton this time were caused by his legal relationship with a member of his White House staff and his illegal attempts to prevent the knowledge of that relationship coming to the attention of the public by having to testify about it in the Jones case.

His first problem arose on May 27^th 1997, when the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously to allow the Jones case to conclude whilst the President was still in office.[xviii] In order to attempt to find similar behaviour by Clinton so as to support Jones’ case her lawyers asked Clinton to provide details of any sexual relations he had engaged in with other Arkansas state or federal employees. They would also question him in person on this matter.

Jones’ lawyers knew about Lewinsky (because they had been told about her) and as soon as the President denied the affair, as he did during his January 17^th 1998 deposition, he set off the chain of events that would eventually lead to impeachment proceedings.[xix]

President Clinton’s lawyer could have advised his client not to co-operate with the investigation, which although it would have led to Judge Wright finding Clinton in contempt and probably being fined, would not have exposed the President to questions about his personal life. The case would have been dismissed sooner and there would have been no Starr Report or impeachment proceedings.

How did Starr find out about Lewinsky and why did he get authority to pursue this when he was supposed to be investigating Whitewater? How did he manage to get Lewinsky to incriminate the President in perjury, subornation and obstruction charges?

Lewinsky shared details of her relationship with Clinton with a co-worker who also had been a one-time White House secretary, Linda Tripp. What Lewinsky did not originally realise was that Tripp had an agenda other than that of friendship in her conversations with her. Tripp had “a reputation for taking young interns under her wing, thereby gaining their confidence respect and allegiance.”[xx] What she also had was a dislike of Clinton bordering on hatred, a reputation for scandalous gossip and a plan to write a book provisionally entitled ‘What I saw in the Clinton White House.’ She was the source of a Newsweek article in August 1997, concerning Clinton’s alleged sexual advances towards Kathleen Willey, another White House aide. At the time Clinton’s lawyer Robert Bennett poured scorn on Tripp’s claims, branding her unreliable.[xxi]

 As a result of the story Tripp was almost certain to be contacted by lawyers acting for Jones eager to find evidence of a pattern of behaviour by Clinton. Tripp claimed that her decision to record, first in note form but then on tape, her conversations with Lewinsky came out of a desire to be able to prove her story rather than have Bennett and the White House ‘spin doctors’ humiliate her again. However, Tripp had contact with self-confessed right-wing publisher Lucianne Goldberg, regarding the aforementioned book, who reportedly told her to get hard evidence of what Lewinsky was telling her about her affair with the President and that mention of the story with her name linked to it would increase her book deal chances.[xxii]

Tripp’s recording of their conversations supported details of the affair between Clinton and Lewinsky. This gave Starr ammunition with which he could start an inquiry and pressure Lewinsky to confess all and crucially ‘allow’ Clinton to perjure himself. It did not however give Starr the ‘smoking gun’ to prove that the affair had happened, to prove it was sexual in nature or to prove that both Lewinsky and Clinton had criminal intent in lying in order to conceal it, thereby perjuring themselves.

Tripp’s claims of self-defence fail to convince. She told Newsweek to look for evidence of Clinton having an affair with an intern. She admitted in her grand jury evidence that she wanted this to become public knowledge.[xxiii] She continued to brief Goldberg, a devout anti-Clintonite who was indicative of a group determined in their efforts to incriminate, and hopefully force the removal of, President Clinton on whatever grounds they could find.[xxiv]

Lewinsky’s name subsequently appeared on the list of witnesses that the Jones lawyers wished to hear from. The request for disclosure specifically mentioned personal gifts exchanged between Clinton and Lewinsky, which made it clear that the Jones team had been provided with details of the affair. Clinton, according to Lewinsky, advised her to present an affidavit to the court to avoid deposition and explained to her that she would only have to provide the gifts she had in her possession to the court. This conversation and its interpretation was a key factor in the matter. Lewinsky gave evidence that as a result she decided to give the gifts to the President’s private secretary Betty Currie for safekeeping.[xxv] The Starr Report suggests that Clinton told her to rid herself of the gifts and told Currie to go and fetch them from Lewinsky. If this was true then it was a clear conspiracy to obstruct justice.

In early January 1998 Tripp disclosed all she knew to Starr. Her interview by Starr’s team took place the day prior to President Clinton’s deposition in Jones v. Clinton, January 17^th 1998. Starr shared knowledge with the Jones lawyers. He was aware through Tripp that Lewinsky had signed a false affidavit claiming no relationship with the President; Tripp had it on tape that she had done so. She had also tried to get Tripp to falsely testify. Lewinsky, pre-occupied with stopping Tripp from disclosing details of her affair with Clinton had given Tripp written advice on how to concoct a similarly untruthful affidavit herself that would suppress knowledge of the affair after Tripp had threatened to tell the truth to the Jones lawyers.[xxvi]

In addition to getting a full ‘run-down’ from Tripp, the Jones/Starr team extended their net to include Lewinsky herself. With the assistance of Tripp, FBI officers working for Starr detained Lewinsky, also on January 16^th. Lewinsky maintains that they used undue psychological pressure on her in an effort to persuade her to, in effect, do as Tripp had done, by recording private conversations with the President. The fact that she initially refused to implicate the President in perjury claims meant that Starr would need to find other ways of corroborating the Tripp tapes without Lewinsky’s help. This made Lewinsky subject to prosecution.[xxvii]

Jones’ lawyers were thus ‘lying in wait’ for the President at his deposition on January 17^th 1998. He denied ever being alone with Lewinsky and despite being given an extraordinarily detailed, but euphemistic definition of sex, claimed never to have had sexual relations with her.[xxviii] Clinton continued with this line outside court. On January 26^th he denied any wrongdoing, legal or moral in front of television cameras. He was emphatic and forceful in declaring “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky…I never told anybody to lie. These allegations are false.”[xxix] He repeated this privately to his staff and fellow Democrat politicians. So much so that the following day, January 27^th, Hillary Rodham Clinton told NBC’s Today programme that the whole affair was “a vast right-wing conspiracy.” It is true that Goldberg, Tripp and the Jones lawyers (sponsored by anti-Clintonite funds) were politically motivated, but this does not make it a vast conspiracy, although it does have a clear impact on ‘justice’ as defined for the purposes of this paper.[xxx]

Starr, now armed with his information from Tripp, was aware that President Clinton would probably attempt to suppress the truth in his deposition to the Jones lawyers. He was thus anticipatory of the crime when on January 16^th he was granted a request made of his overseeing panel to extend the terms of his inquiry to include possible obstruction of justice in the case of Jones v. Clinton.[xxxi] 

Starr’s team detained Lewinsky for over twelve hours on January 16^th, keeping her away from her attorney, Frank Carter, who, having no idea of developments, faxed her perjurious affidavit to the Little Rock, Arkansas courthouse where Judge Wright was hearing the Jones complaint. Thus a misdemeanour, signing a knowingly false affidavit, became a felony offence, submitting a knowingly false affidavit.[xxxii]

In view of the existence of the Tripp tapes, which whilst not proving him a liar, cast enough doubt to set Starr investigating for corroboration, Clinton’s choice of untruth and evasion before the Jones lawyers was therefore a crucial element in escalating matters. Without Lewinsky’s assistance Starr therefore undertook, between January and August, a meticulous and hard-edged investigation into her involvement with Clinton. Using the format of a grand jury, Starr sequestered as much detail as he could from phone records, White House entry logs, and Secret Service personnel and by issuing a subpoena to almost anybody who had had anything to do with Lewinsky in the previous three years. For its part the White House conducted a policy of obstruction and delay. It ‘dragged its feet’ over providing records and launched a legal attempt to try to stop Secret Service officers giving evidence to the grand jury.[xxxiii]

Amongst those subpoenaed was President Clinton’s Secretary, Betty Currie. Seen as a conduit between the President and Lewinsky, she was centrally placed to implicate Clinton by giving details of her knowledge of the affair and by telling Starr who told her to retrieve Lewinsky’s gifts. For the most part Currie stalled. However, she did tell Starr that on returning from giving evidence to Jones’ lawyers, the President had spoken to her concerning his affair with Lewinsky. Clinton admitted that he said, “You could see and hear everything” and “Monica came onto me and I never touched her, right.”[xxxiv] If these were veiled instructions to Currie as to what she was to say if questioned, as Starr asserted, then Clinton probably suborned Currie to perjure herself. Clinton would claim that what he said to Currie was meant as a means to jog his own memory. However as a lawyer himself he knew that Starr would subpoena Currie.

Starr’s case against the President was thus assisted in great part by the President choosing to repeatedly deny any wrongdoing. He continued to adopt this position whenever questioned and his telling the story to his closest advisors and cabinet officials led to a united front being set up around him. Tabloid reporting of salacious details of Lewinsky’s past was augmented by White House sources.[xxxv]

On July 28^th 1998, Starr and Lewinsky’s lawyers finally reached agreement on an immunity deal that removed Lewinsky from legal threat. Her initial reticence at implicating the President had evaporated as he and his aides had intensified their campaign of vitriol against her. With her co-operation, Starr could now produce the ‘smoking gun,’ required to prove beyond doubt that much of what Clinton said under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky was lies.[xxxvi]

In a taped conversation with Tripp, Lewinsky had referred to an encounter with the President where her dress had become stained with his semen. At Tripp’s suggestion she kept the dress in that state.[xxxvii] Starr now had access to the dress and had the stain DNA analysed. The existence of the dress proved both the essential truth of much of the Tripp tapes, which had now ‘done their job’ in forcing Lewinsky to co-operate with Starr, and were corroborated by Lewinsky’s ‘new’ (post-immunity) testimony.

The President now came under severe pressure from Starr to give evidence to his grand jury. Clinton agreed to give evidence via closed-circuit television from the White House. The President was clearly in a dilemma, albeit one of his own making. If he admitted that he had, actually, engaged in a sexual affair with Lewinsky, then he opened himself up to a charge of perjury in his January 17^th testimony in Jones v. Clinton. If he continued to deny the affair then Starr had the evidence of the now ‘tame’ Lewinsky, especially ‘the dress’, to contradict him. He would thus be open to a charge of perjuring himself before the grand jury.

For some weeks prior to his appearance the media debated Clinton’s options. It was now widely accepted that he had in fact engaged in sex with Lewinsky. Many observers counselled the President to admit the affair and then offer a ‘realistic’ apology to the American people. Polls had been demonstrating that people did not feel that he should be removed from office.[xxxviii] Clinton would then be throwing himself on the mercy of the Republican Congress, which faced with the task of trying to remove a popular and popularly twice-elected President would probably back down. Such was conventional wisdom.

On August 17^th 1998 President Clinton gave evidence to the grand jury. He was specifically asked about the legality of his answers to questions posed by the Jones lawyers. Despite the evidence of Lewinsky to prove his answers false, the President stuck by his story to a great degree. He accepted that he had conducted an improper relationship with Lewinsky, but still maintained he had not conducted sexual relations with her. To do this he relied on the infamous definition, well known throughout the world for its euphemistic qualities and its failure to correspond with what most people would consider sex; Lewinsky would be having relations with him, but he would not be contemporaneously having relations with her. He also admitted that as the Jones lawyers were his adversaries, he had tried to give legally correct answers without being helpful, e.g. responding to the actual wording of the question rather than its contextual meaning.[xxxix]

At the end of Clinton’s testimony it was clear that he was caught ‘red-handed’ on the moral ‘charge’ of having had sexual relations outside of marriage with a young member of his staff. It was clear too, that he had at best allowed, and at worst sanctioned, a full-scale attack on the credibility of Lewinsky, who was proven to be truthful in most of what she said. Aware of the fact that she had testified truthfully to Starr and was corroborated by other evidence he had assembled, he must have known his lies were about to be exposed.

For Starr the business at hand was to report to the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary in order for them to be able to decide whether grounds had been established that would lead to an impeachment inquiry.

For Clinton the matter at hand was to deal with a firestorm of controversy concerning almost all aspects of his conduct since January (or even since November 1995, if you look at it one way). He decided to attempt to head off that inevitable furore by addressing the nation on television on the evening of his grand jury appearance.

Confession and Counterattack

“…He denatured his words of ‘regret’ and responsibility-taking with rancour directed explicitly at Kenneth Starr…the defiant rhetoric instantly re-polarised Bimbroglio. And it brought forth, almost instantaneously, vocal calls for resignation and impeachment by Republicans who, until now, had managed to keep such threats largely to themselves.”[xl]