Legal Lenses Refract Evidence Differently

A trial at its best is a search for the truth, a structured way of focusing on the facts.

In their final briefs to the Senate, the two sides in the impeachment trial of President Clinton differ on matters large and small.

Looking at the big picture, House Republicans see a threat to “the integrity of the entire judicial system.” By lying and obstructing justice in a court proceeding, the president has undermined “the honor and integrity of the United States,” they said, and “mounted an assault on the truth-seeking process” that is essential to the rule of law.

White House lawyers see a threat to democracy. More than 90 million Americans went to the polls two years ago and their votes elected Bill Clinton. Now, his lawyers said, House Republicans are trying to “nullify the popular will of the people” by trumping up the president’s personal misbehavior into a high crime.

When the two sides focus on the facts and evidence, however, their differences are not great. Rather, the two sides take minor points of evidence and weave them into contrasting patterns.

For example, House Republicans said that the president and Monica S. Lewinsky had “at least 11 personal sexual encounters,” three in 1995, five in 1996 and three in 1997.

In the grand jury in August, Clinton acknowledged “intimate” contact on “certain occasions” during 1996 and 1997. For a man known for “his amazing ability to recall details,” the president must be lying, the Republicans said.

So what? White House lawyers said. A perjury charge requires a “material,” or significant, falsehood. Even if the president testified incorrectly on this point, does it make sense to remove him from office “because he used the phrase ‘certain occasions’ to describe 11 events over 500 days?”

Much the same line of argument is repeated in the now-familiar disputes over Lewinsky’s job search, her exchange of gifts with Clinton and the president’s conversations with his secretary, Betty Currie, and his aides. Where House Republicans see a criminal “pattern of lies and deceit” in Clinton’s behavior, the White House lawyers see a largely innocent effort by the president to hide “his personal failings” from his family, his friends and the world.

Here are the key points of dispute set forth by the two sides on the eve of the trial.

Job Search

Republicans said that Clinton took “a sudden interest” in Lewinsky’s job prospects in December 1997, when her name appeared on the witness list in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. The president was being sued for allegedly having crudely propositioned Jones in 1991, but the judge said that her lawyers could seek out other women who were government employees and reportedly had sexual relationships with Clinton.

“The president had no intention of making his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky a public affair. And he would use lies, deceit and deception to ensure that the truth would not be known,” the Republicans said. “It is logical to infer” that Clinton conspired with his friend Vernon E. Jordan Jr. to silence Lewinsky by getting her a job in New York, they added.

The White House said that “there is not one single piece of direct evidence to support this charge.” Lewinsky had been searching for a job since July 1997, and certainly the president could have found her a job in the federal government had he chosen to do so. Moreover, the former intern told the grand jury that she was not offered a job in exchange for her silence.

False Affidavit

The Republicans said that Clinton obstructed justice by conspiring with Lewinsky to file a false affidavit in the Jones case denying that she and the president had “a sexual relationship.” The White House said that Lewinsky was a “peripheral player” in the Jones case, since she had no knowledge of sexual harassment by the president. Moreover, both Lewinsky and Clinton have said that her affidavit was true because the two did not have sexual intercourse.

Gifts

Republicans said that “one of the most blatant efforts to obstruct justice” came on Dec. 28, 1997, when the president and Lewinsky met and agreed to conceal the gifts they had exchanged. Although Lewinsky did not turn over the subpoenaed gifts, the prosecutors found no evidence that Clinton encouraged her to hide them. They cast doubt on “Ms. Currie’s fuzzy recollection” of the event and said that Clinton must have told her to call Lewinsky. (Currie retrieved the gifts from Lewinsky and stored them under her bed.) The White House noted that “the only two parties who could have direct knowledge” of such a conversation denied it. Lewinsky gave 10 different statements on the matter to FBI agents and others and never accused Clinton of urging her to hide the gifts. They also noted that Clinton gave her more gifts on that day.

Coaching Witnesses

Republican prosecutors said that Clinton “tampered with a witness” when he called his secretary to work after his deposition in the Jones case and asked her a series of leading questions about Lewinsky. “Ms. Currie was a prospective witness, and that is why he coached her,” they said. White House lawyers said that Currie was not a likely witness in the Jones case and Clinton did not even know of the criminal investigation yet. He was worried about a “media barrage,” they said, since Newsweek was ready to reveal the Lewinsky affair.

False and Misleading Testimony

Republicans said that the president “engaged in legalistic fencing” before the grand jury. “He also lied,” they said. For example, they said that Clinton lied when he said his sexual encounters with Lewinsky began in 1996. They said that they began in November 1995. They also said that he lied when he said he believed the definition of “sexual relations” in the Jones case did not include oral sex. “The president’s grand jury testimony was truthful,” the White House lawyers maintained. He admitted his sexual contact with Lewinsky and acknowledged that he had misled his family, his staff and the American people about his misbehavior.