Volume V: Document Supplement, Part C, Documents Cited in Referral: Tabs 1-46

1619

Volume V: Document Supplement, Part C

Documents Cited in Referral: Tabs 1- 46

1620

REFERRAL TOTHE

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

P~ SUA~ TTO TITLE 28, U~ ITEDSTATES CODE,~ 595( c)

DOCUMENT SUPPLEMENT C

SUBMITTEDBY THEOFFICEOFTHEINDEPENDENTCOUNSEL

SEPTEMBER~, 1998

1621

Index

1622

INDEX: Documents cited in the 595( c) Referral

09- Sep- 98

Bates # or Tab# Production Name Description

*Tab 00 1 *Tab 002 *Tab 003 *Tab 004 *Tab 005 *Tab 006 *Tab 007 *Tab 008 *Tab 009 *Tab 010 *Tab 011 *Tab 012 *Tab 013 *Tab 014 *Tab 015 *Tab 016 *Tab 017

*Tab 018 *Tab 019 *Tab 020 *Tab 02 1 *Tab 022 *Tab 023

N/ A

N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A

N/ A I l/ 9/ 97 LA Times news article N/ A I l/ 14/ 97 Baltimore Sun news article N/ A 1 l/ l 5/ 97 Washington Post news article N/ A l/ 20/ 98 subpoena to William Jefferson Clinton, VO02 N/ A I /2 l/ 98 Washington Post news article N/ A I /2 l/ 98 “The News Hour with Jim Lehrer”

Main Stairway to Family Quarters Movie Theater in East Colonnade I l/ 14/ 95 LA Times news article I l/ 14/ 95 Washington Post news article I l/ 16/ 95: Facts on File, World News Digest -- pg. 852 I l/ l 6/ 95 Washington Post news article I l/ l 7/ 95 USA Today news article I l/ 20/ 95 Washington Post news article 1 l/ 23/ 95: Facts on File, World News Digest -- pg. 868 2/ l 9/ 96 Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 2128196 Newsday news article 7/ 4/ 97 Drudge Report Final 8/ l l/ 97 Washington Post news article 8/ l l/ 97 Newsweek article 9/ l 3/ 97 NY Times news article 9/ 22/ 97 Forbes news article I O/ 4/ 97 to I O/ 23/ 97 Digest of Other White House Announcements

Bates # or Tab# Production Name Description

*Tab 024 *Tab 025 *Tab 025A *Tab 026 *Tab 027 *Tab 028 *Tab 029 *Tab 030 *Tab 030A *Tab 03 1

*Tab 032 *Tab 033 *Tab 034 *Tab 035 *Tab 036 *Tab 036A *Tab 036B *Tab 037 *Tab 038 *Tab 039 *Tab 040 *Tab 04 1

*Tab 042 *Tab 043 *Tab 044 *Tab 045

N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A

N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A

N/ A N/ A N/ A

l/ 21/ 98 “All Things Considered” l/ 2 l/ 98 White House Briefing l/ 21/ 98 Excerpts of Telephone Interview of Clinton by Roll Call l/ 22/ 98 Remarks by President Clinton at the White House

l/ 22/ 98 America Online article 1122198 FBI Receipt of Property l/ 22/ 98 ABC News Special Report with Peter Jennings l/ 22/ 98 Roll Call interview with William Jefferson Clinton

I /22/ 98 Seatle Times news article l/ 23/ 98 FBI Receipt of Property, w/ attached letter l/ 24/ 98 CBS News Show: Saturday Morning If25198 Face the Nation l/ 26/ 98 Nightline l/ 26/ 98 ABC News Special Report with Peter Jennings If26198 White House Education News Conference l/ 27/ 98 AP news article l/ 27/ 98 NBC: The Today Show 215198 Remarks by President Clinton 2/ 6/ 98 Joint News Conference with President Clinton 2/ l 4/ 98 Washington Post news article 2117198 Chicago Tribune news article 3/ S/ 98 closed hearing transcript excerpt 3/ l 7/ 98 Memoradum w/ attachments, In re: Grand Jury Proceedings 3/ 25/ 98 Washington Post news article 4/ l 7/ 98 letter to DAG Eric Holder from the OIC 6198 California Lawyer article

Bates # or Tab# Production Name Description

*Tab 046 *Tab 047 *Tab 048 *Tab 049 *Tab 050 *Tab 05 1 *Tab 052 *Tab 053 *Tab 054

*Tab 055 *Tab 056 *Tab 057 *Tab 058 *Tab 059 *Tab 060 *Tab 06 1

*Tab 062 *Tab 063 *Tab 064 *Tab 065 *Tab 066 *Tab 067 *Tab 068 *Tab 069 *Tab 070 *Tab 07 1

*Tab 072 N/ A

N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A

N/ A

N/ A N/ A N/ A

N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A

6/ l 5/ 98 Brief of Appellant William J. Clinton 6129198 US News & World Report news article 7/ l 5/ 98 letter to IC Smaltz from Richard Rogers 7/ 17/ 98 subpoena to the White House, Dl4 15

7/ 22/ 98 CBS News transcript, HARDBALL 7/ 26/ 98 NBC News Meet the Press 7/ 28/ 98 Motion of William J. Clinton for Continuance 7/ 28/ 98 Transcript of Status Hearing, In re: Motion to Continue 7/ 29/ 98 FBI Receipt of Property 7/ 3 l/ 98 letter to David Kendall from Bob Bittman 713 If98 letter to Bob Bittman from David Kendall 7/ 3 l/ 98 letter to David Kendall from Bob Bittman 8/ 3/ 98 letter to Bob Bi~ man from David Kendall 8/ 3/ 98 letter to David Kendall from Bob Bittman 8/ 3/ 98 FBI Laboratory Report 8/ 3/ 98 FBI 302 8/ 3/ 98 letter to Judge Starr from DAG Eric Holder 816198 letter to AG Reno from IC Smaltz 8/ 6/ 98 FBI Laboratory Report 8/ 7/ 98 Washington Times news article

8/ l O/ 98 Newsweek article 811 1198 letter to AG Holder from Judge Starr 8/ l l/ 98 Memorandum Order, In re: Grand Jury Proceedings S/ l 3/ 98 NY Times news article 8/ l 3/ 98 USA Today news article 8/ l 3/ 98 Washington Post news article 8113198 Washington Times news article

Bates # or Tab# Production Name Description

*Tab 073 ’

*Tab 074 *Tab 075 *Tab 076 *Tab 077 *Tab 078 *Tab 079 *Tab 080 *Tab 08 1 *Tab 082 *Tab 083 08 12” DC- 00000002 0824- DC- 0000000~ to 2 0824- DC- 000000 13 0824- DC- 000000 14 0827- DC- 00000002 to 18

0828- DC- 00000003

0828- DC- 00000004 0828- DC- 000000 12 0828- DC- 000000 13 0828DC- 00000023 0830- DC- 00000007 0830- DC- 000000 17 083 1 -DC- 00000008 to 11 0832- DC- 00000004 to 5 0833- DC- 00000980 0833- DC- 00001070

N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A

Lewinsky, Monica Currie, Betty Currie, Betty

Currie, Betty United States Secret Service US Mispion to the UN

US Mission to the UN US Mission to the UN

US Mission to the UN US Mission to the UN Revlon Group, Inc. Revlon Group, Inc. Pagemart McAndrews & Forbes Holding Department of Defense Department of Defense

8/ l 7/ 98 Newsweek article 8/ I 7198 FBI Laboratory Report 8/ l 7/ 98 AP news article 8118198 Washington Post 8/ 24/ 98 facsimile to Jackie Bennett from Gary Grindler 8127198 memo 8/ 3 l/ 98 letter to Bob Bittman from David Kendall 9/ 7/ 98 memo

Jones v. Clinton, 1998 WL 551961,9/ l/ 98 order Lyrics to “Surfacing” 18 USC. section 2246 Passport photo page 1123198 letter to Judge Starr from Karl Metzner “Love Notes” supplement 2114197 Washington Post “Love Notes” Epass Access Control Reports 3/ 14/ 97 to I2/ 22/ 97 Tol I records 10/ 21/ 97 to I1119197 Toll records Monica Lewinsky’s resume 1 l/ 3/ 97 letter from Monica Lewinsky to Ambassador Richardson

I O/ 3 l/ 97 schedule for Ambassador Richardson l/ 13/ 98 letter from Monica Lewinsky to Jenna Sheldon 12/ l l/ 97 letter from Monica Lewinsky to Richard Halperin Pager records for Moncia Lewinsky Toll records

1 l/ 6/ 97 letter from Monica Lewinsky to Vernon Jordan 6/ 24/ 97 typed note to Betty Currie

Bates# orTab# Production Name Descriotion 0833- DC- 00003857 0833- DC- 00001876 0833- DC- 00001906 0833- DC- 00001934 0833- DC- 00001974 0833- DC- 00002716 0833- DC- 00002880 0833- DC- 00003207 0833- DC- 00009446 0833- DC- 00017867 0833- DC- 00017869 0833- DC- 00017875 0833- DC- 00017886 0833- DC- 00017890 0833- DC- 00017903 to 04 0833- DC- 00017908 0837- DC- 00000001 to 27 0843- DC- 00000004 0845- DC- 00000002 0845- DC- 00000004 to 17 0845- DC- 00000018 to 21 0845- DC- 00000022t~ 25 0845- DC- 00000188 0845- DC- 00000~ 90 0845- DC- 00000191 to 193 0849- DC- 0000009Oto97

Department of Defense Department of Defense Department of Defense Department of Defense Department of Defense Department of Defense Department of Defense Department of Defense Department of Defense Department of Defense Department of Defense Department of Defense Department of Defense Department of Defense Depa~ ment of Defense Department of Defense Speed Service Couriers, Inc. United States Secret Service Tripp, Linda Tripp, Linda Tripp, Linda Tripp, Linda Tripp, Linda Tripp, Linda Tripp, Linda Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke

3/ 5/ 97 E- Mail 3/ 3/ 97 e- mail from Linda Tripp to Monica Lewinsky 2/ 24/ 97 E- Mail 2/ t 9197 E- Mail 214197 E- Mail Noti~~ ation of Personnel Action Job Description Travel voucher 2/ 19/ 97 E- Mail I O/ 6/ 97 to 1 O/ 9/ 97 Toll records 10115197 to 101201’97 Toll records Toll records Toll records

To I I records Toll records Toll records Courier receipts re: Monica Lewinsky I2/ 6/ 97 Epass Access Control Record Handwritten notes Handwritten notes Handwritten Notes Handwritten Notes Handwritten note Letter from Linda Tripp to Newsweek Handwritten notes President Clinton’s Responses to Plaintiffs Third Set of interrogatories

Bates # or Tab# Production Name DescriPtion

0849- DC- 00000098 to 102 0849- DC- 00000 12 1 0849- DC- 00000352 0849- DC- 00000586 0849- DC- 00000634 0852- DC- 00000035 0852- DC- 00000037 0852- DC- 00000044 0854- DC- 0000 1485 0856DC- 00000002 0880- DC- 00000002 0902- DC- 00000003 0902- DC- 00000030 0902- DC- 00000033 0902- DC- 00000037 0902- DC- 0000005 1 0902- DC- 00000 135 0902- DC- 0000023 1 0902- DC- 00000232 0902- DC- 0000025 1 09 16- DC- 00000003 0920- DC- 000000 13

to 137 to 636 to 45 to 8

to 38 to 138

to 18

0920- DC- 000005 17 to 525

092 1 -DC- 0000006 1 to 62 092 i- DC- 0000009 1 to I 5 I

Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke American Express American Express American Express First Union Bank American Express Lindsey, Bruce Carter, Francis Carter, Francis Cater, Francis Carter, Francis Catrer, Francis Carter, Francis Carter, Francis Carter, Francis Carter, Francis Park Hyatt Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke McCormack, Hon. James Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke

092 I -DC- 00000459 to 466 McCormack, Hon. James Attachment to President Clinton’s Responses to Plaintiffs Third

Set of Interrogatories Plaintiffs Witness List Videotaped Deposition of William Jefferson Clinton Definition of “Sexual Relation” Affidavit of Jane Doe #6 (Monica Lewinsky) Credit card statement Credit card statement 12/ l 7197 billing statement 5/ 6/ 96 Check No. 594 12/ l l/ 97 letter from Monica Lewinsky to Ursula Fairbairn Handwritten notes Address l/ 12/ 98 to l/ 20/ 98 billing statement FedEx USA Airbill l/ 7/ 98 billing statement l/ 6/ 97 phone memo Subpoena issued to Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case I2/ 22/ 97 to 12/ 28/ 97 appointment book I /5/ 98 appointment book I/ 6/ 98 phone message Receipt Subpoena issued to Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case 12/ l 8197 Order in Jones v. Clinton, LR- C- 94- 290 1 l/ 6/ 97 Clerk’s minutes for in- camera hearing Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Clinton 12/ l l/ 97 Order in Jones v. Clinton, LR- C- 94- 290

Bates # or Tab# Production Name Description 092 1 -DC- 00000736 to 744 092 1 -DC- 0000075 1 to 752 092 1 -DC- 00000770 to 772 092 1 -DC- 00000775 to 778 0929- DC- 00000056 0952- DC- 00000060 096 -DC- 00000862 4 0968DC- 00000073 0968DC- 00000187 0968DC- 00000236 0968- DC- 00000263 0968- DC- 00000303 0968- DC- 0000084 1 0968- DC- 00002947 0968- DC- 00003300 0968- DC- 0000330 1 0968- DC- 00003458 0968- DC- 00003459 0968- DC- 00003475 0968- DC- 00003477 0968- DC- 00003479 0968- DC- 00003506 0968- DC- 000035 10 0968- DC- 00003522 0968- DC- 00003533 0968- DC- 00003546 0968- DC- 00003550

McCormack, Hon. James McCormack, Hon. James Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke NationsBank United States Secret Service White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House

l/ 8/ 98 Order in Jones v. Clinton, LR- C- 94- 290 l/ 9/ 98 Clerk’s minutes for in- camera hearing l/ 14/ 98 Clerk’s Minutes Motion of Jane Doe #6 for Protective Order and Motion to Quash Bank Statement 1 O/ l l/ 97 Presidential Protectee Movement Log 12/ 6/ 97 pager record Schedule 1 1 /13/ 97 schedule 3129198 schedule Schedule 1 l/ l 3/ 97 Diarist notes 4/ 5/ 96 Press Schedule 8/ l 7/ 97 schedule 1 l/ 22/ 97 to 1 l/ 25/ 97 Presidential press schedule Presidential Press Schedule 2/ 96 calendar for Hillary Rodham Clinton 3/ 96 calendar for Hillary Rodham Clinton 7/ 97 calendar for Hillary Rodham Clinton 1 O/ 97 calendar for Hillary Rodham Clinton 12/ 97 calendar for Hillary Rodham Clinton 2/ 28/ 97 Presidential Call Log 3/ 29/ 97 Presidential Call Log 5/ l/ 97 Presidential Call Log 5/ 24/ 97 Presidential Call Log 7/ 4/ 97 Presidential Call Log 7/ 14/ 97 Presidential Call Log

Bates # or Tab# Production Name Description 096% DC- 00003556 096% DC- 00003558 0968- DC- 00003569 0968- DC- 00003799 0968- DC- 00003843 1 OOO- DC- 00000767 to 772 I 0 12- DC- 0000000 1 IO I ~- DC- 00000095 to 96 10 l+ DC- 00000022 1033- DC- 00000033 to 35 1033- DC- 00000115 to 116 103j- DC- 00000060 to 63 I034- DC- 00000099 1034- DC- 00000 103 1034- DC- 00000109 103 4 -DC- 00000 111 1037- DC- 0000000 1 to 2 103j- DC- 000000 11 1037- DC- 000000 17 1031- DC- 00000022 1037- DC- 00000033 103?- DC- 00000038 to 40 103?- DC- 00000042 103?- DC- 00000063 103?- DC- 00000086 to 87 1037- DC- 00000 103

White House White House White House White House White House Bell Atlantic Bacon, Kenneth Bell Atlantic Cellular, One Bell Atlantic Mobile Bell Atlantic Mobile Jordan, Vernon Jordan, Vernon Jordan, Vernon Jordan, Vernon Jordan, Vernon Davis, Catherine Allday Davis, Catherine Allday Davis, Catherine Allday Davis, Catherine Allday Davis, Catherine Allday Davis, Catherine Allday Davis, Catherine Allday Davis, Catherine Allday Davis, Catherine Allday Davis, Catherine Allday

7/ 24/ 97 Presidential Call Log 8/ l 6/ 97 Presidential Call Log IO/ l l/ 97 Presidential Call I l/ 13/ 97 schedule 3129197 schedule 5/ 4/ 96 Marcia Lewis Phone Bill 4/ 28/ 97 letter from Kenneth Bacon to Lorrie McHugh 2/ 4/ 98 statement of Toll calls for Debra Finerman 3125197 to 4124197 Calls To1 I records Tol I records 10/ 20/ 97 to I l/ 01/ 97 schedule for Vernon Jordan 12/ S/ 97 to 12/ l O/ 97 schedule for Vernon Jordan 12/ 22/ 97 to 12/ 24/ 97 schedule for Vernon Jordan l/ 12/ 98 to l/ 14/ 98 schedule for Vernon Jordan l/ l 9/ 98 to l/ 2 l/ 98 schedule for Vernon Jordan 5/ 18197 Card 12/ 9/ 97 e- mail from Lewinsky to Davis 1 l/ 7/ 97 e- mail from Lewinsky to Davis 1 l/ 5/ 97 e- mail from Lewinsky to Davis 1 O/ 22/ 97 e- mail from Lewinsky to Davis E- mails between Monica Lewinsky and Catherine Allday Davis S/ 14/ 97 e- mail from Lewinsky to Davis 1 l/ 6/ 97 e- mail from Lewinsky to Davis 9/ 4/ 97 e- mail from Monica Lewinsky to Catherine Allday Davis 7/ 3/ 98 e- mail from Catherine Allday Davis to Monica Lewinsky

Bates# orTab# Production Name Description

1037- DC- 00000107 Davis, Catherine Allday

1037- DC- 00000115 1037- DC- 00000167 to 169 103?- DC- 00000171

Davis, Catherine Allday Davis, Catherine Allday Davis, Catherine Allday

103% DC- 00000255 to 256 103’j’- DC- 00000258 to 259 1037- DC- 00000265 to 266

Davis, Catherine Allday Davis, Catherine Allday Davis, Catherine Allday

103+‘- DC- 00000280 1037- DC- 00000296 1037- DC- 000003 18 1037- DC- 00000337 to 38 1037- DC- 00000341 1037- DC- 00000553

Davis, Catherine Allday Davis, Catherine Allday Davis, Catherine Allday Davis, Catherine Allday Davis, Catherine Allday Davis, Catherine Allday

103?- DC- 00000583 105 1 -DC- 00000003 to 4 1064- DC- 00000008 1065- DC- 00000006 1065DC- 00000008 1078- DC- 00000002 1089- DC- 00000970 117+ DC- 00000005 I 178- DC- 000000 11 1178- DC- 000000 13 1178- DC- 000000 14

Davis, Catherine Allday Bell Atlantic Renaissance Vinoy Resort St. Regis Hotel St. Regis Hotel Washington Post White House White House White House White House White House

6/ 17/ 97 e- mail from Monica Lewinsky to Catherine Allday Davis E- mail between Monica Lewinsky and Catherine Allday Davis E- mails between Monica Lewinsky and Catherine Allday Davis 8/ 13/ 97 e- mail from Monica Lewinsky to Catherine Allday Davis 9/ 4/ 97 e- mail from Monica Lewinsky to Catherine Allday Davis 9/ 2/ 97 e- mail from Monica Lewinsky to Catherine Allday Davis 6/ l 7/ 97 e- mail from Monica Lewinsky to Catherine Allday Davis 7/ 2/ 97 e- mail from Catherine Allday Davis to Monica Lewinsky E- mail from Catherine Allday Davis to Monica Lewinsky 1 l/ 19/ 97 e- mail from Lewinsky to Davis E- Mail from Lewinsky to Davis E- mail from Monica Lewinsky to Catherine Allday Davis 1 l/ 5/ 97 e- mail from Monica Lewinsky to Catherine Allday Davis 9/ 2/ 97 e- mail from Monica Lewinsky to Catherine Allday Davis Copy of Computer Disk l/ 13/ 98 Toll records Hotel receipt Receipt Receipt IO/ 16196 Typed note 1 O/ l l/ 97 Presidential Call Log Presidetial Call Logs 12/ l 9/ 97 Presidential Call Log 12/ l 9/ 97 Presidential Call Log

Bates # or Tab# Production Name Description I 17% DC- 000000 15 I 17% DC- 000000 16 1 I78- DC- 000000 18

1178- DC- 000000 I9

1178- DC- 00000020 I 178- DC- 0000002 1 I l78- DC- 00000023

1 I78- DC- 00000026 1205- DC- 000000 16 12 16- DC- 00000022 to 23 1222- DC- 00000024 1222- DC- 00000032 1222- DC- 0000004 1

1222- DC- 00000045 1222- DC- 00000083 to 85 1222- DC- 00000 102 1222- DC- 00000 112 to 113 1222- DC- 00000 156 to 157

1222- DC- 00000 179 I222- DC- 00000 183 1222- DC- 00000 189 1222- DC- 00000196 I222- DC- 00000 197 1222- DC- 000002 16 to 2 I7

1222- DC- 000002 19 1222- DC- 00000234 1222- DC- 00000242

White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House GTE Company of California Bell Atlantic United States Secret Service United States Secret Service United States Secret Service United States Secret Service United States Secret Service United States Secret Service United States Secret Service United States Secret Service United States Secret Service United States Secret Service United States Secret Service United States Secret Service United States Secret Service United States Secret Service United States Secret Service United States Secret Service United States Secret Service

12/ 30/ 97 Presidential Call Log l/ 6/ 98 Presidential Call Log l/ 16/ 98 Presidential Call Log 1 /17/ 98 Presidential Call Log l/ l 7/ 98 Presidential Call Log l/ 18/ 98 Presidential Call Log

I /I 9/ 98 Presidential Call Log WAVES records: Vernon Jordan l/ 25/ 98 toll record from California Tol I records

l/ 2 l/ 96 itinerary for the White House 3/ 5/ 96 White House itinerary 313 I /96 intinerary Schedule 1 l/ 15/ 95 to 1 l/ 18/ 95 Presidential Movement Logs 2/ l 9/ 96 Presidential Movement Log 3129196 and 313 l/ 96 Presidential Movement Logs

1 l/ l 5/ 95 Presidential Protectee Movement Logs Presidential Movement Logs l/ 7/ 96 Presidential Protectee Movement Log l/ 2 l/ 96 Presidential Movement Log 214196 Presidential Movement Log 2/ l 9196 Presidential Movement Log 313 l/ 96 Presidential Movement Logs 417196 Presidential Movements 2128197 Presidential Movements 5/ 24/ 97 Presidential Protectee Movement Log

Bates# orTabX Production Name Description t222- DC- 00000251 1222- DC- 00000254 1222- DC- 00000325 1222- DC- 00000328 1234- DC- 00000049 1234- DC- 00000050 1234- DC- 00000357

1248DC- 00000008 1248- DC- 00000288 l248- DC- 00000291 1248- DC- 00000305 1248- DC- 00000307 I248- DC- 000003 11 1248- DC- 00000312 i248- DC- 000003 13 to 3 15 1248- DC- 000003 19 1248- DC- 00000327 to 328 1248- DC- 00000381 I248- DC- 00000444 I3 18- DC- 0000000 1 to 2 1342- DC- 000004 10 I361 -DC- 00000002 to 42 1362.. DC- 00000549 1362- DC- 00001171 1407- DC- 00000005 I408DC- 00000005 1414- DC- 00000001

United States Secret Service United States Secret Service United States Secret Service United States Secret Service White House White House United States Secret Service White House White House White Gouse White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House Young, Dale White House White House Onited States Secret Service United States Secret Service White House Rader, Campbell, Fisher RL I’ykc Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke

7/ 14/ 91 schedule 7/ 24/ 97 schedule 121‘ 3 l/ 95, l/ 7/ 96 Secret Service agent duty schedule 212 l/ 96 Secret Service agent duty schedule 1 l/ 13/ 97 schedule 11113197 Presidential Movement Lo5 8122197 to 1213 II97 Epass Access Control Report 417196 Telephone Memorandum i/ l 7/ 98 Diarist schedule notes Daynotes l/ 17/ 98 Presidential Call Log i/ 17/ 98 Presidential Call l/ I 8198 Presidentiat Call l/ l S/ 98 Presidential Call Log I /I 81’98 Presidential Call Log l/ 19/ 98 Presidential Call Log l/ 2 l/ 98 Presidential Call Log 12/ l 9/ 97 Presidential Call Log l/ I 3198 Presidential Call Log 9i4197 note from Monica Lewinsky to Dale Young Photograph Index of books located in the Oval Office study 1 l/ t 5195 Presidential Protectee Movement Log Secret Service agent duty schedule I2/ 6/ 97 ‘I’0 12/ 24/ 97 WAVES for Robert Bennett 12/ 5/ 97 Facsimile sheet 7/ 21/ 98 letter to Julie Corcoran from Donovan Campbell, Jr.

Bates # or Tab# Production Name Descriotion

1414” DC- 00001006 to 1014 1414- DC- 00001188 to 1192 1414- DC- 00001327 to 32 1414- DC- 00001334 to 46 1414- DC- 00001534 to 1546 I4 15DC- 0000000 I I472- DC- 00000006 I472- DC- 00000007 1472- DC- 00000008 1472- DC- 00000015 1472- DC- 000000 17 1472- DC- 00000018 to 20 1506- DC- 00000007 to 8 I506- DC- 00000027 I506- DC- 00000029 1506- DC- 0000003 1 I506- DC- OOOOOOSO 1506- DC- 00000057 to 58 I S06- DC- 00000068 I506- DC- 00000070 l506- DC- 00000102 I506- DC- 00000 I39 I S06- DC- 00000144 I S06- DC- 00000188 to 189 l506- DC- 00000 I92 l506- DC- 00000222 1506. DC- 00000264

Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke Rader, Campbell, Fisher 8 Pyke Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House

l/ 9/ 98 Order in Jones v. Clinton, LR- C- 94- 290 12/ l 8/ 97 Order in Jones v. Clinton, LR- C- 94- 290 hearing excerpt hearing excerpt 12/ 15/ 97 Pleading in Jones v. Clinton, LR- C- 94- 290 8/ 3198 letter from David Kendall to the OIC I l/ l 5195 Call Log I l/ l 5/ 95 Telephone memorandum I l/ l S/ 95 Telephone memorandum I l/ l 7/ 95 Telephone memorandum 2/ 19/ 96 Telephone memorandum 2/ I9/ 96 Telephone memorandum 8/ 10/ 95 Presidential schedule 12/ 3 l/ 95 Presidential schedule I2/ 3 1195 Telephone memorandum l/ 7/ 96 Telephone memorandum l/ 2 l/ 96 Telephone memorandum l/ 30/ 96 Presidential schedule 2/ 4/ 96 Telephone memorandum 2/ 4/ 96 Telephone memorandum 2/ 19/ 96 Telephone memorandum 313 l/ 96 Telephone memorandum 4/ 7 Telephone Memorandum Presidential schedule 5/ 2/ 96 Presidential Call Log Presidential schedule 7/ 5/ 96 Presidential schedule

Bates # or Tab# Production Name Description 1506- DC- 00000268 1506- DC- 00000275 1506-~- 00000328 1506- DC- 00000334 to 335 1506DC- 00000353 1506- DC- 00000373 to 374 1506- DC- 00000426 to 427 I506- DC- 00000523 to 525 1506- DC- 00000558 1506- DC- 00000559 I506- DC- 00000638 2004- DC- 00000083 2004- DC- 00000085 to 88 2004- DC- 00000090 to 9 1 827~ DC- 000000 18 CZ- DC- 000000 10 CZ- DC- 000000 16 DB PHOTOS 0004 DB PHOTOS 0044

White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House Be11 Atlantic Bell Atlantic Dell Atlantic United States Secret Service Driscoll, Richard Driscoll, Richard Lewinsky, Monica Lewinsky, Monica

DB PHOTOS 0048 DB- DC- 0000000 17 DB- DC- 000000022

DB- DC- 000000027 DC- DC- 00000004 to 5 DF- DC- 00000002 to 12 MSL- 1249- DC- 0139 to 141

Lewinsky, Monica Lewinsky, Monica Lewinsky, Monica

Lewinsky, Monica Outline for job interests of Monica Lewinsky Willis- Vento, Caroline Fair market value appraisal Lewinsky, Monica 2f l/ 98 handwritten proffer Lewinsky, Monica Letter from Monica Lewinsky to William Jefferson Clinton

7/ 6/ 96 Presidential schedule 7/ 19/ 96 Presidential Call Log Presidential schedule Schedule Presidential schedule

218f97 Schedule I O/ 10/ 97 Presidential schedule I /2 l/ 96 Diarist notes Presidential schedule Presidential schedule Diarists notes, Presidential call Toll records Toll records Toll records 2124197 to 12128/ 9? Epass Access Control Report Fair market value appraisal Fair market value appraisal Blue Dress (photo) Audio- tapes from Monica Lewinsky’s answering machine (originals in Quantico) evidence picture Draft letter from Monica Lewinsky to William Jefferson Clinton I l/ 12/ 97 letter from Monica Lewinsky to William Jefferson Clinton

Bates # or Tab# Production Name Description

MSL- 55” DC- 0001 MSL- 55- DC- 0094 MSL- SS- DC- 0124 MSL- SS- DC- 0177 MSL- S5- DC- 0178 MSL- SS- DC- 0179 MSL- 5S- DC- 0184 to 186

MSL- DC- 00000456 MSL- DC- 00000489 to 90 MSL- DC- 00000621 to 22

MSL- DC- 00001050 MSL- DC- 0000 1 OS I MSL- DC- 00001051A MSL- DC- 00001052 MSt- DC- 0000 I 166 to 1 I68 MSL- DC- 00001176 to 1177 MSL- DC- 00001192 MSL- DC- 00001221 MSL- DC- 00001227

MSL- DC- 00001228 MSL- DC- 00001230 V002- DC- 0000000 1 to 5

V002- DC- 00000006 to 7 Lewinsky, Monica

Lewinsky, Monica Lewinsky, Monica Lewinsky, Monica Lewinsky, Monica Lewinsky, Monica Lewinsky, Monica

Lewinsky, Monica Lewinsky, Monica Lewinsky, Monica

White House Lewinsky, Monica Lewinsky, Monica Lewinsky, Monica Lewinsky, Monica White House White House Lewinsky, Monica Lewinsky, Monica

Lewinksy, Monica Lewinsky, Monica Clinton, William Jefferson

Clinton, William Jefferson Draft note from Monica Lewinsky to William Jefferson Clinton

Letter drafted on Monica’s home computer Letter drafted on Monica’s home computer Letter from Monica Lewinsky to William Jefferson Clinton Letter from Monica Lewinsky to William Jefferson Clinton I l/ 2/ 97 letter from Monica Lewinsky to Betty Currie Note created on Monica Lewinsky’s home computer “Happy National Boss Day?” Handwritten note Invitation to William Jefferson Clinton’s Birthday Party 3/ 2/ 97 handwritten letter from Monica Lewinsky to William Jefferson Clinton 9/ 30/ 97 letter from Monica Lewinsky to William Jefferson Clinton October 1997 Calendar November 1997 Calendar Typed note Draft Affidavit 6/ 29/ 97 draft letter from Monica Lewinsky to Marsha Scott 7/ 6/ 97 letter from Monica Lewinsky to Marsha Scott Page from Monica Lewinsky’s schedule book 6/ 29/ 97 note from Monica Lewinsky to William Jefferson Clinton 3/ 14/ 997 memorandum from Cliff Bernath for the Record 4/ 28/ 97 letter from Kenneth Bacon to Lorrie McHugh l/ 27/ 98 letter from David Kendall to Bob Bittman, with attachments l/ 28/ 98 letter from David Kendall to Bob Bittman

_ 14

Bates #or Tab# Production Name Descrlotlon Vcl02- DC- 00000008 to I5 VOO2- DC- 00000016 to 32 V002- DC- 00000052 to 55 VOOZ- DC- 00000056 to 92 V002- DC- 00000093 to I 16 V002- DC- 00000159 to 160 V002- DC- 00000469 V002- DC- 0000047 I V002- DC- 00000475 VOO4- DC- 00000 134 VOa4- DC- 00000 135 VOQ4- DC- 00000 143 VOO4- DC- 00000148 V004- DC- 00000 15 I V004- DC- 00000154 V004- DC- 00000158 VOO4- DC- 00000 I59 V004- DC- 00000 160 V004- DC- 00000 16 I VOO4- DC- 00000 I62 V004- DC- 00000 164 VOO4- DC- 00000165 VOO4- DC- 00000 166

Clinton, William Jefferson Clinton, William Jefferson Clinton, William Jefferson Clinton, William Jefferson Clinton, William Jcffcrson Clinton, William Jefferson Clinton, William Jefferson Clinton, William Jefferson Clinton, William Jefferson Akin Gump Akin Gump Akin Gump Akin Gump Akin Gump Akin Gump Akin Gump Akin Gump Akin Gump Akin Gump Akin Gump Akin Gump Akin Gump Akin Gump

President Clinton’s Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories President Clinton’s Responses to Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories President Clinton’s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories President Clinton’s Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things President Clinton’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Document Requests 2/ 2/ 98 letter from David Kendall to Bob Bittman 2/ 3/ 98 letter to Bob Bittman from David Kendall Book, “The Presidents of the United States” 3/ l 6/ 98 letter from David Kendall to the OIC I l/ 3/ 97 to 1 l/ 4/ 97 Toll records 1 l/ 4/ 97 to 1 l/ 6/ 97 Toll records 1 l/ 26/ 97 to I l/ 27/ 97 Toll records 12/ l l/ 97 to 12/ 15/ 97 Toll records 121’191’97 to 12/ 23/ 97 Toll records 12/ 30/ 97 to 12/ 3 I /97 Toll records l/ 5/ 98 to l/ 7/ 98 Toll records l/ 7/ 98 to Mb‘ 98 Toll records l/ 8/ 98 to l/ 9/ 98 Toll records I /9/ 98 to I/ l O/ 98 Toll records 1110198 to 1113198 Toll records l/ 1.5/ 98 to l/ 16/ 98 Toll records I/ 16198 to l/ 19/ 98 Toll records l/ 19/ 98 to l/ 21/ 98 Toll records

Bates# orTab# Production Name Description

V004- DC- 00000167 V004- DC- 00000171 V004- DC- 00000172 VOd4- DC- 00000183 voq5- DC- 00000058 voqs- DC- 00000060

VOQ5- DC- 0000006 1

VOQ6- DC- 00000007 VOQ6- DC- 00000008 VOQ6- DC- 00000009 VOQ6- DC- 00000020 VOQS- DC- 00000 109 VOQS- DC- 00000 118

VOq6- DC- 00000157 VOq6- DC- 00000158

VOQS- DC- 00000 I 59 VOQ6- DC- 00000 162 VOq6- DC- 00000 167 VOQS- DC- 00000 178 V006- DC- 00000 180 V006- DC- 00000 18 1 V006- DC- 00000 183 V006- DC- 00000 198 V006- DC- 0000022 1

V006- DC- 00000222 V006- DC- 00000223 to 224

Akin Gump Akin Gump Akin Gump Akin Gump Laughlin, Gayle Laughlin, Gayle Laughlin, Gayle White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House

White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House

l/ 2 l/ 98 to l/ 22/ 98 Toll records 12/ l l/ 97 visitor record

12/ 19/ 97 vistor record 12/ 8/ 97 Request for Messenger Service

1 It S/ 98 phone record

I /20/ 98 phone record

l/ 20/ 98 phone record 4/ 9/ 96 to 12/ 30/ 96 WAVES report for Monica Lewinsky 2/ 24/ 97 to 1 l/ l 3/ 97 WAVES report for Monica Lewinsky 1216197 to 12/ 28/ 97 WAVES report for Monica Lewinsky WH Personnel Action sheet for Monica Lewinsky Work history report Notification of Personnel Action White House Gift Record Gift Donor Information 9/ 4/ 96 letter from William Jefferson Clinton to Monica Lewinsky White House Gift Register IO/ 30195 Gift Unit - draft leter Photograph White House Gift Record White House Gift Record Monica Lewinsky’s resume 1995 summer White House intern list 5/ 30/ 97 schedule sheet 6/ 10/ 97 e- mail from Marsha Dime1 to Katherine Veit 6/ 12/ 97 e- mail from Marsha Dime1 to Roseanne Hill w/ attachment

Bates # or Tab# Production Name Oescrbtion

V006- DC- 00000225 V006- DC- 0000039 1

V006- DC- 000005 1 I

V006- DC- 000005 12 to 522 V006- DC- 0000052 1

V006- DC- 00000534 VOO6- DC- 00000572 V006- DC- 00000682 VOq6- DC- 00000694 VOq6- DC- 00000747 voos- DC- 0000 1347 voos- DC- 0000 1770

VOOS- DC- 0000 1792 VOO, 6- DC- 0000 1796

VOq6- DC- 0000 18 13 to 18 14 V006- DC- 0000 1826 VOO, 6- DC- 0000 184 1 V006- DC- 0000 1842 V006- DC- 0000 1843 V006- DC- 0000 1844 V006- DC- 0000 1845 V006- DC- 0000 1846 V006- DC- 0000 1847 V006- DC- 0000 1855 V006- DC- 0000 1856 V006- DC- 0000 1859 V006- DC- 0000 1865

White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House White House

White House pre- employment information sheet WhoDB - Contact Manager Information 12/ 5/ 97 Holiday Reception list excerpt 12/ 5/ 97 White House Party list excerpt, report dated on 12/ 30/ 97 12/ 5/ 97 White House Party list excerpt, report dated on 12/ 30/ 97 6/ 14/ 96 Radio Address 2/ 8/ 96 to 2/ l l/ 96 Presidential schedule 8/ 18/ 96 and 8/ 19/ 96 William Jefferson Clinton Schedule 4/ 2/ 96 Schedule of William Jefferson Clinton 2/ 9/ 96 to 2/ 12/ 96 Presidential schedule 419196 E- Mai I

7/ 24/ 97 e- mail 3/ 29/ 97 WAVES Request 2/ 28/ 97 WAVES Request 12/ 5/ 97 e- mail: WAVES Operations Center to J. Schwartz Photograph Photograph Photograph Photograph Photograph Photograph Photograph Photograph Photograph Photograph Photograph videotape

Bates # or Tab# Production Name Description

V006- DC- 00002064 V006- DC- 00002065 V006- DC- 00002066 V006- DC- 00002067 V006- DC- 00002068 V006- DC- 00002069 to 2070 V006- DC- 0000207 1 V006- DC- 00002095 V006- DC- 00002 130 V006- DC- 00002 140 V006- DC- 00002 142 VOQ6- DC- 00002 146 V006- DC- 00002 147

V006- DC- 00002 156 V006- DC- 00002 158 V006- DC- 000022 14 VOO6- DC- 00002243 VOq6- DC- 00002287 V066- DC- 00002289 VOd6- DC- 00003646

White House White House VOd6- DC- 00003712

VOd6- DC- 00003714 VOd6- DC- 000037 15 VOd6- DC- 000037 16 VOd6- DC- 000037 19 VOd6- DC- 00003720 VOd6- DC- 00003 73 5

l/ 9/ 98 Presidential Call Log I / 14/ 98 Presidential Call Log l/ l 7/ 98 Presidential Call Log l/ l 8/ 98 Presidential Call Log l/ l 8/ 98 Presidential Call Log l/ 19/ 98 Presidential Call Log l/ 21/ 98 Presidential Call Log 8/ l 6/ 97 schedule 3/ 29/ 97 Presidential Movements 714197 schedule 7/ l 4/ 97 schedule 8/ l 6/ 97 schedule 8/ l 6/ 97 schedule 1 l! 13197 Presidential Movement Log 12/ 6/ 97 Presidential Movement Log 7/ 4/ 97 diarist notes I 1 /I 3/ 97 Diarist notes 4/ 9/ 96 e- mail from Gunia to Dagenais E- Mail Coorespondence History tracking sheet 2/ 24/ 97 memo from Betty Currie to William Jefferson Clinton White House Gift List White House Gift List 6114/ 96 Radio Address 4/ 8/ 96 phone message 2/ 28/ 97 Radio Address Photo Request

18 __..... ._ . -.. ..- .--

1641

1642

1643

Tab Documents

1644

Tab 1

1646

1647

Main Stairway to I

Family Quarters

Down &se stairs come the president and first lady on eveq sute occasion held at the Whii House. Tall or short imposing or not, no one can ignore the entrance of the chief executive v& n the Marine Band strikes up the first chords of “Hail to the Chii” This is ehe ceremonial staircase, and it is here that the pnsidat first lady, and their guests of honor are photographed before proceed- ing to the East Room, where the other guests are @wed. The

walk down the red carpet is surely the most romantic image of rhe

_ presidency. Here is the pomp. Most of the rest of the time, the president is subject ta circumstance..

1648

;-- - .

1649

.-\ small, sunny room, the First Lady’s Dressing Room h., s always been a private comer of a very public &dence. So private, that in 1801 it was given one of rhc few water closets in the big, preplumbing house. president Franklin Pierce ins& led the first stationary t.., ljl& in 1853. Prior to that, men only could bathe

:. i< ility in the east pavilion, and women used I.,,,- t. lble sitz or hip tubs and shoe- shaped bathtubs ,, l. lde of tin. Dolley Madison bemoaned not being .Ihle ro save her bathtub from the British in 1814. She ,,.;, s obligated to give precedence to government pa- pl. r~. the silver, and George Washington’s portrait.

Located at the southwest comer of the house, this .: I adjoins the chamber that traditionally has been

: : :i. lster bedroom. Sometimes the presidents’ chil-

Jrcn occupied the room, as did Tad Lincoln and Rob-

err Johnson; sometimes the president reserved it for himself, as did Rutherford Hayes, who labeled it his s; anctum or “den.” But generally it was the first ladies who called it their own. Ida Saxon McKinley, an epi- Icpric, spent many quiet hours sitting and knitting

Lou Hoover put in a daybed for afternoon naps

i desk for keeping accounts and correspondence; .111d Nancy. Reagan, who decorated it as in the photo-

graph, used it as a dressing room. The couple who seemed to take the greatest piea- sure in this intimate space were President Woodrow and Mrs. Edith Boiling Wilson, the president’s second \vi&. AS newlyweds, they found privacy in this corner

;: ’ house. The room, since the addition of the O. i:; 1room and water closet, had an awkward shape wth an off- centered fireplace. Nevertheless, Wilson dressed here, and he and his wife had breakfast, tea, and sometimes lunch or dinner in this crowded space.

1650

With a fire burning, Andrew Johnson’s magnificent magnoiia tree almost tickling the panes of glass of the large south- facing window, and a perfect view of the Washington Monument, it is obvious why they found it such a pleasant place ro be together.

Being pragmatic, Eleanor Roosevelt installed a single bed and slept here. She converted the spacious room next door into her sitting room to accommo- date her many and frequent visitors. She and Franklin, whose bedroom was the next room over, had used separate rooms since 1918. Bess and Harry

’ Truman occupied the same rooms as the Roosevelts, Mrs. Truman also choosing to use the dressing room as a bedroom and the larger room as her sitting room.

1651

WhcndnR~ nrmovcdimothcWhictHo~ inj; tnuuyI# II, phns had already been laid to refurbish the second and third fbon of the White House. They raised nearly a million dollars from friends and political supporters. Mrs. Reagan enlisted the he! p da Los Angeles interior designer and old friend, Ted Gnber, to he@ her make the living ~uarcen "w? rm and liivabk.” fhc master bed- room, never seen by the public but here displayed in the replica, ~~ u~~ fulfilis Mrs. Reagan and Gnber’s objectives.

72~ Chinese paper, hand- painted in Mentury rqlc gives the ptesidential bedroom its indigen. The kAy, B irregular spacing of a wide variety of birds- pacock, blu& rds, roosten, etc.- around the room creates an airy, open fkid d color and form.

In order to replicate and reduce the mrllpaper for the min+ ture White House, John and Jan Zweifel made a sale painting of the wallpaper onto a IO- by424nch sheet of paper. This was then caref’ully reduced on a color cop& r to provkk sheets of paper kK the watts of the miniature room.

The two diminutive chain are only 3 inches h& h and 2 inches wide.

1652

President and -First Lady’s Bedroom

After the swearing in, the parade, and the inaugural balls, the new president and first lady mm tu sleep in a room occupied only the previous night by an- ather president and first lady. The changeover in the White House from one family to the next is so fast, so complete, one thinks that it must be dune with a Surcerer’s magic wand. The president and fxrst lady’s bedroom, the most private rmm in the house, human- izes the peaceful, incredible succession of power. To be able to call the White House home is the ultimate reward for those seeking tu scme their country, and an honor bestowed on so few.

All the White House transitions have been swift (except the ane from Lincoln to Johnson), but not always sweet. When President and Mrs. Pierce re- turned from xhe 1853 inaugural ball, there was no bedroom ready for them, which they considered a great indignity; Woodrow Wilson, who attended no ball but who celebrated first with his family and then at a smoker given for him by Princeton alumni at the Shoreham Hotel, found himself in the White House at midnight ringing assorted bells, not knowing which was which. Wearing only his underwear, he inquired if anyone had seen his trunk, He had no pajamas and, presumably, no toothbrush.

This room was Eleanor Roosevelt’s and Bess Truman’s sitting room/ study but Jacqueline Kennedy reverted it tu a bedroom as it had been for most of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. On inau- gural night, though, the room was not yet ready, and she slept down the hall in the Queen’s Bedroom. Eventually, it was decorated in shades of pale green and blue, and her furniture from her Georgetown house was moved in. The president’s bedroom was

across the hall, furnished with an cighteenth- ccntury Chippendale high chest and a mahogany four- poster bed. Mrs. Kcnncdy did much uf her work and her thinking in this bedroom suite.

It was in this roam that Willie Lincoln died in the great “Lincoln” bed (see page 186) and James Garfield Xay prmte for months from an assassin’s bullet, Because of Garfield’s discomfort during the sweltering D. C. summer of 1881, doctors and engi-

neers inu& uc& the first air conditioning system in the United States to cool the dying president.

William McKinley was asleep here when an usher enteied the fobzH and whispered in his ear that the secretary af the navy was on the telephone with an important message, The battleship Maine had ex- plodcd and sunk in Havana harbor just hours before.

In this r& m, the fzrst Mrs. Wilson passed away, and Woodrow Wilson suffered the stroke that would leave him an invalid fur the rest uf his life. For weeks he lay here helpless on the huge Lincoln bed.

On April 12,1945, Eleanor Roosevelt was called to her sitting room and told of her husband’s death at

Warm Springs. She then summoned to her room the vice- president, who came directly from presiding OV’CT the Senate. Truman later wiote, “That was the first inkling I had of the seriousness of the situation,” Wit- ham Scale describes the exchange as follows: UWaS there anything he could do for her? Eleanor Roosevelt replied, ‘Is there anything we can do for you? For you are the one in trouble now.‘“ 12

1653

President% Study

Walls cannot talk, but if they could, the most dra- matic stories these four would tell would center on the years 1933 to 1945. This was Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s bedroom. An early riser, the invalid pres- ident would often conduct business from his bed. Francis Perkins, secretary of labor, described the bed and surrounding furniture as follows:

ti small, nut~ ow white iron bedstead, the kind one sees in the boy’s room of many an American hue. It

bad a thin, bard louking mattress, a couple of pillows,

and atr ordinary white seersucker spread. A folded old gray shawl lay at the foot . . . A white painted table, the kind one ofh sees in bathrooms, stood beside the bed, with a towel over it and with aspirin, nose

drops, a glass of watet, stubs of pencils, bits of paper with telephone numbers, addresses and memoranda to himself, a couple of books, a worn old prayer

book, a wat& a package of cigarettes, utt ash tray, a couple of telephones, all cluttered together. i3

If the president was suffering from one of his chronic colds, the cabinet members would meet in this room. Aides would bring up memoranda and mes- sages, and the papers of state would mingle with per- sonal memorabilia. The mantel, seen on the left of the photograph, held miniature “Mexican pigs, Irish pigs, pigs of all kinds, sizes and colors” alongside family photographs, recalled Perkins.

FDR was an avid collector of many things, and one hobby in particular, stamp collecting, prepared ‘him, quite unexpectedly, for his role as commander in chief during World War II, His naval aide during the war, Captain John L. McCrea, commented many years later that “the President’s knowledge of world

geography was amazing. I once expressed surprise

that he knew so much about an insignificant lake in a small foreign country. ” “If a stamp collector really studies his stamps,” replied FDR, “he can pick up a

greai deal of information.“ ’ This geographical knowl- edge, often far exceeding that of others under his command, was vital during the war years.

1654

The room appears as it did during the Reagan presidency. The red an. d white furniture came from Ronald and Nancy Reagan’s Glifor- nia home. The desk lamp was made from a fire chiefs silver horn, given to President Reagan when he was governor. The furnishings are cozy, comforoble, and familiar because it was here that the Reagans liked CO &ax. They looked foward to the evenings when

’ dinner was sewed on urys in front of the television. Within these four walls, there wan the semblance of a normal life.

1655

1656

Yellow Oval Room

In 1809, DoJley Madison chose yellow for the prevailing color in the upstairs 04 Room. In I96 I, Jacqueline Kennedy decided the room should be decorated with antiques of the Louis XVI sty+ e of late- eighteenth- cefmq frurce. The suite of furniture includes four side chairs and two armchairs made around 1800 by Jean- Baptiste Lelarge. A set of four caned and gilded armchairs were made by C. SenC, aIs of the Louis XVI period, two of which can be seen in the foreground. TtUs neociassii styie was strongly influenced by Greek and Roman fumishings discovered during the excavations at Pompeii and Hercuhneum in the late 1750s. The candelabm on the wo French Louis XV commodes franking the mantel were given by Princess Elizabeth of Great 6rWn in t95 I when she visited Presi- dent and Mrs. Hq Truman.

Royalty and gdd curdthbrr were not Hav’s “styk.” He’d nther have watched a local baseball game and sit outdoors on a balmy summer’s evening. Truman unilaterally decided that a bal- cony should be added to the second& or Ovat Room, against the loud protests of architects ad historians. Truman got his bakony. with its good view of IocaJ phring Wds, and he thoroughly en- joyed using ic. If you want to know what his archiirrl mns- gression looks like, pull out a $20 bill.

1657

.Vb-* t Millard and Abigail Fillmore moved into the House in 1850 after the death of Zachary Tay- or, there was not a Bible or dictionary or any other jouk to be found. Mrs. Fillmore, a former school-

eachcr, did not consider a house a home without a 1 brary, and if this big white ‘? emple of inconve-

1 iences, n as her husband described it, was to be hab- :able for herself, her family, and future first families,

here had to be books. They received money from I

3ongress to buy some, and in the second- floor Oval Coom she created her library and family room.

The Yellow Oval Room is one of the prettiest ooms in the house. Three stately windows facing the outh lawn, Washington Monument, and Jefferson demorial provide one of the best views in Washing- on and flood the room with light.

This room has always been central, literally and iguratively, in the lives of the occupants of the White iouse. For most of the two hundred years of the

louse’s history, it was the boundary between the amily’s bedrooms and either the president’s executive Bffices (in the nineteenth century) or the official guest -p-- s. Sometimes the Yellow Room was strictly a

room where children and parents would meet -.

lightly to read, sing, play musical instruments, hang Christmas stockings, and relax, as during the admin- strations of Fillmore, Lincoln, Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, and Wilson. The Hayeses sang psalms, and ,X7ilson read the Bible aloud. Harding and his friends 3layed poker and drank bootleg liquor.

_ Sometimes this room would serve as the presi- _ient’s private office, where he could concentrate and ivork away from the surrounding tumult of the exccu- rive offices. Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, FDR, and Harry Truman used it for this purpose. Franklin Roosevelt used it the most, often inviting ad: .: isers to stay for cocktails that he would mix himself, ‘allowed by dinner served on trays.

Here, the day after FDR’s first inauguration, the president met with his cabinet to discuss the financial crisis and later signed the Emergency Banking Act of 1933. On December 7,1941, at about f: 40 P. M., Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins were having lunch when a telephone call brought the news of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. On New Year’s Day 1942, Roosevelt was joined in this room by Winston Churchill, Maxim Litvinof of the Soviet Union, and T. V. Soong represent- ing China for the signing of an agreement to join with twenty- sixcountries in a “united nations” against Axis aggression. And the list goes on and on.

The room has also been, during John Adams’ ad-

ministration and then every one since Kennedy’s, the parlor where the president and first lady entertain their guests of honor before official state functions. This invitation to &come upstairs” at the White House is one of the rarest and also most cherished. It is the presidential equivalent of inviting someone to your home, because the first floor of the White House is truly a public arena, and it is only upstairs that pri- vacy prevails. The photographs of the Reagans and Gorbachevs drinking cocktails in the Yellow Oval Room are one more reAection of the end of the Cold War. President and Mrs. Clinton will welcome many more heads of former co~ unist bloc countries and, standing by the tall windows, point out the memorial to the author of the Declaration of Independence and the monument to the father of the oldest continuous democracy in the world.

1658

-. * . -

lb5Y

Woodrow Wilson, while workrng alone in this room dunng the dark days of World War I. would contemplate the pamtmg on the far wall. “Slgnmg of the Peace Protocol between Spam and the Umtcd States. August i 2. 1998” by Theobald Charurn. In ic Presi- dent McKtnley stands at the end of the abtnet table that had served as hu desk (and now serves as Presrdenr Chncon’s desk In rhu room). just a few months earher. on April 20. 1898. McKtnley had regretfully sgned the document authorizing mtlttary action tn what John Hay called the “splendid little war” and which was the United States’s first foray Into imperialism beyond its shores.

Spectacular in both the full- size and mmtature Treaty Rooms is the chandelier. Approxmately 250 hours of handwork went mto

making this chandelier for the White House replica. john Zweifel had to work with tiny tubing. brass rings, glass beading, and harr- thin copper wires for electrifyrng the lilhpuoan chandelier. Every glass shade had to be hand- blown by an expert who could measure his or her breath so that each one was exactiy the same petite srae as rhe precedmg one.

The pewter inkwell stands lust two Inches high yet looks colossal the rephca of the hlstorlc Treaty Room The full- me quill IS eight inches long; the baby quill 1s I/ I inch.

1660

Treaty Room

a IPZ 1809, it wus a latge bedroonr.

l In 1823, lames Monroe sat ut u desk in t& s rmrn and wrote his doctrine watning Europe to stqy out

of the Westnrt &m@ hete. e In 1825, Johtt Qnincy A& ms made it a sitting

room. * From 1849 until the t% nte of Lincoln’s assassinaticm

it was u reuption room for visitots wonnting to see the president. 0 In 1866, Andrew Johnson mude it his ccrbinet room,

and it firn& med us strcb until the Wet Wig wus

built.

l Itr 1902, Tbe~ u~ e Rousevelt mude it into 4t stzuiy. Woodrow Wilson spent most of his time in this room, where he wrote tbe Fourteen Points, his pe+ sonal requirenrents for peace after World Wur 1.

l In 1930, it become the uMonroe Drawing Room RI afier Mrs. Hoover placed reproduction Monroe

fumiture in it.

l In 1936, it was one of the rooms Eleanor Roosevelt

used for press conferences.

l In 1945, Winston Chcbiil used it as his personal map room. * In 1952, it wus a sitting room.

l In 1962, Jacqueline Kennedy made it the Tteaty Room (as seen in the photograph).

l In 1990, it became the president’s of/ ice in the resi-

dence.

In 1962, 80 million Americans watched the televi- sion tour of the White House and saw President and Mrs. Kennedy sitting in the Treaty Room answering

Charles CoIlingwood’s questions. Many of the ques- tions referred to the changes Mrs. Kennedy was mak- ing to the White House. John Kennedy observed that every president who comes to live in the White House receives stimulus from the legendary figures who served in the same capacity. He explained: ‘Anything which dramatizes the great story of the United States- as I think the White House dues- is worthy of the closest attention and respect by Americans who live here and who visit here and who are part of our citizenry. That’s why I am glad that Jackie is making the effort she’s making.“‘ 4

The Treaty Room, recreated to resemble the Cabi- net Room during Ulysses S. Grant’s term of office and to commemorate peace treaties signed to end or pre- vent wars, was a Jacqueline Kennedy inspiration and realization. She was particularly proud of her research in tracking down the treaties signed in this room, and procuring facsimiles from the National Archives to hang on the walls.

Interior decorators could hardly believe Mrs. Kennedy was resurrecting Victorian furniture consid- ered terribly unfashionable in 1962, but the first lady was far more interested in historical precedents than design magazine approval: Her passion during the three short years she lived in the White House was to imbue the house with the spirit of past presidents, and the Treaty Room was a fine example of her aspirations. The room is strikingly unified in design, and most of the furnishings originated wi& past presidents. ’

The White House television tour was a Jacqueline

1 Kennedy tour de force with more &om CBS, and she possessed star subject. She knew what to say on

, I

than a little help quality equal to her camera and how to

say it. A classic example of her tact and ability to find common ground with her audience was recorded in

the published transcript of the program. Charles Collingwood asked Mrs. Kennedy what purpose the Treaty Room would serve, and the television audience heard her reply:

Well I do think euery room should have a puwose. it can still be a sitting room because that sofa, thouib

you may not believe it, will look nice. But it will serve

a definite purpose. My husband has so many meetings up here in this part of the house. All the men who

wait to see him now sit in the ball witb tbe baby UT-

Cages going by them. They can sit in here and talk while waiting for him.

During the rehearsal period, however, when Mrs. Kennedy was asked why she was refurnishing the room, she replied, “It’s really to get the Cabinet out of the living room.”

Many presidents have used the old cabinet table

that was the focal point of Mrs. Kennedy’s restora- tion for the signing of peace treaties. William McKin- ley watched as the peace treaty ending the Spanish- American War was signed in August 1898; Calvin Coolidge in 1929 put his signature on the ratification of the Kellogg- Briand Peace Pact; John Kennedy, in 1963, signed the “Treaty for a Partial Nuclear Test Ban”; Richard Nixon, in 1972, signed the “Treaty of the Limitation of Anti- Ballistic Missile Systems”; in

1979 the table was taken outdoors for the momen- tous signing of the Egyptian- Israeli Peace Treaty by Menachem Begin, Anwar el- Sadat, and Jimmy Carter (see document page 193); and on a brilliant, sunny day in September 1993, the world witnessed not only the signing of the Israeli- Palestinian peace treaty on the cherished cabinet table, but also the handshake between Yitzak Rabin and Yasir Arafat that took place alongside that American heirloom.

The~ aboveshowspartof~ fonmrTratyRmas it appears in the Cl& on White House (e~ ept for the nr~, which

isnot~). The~ ickntu$ esthctoomasanotfictandttn

hittwicabkwtobk( opporitcp; rb+) uhis~ k. Ac) rildoftht sixt& the president favors strong colom but no one Qoiot under- nurdt~ thcUimorus. whosekwtofAmcrianh~ tQurrdn entire 200- pr hismy of the house, have al&& d a pmvabct of Victoriana to dominate newty refurnished White House rwtns. Clinton has kept the Chartran treaty pain& g (see page 72) and

added ones of Bet+ in Fnnklin and George Washington. Sat- tered throqhout the room are the president’s favorite photc~ mhs and mementos. The president’s bode flank the firepIace in bookcases built’in situ by White House carpenters (see Grpen- ten’ Shop, p. 190) because they were too 6rge to fit through the doorways. The overall’ effect resulting from the choice of abrics, colors, lamps. and upholstered fumiwre is a reflection of the judg- ment of Little Rock interior decor; rtor Kaki Hockersmith.

Mn. Clinton, discussing the changes she is making to the White House. stated in an inteniew published in H& oric &servu- tier, (November- December 1993) that “preservation and restor; l- tion- not redecoration” is what she and her husband hope to achieve. “We’re interested in enhancing the house and the fumish-

ings within it. . . as a means of furthering the historical mission of the house.” As President Clinton enjoys inviting certain guests and foreign dignitaries to his office in the residence, it like other rooms, “should depict the quality and the importance of the White House as a living museum,” asserts the first lady.

On the mantel, which has seen many decomtort come and go, is caned the following: “This room was first used for meetings of the cabinet during the adminismtion of President Johnson. It continued to be so used until the year MCMII. Here the Treaty of Peace with Spain was signed.”

1662

S, lv it. A classic example of her tact and ability to find . cOmmon ground with her audience was recorded in the published transcript of the program. Charles collingw& asked Mrs. Kennedy what purpose the -rrc; lrFr Room would serve, and the television audience

!?‘ b. lrd’ her reply: \\+// 1 do think every town should have a purpose. It L- 6fll still be a sitting toom because that sofa, though !loli may not believe it, will look nice. But it will serve ‘1 definite purpose. My husband has so many meetings t( p here in this part of the house. All the men who ll-, llt to see him now sit in the hall with the baby car-

.lyes going by then. They cm sit in here and talk

~& ile waiting for him.

During the rehearsal period, however, when Mr;. Kennedy was asked why she was refurnishing the room, she replied, “It’s really to get the Cabinet out of the living room.”

Many presidents have used the old cabinet table

LU was the focal point of Mrs. Kennedy’s restora- in for the signing of peace treaties. William McKin- Iev watched as the peace treaty ending the Spanish- .

American War was signed in August 1898; Calvin Coolidge in 1929 put his signature on the ratification

of the Kellogg- Briand Peace Pact; John Kennedy, in 1963, signed the “Treaty for a Partial Nuclear Test !< d n “; Richard Nixon, in 1972, signed the “Treaty of .; c Limitation of Anti- Ballistic Missile Systems”; in

1979 the table was taken outdoors for the momen- .

tous signing of the Egyptian- Israeli Peace Treaty by Menachem Begin, Anwar el- Sadat, and Jimmy Carter (see document page 193); and on a brilliant, sunnv dav in September 1993, the world witnessed not dnlv . . the signing of the Israeli- Palestinian peace treaty on -he cherished cabinet table, but also the handshake :Jetween Yitzak Rabin and Yasir Arafat that took place alongside that American heirloom.

On the mantel, which has seen many decontors come and go, is carved the following: “This room was first used for meetings of the cabinet during the administration of President Johnson. It continued to be so used until the year MCMII. Here the Treaty of Peace with Spain was signed.**

Tht~~ ShOWSputOfchcfO~ ftfU~ ROOmU it appear in the Clinton White House (except for the rug, which

isnot# wrrct).‘ lhc~~~ uJllcJ; thcroom~ mdhctmdt) n

hinoricabinctobk(~~ e); uhitdcrkAc) riMofdrc

rbcticr;, drcprwidcmfrvon~ Cdon, bUt~~ QUitcundcr-

~wttythtCSwns, whoseloveofAmericanhinor) rspansthe errti& OO- yclrhiStofy6ft) HhCUJS& hrvtdlowcdapnnknceof Vi to dominate n& y refurnished White House rooms.

Ciintm has kept the Chartnn treaty painting (see page 72) and

l d& ci - of Ben@ min Frankhn and George Washington. Sat- tefed througtKwt the room are the president’s favorite photc+ srphs and mementos. The prtsident’s books flank the fireplace in -cases bcliit in situ by White House carpenters (see Grpen- ten’ Shop, p. 190) because they were too large to fit through the doorways. The overall effect resulting from the choice of fabrics, colors. hmpr, and upholstered fumiture is a nfkction of the judg mcnt of Little Rock interior decorator Kaki Hockersmith.

Mn. Clinton, discussing the changes she is making to the White House. stated in an intewiew published in Fftitoric Preserwu- tion (Novernber4ecember 1993) that “preservation and restora- tiowt redecomtion” is what she and her husband hope to achieve. “We’re interested in enhancing the house and the fumish- _

ings within it. . . as a means of furthering the historical mission of the house.” As President Clinton enjoys inviting cc& in guests and foreign dignitaries to his office in the residence. it, like other rooms. “should depict the quality and the importance of the White House as a living museum,” asse~ f the first lady.

1663

&es McKim, President and Mrs. Theodore Roo~ evelt's archi- tect and interior designer, wanted in I902 to rid the White House of all the Victorian furniture. Edith Roosevelt insisted that cemin pieces be kept including the majestic carved rosewood bed now in the Lincoln Bedroom. Teddy Roosevelt subsequently enjoyed many restful nights in ic Woodfow Wilson, we assume, spent many restless nights worrying about Worid War I: and Givin Coolidge remained silent on the subject of how he slept in the imposing Lincoln Bed. Had the architect instead of the fint lady had his way, -one of the most famous pieces of furniture in the White House might have been lost forever.

The elaborately carved Victorian taMe w also part of the furniture purchased by Mary Todd Lincoln from Wilkam and George Carry1 of Philadelphia in I86 I. in 1860, the prince of Wales stayed overnight in the *‘ best guest room” in the James Bu- chanan White House. a room described by Mrs. Lincoln’s cousin as “most shabby.” The bed and the table reflect Mary Todd Lincoln’s idea of appropriate furniture for a guest bedroom. in 1970, an- other prince of Wales, Prince Charles, slept in the bed that came to the White House as a result of his ancestor’s brief visit.

The cream- colored silk sofa and matching chairs, believed to have been used in the White House during Lincdn’s administra- tion, were discovered in Engiand and given tothe White House in

1954. The “slipper” chair is @Astered in w- f and green WC iiarn Morris fabric provided 4y a citizen who d to help Mrs. Kennedy with the restoration of the Lincoln Room.

The rocking chair (right foreground) is sirnib to the chair Lincoln used in the box at Ford’s Theatre the night of his assassi- nation. In front of the walnut bureau with full- length mirror, bought by Mary Lincoln, one nineteenth- centu~ White House guest did her “pompadour every morning.”

Visitors staying the night make certain to sit at the desk on ttre kft. This has been authenticated as the desk Lincoln used at the “summer White House,” a few miles northeast of I600 Penn- sylvania Avenue. The chairs at the &sk and thong the north wail were in Lincoln’s cabinet room. The tables franking the bed were purchased by President jackson, whose porvr* teen to the left of the bed, hung in the exact spot when this room was Lincoln’s office (see pages 108- l I).

1664

Lincoln Bedroom

The towering figure in the history of the White House was Abraham Lincoln. Theodore Roosevelt spoke for

every chief executive when he said: “I think of Lin- coln, shambling, homely, with his strong, sad, decply- furrowed face, all the time. I see him in the different rooms and in the halls.” The Lincoln Bedroom, which was the sixteenth president’s office and cabinet room (see pages 108- l 1 ), is the only room in the White House named after and honoring a past president. Jacqueline Kennedy commented:

Sometimes I used to stop and think about it all. I

wondered, “How are we going to live as a famii$ in

this enortnous place 2” I would go and sit in the Lin- coln Room. It was the one room in the White House

with a link to the past. It gave me great comfort. I

love the Lincoln Room. Even though it isn’t really

Lincoln’s bedroom, it has his things in it. When you see that great bed, it looks like a cathedral. To touch something I knew be bad touched was a teal link with him. The kind of peace I felt in that room was what you feel when going to church. I used to sit in the Lincoln Room and I could really feel its strength. I’d

sort of be talking with him. Jefferson is the President with whom I have the most affinity. But Lincoln is the one 1 love?

A plaque on the mantelpiece reads: “In this room Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclama- tion of January 1, 1863 whereby four million slaves were given their freedom and slavery forever prohib- ited in these United States.” This was an act of great personal courage and historic consequence. Even without the furniture, presidents entering the room feel the power of the past and the necessity of just leadership in the future.

Lincoln never slept in the 9- feet- long, 6- feet- wide bed that carries his name, but by its side he wept un- controllably at the sight of his small son Willie, lost forever in its folds, dead at the age of eleven. Three years later, in 1865, the man who pleaded for “malice toward none; with charity for all” was embalmed at the foot of the big bed, shot by .an assassin’s bullet.

For many years, this room has been reserved for guests. FDR insisted that his close adviser Harry Hopkins and his new bride even live in the Lincoln suite (bedroom and sitting room), and had it re- painted for them. Harry Truman, a passionate devo- .

tee of American history, decided to pull together fur- niture from Lincoln’s time and place it here.

1665

1666

Lincoln Sitting Room

Located in the southeast comer of the mansion, this small room’s moment of glory came during the McKinley administration and the Spanish- American War. The site of the president’s uWar Room,” fre- quently referred to in histories of the war, is rarely specifically situated. But it was this small space that became, as William Scale says, “the lifeline of war communications . . . removing it from its traditional place in the War Department.” In 1901, over the

same telegraph lines, came the news that McKinley had been shot by an assassin while visiting the Pan- American Exposition in Buffalo. Colonel Crook, who had served as executive clerk at the White House since the early 186Os, remembered thinking as he read the telegram, “Good God! First Lincoln- then Gar- field- and now McKinley!”

For the first quarter of the nineteenth century, the Lincoln Sitting Room was simply empty. When

Charles Dickens visited the White House in the 184Os, it was Tyler’s %nimpressive” office. Later, it was generally occupied by the president’s private secretary and had the luxury of a water closet at the north end, contributing to its irregular shape. The room became the telegraph office during the adminis- tration of Rutherford B. Hayes. After the executive offices were moved out of the mansion in 1902, it was used by the first family themselves or as part of one of the principal guest suites in the house.

Richard Nixon read and listened to music here. He always liked a fire in the fireplace, even in sum- mer, and, according to his daughter Tricia, had the air conditioning turned up to compensate for his idio- syncratic habit. John Zweifel included in his render- ing of this room the cigar bums in the carpet that Nixon inadvertently caused.

@itorstotheVVhiteHowcnQliaoftenaskdnmse~~” What makes it look so real?” The answer lies in the thousands of little detailr;. In this srmll room of the replia. there is a “fire” in the firephce, and it flickers. The logs are perfectly scaled; even the knots are in proportion. All the necesv tools we there to

maintain the fire, and the andirons have been perfectly shaped to fit the spzze. The mantel is a caned copy of the original. The picture fnme and the wainscoting are built up from thin pieces of wood to look like the real thing. There is a copy of the painting Puviliorr at Gloucester by William Glrckens. The electrified candles bum, and although the copy of the French Empire clock on the mantel does not tick, other clocks in t& e White House replica do.

The decor dates from the Reagan administration. The desk on the right was made by James Hoban, the

original architect of the White House. The four rose- wood. chairs were purchased by Mary Todd Lincoln. The plaster cast sculpture titled Neighboring Pews was created by John Rogers, the most popular scuip-

tor in America between 1860 and 1895.

Oueen’s Bedroom and w-- Sitting Room

Ike Hoover, who worked for ten presidents, described Will Rogers’ visit to the Coolidge White House:

The White House needed a sumptuous bedroom. Before Blair House, located across the street, became

Mr. Rogers bad been assigned to what is known as

1667

the

. drd the pink [Qlreen’s] guest suite, in the extreme nortb- east corner of the bedroom floor. It consists of a large room with a four- poster bed, a small dressing- room, which also has a single brass bed in it, and a private bath. He was escorted halfway down the bail by the President and his room pointed out to him. A door- man was summoned to have one last word witb Mr. Rogers and learn if there was anything that could be done for him before be retired.

Upon entering tbe room, Mr. Rogers seemed rather hesitant about occqying tbe large four- poster bed that bad been prepared fof him. Turning to tbe doorman, be inquired if be bad to sleep there. He was told of the small bed in the dressing- room and chose that in preference to the large one. The man turned down these covers and lefi Mr. Rogers with his own thoughts, to spend the night in the Wbite House with all the thrills be afierwards described?

Truman’s mother couldn’t see herself in this big, beautiful guest room (originally called the Rose Bed- room) either, declaring she would rather sleep on the floor. The bed was too high, the decor too fussy, she declared, and like the earthy humorist, she slept in the small sitting room. The entertainer Sammy Davis Jr., however, when he spent the night at the White House, turned down the chance to sleep in the famed Lincoln Bedroom in favor of the Queen’s Bedroom. He later

joked, “I thought to myself, now I don’t want [Lin- coin] coming in here talking about ‘I freed them, but I sure didn’t mean for them to sleep in my bed.“ ’

official presidential guest house, the White House

have many overnight visitors with singularly imperious or peculiar ways. Winston Churchill and Madame Chiang Kai- shek during the war years were two of the most demanding. And royalty never fits smoothly into a household labeled the “first house of democracy.” It is known that the White House staff were often disconcerted by the manner in which cer- tain supercilious guests ordered them about. Whether ‘Mr. Brown” (alias for V. M. Molotov, Soviet minis-

ter for in 194

foreign affairs, who slept in the Rose’ Bedroom 82) addressed them as “comrade” has gone un- recorded. What bas been recorded are the findings of the valet who unpacked Molotov’s suitcase: black bread, sausages, and a revolver.

The Rose Bedroom was renamed the Queen’s

Bedroom by Jacqueline Kennedy in honor of the royal guests who had occupied it. Among these were Queen Elizabeth of Great Britain in 1942, Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands in 1942, Queen Julianna of the Netherlands in 1952, Queen Freder- ika of Greece in 1953, and Queen Elizabeth II of .

Great Britain in 1957. a

In the days of Buchanan and Lincoln,

president’s private secretaries lived in this the

bedroom,

with twenty- four- hour dedication to the job expected. John Hay and John G. Nicolay shared the room in the 1860s. By the time of Andrew Johnson’s presi-

dency, his private secretary was moved to the comer room (today’s Queen’s Sitting Room), and the larger space became an office occupied by six clerks. When .

executive offices were finally built adjoining the man-

The Queen’s Bedroom ovettooks Maycat Park to the north of

the White House. The four- poster bed is thought to have be- longed to Andrew Jackson; it came from the Hermitage, his home in Tennessee. The Fedent sofa has scrolled arms and floral deco- rations on the top ail. The caned wood mantel on the west wall dates from the years 1820- 30 and was removed from a Philadel- phia house built in 1792. The English looking glass over the mantel with an eighteenth- century floral painting fnmed with it was pre- sented to the White House by Princess (now C&~ een) Elizabeth on behalf of her father, King George, when she and Prince Philip visited Washington in I95 I. The princess remarked that it was the king’s “hope. and mine, that [the mirror] will remain here. as a mark of our friendship. so long as the White House shall stand.”

The Queen’s Bedroom has ulditionally been given to female guests, as the Lincoln Bedroom wu considered the more mascu- line. Female portraits, too, dominate the paintings in the room.

One of the most beautiful is of the actress hnny Kunble (seen above the sofa). The artist, Thomas Sully, was the son of Engksh actors who emigrated to America in 1792. Fanny Kemble also

arrived in America from Engiand with her actor father in 1832 and soon won the hearts of American audiences.

The actress was presented to Andrew Jackson at the White House in 1833, the year she married and gave up the stage. V& e- mently opposed to the slavery she witnessed on her husband’s Georgia plantation. she divorced him in 1849. She began to give pubiic readings that became legendary. Longfellow was enraptured: “How our hearts glowed and trembled / as she read . . . l ’ She also

wrote @umol of Q Reskkvce on u Georgbn Plantation, published in England in 1863, hoping to encourage a public outcry against sla- very. Her nephew later married President Ulysses Crurt’s daugh- ter Nellie in the Blue Room. Fanny is a favorite of first families and an inspiring companion while staying overnight at the White House.

1669

sion during Teddy Roosevelt’s tenure, the rows of desks that had filled this room for so many years were placed in a large room at the west end of the West Wing. This room then became the Rose Bedroom and the site of Alice Roosevelt Longworth’s childhood appendectomy.

Today, the Queen’s Bedroom and Lincoln Bed- room accommodate personal friends and family of the president and first lady who are invited to spend the night at the best address in the country.

S? BriesofChurdrillatdn~ Houseabound.~ tkiebnoeviduuetkEkanorbumpedintohimstarknaked oneni& David~ thoughtthenofywuwefchkwmi- gatingzhecorrckrdc& aftefcondu~- imcnicwr, t)# cit woo/ d have been iqos&& k Wii Chufchill II repoKtd that hisf; mdfithtratwaysskptinav8st( undershirt). nothingmocr, 8WMgltSS

Churchill stayed up n@ h* talking to the president until about 290 API. Rwsevek wwld attempt to put in no- 1 &ng days, but Churchill. according to comem9onv npoa spent a we part of the day “hurling hhnseff viokndy in and out of bed, bsthing at unsu& blc momentsandrushingupanddowncorridoninhis dress& gown.” If there hadn’t been a war to win. Ekanor would have kicked him ‘outs The cigar on the bed is a “Super Churchill,” placed here for scale and not to suggest that the prime minister was careless about where he kft his smoldering cigar.

The AtcMeauru~ Digest (December 1981) descfibed the Queen’s SittingRoomas” evokingastatelyyetfestivetone.” kenchfabric with a neoclassical me&& on design was installed during the Ken- nedy adminitcrrtion. A dnped dressing table is festooned with tasseled cord. The crown and scepter are just for fun. reminding the viewer that the White House replica descends from a long line of magnificent miniatures. including Queen Mary’s Do& House at Windsor Castle.

1670

1672

Movie Theater in East Colonnade

tnjuty 1942RWdentWinR oosevett ofdefed the white .House darkroom, touted in the east colonnade, converted irno a

moviethutet. ht) uttimeon, drcWhictHouschu)# dno pemmnent coatmom, but evwy first ihily woutd probabIy agree

that having a personal movie tkatet is better. In any case, drt space stilf serves as the.# mporuy CoatrDom.

As early as t 933, Roosevek was receiving newsreeJ footage of impomt presidential activitk. Thepfesidentakowastent copies of films made by 1Cowmm+ magenciesand, oncethewu began, many of the propaganda films. Punily and friends have probably used the theatef far more than the pr# iti especWy since the White House also has ahvays had access to feature films.

Margaret Truman was delighted to kam that she coutd ask for a viewing of any Hollywood movie, new or old, at any time she ~ind. tt~ nportcdduts~# w~ CvoriccfhcSabrktPimpcr- nef, sixteen times. Mamie Eisenhower, like many Amerkan women inthe t9SOs, enjoyedwauhingrnwvieonaSa~ yrfrcmoon. She was paniculariy fond of sharing tk sixty- five- seat theater wkh her young grandchildren. Her husband, too, watched many movies there. Presidents Gner and Reagan normally waited until they were resting at Gmp David to savor Hdwood’s latest offerings. hident Cl& on’s “favorite cukurrl activity,” noted the New York TimesonMarch23,1994,“ seemstobeshowingmoviesatthe White House.”

1673

Tab 2

1674

1675

Movie Theater in East Colonnade

In July 1942, President Franklin Roostvett ordered the White House cloakroom, located in the east colonnade, convened into a movie theater. From that time on, the White House has had no permanent coatroom, but every first f% mily would probably agree that having a personal movie theater is better. In any case, the space still serVes as the’ temponry coatroom.

As early as 1933. Roosevelt was receiving newsreel footage of important presidential activities. The president also was sent copies of films made by government agencies and. once the war began, many of the propaganda films. Family and friends have probably used the theater far more than the president, especially since the White House also has always had access to feature films.

Margaret Truman was delighted to learn that she could ask for a viewing of any Hollywood movie, new or old, at any time she desired. It is reported that she saw her favorite, fhc Scum pimpcr- ncl, sixteen times. Mamie Eisenhower, like many American women in the 1950s. enjoyed watching a movie on a Saturday afternoon. She was panicularly fond of sharing the sixty- five- seat theater with her young grandchildren. Her husband, too, watched many movies there. Presidegts Caner and Reagan normally waited untit they were resting at Camp David to savor Hollywood’s latest offerings. President Ciinton’s “favorite cultural activity,” noted the New YorIc Times on March 23, 1994, “seems to be showing movies at the White House.” -

1676

Tab 3

1678

1679

Page i Search Result Rank. 2 of 28 r'tation 14/ 95 LATIMES 1 L--/ 14/ 95 L. A. Times 1 1995 WL 9845195

Los Angeles Times Copyright, The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles

Tuesday, November 14, Database

LAT Times 1995 all Rights reserved 1995 PART- A; National Desk President, GOP Hold Last- Ditch Summit on Budget; Government: Hope for avoiding shutdown rises as Dole and Gingrich visit the White House. Senate and House

remain in session in case of agreement. PAUL RICHTER; EDWIN CHEN

TIMES STAFF WRITERS President Clinton and Republican congressional leaders convened a late- night summit at the White House on Monday in a last- ditch effort to broker a temporary budget deal and avert a partial shutdown of the government today.

Both the House of Representatives and the Senate remained in -; sion in case an agreement was reached.

A glimmer of hope for avoiding the first government shutdown in five years arose when Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R- Kan.) and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R- Ga.) announced they were going to the White House for a meeting expected to begin about 10 p. m.

Dole and Gingrich said every point of contention would be "on the table" and that there would be "no preconditions."

The talks appeared even more promising because the two Republican leaders agreed to include the two congressional Democratic minority leaders, Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri. Dole and Gingrich had refused to involve congressional Democrats in any such discussions, insisting that the dispute was between the White House and Capitol Hill Republicans.

Earlier, Clinton vetoed a temporary borrowing bill, and vowed to veto a stopgap spending measure that would have kept federal offices open, setting the stage for a furlough of more than a third of the government's 2.1 million civilian workers this morning. The stopgap measure was passed by the Senate Monday afternoon. Clinton vetoed the second temporary measure before sitting down with the Republicans Monday night.

nroughout the day, White House and GOP leaders had traded Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1680

11/ 14/ 95 LATIMES 1 .unciations. Clinton declared that signing the bills would force him to swallow unacceptable portions of the GOP agenda that Republicans had tacked onto the short- term budget bills.

"This legislation is part of an overall back door effort by the congressional Republicans to impose their priorities on our nation," he said. He charged that the GOP was violating the intent of the Founding Fathers by packing special provisions dealing with larger government policy questions into temporary measures meant to deal exclusively with government solvency.

Republicans countered that Democrats often engaged in such tactics when they were in control of Congress. They taunted Clinton and accused him of trying to avoid a compromise. Gingrich said the standoff "must seem like a spectacle to the average American," and he warned that the public will "blame all of us."

Some Democrats as well acknowledged that the standoff cast a highly unflattering light on the adversaries.

"Everybody loses if we try to bring the government to a andstill," said Sen. John B. Breaux (D- La.) "We're so busy trying score political points, I think some people in Louisiana believe e- n we in Congress are not 'essential' employees who should report to work tomorrow."

Without an agreement, some 800,000 federal workers in Washington and across the country would be furloughed today for an indefinite period. Those employees, who have been deemed nonessential, have been told to report to work, and to be prepared for orders to close up their operations and head home unless a compromise is reached.

Federal supervisors could direct their employees to stay at work longer if it appeared that a breakthrough was coming.

Vital Services The furloughs would not affect federal services deemed vital, such as air traffic control, law enforcement, the mails and the military. But they would close national parks, museums, passport offices and the processing of new claims for Social Security, food stamps and. other government benefits.

The battle over the two temporary measures developed because the Congress has fallen behind

_; sing 13 bills needed to fiscal year that began

Copr. 0 West in its efforts to finish- the work of

fund the various government operations for Oct. 1. So far, only three of the 13 bills

1998 No Claim to Orig. .p. S. Govt. Works. Page

1681

11/ 14/ 95 LATIMES 1 Page F e been finished by Congress. \.

The two temporary budget measures would keep the government operating as usual for several more weeks, providing Congress and the President time to complete work on the remaining measures.

Some Senate Republicans sought to defuse Clinton's opposition to a GOP provision to raise Medicare premiums for elderly beneficiaries. The Republican measure to temporarily extend the government's spending authority would have raised those monthly premiums, starting Jan. 1, from the current $46.10 to $53.50, rather than allowing them to fall to $42.50, as provided in current law.

As a way around the White House objections, Sen. Peter V. Domenici (R- N. M.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, suggested that the spending bill keep the premiums level at $46.10. But White House officials did not promise that Clinton would accept that compromise. They said that even agreement on that point would not eliminate the President's objection to language in the same bill that would sharply cut interim spending levels for some federal programs.

Temporary Spending "he bill provides that temporary spending could fall to as low as h& e

of fiscal 1995 levels for some federal programs that Republicans sought to cut or eliminate. The provision threatens some programs that are close to Clinton's heart-- such as the national service program and Goals 2000 education programs-- and thus run counter to vital White House aims.

Mike McCurry, White House press secretary, said, "The President is very concerned about the 60% funding level." As the federal government's borrowing authority ticked toward expiration at midweek, Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin took steps Monday to assure that the government would be able to pay its debts. The temporary borrowing bill vetoed by Clinton would have raised the current $4.9- trillion debt ceiling by $67 billion.

To stay below the debt ceiling, Treasury officials announced that they will dip temporarily into certain government retirement funds, essentially a bookkeeping ploy in which Treasury securities are redeemed for cash. By removing those securities from the books, the Treasury lowers the total U. S. debt, making room to add on new debt through a series of Treasury auctions this week and next.

The government had faced a major cash squeeze in the coming days-- $102 billion in payments for interest and principal.

- Today's announcement is saying we're not going to default," a Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1682

11/ 14/ 95 LATIMES 1 Page 0 asury spokesman said. .

Bonds rallied on Wall Street after the announcement. The benchmark 30- year Treasury bond yield fell to 6.27% from 6.33% Friday. The Dow industrial stock index inched up 2.53 points to a record 4,872.90, but most stocks closed lower.

Government officials made final plans for furloughs, after going .through the frustrating exercise of trying to decide which employees would be essential to their operations.

90 At the White House, for example, 79% will be furloughed, leaving

of the Executive Mansion's 430 full- time equivalent employees on the job.

The guidelines will leave the White House press office staffed by unpaid interns, one press assistant and the press secretary; while the White House's political director, Douglas Sosnik, will be furloughed.

The prospect of a shuttered government is also forcing the White House to shorten a trip to Asia that U. S. and Asian officials have deemed highly important.

hs linton will now spend two days, instead of six, on a trip that

to encompass a state visit with the Japanese, and a meeting with members of the Asian trade bloc.

Long scheduled, Asia," the trip will now amount to "a weekend trip to

McCurry acknowledged. Only days ago, Japanese ambassador to the United States Takakazu Kuriyama was suggesting that such a shortening was undesirable and unlikely. "We don't expect that to happen, and of course we don't 'want to see that happen, the ambassador said.

given the importance of the relationship," ---- INDEX REFERENCES ---- STORY ORIGIN: WASHINGTON REGION: United States (US) EDITION: SOUTHLAND EDITION Word Count: 1239 11/ 14/ 95 LATIMES 1 r .7 OF DOCUMENT

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1683

Tab 4

1684

ritation '14/ 95 WASHPOST A03 -/ 14/ 95 Wash. Post A03 1995 WL 9272296

1685

Search Result Rank 90 of 104 The Washington Post

A SECTION At White House, on Hill, Pondering the Essentials

Guy Gugliotta Washington Post Staff Writer

Sen. Alfonse M. "essential"

D'Amato (R- N. Y.) was planning to hold Whitewater hearings, then canceled. Rep. John R. Kasich (R- Ohio) wants his pay held, but doesn't know how to do it. The White House is going down to one chef. Senators may bring lunch -- their dining rooms will be closed.

With a government shutdown only hours away, the opposing camps in the White House vs. F' Congress budget battle last night tried to

yide who would work tomorrow and who would not. -Not surprisingly, the White House, the shots,

with only one boss calling had things pretty well figured out by sundown. President Clinton and top White House staff were "essential personnel," as were the Secret Service and the people working in the Situation Room.

But first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's staff will fall from 16 to four, and maintenance will drop from 70 to 14. Where there are normally four chefs, another at night --

there will be only one during the day and only 90 of the White House's 430 employees were expected to stick around for a day's work.

In Congress, by contrast, where there are 535 bosses, any meaningful count of the total considered "essential" was impossible. Secretary of the Senate Kelly Johnston said there will be no guided tours, but the Capitol will be open and Capitol Police will see that visitors don't get into harm's way.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R- Calif.) sent a letter to House members early in the afternoon yesterday describing "essential" personnel as "only those whose primary job responsibilities are linked directly to legislative activities."

'homas himself, however, found wandering the halls late - Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

Database WP

1686

11/ 14/ 95 WASHPOST A03 Page 13 terday looking for House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R- Ga.), confirmed k- 3 vagueness of this dictum, saying "I don't know of any shutdown," and offering the opinion that Congress was deeply involved in the nation's essential business.

The House Budget Committee chairman wanted to "make sure my pay is held, just like any federal employee. So I asked somebody how to do that this morning," Kasich said, "and they said, 'I have idea. ' w

no Also planning on coming to work was Gingrich spokesman Tony Blankley. "My dog thinks I'm essential," he said. "I bring him -- he told me in dog words." Besides, he added, "McCurry would disappointed if I wasn't there."

Michael McCurry, the White House press secretary, was not food

be immediately available for comment, but as one of the White House's 90 anointed, he can watch Blankley twisting the knife on TV and will be able to return the favor.

The House was lucky on food, because it privatized all its cafeterias and dining rooms. The Senate, which runs its own eating places, is shutting them down, leaving senators with the awkward r'? ice of visiting the House to eat or making do with vending

hines.

D'Amato, the Senate's Banking Committee chairman, said late yesterday that he'd planned to conduct a Whitewater hearing today, saying it was "essential" to the "fulfillment of our objectives." How essential?

Not that essential: He later postponed the hearing, issuing a release citing "the tremendous press of business relating to the budget.* ' Hearings to resume, he said, after Thanksgiving.

Staff writer Helen Dewar contributed to this report. NAMED PERSON: KEY WORDS: FURLOUGHS; MEMBERS

NEWS SUBJECT: NEWS CATEGORY:

YRNMENT: ---- INDEX REFERENCES ----

BILL THOMAS; ALFONSE M. D'AMATO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; U. S. CONGRESS; FEDERAL EMPLOYEES; OF CONGRESS; BUDGET; DEFICIT

Labor, Personnel Issues (LAB) NEWS Federal Government; Congress (FDL CNG) Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

11/ 14/ 95 WASHPOST A03 TION: FINAL '.- Word Count: 536 11/ 14/ 95 WASHPOST A03 END OF DOCUMENT

1687

Page 14

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1688

1689

Tab 5

1690

1691

Israel Arrests More Rabin Slaying Suspects; Military Withdraws from Jenin

vr pum +ce wlttl securny. Is- @li military RIO NOV. 11 repotted that be police had arrested an acttveduty sd- dia and his father t! t COnnec’lo” Wtttt tht -- ion of Pnme Mmtster Ylt+ k Ilrbin, do was slain Npv. 4 by a Jew& t matjdist. The po+ e. al& y hold- +tg the confessed assassin at+ five *other right- wing suspects. did not tmmedtately canfm &e two new arrests. However. a ,,,, licc spokesman. Boaz Goldberg, Nov. ,, said that authorities !a! widened their &down on rightist ,t+ ants, rounding 4, ,non than 50 addruonal people on a host of charges not directly tied to the Rabin case. [See below. p. 833AlJ

concurrently. Acting Prime Mini+ r shimon Peres signaled Israel’s intentton t,, meet terms of the accord on extended relf_ mle that the Rabin- led government bd signed with the Palestine Liberation &@& on (PLO) in September. The Is- mli military NOV. 13 withdrew fm the northernmost West Bank Arab city of Jenin. transferring Control to the Palestin- h National Authority (PNA), headad by pu) Chairman Yasir Arafat, after 28 years of Israeli military occupation. [See p.

WA11 In hailing the advent of self- rule to jmin, Gen. Nasser Yousef, a senior PNA recurity official. said, “Without a doubt this day crowns the work of Prime Min- ister Yitzhak Rabin who lost his life working for peace.”

Peres Nov. 14 toured Israeli military posts on the West Bank near the “green line,” Israel’s 1967 border with the thcn-

Jordanian West Bank. He indicated that security considerarions for Israel’s mili- tary outposts and settlements in the West Bank would remain one of his uppermost priorities as Israel continued its peace process with the Palestinians.

Peres said that the military’s with- drawal from Jenin. the first Palestinian city affected under the second- phase ac- cwd, would be followed by a pause in troop redeployments so that Israelis could “draw all the necessary conclusions” as to the feasibility for withdrawing from other West Bank cities, in accordance with the September accord.

Peres added that all available measures would be taken to insure that Jews and Arabs on the West Bank could continue undisturbed in their normal lives as Pal- estinians moved toward democratic elec- tions, tentativeiv set for Jan. 20, 1996.

Peres Nov. 12 had met in Israel with &njarnin Netanyahu. leader of the right- Wing opposition Likud bloc. The two had reportedly agreed to monitor their sup- porters for the kind of inflamed rhetoric that many observers had denounced as fostering a climate of political violence in Israel.

FOCUS Shifts to Nationalist Rabbis-

Israeli Police Minister Moshe Shahal Nov. 10 said that investigators had con- cluded that Yigal Amir, the confessed as-

sassin of Rabin, had belonged to a terror- ist cell whose violence had been encour- aged by a “spiritual leader.” Shahal de- clined to identify tbe alleged instigator by name. but lsncli newspapers singled out two rabbis- Nahum Rabiiich and Dov Iior- as the possible spiritual leader in question.

Shahal also said that the alleged cell had planned to carry out attacks against AntbsintheWcstBank.

Amir had coatended in court testimony that Jewish law sanctioned his killing of Rabii. [See p. 834El]

Rabinovich, who lived in the West Bank settlement of Maale Adumim. out- side Jerusaiem, and Liar. ftom the settle- ment of Kiryat Arba, north of Hebron. Nov. 13 both denied the public accusa- tions against than.

However, Israeli television Nov. 14 aired a tape in which Rabinovich said. Turning over a comrade to gentiles in a way that mdangtrs his life and turning over property of Jews- whoever does such a thing has to pay with his life.” As of Nov. 16. the police had not filed charges against either Rabinovich or Liar.

In developments related to the police crackdown on right- wing examists. it was reported Nov. I4 that among the de- tained had been Rabbi Moshe Levinger. a prominent figure among Jewish settlers, and Noam Fedcrman, spokesman for the militantly nationalist Kahane Chai (Kah- ane Lives) gmup, an off- shoot of the anti- Arab Kach (Thus) organization founded by the late Rabbi Meir Kahane. [See p. 207El; 1994, p. 2OOBl]

Related Dewiopments-- ln other de-

velopments related to the Israeli- Pales- tinian peace process:

Cl The Israeli newspaper Yedior Ahronor Nov. 10 reported that a poll of adult Is- raeli Jews indicated a sharp shift toward

support of the Labor Party and its peace process in the aftermath of the Rabin as- sassination. According !o the survey. con- ducted Nov. 7- 8 by the Dahaf Institute, some 74% of respondents said they wanted the government to implement the second- phase accord on Palestinian self- rule, and 23% indicated that they wanted the process to be halted. The survey also showed potential voters backing Peres

over the Likud’s Netanyahu by a 54% to 23% margin. Some 23% of respondents reportedly favored a third choice or were undecided. [See 1994, p. 150El]

0 Israelis Nov. 12 ended their formal seven- day mourning period for Rabin with a demonstration that drew 250.000 people to the square in Tel Aviv where he had been assassinated. Peres addressed the crowd, as did Leah Rabin. widow of the slain prime minister. Leah Rabin urged Israelis to back Peres in his effort to continue the peace process, vowing, “The silent majority will be silent no more.” (See p. 834P2]

IZl Facts0nFii. k~

World News Digest

~lH5~ P~ OflfNk In-~-

Volume 55, No. 2868 November 16,1995

FiioftwosecliOns”

with Index

IN TNIS fSSUL

bral wrosta mar0 NabIn rlaylng we- pwt8; mltltary wMdmw8 ircm Janin; Pores pur8ms poaca with socurlty; tccusahm8ton8nonastrabb. urorbnmlbr. rmnortVrlghtr= tivWa

hmngad; onuutbsauseluror. Saudi bolnbblg8 klil SoWn 8t U. S.- run

miln8yantoCflveAmWicaaalncflg dnd.

united statee ahton votoa otopgg spending. debt

bwpltirloonmmnt shlltdowll (b FlifrE- -rp- buywt. Bodnghltbymachlnhts8tflke.

sq2mmecoufttoIwlmvab& progfwl- mina- fbck. Wh~~ Goidmmbid.

NWsen wrvey reporb U. S., Canadian intomotwe. Podoral Reurve reports modort oco-

ncmic growth. Spaca shuttle ‘Columbia’ flier long sci-

ence mlssion. Upftsbgs occur at tour ledoral pftsona. Fcmigners’fme- sPoech rights l IJMndad.

PWes852- 051 Gernwn fugitive tywcn’s extmlltiin set.

British court overturns arms404raq con- Wticns. W& n lormer Pmmier Andfwtti charged

with murder. Portugal’s so& list government takes ol-

fii; facts cn Premier Guterms. P4F= Je

Other Wadd Newe

Austmllsn former trawry official Eat- nun convicted of murder. Conodi8n ccurt to mtry Somsli regiment

chiei. H& Ian aid package sw~ eMed by U. S. Jap8nose cabinet minister quits over

Koma remarks. Sri lankan troops l dvana on rebels. lrinid8d Prime Minister P8nday sworn in.

PWF859- 863

E F

1692

rorist o ration carried out against the U. S. ml ltaty on Saudi soil dunng the SO #e years of U. S.- Saudi military cooperation. [See 1991. p. 129Fll

U. S. forces had maintained a low pro- file in Saudi Arabia, out of deference to Saudi custodial responsibilities for Mos-

lem holy sites. The U. S. Defense Depart-

ment Nov. 13 declined to reveal how many U. S. troops were currently sta- tioned in Saudi Arabia. It was known, however, that for the last 20 years the U. S. had conducted a training program for the 80,000~ strong Saudi National Guard on the use and maintenance of

U. S.- supplied military equipment. n

Other international News Brltlsh Commonweafth Summit Held. Leaders from most of the British Com- monwealth’s 52 member nations, the ma- jority of which were former colonies of Britain. attended a four- day summit in Auckland and Queenstown, New Zealand Nov. 10- l 3. The summit was dominated by the Commonwealth’s reaction to French nuclear tests in the South Pacific and Nigeria’s execution of nine minority- rights activists. [See pp. 85OC1, 823C2; 1993, p. 851E33

The Commonwealth leaders Nov. 11 decided to suspend Nigeria from the or- ganization for human- rights abuses. Ni- geria, which was led by- military dictator Gen. Sani Abacha. had drawn fierce worldwide protests after the Nov. 10 ex- ecutions. Author and environmentalist Ken Sam- Wiwa was among the nine po- litical activists executed.

Commonwsafth Condemns A- Tosts- The Commonwealth Nov. 10 released a

statement condemning France’s recent R- sumption of nuclear testing. British Prime Mintster John Major Nov. 10 criticized the Commonwealth’s statement and reaf- firmed his support of France’s right to

conduct the tests. The nuclear tests were being held in

thesoUthP~~ mdhaddlXWnpI0tCs@ fnnn Commonwealth members tliere. in-

chdine New Zealand and Australia.

Leadersofthosecountrieshadmaintained

that Major was reluctant to oppose the tests because he feared upsetting Anglo- French relations. Australian Prime Minis- ter Paul Keating Nov. 3 had set a paren- tially divisive tone for the summit when he said that Major would get “a smack with a ruler” for supporting the tests. (Keating Nov. 10 vlogizd 10 Major for his comments, which he said were mis- reptzsented by the media.)

The Commonwealth’s Nov. 10 declata- tion noted the “widespread anger caused by the current program of nuclear weapon tests.” although it did not mention France by name. An “overwhelming majority” of

Commonwealth leaders were said to back the statement, which claimed that the tests could adversely affect a 1996 nuclear test ban treaty.

Major Nov. 10 called the statement “in- consistent and unbalanced.” Major was particularly opposed to the suggestion that rhe tests could derail the 1996 rreaty.

Mozambique was admitted into the Commonwealth Nov. 12. Mozambique would become the only member not to have former colonial ties to Britain. n

(Clinton Vetoes Stopgap Spending, Debt Ceiling Bills Partial Government Shutdown Rasults.

President Clinton Nov. 13 vetoed two

J bills that would have provided the federal government with funds lo pay its debts

and remain in operation. Early in the day,

I= G

Clinton vetoed ‘the first me& re. whiih would have granted a temporary increase in the legal debt limit for the government. Later that evening, Clinton refused to sign a continuing resolution bill- or so- called stopgap spending measure- which would have provided funding for government ac- tivities for the nexf two weeks. The sec- ond veto forced a partial shutdown of the federal government. [See below, p. 73OD3; 1993, p. 77lAl; 1990, pp. 756C1, 569Cl]

The president’s vetoes marked the latest event in an ongoing budget battle between the White House and Republican leaders in Congress. Clinton said that the bills contained “extreme proposals” that would imperil the environment, funding for edu- cation and public health. [See below]

The Senate Nov. 9 had passed its final version of the debt- limit increase bill, 49- 47. The House then passed the same bill with a 2 19- l 85 vote Nov. 10. The contin- uing resolution cleared the House Nov.

852 10, by a 224- 172 vote, and the Senate

early Nov. 13 passed it by a voice vote.

Details of the Debt- Limit Bill- The

debt- limit bill vetoed by Clinton would have authorized an increase in the debt limit to $4.967 trillion, from the currtnt $4.9 trillion. However, the bill stipulated that after Dec. 12 the debt limit would de- crease to $4.8 trillion. In addition, the bill would have barmd the U. S. Treasury from tapping into federal trust funds to pay government bills or payments on bonds.

In the absence of a new debt- limit in- crease and without the use of trust fund money, the federal government almost certainly would be unable to make inter- est payments on borrowed money, forcing the government to default on its loans. That unprecedented event, in turn, would precipitate a financial crisis.

Had Clinton signed the bill, it would effectively have given him the option of either reaching a new budget agreement with Republicans- very likely on their terms- by Dec. 12 or placing the country at serious risk of defaulting on its debts. The president cited the proposed resuic- tions on the Treasury as the chief reason for his veto. Investors and financial mar-

Lets greeted Clinton’s decision wia rek In addition,. Repul$ icans had taclyld to the debt- llmlt btll seyeral unreG “rider” measures that Clmton Gne provision would require fe_ ties to perform new risk- assess- ~ cost- benefit analyses +fore issuing pew health, safetY and environmental qti tic. Another me+ ute .wo.$ d requite Ibc preudenttoagrec~ p~ lpletobaLpoc the federai bud Congressional % et tn seven ym *

udget Office est&% The CBO’s estimates tended to be mart pess+ isticthanthoseofthe~ d.

mimstration. which used numben m

vidcd by the white House Office of MIX agement and Budget.

Clinton Nov. 13 called the debt- limit bill a “back+ or eff? rt by the congnr. sional Repubhcans to unpose their piac ties on our nation,” and claimed w it would cripple laws designed to pm h environment and public health. House Speaker Newt Gin- h (R, Ga.) the m day accused the president of playing up litical games” vd defended the bill. ssY. ing that Repubhcans had been “elected u change politics as usual.”

The federal government had run a &f,. tit every year $nce 1% 9, requiring h b borrow money m order to stay in opar- tion. Congress alone was author& d 10 tc( the debt limit for the government_ bcu ti limit required pnsidential appmval pai_ odically. as the govemment neared its debt limit, Congress would send a bill to tbc president that would authorize a debt in- crease. Congress usually attached riders DD the bill in hopes that the president would sign the bill. even if he did not approve of all the provisions within it, rather thau place the government in financial danger.

ltust Funds Tappsd to Avoid e

With no debt- limit increase scheduled, SecretarY of the Treasury Robert E. Rubin Nov. 13 announced that he would tap into two federal retirement funds in order (0 avoid a government default on the $102 billion jn interest loans and principal that came due Nov. 15- I 6. The two funds WCR the Government Securities Investment Fund and the Civil Service Rairement Fund. Those funds were politically the safest to draw upon because fedaal law required that, if the funds were ever rppro- priated during a debt crisis, the govern- ment would have lo repay any interest lost 10 the funds. Analysts said that the two funds would provide the Treasury with enough money to stave off a default for

several months. [See p. 776621

Continuing Resolution Detaib-*

continuing resolution that Clinton vetoed

would have extended financing for gov- ernment anencieS until JJec. 1. Clinton’s

main obj& ion to the bill stemmed from a provision authorizing an increase in pre- miums for Medicare, the federal medial- insurance plan for the elderly. The bill& O would have implemented stricter spending reductions than those stipulated by the continuing resolution that was cUmntlY funding the federal government.

Congress as of Nov. 16 had sent W president only five of the 13 appro+ a-

FACTS ON RE

1693

Tab 6

1694

r; tation '16/ 95 WASHPOST' DO1 k/ 16/ 95 Wash. Post DO1 1995 WL 9272722

1695

Search Result Rank 80 of 104 Database WP

Thursday, November 16, 1995 STYLE That Essential Difference; Majority of House Employees Escape the Shutdown

Phil McCombs Washington Post Staff Writer

So who's essential, anyway? Judging from the activity in the office buildings of the U. S. House of Representatives yesterday, the answer must be: darn near everyone!

Congressional aides were scurrying through the halls. They filled the House restaurants (run by a civilian company), though the p ?ate's were closed. They crowded the elevators, which ran just

a without elevator operators. Drivers of the underground trains chnecting the Capitol and legislative office buildings were dismissed originally, then summoned back yesterday.

In Speaker Newt Gingrich's congressional office -- 2428 Rayburn -- flocks of people moved to and fro; there was laughter emanating from a back room amid clicking computers and ringing phones.

“No ! ” said a stern receptionist, when asked if these workers could be interviewed concerning the exact nature of their essentiality; she referred inquiries to the speaker's office over in the Capitol building. "We have several people in that office. Anyone can help you," she said.

The government may have shut down nonessential activities such as the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum -- indeed, you could have landed a light plane at Third and Jefferson streets on the Mall yesterday afternoon -- but apparently it takes a lot of essential government to make a nonessential government shut down.

And who's to say what's essential, anyway? Rep. John T. Myers (R- Ind.), chairman of the House "Gym Committee," was on a

-ee- member panel that closed the facility as part of the shutdown. lerday morning, the House gym was reopened. Myers resigned his

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1696

11/ 16/ 95 WASHPOST DO1 Page E

‘t, a spokesman said, and beyond that there was no comment -- >, ough doubtless the dramatic inside details will one day be known to history.

"Everyone is essential in our office," said Andi Dillin, press secretary for Rep. Bill McCollum (R- Fla.). hearings and do legislation,

"We're continuing to hold so the legislative aides are needed. The chief of staff is needed to oversee everything. The press secretary is needed to answer the questions of the press."

Even the people who answer the phones, she added, must stay on duty because "it's essential we let the constituents know what's going on."

Apparently, most congressional offices are following these same rough guidelines -- if nothing has happened.

just keep everyone merrily toiling away as Dillin said she'd attended a meeting of congressional press secretaries where "just a few" raised their hands when asked if there were furloughs in their offices.

Things were different at the White House, where officials said only 43 of 400 employees were allowed to work. The rest could not even work for free. Working, one official said, incurs L the government, "obligations"

and the government cannot incur obligations it no authority to pay.

A White House official also said people cannot "volunteer," because that is a provision of work without compensation or congressional authorization. White House stay- at- homes were told they cannot even call their offices to check on work.

On the Hill, operation,"

"90 percent of the offices are maintaining a full said Michael S. Erlandson, administrative assistant for Rep. Martin Olav Sabo (D- Minn.). In Sabo's office, he added, "the congressman feels all the people are hired because they are essential."

Erlandson elaborated, Miriam Barrett

saying that everyone from receptionist "to myself as chief of staff is essential for different reasons, get his job done."

but they all relate to the congressman trying to "Oh, my God!" said a voice from behind a high telephone console; this turned out to be an intern, Chris Mulloy.

"I am essential because," a reporter's question, Mulloy started saying in response to

when the AA politely but firmly cut her off. _ 'I don't think we should interview the interns," he said,

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1697

11/ 16/ 95 WASHPOST DO1 ling. "We're not going to send the interns home and say they're Ihlessential: It's an educational process for them to be here and observe all this."

According to Erlandson, one of the few congressional operations taking the shutdown thoroughly to heart is that of Rep. Bill Luther (D- Minn.). Indeed, the National Journal's CongressDaily reports that Luther issued a statement saying, "It would be inappropriate for Congress to exempt itself from the effects of the situation."

"His office should be open, let me call over there for you," suggested receptionist Barrett.

A visit to Luther's office in the Longworth Building revealed a bundle of mail on the marble floor in front of the locked door, upon which Luther himself -- or, perhaps, some lingering essential staff member -- had posted this notice in bold lettering:

"Congressman Luther is temporarily out of the office. The congressman's staff has been furloughed due to the shutdown of the federal government. If you have an appointment or wish to have an appointment with the congressman, please call (202) 225- 2271 to ' 2ve a message for the congressman. We apologize for the

onvenience. Thank you."

And freshman Rep. Michael P. Forbes (R- N. Y.) sent everybody in his office home except himself: "The White House and Congress are currently deadlocked over a plan to balance the federal budget," his answering machine explained.

"I will continue to remain on the job, [but] because spending authority has now expired . . . I am compelled to close my congressional office until an agreement is reached," he said. *'I regret any inconvenience to you."

Forbes himself, waylaid outside the chamber after a vote, admitted that "it's not been easy," but "maybe we'd have an agreement if all the staff went home and we started to feel like every other federal employee."

What are the guidelines here, anyway? "I did a study of my office," said Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D- Mich.), interviewed while catching an elevator in the Rayburn Building, "and found that everyone on my staff was more essential than me -- so I declared myself nonessential and furloughed myself."

ctually, under the House rules, to the extent they can be Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1698

11/ 16/ 95 WASHPOST DO1 ertained at this point, &nted.

Conyers could probably do that if he According to memos issued by Rep. William Thomas (R- Calif.), chairman of the Committee on House Oversight, "nonessential House operations" must be shut down as determined by "the appropriate government officer."

Who, naturally, "has always been the member." This being government, each furlough requires an "Authorization for Furlough of Employees.* '

"It's still very difficult for me to write out the furlough sheets for the employees we're furloughing," said Donna L. Brazile, administrative assistant to Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D- D. C.), shaking her head sadly and admitting she hadn't done it yet.

Brazile said she had to go to Norton and argue for her own essentiality: "I said I was essential. She said, 'Why? ' I said I was essential because I had to administer everything and shut down the offices and follow the appropriation process."

It worked. The essential criterion of essentiality in the House, the .._ mas memos stress, turns on whether an employee's responsibilities "are directly related to legislative activities."

Which suits Jeff P. Nelligan just fine. "What makes me essential is we had a bill on the floor last night -- the ICC Termination Act -- and we're getting hundreds of calls from all over the country," said Nelligan, leaping up enthusiastically from his computer yesterday.

Nelligan works for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure under the chairmanship of Rep. Bud Shuster (R- Pa.); on his computer screen at that very moment was a press release on the $6.5 billion National Highway System bill, which, Nelligan nimbly explained, "is to the 21st century what the interstate highway system is to the 20th."

Essentiality? "Everyone's essential," he said, "everyone here."

"Am I essential?" said Frank Record, a Republican staffer on the Committee on International Relations, who was shooting the breeze with a friend in the Rayburn cafeteria. "NO one's told us to go home yet. We're all waiting. I could use a little vacation."

.__ Jearby, a woman putting ketchup on her hamburger asked not to Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1699

Page II 11/ 16/ 95 WASHPOST DO1

identified, but said she's a staff assistant on a House .tiocommittee, adding: "I don't know how essential that is, but there it is. I do basic office procedures, like answering the phone and filing, so I guess that makes me essential."

She ate an onion ring. "We're not getting many calls. We get the regular in- house calls, but we're not getting too many outside calls, but they said we were essential."

She kept eating onion rings, thinking it over. Finally she said:

I, 1 mean: We don't have much to do today." Staff writers Guy Gugliotta, Howard Kurtz, Stephen Barr and Ann Devroy contributed to this report.

TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH IN THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE PHOTO,, Dudley M. Brooks CAPTION: GOP committee staffer Frank Record, who says, "I could use a little vacation."

---- INDEX REFERENCES NAMED PERSON: NEWT GINGRICH; KEY WORDS: FURLOUGHS; WHITE HOUSE STAFF;

wasn't sent home, -__-

CONGRESSIONAL STAFF; BUDGET; DEFICIT; TAX SYSTEM; PRESIDENTIAL VETOES; PRESIDENTIAL RELATIONS WITH CONGRESS; U. S. CONGRESS

NEWS SUBJECT: Taxes; Politics (TAX PLT) NEWS CATEGORY: NEWS; FEATURES GOVERNMENT: Congress; Executive (CNG EXE) EDITION: FINAL Word Count: 1408 11/ 16/ 95 WASHPOST DO1 END OF DOCUMENT

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1700

1701

Tab 7

1702

1703

pi. tation Search Result I- 7/ 95 USATD 04A . . ../ 17/ 95 USA TODAY 04A 1995 WL 12678997

Friday, November 17, 1995

NEWS

Interns help pick up slack at White House Susan Page: Bill Nichols THE BUDGET SHOWDOWN; LIFE WITHOUT GOVERNMENT

White House life during the shutdown: President Clinton orders in pizza for dinner as first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton vacuums the dustballs that are accumulating in the corners of the Lincoln Bedroom.

Well, not exactly. While the federal budget showdown has idled 8OC, OOO federal . -oioyees and shuttered the nation's most popular tourist

ractions, it hasn't meant serious lifestyle changes for the C=, ntons.

The 70- member staff that runs and maintains the White House has been trimmed to 16.

Still on duty in the East Wing are a day chef and an evening chef, a day butler and an evening butler, two day housekeepers and an evening housekeeper, two zshers, two electricians, four engineers and a computer specialist.

On Capitol Hill, members of Congress aren't facing many personal inconveniences from the confrontation, either. The elevator operators have been sent home and the Senate cafeteria closed.

But most congressional staffers have been designated "essential" by their bosses so they can continue to work.

In contrast, Clinton has made deep cuts in his West Wing staff of aides. He has reduced the 430 full- time employees in the Executive Office of the President to a skeleton crew of 90.

Hiflary Clinton furloughed 12 of her 16 staffers. Id even if Congress passes the appropriations bill that funds

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works Database

USA" C

1704

13./ 17/ 95 USATD 04A White House, Clinton won't sign it, aides say. He'll argue that 3 office shouldn't be back in operation until the rest of the government is, too.

So, absent as of Thursday evening: -- A receptionist to greet visitors in the West Wing lobby. -- Stenographers to record and transcribe the president's every word.

-- Sit- down meals in the most exclusive of capital lunchrooms, the White House mess. It was open for take- out only.

At the National Security Council, a spokesman said the need to deal with immediate crises had delayed planning for such future events as Clinton's trip to Europe in 10 days.

If the shutdown continues for long, plans to install Christmas decorations and prepare the White House for nearly 150,000 guests invited to holiday parties could be in trouble.

The White House staffers who are working find themselves ?ending on a newly empowered cadre of youthful, unpaid interns. qton strolled around the halls Thursday to thank them.

Meanwhile, those who aren't working - and are prohibited by law from doing their jobs on a volunteer basis - have slept in and have started doing Christmas shopping,

About 20 furloughed members of the first lady's staff got together to voiunteer at a local soup kitchen Wednesday.

A sizeable group of the president's staff toasted their non- essential status at a Tex- Mex restaurant Tuesday night.

Afterward they went to a sneak preview of the new movie, An American President.

TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH IN THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE PHOTO, b/ w, Jake Bacon, Arizona Daily Sun via AP; PHOTO, b/ w, Wilfred Lee, AP

---- INDEX REFERENCES ---- KEY WORDS: BUDGET

"S SUBJECT: Economic News (ECO) Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1705

11/ 17/ 95 USATD 04A TION: FINAL Word Caunt: 451 11/ 17/ 95 USATD 04A EMD Of DOCUMENT

Copr D West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. hlorks

1706

Tab 8

1709

p+ tation '20/ 95 WASHPOST A19 h/ 20/ 95 Wash. Post A19 1995 WL 9273376

Search Result Rank 34 of 104 Database WP

Monday, November 20, 1995 A SECTION THE FEDERAL PAGE Some Just Wouldn't Stop Working

Stephen Barr; Bill McAllister Washington Post Staff Writers

They were the phantoms of the Great Government Shutdown. When federal offices closed last week, numerous white- collar employees sent home on furlough stuffed their briefcases and bags with files from the in- box, figuring they could take a project or two home and, at the least, work in peace and quiet. Other employees -- qposedly on furlough were sneaking into their offices, apparently

they could meet upcoming deadlines at work. Said one furloughed worker: "We were told not to fall down the stairs if you come to work," presumably because injuries would not be covered by insurance. He, like others interviewed, asked not to be identified.

Supervisors were instructed not to put pressure on anyone to complete their work, he said. Even so, many of his furloughed colleagues were showing up in the office.

This is, after all, Washington, where virtually everyone hates to miss work. Work is status, work is power, and everyone likes to think he or she is essential.

But .work by any employee on furlough because of a shutdown has been deemed illegal. The 19th century Anti- Deficiency Act forbids agency managers to accept volunteer labor or other services. Violators can be punished with a $5,000 fine, imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.

Unlike other federal workers, employees at the White House were permitted to volunteer during a shutdown. But at a price.

hite House volunteers would have their salary changed to Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1710

11/ 20/ 95 WASHPOST A19

‘01 which carries "substantial consequences," as a White House l', mo explained. A zero salary meant the White House workers would: lose their health insurance and life insurance; lose the prospect of any back pay that Congress might grant furloughed workers; and cease accruing sick leave and vacation time.

Still, many among the rank and file wanted to work. Last week, a public affairs officer at one agency, bored with filling out graduate school applications, went to his office to sit in on an interview tKat a senior official was giving to a newspaper reporter.

"They told me I could be arrested or something," he said, "but I was going nuts. I got my car worked on. I made some calls. But I was going crazy, ' especially because his agency is fighting for survival in Congress.

It took him less than two minutes Thursday to respond to a call placed to his pager.

The people who study work were not surprised. Edward Lawler, a University of Southern California business professor, said scientific studies have long found individuals who 'I- re motivated by the task rather than the reward. . . .

-" They are very much turned on by the work they do. I'm not surprised that some would do it but I would expect it would be a very small percentage . . . maybe 5 to 10 percent."

Lawler said such workers were probably involved in interesting, high- profile projects. 'If you are a parking lot attendant, you are not coming in to park extra cars."

Bonnie Michaels, president of Managing Work & Family Inc., a Chicago consulting firm, said it is hard to explain why federal workers would take risks when told not to work. Many workers battle bouts of insecurity and a 'fear of the future," she said. For them, work is an anchor in their lives.

Lawler said work acts almost as a narcotic for some people. 'They are inseparable from the work they do. It defines who they are. Without it, some people literally can come apart. '

The Anti- Deficiency Act also made life difficult for workers authorized to carry on government business during the shutdown. The law allows civil servants and the military to continue national defense, protect public safety and health, support the national

7nomy and perform emergency tasks. Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

11/ 20/ 95 WASHPOST Ai 3ut it apparently limited otherwise routine activities. __ vryers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration said last week that NASA Deputy Administrator John R. Dailey could not appear for a panel discussion before the National Academy of Public Administration. An aide to Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick refused a reporter's request for an interview, saying Gorelick was restricted to performing only "essential business."

Clinton administration officials, meanwhile, have repeatedly chided reporters for using the terms "essential" and "nonessential" when writing about employees affected by the shutdown. The official designations are "excepted," "emergency" and "non- excepted" employees, officials said.

"If the legal test was 'essential employees, ' there would have been no furloughs," said John A. Koskinen, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D- Md.) said he found "a disturbing trend towards downplaying the importance' of the furloughed workers. "It is disgraceful that some have chosen to suggest that 'nonessential' employees really are not needed or do not contribute," he said.

"Anybody who understands how to lead and deal with people Id never declare 800,000 people nonessential," Ross Perot said y, jterday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "That creates a scar that will take a long time to heal."

Senior Executives Association president Carol A. Bonosaro said furloughed workers 'have been subjected to unwarranted ridicule in the media and by the public" because of the widespread use of "nonessential."

She recently met gratified to learn denigrating nature use."

with Vice President Gore, she said, and "was that the vice president not only understands the of this label but is personally offended by its

Gore "has personally urged" top administration officials to assure returning federal workers of their importance to their agencies, Bonosaro said.

Staff writers William Branigin, David Brown, Elizabeth Corcoran and Thomas W. Lippman and staff researcher Barbara J. Saffir contributed to this report.

TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH IN THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE 7STRATION,, Peter Alsberg; PHOTO,, Nancy Andrews;

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1712

13/ 20/ 95 WASHPOST A19 'O- GRAPHIC L__~ TION: SHUTDOWN CHRONOLOGY MONDAY, NOV. 13 President Clinton vetoes legislation that would have averted a government shutdown, saying the bill would raise Medicare premiums and deeply cut education and environment programs. An attempt to find a compromise between the White House and GOP congressional leaders fails. TUESDAY, NOV. 14 Clinton and Republican leaders exchange public recriminations but fail to find a solution to the budget stalemate. + About 800,000 federal workers across the nation are sent home. About 150,000 of the 310,000 civil servants in the Washington area are furloughed. + National park visitor centers and monuments close. All Smithsonian museums and the National Zoo close. More than 4,000 ticket holders to the biggest show of Johannes Vermeer's painting in three centuries axe locked out of the National Gallery of Art. + The administration continues to issue Social Security checks, but new applications are not processed. Medical staff remains on duty at veterans hospitals and clinics. + Air traffic controllers, the Coast Guard, railway inspectors and other safety personnel remain on the job. Weather forecasting

Ttinues.

11 active duty military stay at work, along with about 571,000 or- the Defense Department's 866,000 civilian employees. + Federal prisons operate as normal. Criminal investigations and prosecutions continue, but postponements are sought in most civil cases.

+ A reduced staff of maids, butlers, chefs, electricians and. engineers take care of the White House. About 90 of Clinton's 430 non- household staff members stay on duty. + Schools and hospitals in the District of Columbia stay open, but other services are disrupted. WEDNESDAY, NOV. 15 Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin announces plans to pull $61.3 billion from two federal retirement accounts, an unprecedented move that he said was necessary to save the government from the first default in its history. + Government contractors began to receive "stop work" orders from agencies, leading some of them to send their workers home, too. + Corporations register stock and bond offerings with the Securities and Exchange Commission at sharply lower fees because a higher fee is part of the budget and has not become law yet. The loss to the Treasury is estimated at between $15 million and $25 million. THURSDAY, NOV. 16

-gress draws criticism because it keeps virtually all of its ff at work, even though its appropriation has lapsed, too.

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1713

11/ 20/ 95 WASHPOST A19 he National Park Service instructs parks to close lodges and cudins, the first step to completely shutting down the nation's largest parks. + The Grand Canyon closes for the first time in its 76- year history, prompting protests from Arizona Gov. J. Fife Symington + The shutdown begins to take its toll on area businesses, with companies furloughing at least 1,000 private- sector workers. FRIDAY, NOV. 17 Hours of intense negotiations aimed at reopening the government collapse.

(RI.

+ Federal employees besiege government personnel offices seeking advice on when they might be paid. An increasing number fill out forms to apply for unemployment compensation. + A federal judge rejects a request by the American Federation of Government Employees to stop agencies from requiring employees to work without pay during the budget standoff. + Interior Department officials say they are being pressured by members of Congress to accommodate hunters who use dozens of wildlife refuges that are shuttered. + Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros worries that the shutdown could jeopardize rental subsidies to 1.3 million low- income households and stall the processing of millions of dollars worth of home loans and mortgages. "TURDAY, NOV. 18

ublican leaders and the White House begin lengthy talks to end tne shutdown. Administration officials warn that the government will face a series of financial emergencies within several days. + Cash shortages could make it difficult to provide milk and food to federal prisons and medical supplies to veterans hospitals. + The shutdown jeopardizes the distribution of about 7,000 welfare checks to Native Americans and more than 3.3 million benefit'checks to veterans and survivors. + The cost of the shutdown is estimated at about $120 million a day, with the bulk of that representing back pay that GOP leaders have pledged to restore. SUNDAY, NOV. 19 Clinton and the Congress agree to balance the budget not later than fiscal 2002, and the House and Senate pass a one- day funding bill allowing about 750,000 federal employees to return to their jobs today. The Senate, in session on a Sunday for only the 17th time in its history, also passed a bill to fund the government until Dec. 15, and the House was to vote on that measure today. -- Stephen Barr

---- INDEX REFERENCES ---- NAMED PERSON: STENY H. HOYER;

ANIZATION: ANTI- DEFICIENCY ACT Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1714

11/ 20/ 95 WASHPOST A19 WORDS: FEDERAL EMPLOYEES: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; BUDGET: U. S. CONGRESS; r_& SONNEL MANAGEMENT; FURLOUGHS; D. C. METROPOLITAN AREA

NEWS SUBJECT: Labor, Personnel Issues; Personnel Announcements (LAB PER) NEWS CATEGORY: NEWS GOVERNMENT: EDITION:

Federal Government; Congress (FDL CNG) FINAL Word Count: 927 11/ 20/ 95 WASHPOST A19 END OF DOCUMENT

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1715 -.

Tab 9

1716

171i

Balkan Presidents Reach Bcisnia Peace Accord; NATO to Keep Peace in Divided State

w smn to Four- Ynr war. The presidents

of Serbia, Croatia nnd Bosnia- Hetzc- govinaNov. 21 rgreedtoamtoerda ,, eariy four- year- old war amcmg Cmats, ~o& ms and Serbs in Bosnia that had c1abned some 2SO. ooO lives. Tltc agree- -t would divide Bosnia into two eati- ties, a Moalcm- Cmat federation and a S& I republic. that would sham a camal kgislature and presidency. with Sara+ 0 as the national capital. A North Atlantic Tteaty @ganization (NA1D) m- keep- i” g force of 6O. alO troops- about QIC- myd of them from the U. S.- would be deployed in Bosnia by the end of the year t,~ sustain the fragile peace M [See below. p. 8 1OA21

The leaders initialed the pact in ati im- pmptu ceremony at Wright- Patterson in Force Base near Dayton. Ohio, where they had convened Nov. 1 in U. S.- span- sored peace talks. A formal signing was scheduled to take place in Pans in mid- December.

President Alija Izetbegovic, loader of dte predominantly Moslem Bosnian gov- ernment, and Croatian President Pranjo Tudjman initialed the treaty on behalf of their respective nations. Slobodan Milosevic, the president of Serbia, signed for the Bosnian Serbs, whom he had rep- resented at the talks. U. S. Secretary of State Warren M. Christopher, who guided the treaty through tortuous last- minute negotiations, initialed the pact as a wit- ness on behalf of President Clinton’s ad- minisuation.

The Balkan leaders and U. S. officials hailed the peace agreement as a pivotal breakthrough. President Clinton at a White House press conference expressed hope that the pact would give “the people of Bosnia. . a chance to turn from the horrors of war to the promise of peace.” But many observers were skeptical about whether the warring Bosnian factions, who bore deep- rooted grudges after years of war and atrocities, could coexist peace- fully within the same state, as the Dayton plan stipulated.

tion for lost land and Propmy. A human- rights commission was to be appointed to monitor the mamlmt of refugees ami re-

htCdiSueS, butnOCttprUK& XliifM punishing nghts violations or atforciug the repatriation of refugees was put in

Ph. llbwvlcStsvy8Bamkn% I% e Bomian Serb dekgation to the Dayton talks Nov. 21 refused to initial the acwtd.

But Kamdzic and other Serb leaders Nov. 23initiakdtbepsctaftermeetingwith Milosevic in Bclgra&, the capital of Scr- bia. (Kamdaic ud Mladic had been un- able to have1 to Ihe Dayton talks bazause them were 0- g intcmatiaul war- rants for their arrest for war tximcs.)

Milosevic, who was also the de facto leader of the federation of Yugoslavia, was widely b+ ned for havi? sp+ ed the recent wars tn Bosnia and roatta by throwing Serbii’s finrncial and military support behind nationalist Serbs in those countries. Ensuing trade sanctions had strangled Serbia’s economy, increastig the political pressure on Milosevic to re- verse his position and support a puce plan. Most analysts concurred that the Bosnian Serbs would be unable to sustain a war in Bosnia without Milosevic’s baclcmg.

In the wake of the Dayton accords, the United Nations Security Council acted immediately to lift the sanctions against Serbia. [See below]

PYdbsAgmeto~ Spfff- Centnlto the Nov. 21 peace pact was a U. S.- de- vised division of territory that would ive the Moslem- Croat federation 5 1% 0 B the land within Bosnia’s original borders and the Bosnian Serbs. 49%. All sides in the dispute had a reed to accept the 51% 49% division ormula prior to the Dayron B peace summit. but wrangling over spe- cific &tails of the split threatened to de- rail the talks from their outset. [See map below]

With a few significam exceptions, the

Pui wok alit K4~ tc--

‘Ihe treatv would bar anv ner-

@i Facts OnFile" World News Digest with Index 01embrF# mcInR. rr:

h- w- voltmm55, No. llwg

Movmnbar 23.1995

IN TNIL ISSUE

sons who’were indicted f& r ‘war crimes from holding political office in the new stale. That pro- vision would effectively remove from power Bosnian Serb polit- ical leader Radovan Karadzic and Gen. Ratko Mladic, his mil- irary deputy. However, the pact would not require the signatory governments to turn over ac- cused war criminals for prose- cution, a safeguard that had been key to winning Croat and Serb backing for the pact.

The pacr gave the estimated 2.7 million refugees who had been driven from their homes by the Bosnian war the legal fight either to return to their m- olmmlnqin8ouir homes or to receive compensa- asubmn~ r. u~ w ~lll_. a* oNW. ZI. -Ultubl-*

1718

C D E

forms. Werlci h was confmed by the Senate Nov. 4 and by the Chamber of Deputies Nov. 6. She was sworn in Nov. 7. becoming Haiti’s fmt female premier. [See p. 77X2]

Fotltt~ Btig. GUt.~ tfYu~ who had been. d/ e fourth- highest- ranking E;~ K;; Ham s now. defunct. mtlttaty.

murdomd by utndaUtf! ied gun- mcd in a slllnlltl of Port- au- Rince. Haiti’s capital. Mayatd was one of at least 20

suppofurs or ofkials of tbe former mil- itarywhob8dbeenkilledittwhatinter- national human- rights officials termed “commando- styk executions” since the military junta was ousted and Aristide was restated to power in October 1994. Aristide in April had disbanded Haiti’s military, which bad been accused of nu- merous human- rights abuses during rhe three- year rnle of the junta. [See p.

== I n

Clinton Signs Second Stopgap Funding Bill

V T- W Ed -.

President Clinton Nov. 20 signed into law r a continuing resolution, also known as a

stopgap mcasnm. that would fund tbe fed- eral government through Dec. 15. The bill contained language that committed the

Vs ident and Congress to balancing the ederal budget by the fiscal year 2002 and

to providing adequate funding for educa- tion. the environment and various federal ‘entitlement” benefit programs. The stop- gap bill’s enactment ended a six- day shut- down of the federal government, the long- est in U. S. history. [See below, p. 852El]

idcnt to cmnmit to balancing the federal hodget within seven years and to using

a; zsg Lbi - et ~~~~~ e$ tions of dcfuit mductions. Clinton said he objected to both conditions and vowed to veto the bill.

A continuing resolution was needed to

keep the federal government operating because only six of the 13 appropriations bills that funded the federal government had been passed as of Nov. 22. A previous continuing resolution had expired Nov. 13. Clinton the same day had vetoed an- other stopgap measure, saying he ob- jected to a clause in the bill that required an in- in Medicate premiums. The resulting funding gap forced temporary closings of national parks and museums and placed more than three quarters of a million federal employees one furlough.

The battle over the stoueao bill was seen by many as a prelude ig what prom- ised to be grueling negotiations between the White House and Congress over a massive budget reconciliation bill that had cleared the Senate and House Nov. 17 and Nov. 18, respectively. That bill au- thorized funding for government entitle- ment programs, which collectively ac- counted for about two- thirds of all federal outlays. Clinton had vowed to veto the bill. [See p. 813Fl)

T- Nqrotiations Preceded Deal- In the days following the Nov. 13 veto of the earlier stopgap bill, the White House and Republican congressional leaders en- gaged in a series of tense negotiations in an attempt to reach a compromise on a new continuing resolution. Negotiations broke off several times before an agree- ment was reached.

Meanwhile, the House Nov. 16. by a vote of 277- l 5 1, approved a new stopgap measure. Only three Republicans voted against the measure. while 48 Democrats voted for it. Later in the day seven Senate Democrats joined with all the Senate Re- publicans to pass the measure, 60- 37. The bill did not contain the Medicare pro- vision to which Clinton had objtcted. but it did include language requiring the pres-

Though both the Senate and House votesontbebiJlhadfalknshortofthe two- thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto. the number of Demo- ctatic defections revealed a weakness in the support for the President’s stance on the budget and provided additional incen- tive for him to & a compromise with Republicans.

Gin# ttch ‘Snub’Ah% s T& eepub- licans were given added incentive to reach a settlement with the White House as a result of a Nov. 15 remark made by House Sneaker Newt Ginatich fR. Ga.). Gingrich’said that he had P& d a number of restrictive provisions mto the stopgap bill that Clinton had vetoed Nov. 13 be- cause he had felt slighted by the president when the two men flew together on Au Force One, the presidential jet. to the fu- neral of assassinated fsraeli Prime Minis- ter Yitzhak Rabin. [See p. 833Al]

Gingrich complained that the president had refused to negotiate on the budget cri- sis durine the IO- hour return fliaht fmm Israel N&. 6 and that Clinton h: d made Senate Majority Leader Robert J. Dole (R, Kan.) and himself exit from the rear of the plane. rather than from the front as was usual for important guests.

Democrats quickly seized upon Gin- grich’s commen ts and attempted to por- tray the speaker as having shut down the federal government out of spite. Some of them Nov. 16 brought to the House floor an enlarged copy of a banner headline from the New York Daily News that read. in part. “CRY BABY Newt’s Tantrum.”

Observers said that Gingrich’s remarks weakened his bargaining position by making him appear obstructive.

The president appeared to be winning the battle for wblic su~ nort in the budaet dispute. A R% r. rhingro~ PosrlAw Neks

opinion poll taken Nov. 19 showed that 7 1% of the public disapproved of the way Republicans were handling the budget standoff; 42% faulted Clinton’s stance.

Lktslts of Stopg8p *groantent- White House and Republican leaders finally reached an agreement on a continuing resolution late Nov. 19. Republicans were

able to include in the compromise bill the language from the msolution passed NOV. 16 that tequtred the president and Con- gress to enact legislation that would b& ante tbe budget within seven years. HOW- ever. White House negotiators succeeded in attaching a clause to the msolution that stipulated that the balanced budget must “insure Medicare solvcttcy” and provide “adequate” funding for Medicaid. educa- don and the environment. Republicans agreed to accept those conditions after guarantees that national defense, agricul- tttte and vetetnns would receive adequate fondiig were ndded to the clause.

A compmmise was also reached on the methods used to calculate deficit projec- tions. Tbe queement required Congress and the White House to use CE0 esti- mates, but only after the CBO had am- sulted with the White Hwse office of Management and Budget (OMB) and “other government and private experts.” The Clinton administration. which relied on OMB economic estimates, had said that the CBO projeeticns wem too pessimistic.

The stopgap big stipulated that all gov- ernment programs and agencies whose spending bills had not yet been enacted would receive funding at 75% of fixa 1995 levels. The stopgap bill that had ex- pired Nov. 13 had provided funding at 90% of 1995 kvels.

The stopgap measure also required that all federal employees who had been fur- loughed during the federal shutdown R- ceive hack pay, and provided funds for that purpose.

In a ram Sunday session Nov. 19, the Senate approved the compromise stopgap measure, by voice vote. The House ap- proved the bill Nov. 20 by a vote of 421- 4. Clinton signed the bill later in the day, (A one- day stopgap bill was passed late Nov. 19 by the House and Senate and signed that day by the president, allowing federal employees to return to work the morning of Nov. 20. Both chambers passed the bill by voice vote.)

No Agreement on Debt Limit- The

continuing resohttion contained no provi- sion that would incmase the federal debt limit. Earlier in Novemhu, Secretary of the Tteasury Robert E. Rubin had tapped into several government trust funds in order to prevent the U. S. from defaulting on its debts after Clinton had vetoed a bill that would have raised the federal debt limit. Clinton had objected to the bill be- cause it contained provisions committing him to a seven- year timetable for balanc- ing the budget using CBO projections. [See p. 852El]

Standard & Poor’s Corp.. a kadittg in- ternational credit- rating agency, Nov. 10 issued a statement to the U. S. govem- ment. warning it that investors’ faith in the U. S.‘ s ability to pay back its debts been “diminished” as a result of the im- passe over the debt limit. The agency said it would not reduce the U. S.% triple- A credit rating- the highest it granted- hot it held out the possibility that it would de so if tbe U. S. defaulted on any of its pay-

FACTS ON FILE

1719

Tab 10

1720

1721

Page 2 r; tation Search Result Rank 1 of 1

9/ 96 WCPD 262 L- 19/ 96 Wkly. Compilation Presidential Documents 262 1996 WL 13335771

Database WCPD

Monday, February 19, 1996 Vol. 32, No. 7, ISSN: 0511- 4187 Remarks in a roundtable discussion on the work- study program in Des Moines,

Iowa. (President Bill Clinton speech) (Transcript) February 11, 1996 Sally Hinders, assistant provost for career services, Drake University, welcomed the President and introduced the participants, one of whom indicated that he was from Winterset, IA, site of the "Bridges of Madison County."]

The President. They should have given you the role. Laughter

Ys. Hinders discussed some of the advantages of the work- study gram at Drake University, indicating that students who participate t& id to become more involved in the Drake community and often use their experiences as stepping stones to other opportunities. She then asked the President to talk about the program.]

The President. Well, let me begin by thanking all of you for taking some time on a Sunday afternoon to do this. I'm delighted to be here, delighted to be at Drake.

Since I became President I've worked hard to try to increase access to colleges and universities for young people because it's obvious that ,more need to be able to go and more need to be able to stay. And I never will forget when I was Governor I had an encounter one night with a number of students in Fayetteville, which is the hometown of the University of Arkansas, and I just stopped in a little place, drank a cup of coffee. And there were several students there, and I talked to two of them of the group there who had actually dropped out of school once already because they were afraid they couldn't afford the cost of staying in. They were worried about whether they could get the proper students loans, whether they could get any scholarships, whether they would ever be abie to pay back their loans.

So I began to work on it when I was a Governor, things we could do at ' State level. And when I ran for President I had a commitment to try

- expand opportunities for college going. And essentially what we have Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1722

2/ 19196 WCPD 262 o so far is to put the Pell grant program back on track - it was in saious trouble - passed a national service program, which this year has 25,000 young people in it earning money for college tuition while doing community service; and to expand loan options so that more young people could have the option to pay their loans back as a percentage of their income when they get out if they take a job that wouldn't permit them to make what would be the normal commercial repayment schedule. And that would mean no one would ever have to forgo borrowing money because they would always be able to handle the loan repayment.

And then in the State of the Union Address I recommended, as you pointed out, that we have a SO- percent increase in the work- study program, to get up to a million students a year in work- study because we haven't kept up over the years in work- study with the demand, with increasing enrollment. And I also believe that the cost of college tuition up to $10,000 a year ought to be deductible, which I believe would be - from my point of view, it's the best kind of tax cut you could have because you'd be giving a tax reduction to people who are investing either in themselves or their children and, therefore, making a big investment in our common future.

But the work- study program is of real interest to me because I worked myself through college; I worked myself through law school. I don't F 'ieve I would have made it if I hadn't had the jobs. And I also have

?rved just what you said, that a lot of young people actually do Deter when they have a work experience to go with their schooling. So I'm hoping to persuade the Congress to adopt this increase in work- study, even though in general we're reducing the budget. And we will offer to the Congress a way to do this consistent with our need to balance the budget in 7 years. So this won't bust the budget or anything, but it will help a lot more people to go and then to stay in college.

Let me just make one other point on that. I'm very encouraged that the college- going rate in our country is still going up, but I am not encouraged that it has started to fall again in the last 2 or 3 years among people whose incomes are in the lowest 20 percent of our economy. And if you think about it, the whole sort of premise, or promise, of America from our earliest immigrants is that hard working parents would be able to open more opportunities to their children. So it's not a good thing that we have that happening.

So one of the things I hope will happen out of the whole combined impact of all these proposals is that young people who come from families with very modest in comes will start increasing their college- going again, just like the rest of our country.

s. Hinders introduced some work- study participants, the first of indicated that the program was a stepping stone to an internship

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1723

Page 4 2/ 19/ 96 WCPD 262

that throughout the experience her employers were supportive of her tLrorts. A parent indicated that her daughter would not be at a private university were it not for the work- study program and that, while her husband's job as a teamster was not always stable, they never had to worry about their daughter's education.]

The President. Well, let me say I know that Drake has made a real effort to hold down the tuition, too,- so that more people will be able .to afford to go. And I just spoke to the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Washington a couple days ago, and I tried to cite the number of schools that were doing that. I think more and more schools are trying not to just get caught in a vicious cycle where they have to raise tuition and then they have to find more aid, then they have to do more work- study.

I'd just like to remind everybody - I know all of you around this table know this, but the American people who are watching us and citizens of Iowa who are watching us, this is not - this should not be viewed as a social program. This is an investment in our future. The taxpayers make out big time on this investment. We get a whole lot more back out of all of you because you're going to have college degrees, because you're going to be able to live out your own dreams, because you're going to be able to do what you wish to do.

nd not just financially. This is not entirely a money issue. There's ati0 - our society is a better place when people find more personal fulfillment in the work that they do. So it is a financial issue, but it's also much more of a moral and social issue. It knits us together more strongly when more people have a chance to develop their God- given abilities.

I personally believe that we don't make any better investments than this. And almost 100 percent of people like you in your position will pay back to the Government far more in increased taxes than you ever took out in student loans or Pell grants or work- study funds or anything else. And I think that's an important thing for the American people to remember, that this is an investment with a big- time return.

Another participant said that the program had reduced the burden on his family, and career.]

it gave him a greate; appreciation for education and a The President Your son spoke very well. The student's father said the work- study program had helped both his sons, teaching them to work harder toward their goals. Another participant said that a family member had faced medical problems that

’ 1 diminished family financial resources, but that Drake had been able L' >ut together a financial aid package which allowed him to go to

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

2/ 19/ 96 WCPD 262 001 and help pay for his education.] The President. How many hours a week on average do all of you work?

Q. About 10, 11.

The President. About 10, ll? About the same for everybody? And do you all find that it doesn't undermine your studies?

The student said that the program made her work harder, set a schedule, and keep to it. Another indicated that it helped them mature. Work- study student Molly Adams said that it increased her sense of responsibility and went on to explain her work with the Grace United Methodist Church and how it helped the community in Des Moines.]

The President. Marilyn, what percentage of Molly's pay comes from the Government, and what percentage do you have to come up with?

Marilyn Adams. Isn't it one- third and a third? I think that's right - 25 and 75.

The President. So your church pays for 25 percent? So it's the same as with the college, then?

. Correct. L-

The President. Because when you employ people it's 75- 25, isn't it? Q. Correct. The President. So do you have to allocate work- study slots- off- campus, is that how it works?

Q. Correct. We're supposed to spend 5 percent of our overall allocation on off- campus studies.

The President. Does the law limit you to 5 percent?

Q. No.

The President. So it's Drake policy? Or is it Department of Education policy? If. you wanted to have - if. a college or university wanted to place 25 percent of the work- study people off- campus, could they do so?

Q. As far as I know we could, if we could find the places and the students to work there.

"he President. And what percentage of your students are on :- study? L

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works Page f

1725

2/ 19/ 96 WCPD 262 Page i

. About 75 percent of our students who receive financial aid go a=, dad and accept their work award and work.

Q. And I can add to that, about 80 percent of our students receive some form of financial aid.

The President. So a majority do this, are on some sort of work- study. Q. Oh, yes. The President. Now, if you had more positions, could you fill them? Several participants indicated their willingness to take more work- study positions. Ms. Hinders discussed matching funds and indicated that Drake contributes additional money because they like the work- study program.]

The President. Now, I saw in the notes I was given before I came in here that the students make between $4.65 an hour and $7.00, but mostly nearer $4.65 than $7.00. But what would you say the average pay is? Between $4.65 and $5.00 an hour?

Q. Right around $5.00, yes. he President. What determines the pay, t? re nature of the job, or what?

the ability of the match or One participant said it was the nature of the job; another said supply and demand play a part, but some positions require very specialized skills and the wages go up a little bit in order to be competitive with the marketplace. Another participant said that Drake University overspends the matching funds and really spends more like 50 percent.]

The President. Really? Q. Lots of students coming in and out every day are involved with those positions. And they're quite varied as well.

The President. But you would - anyway, I take it that - you all agree then that there is a demand for more work- study positions, and if we could go - one million a year is our goal, and that basically costs - it would be about a 50- percent increase from where we are now.

Ms. Hinders said that those are the kinds of opportunities that students and parents are really looking for. Employers and work- study students then described their programs.]

ne President. - Let me ask you something, you're a. freshman? Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1726

2/ 19/ 96 WCPD 262 Page 7

‘. Yes.

The President. That's one thing I wanted to ask. How do you deal with the demand - if the demand exceeds the supply, do you give any preference to older students or is it strictly by income, by need, without regard to class?

MS. Hinders explained that Drake University begins with need- based students but said that it is a part of the financial aid program. She then introduced the director of the university's financial aid program who said that work- study was a cornerstone of the financial aid program and that it was a win- win situation for all involved.]

The President. I also think the value that the students give you - Erica mentioned that just the work experience, working with older people in a good environment. It's amazing how quickly young people mature and to take a responsibility.

You know, it's a funny thing, when the Government was shut down - which wasn't too funny - laughter - but when it was shut down there were days when the whole White House was practically being run by the interns. Laughter It was amazing. There were probably four of us with gray hair - laughter - and the rest of it, the kids were sort of

. ?ning the show. And they did a great job. I mean, they worked hard; y kept the basic functions open. They worked quite well the first thee we were shut down, budget.

and we didn't have everything covered by the It just reminded me again of how important it is to give young people that experience, too. It sort of binds the community and the- society together in very important ways.

Ms. Hinders. Well, very much so. I know that we're running a little bit short on time.

The President. Tom, you want to say something? Senator Harkin thanked all the participants and mentioned that he was the only Senator to sit on both the committee for higher education and the appropriations committee, and in the last Congress was chairman. of the appropriations committee.]

The President. I hope you will be again. Senator Harkin. Well, I hope so. Laughter By the way, Rebecca, as I told you, is doing a great job for me. had in that -

The youngest person I've every the position of being the scheduler is a tough position.

,le President. It's the worst job in an office. Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1727

2/ 19/ 96 WCPD 262 Page 8 enator Harkin said that during his years on the education committee the commitment to education had declined year after year and indicated that was particularly true of Pell grants and college work- study programs. He concluded by saying that the President supports these programs and that he hoped that interest rates on student loans would remain low.]

The President. I think that's quite important. I think it's been. underestimated, the impact of not having that interest accumulate until people have been out a few months.

Q. Definitely. The President. Let me just also say, to follow up on what Senator Harkin was saying, and to try, to put it in some larger political context - for the last 30 years anyway, by and large, education has not been a particularly partisan issue. We've had broad bipartisan support for these things until just recently.

And I hope we can get it back, because this is - this big philosophical debate going on in Washington, if you believe the Government is the problem and is the reason for all of our ailments as a society, then you think people are better off if you just get the r' 'icit down, have a strong defense and let people manage for

nselves. If you believe that we're stronger as a country, when we a& l with our common problems in a common fashion, we will work together on them, then it's obvious that things that have a big- ticket cost, like a national work- study program, require some involvement with the National Government.

And as I said, these are really matters that historically have not been, at least in my lifetime, the last 30 years, have not been really matters of much partisan debate. But what has happened in the last, sort of, decade, there's been this sort of head of steam built up behind the notion that Government per se was bad. Not dumb regulations, or an ill- advised program, or a bad tax system, or whatever, but just the whole idea of Government was intrinsically - something wrong with it. And I basically don't agree with that.

I think what's happened is we need - all organizations have to become less bureaucratic, less rule- oriented, more oriented toward empowering people to solve their own problems. And Government's like that, too, but we cannot meet our educational obligations unless there is a public, broad- based, national commitment to helping you do what you do here at the grassroots level.

And actually, one thing I like about the work- study program is it's idea of what it ought to be - we say, okay, here's a national

_ _, lem; we need more young people going to college, but it costs a lot Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

__~__

1728

2/ 19/ 96 WCPD 262 Page F 30 and most people can't afford to go. Okay? Here's the national shution: We should give money to help that happen. But we don't tell you how to do it. In other words, that's the way the Federal Government ought to operate more. We say - we set a national goal. We provide some resources to meet that goal. We ask you to make a contribution as well. Then you get to decide how. We all agree on the what, nationally, and then you define the how at Drake. And at the University of Iowa, they might define it in an entirely different way. I mean, that's the way this country ought to work, where people work together in that fashion.

I just sat here and made a list of the seven people I worked for in college and law school. Laughter It's quite interesting. I was thinking, more than half of them I still hear from, I still have a relationship with and I still feel enormously indebted to because they gave me a chance to get my education. I was sitting here thinking about it while you all were talking. Laughter

Ms. Hinders. Well, as we draw to a close, Senator Harkin, do you have any additional comments that you'd like to add?

Senator Harkin. Do you have any students in the Head Start program?

Q. We do. nator Harkin. You do? - Q. Yes. Senator Harkin. Good for you. Ms. Hinders. This has been a pleasure to have you here today, Mr. President. We have enjoyed coming together as a group to talk to you about an issue that we really have a passion for. And we can tell that you do, too. So, on behalf of Drake and our entire community, thank you.

The President. Thank you, and good luck to all of you. NOTE: The roundtable began at 12: 45 p. m. in- the Knapp Center at Drake Jniversity.

---- INDEX REFERENCES ---- NAMED PERSON: BILL CLINTON ESSAYS, LECTURES ADDRESSES KEY WORDS: EDUCATION E- -$ CATEGORY: TRANSCRIPT

._- Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1729

2/ 19/ 96 WCPD 262 Page 1C d Count: 3138 &19/ 96 WCPD 262 END OF DOCUMENT

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1730

1731

Tab 11

1732

1733

Page 1 tation

:8/ 96 NWSDAY A32 2‘/ 28/ 96 Newsday A32 1996 WL 2513789

Found Document Rank 2 of 3 Database NWSDAY

Newsday Copyright Newsday Inc., 1996

Wednesday, .February 28, 1996 VIEWPOINTS Embattled Clintons Should Note Watergate Lessons By Ronald D. Rotunda. Ronald D. Rotunda teaches at the University of Illinois College of Law. He was assistant counsel to the Senate Watergate committee.

SOME PEOPLE see in Whitewater the specter of Watergate, while others deny any analogy. I think it's too early to make a definitive judgment - but there are disquieting similarities.

Watergate referred to a host of scandals that involved more than the burglary of Democratic Party headqua. rters. The Senate Watergate hearings, for example, disclosed that Richard Nixon's White House had created an "enemies list" of reporters and others not friendly to

1 administration. We recently learned that a member of Bill _nton's cabinet, Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary, spent more than $40,000 of taxpayers' money to create her own enemies list of reporters writing stories unfavorable to O'Leary and her department. The White House announced that the list was "unacceptable," but not illegal. Ditto, Nixon.

When some of the Watergate tapes were finally released, we learned Nixon advised aides to say: "I don't remember . . . I can't recall." No one claims Clinton has given such advice, but many of his aides also have bad memories. Witnesses at the Senate Whitewater hearings have used the phrases "don't recall" or "don't remember" nearly 800 times. One, when confronted with inconsistent statements from his diary, claimed he lied to his diary. The "I don't recall" defense did not preclude perjury convictions. against the Watergate defendants.

When 18 l/ 2 minutes disappeared from the White House tapes, Alexander Haig blamed the gap on "some sinister force." In Whitewater - which, like Watergate, involves a wide variety of purported wrongdoing - documents have mysteriously appeared. For two years, the independent counsel has subpoenaed certain billing records of the Rose law firm - where Hillary Clinton and several rlinton aides worked. A few weeks ago, these records surfaced,

-overed by a White House aide, in (of all places) the family $Lirters of the White House.

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

2/ 28/ 96 NWSDAY A32 The records are annotated in the handwriting of Vince Foster, the White House aide who apparently committed suicide in 1993. Hillary Clinton has not explained how they materialized in one of the most secure places in the world - unless they had previously been withheld in violation of the subpoenas. That would involve an obstruction of justice.

After Hillary Clinton testified before the Whitewater grand jury, she said she had no idea how the documents got there. The records, showing she worked on projects for Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, appear inconsistent with her claim that she did little work for the failed thrift, which is at the center of the Whitewater controversy.

Nixon unsuccessfully sought to keep documents from Congress by asserting executive privilege, while Bill Clinton has unsuccessfully asserted attorney- client privilege. Another disquieting similarity between Watergate and Whitewater is the way facts seem to drip out slowly and the story keeps changing. First, we're told that the first lady "had no role" in the decision to fire the employees of the White House Travel Office. Then a memorandum is uncovered that says, "Hillary wants these people fired - Mac [McLarty, then chief of staff] wouldn't do it." We are told that the travel employees

.e fired because of sloppy records and criminal behavior. Then we learn that, before the inauguration, before any investigation of the travel office, Clinton's aides in Arkansas were saying the decision had already been made to remove the travel office staff and replace it with political cronies. The attorneys for Billy Dale, the head of the travel office, accused the White- House of removing logs that would account for money he was charged with embezzling. Although the trial judge refused Dale permission to subpoena the White House for these records, the jury returned a swift verdict of acquittal.

Ultimately, Watergate was a scandal about abuse of power, which also involved laundering of funds. Whitewater may involve a scandal about laundering of funds, which also involves abuse of power. A cynic may look at what has been revealed and see an interesting business relationship between the former governor of Arkansas and his wife, a practicing lawyer. When the Arkansas Securities Department started investigating Madison, Madison began sending a $2,000 monthly retainer; as Hillary Clinton

Bill Clinton was about to become governor, an official connected to Tyson Foods (a big Arkansas employer) arranged commodities trades for Hillary Clinton that rapidly converted $1,000 to $100,000.

2ntinuing lessons abound in both the Watergate and Whitewater t, Teriences. Last month, I visited Moldova, one of the former Soviet

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works Page 2

2/ 28/ 96 NWSDAY A32 Jublics, to advise the newly created Supreme Court on the role of h independent judiciary. Toward the end of our meetings, the justices asked about Watergate. Later, they said, "Tell us about the Hillary problem." They clearly saw a resemblance. I told them that in America, no one, not the president, not his spouse, is above the law. That is the lesson of Watergate.

---- INDEX REFERENCES ---- KEY WORDS: OPINION; WATERGATE; BILL CLINTON; WHITEWATER; SCANDAL; EDITION: NASSAU AND SUFFOLK Word Count: 791 2/ 28/ 96 NWSDAY A32 END OF DOCUMENT

Page 3 Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1736

117 S. Ct. 2482 (Mem) 138 L. Ed. zd 991.65 USLW 3767, 65 USLW 3835, 65 USLW 3838 (Cite as: 117 S. Ct. 2482)

Page 31 OFFICE OF the PRESIDENT, petitioner, OFFICE OF INDEPENkNT COUNSEL, et al.

Case below, In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum. 112 F. 3d 910.

No. 96- 1783. supreme court of the united states

l 2483 Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

June23.1997. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Or@. U. S. Govt. Works

1737

Tab 12

1738

-~ 1739

Ants in the picnic basket? The Drudge Report 07/ l& 4/ 97 By Matt Dnrdge

REQUEST E- MAIL DELIVERY OF THE REPORT

DRUDGE REPORT FINAL By Matt Drudge Fri JulO4 02: 25: 21 1997

Ants in the picnic basket? Coming just hours after the President “adamantly” denies harassing Paula Jones, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned that NEWSWEEK ace investigative reporter Michael I& off is hot on the trail of a new development that threatens to ignite premature holiday fireworks at the White House. Reports have surfaced that Isikoff has been in contact with a former White House staffer who may offer “pattern” evidence of improper sexual conduct on the part of the President.

At this hour it is unclear whether I& off will pull the pieces of this explosive story together before deadline.

Other reporters may also be on the trail of this new development. The story is said to involve a federal employee sexually propositioned by the President on federal property.

If true, the new account would be markedly different from the Jones’ scenario, which involved pi- e- presidential actions long ago and far away.

Under the new media- management team of Begala and Blumenthal B32], the White House filed its first formal denial of Jones’ allegations late on the eve of the holiday weekend -just as Washington was clearing out, herding to beaches, and packing picnic baskets.

And too late for the network broadcasts. But in the new era of non- stop news cycles, the old tricks did not fly. Traffic stopped on I- 95 as the APUPIREUTERS broke the first word of the Clinton denial at 6: 18 p. m. ET, designed for minimum impact - and weeks before the court answers were actually due. But true to the Age, word quickly spread on the Internet, talk radio and cable, proving that no longer are there any safe times to release damaging information.

1740

1741

Tab 13

1742

-- 1743

Page 3 pitation

L1/ 97 WASHPOST. DOl till/ 97 Wash. Post DO1 1997 WL 12880811

Search Result Rank 1 of 1 Database WP

Monday, August 11, 1997 Style MEDIA NOTES A Reporter's Net Loss; Details of Newsweek Story Appear Prematurely on the Web

Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer

An investigative reporter is trying to nail down a sensitive story. Suddenly someone splashes the key details all over the Internet, even though the reporter doesn't have enough evidence to publish. Now half of official Washington is talking about the story he

sn't finished writing. That was the situation faced by Newsweek's Michael Isikoff as he pursued the question of whether former White House aide Kathleen Willey had ever accused President Clinton of making an improper sexual advance.

On July 4, word of the Isikoff inquiry turned up on the World Wide Web's Drudge Report, the one- man gossip operation run by Matt Drudge. By month's end, Drudge had put out more details of the work- in- progress, including Willey's name. What's more, Drudge says he was tipped off by one of Isikoff's Newsweek colleagues.

"1 outed the story," boasts Drudge. "1 was- totally driving him crazy. There was nothing he could do." He. says Isikoff sent him an e- mail calling him l'insane. ll

Isikoff, a former Washington Post reporter, takes the matter seriously, saying Drudge was reporting things -- such as what Willey supposedly told Newsweek -- that he could not possibly know. That, in turn, greatly complicated Isikoff's dealings with potential sources.

Copr. @ West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1744

Page 4 8/ 11/ 97 WASHPOST DO1

"He's rifling through raw reporting, like raw FBI files, and ,, sseminating it," Isikoff says. "He doesn't conform to any journalistic standard. This is not harmless fun; it's reckless and ought to be condemned. He ought not be treated as an impish character. It's hard to do real reporting in an atmosphere that's been polluted like this."

Newsweek described its story as "complicated and murky," and media critic Terry Eastland called it "carefully executed investigative reporting." Indeed, contrary to Drudge's advance billing, Isikoff's piece last Monday raised questions about whether any sexual harassment took place. He quoted another former White House aide, Linda Tripp, as saying that Willey emerged looking IIhappy" from the Oval Office on the day in question in 1993 and did not appear harassed.

What pushed the Willey story into the mainstream press (the story was first broken by CBS's Bill Plante) was the decision by Paula Jones's attorneys to subpoena Willey in Jones's sexual harassment suit against Clinton. Willey's lawyer said she was "outraged" to be drawn into the case and has 'Ia good relationship" with the president.

inton's lawyer, Robert Bennett, said the president "adamantly aies" doing anything improper.

Bennett said in an interview that the media are l'hypocriticall' because they ignore "stories that don't meet their journalistic standards" until." some event, like the issuance of a subpoena or the appearance of something in another publication." Then, he says, "the press uses that as an excuse" to run with the flimsy story.

Clearly, Drudgelike leaks on investigative stories boost the chances for misleading and sensational headlines. Drudge freely admits his gossip is sometimes wrong; he predicted that Hillary Rodham Clinton would be indicted last summer.

Isikoff "has a right to be furious," Drudge says, "but life's not fair. The new technology lets someone interrupt the flow. t' Besides, says Drudge, "1 seemed to have about 80 percent of the facts."

Tabloid Goose Chase Top editors at the New York Post and Daily News are crying foul

Copr. a West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

8/ 11/ 97 WASHPOST DO1

1745

Page 5 the- charge that their owners spiked stories questioning whether ~.__.~ or Rudolph Giuliani was having an affair with his communications director.

The editors say they were simply unable to confirm that Giuliani's marriage to Donna Hanover was falling apart before Vanity Fair published the charge last week.

"Once a week there'd be a new Donna rumor that would explode like crazy," says Arthur Browne, the Daily News managing editor. "It kind of took on a life of its own.

"We checked on every apartment we were told she was moving into. A huge amount of man- hours was devoted to this. But no source had firsthand knowledge. It was always, 'I was told. ' We came up dry.

. . . What's going on in their household is in some respects beyond the reach of journalism, and should be."

"We weren't able to develop enough information that we would have felt comfortable going with it," says Post Editor Ken Chandler. "When you write about problems in someone's marriage, usually it's

cause one of the principals has decided to talk about it, or filed a t> .

.t, or has been seen in public dating someone they're not married In this case there was no supportive evidence. It wasn't for lack of trying."

The editors say they never discussed the story with their bosses, Post owner Rupert Murdoch and News mogul Mort Zuckerman, both of whom have business dealings with New York City. Giuliani and press aide Cristyne Lategano have denied the reports of an affair, while Hanover has sidestepped the charge and pointedly not defended her husband.

Daily News sources say the editors killed one story that raised questions about the alleged affair after Hanover, at a party for a movie she appeared in, thanked people for helping her through "difficult" times and did not mention her husband. Browne says he recalls vetoing only "shaky gossip items."

Once the Vanity Fair piece surfaced, the News ran a banner headline, infuriating staffers who felt the tabloid should have broken the story. Browne says the paper had no choice after 'Ia national -1blication of some repute" reported that the alleged affair "had a

Copr. @ West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1746

Page 6 8/ 11/ 97 WASHPOST DO. 1

gnificant impact on city government." l: lrstedition, then caught up after the statement.

The Post ran nothing in its mayor's office issued a

'tIcm still not convinced the Vanity Fair piece was accurate," Chandler says.

Petering Out? Charlie Peters, Monthly, is ready around to it.

the irascible founder of the Washington to pass the baton. Sort of. One day. When he gets

Peters hopes to sell the neoliberal magazine to one of his earliest editors, Nicholas Lemann, now the Atlantic Monthly's national correspondent. The deal, first reported by National Journal, could happen in a year or two.

$'I could just not face selling now," Peters says. $'I still want to grab the world by the lapels and tell it what to do next. But I also realize I'm 70 years old. I want to provide for the Monthly to

ntinue in the right hands, and Nick Lemann is the right hands." But Lemann says he hasn't tackled the hard work of lining up investors or sizing up the business challenges. "There's no urgency because Charlie is happily running the magazine and I'm finishing a book," he says.

TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH IN THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE CAPTION: On his online Drudge Report, Matt Drudge "outed" an unfinished story by a Newsweek reporter.

_-__ INDEX REFERENCES ---- KEY WORDS: EDITION: Word Count: 1074 8/ 11/ 97 WASHPOST END OF DOCUMENT

NATIONAL FINAL

DO1 Copr. * West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works.

Tab 14

1748

. ..,- I . . -

‘.: .’ l ’

. . _ _. . .

. ._ ’ l * “

f *I- . . . .

. .: . . *-. - L . ...*- .... : -- 1 a , .fi . . .,

.._ . . *. ._:*._ f .- : . . . .:

.. r“ .

. _ ‘. .? I _. - . . ;’

, -‘ I .* -‘, -j.

_-. _ . -.... 1’;. - -. ,. .* :. . . . ,- I ; m . . ,. . _’ .I

1750

BY .UISHAEL ISMOFF HE PHONF. CALL W- At PRO\‘ OCA-

tive. to say the least. -L& y last Jan- “al- v. .Iost! ph Camnlnratl was pre- p& g IO help aque to the Su- preme Court that his client Paula Jones should pet a trial for her scsual- barassmcnt suit against President Clinton, when- he says-- the voice ofa woman. dis- traught and hesitant. came on the line. “I bad 11 similar thing happen to me in 1993.” she said. She refused to give her name but o& red enough details to allow Cammarata IO tmck down the woman he believes made ~bc call: lilthlrcn E. Willcv. 51. last week Gmmarata subpoenaed Willcy IO question her about whethr: she had been the victim ol an inappropriatr sexual adrancc hy the president in the White House. Willey’s tcs-

timonv is ncccsszrv. Gmmarata argues. lo estabhsh a “pattern of behavior” by Clinton ol scvually harassnq women. hn rips-

ciw iawyr will try to IX his oppmrn~ any wa+ v he can. .~ ncl Gmmxatn wvnn~ s to USP

the threat ol driving into Clintnn‘ z .~ ltcgcd sex life- and the recu! ting publicity- to force 3 acttlcmcnt f~ vor~ hle to his client.

Thir game of hardball is the uncomfort- able rcdity Lcinc:, Clintcrn in the Paula Jonts case. hathleen Wiilcy denies she

made the tail to CZunmamta. and her law- yer. Daniel A. Cicker. saw she “has no

information relevant to the Paula Jones case.” and will ask a judge to quash the

subpoena. Willey’s lawyer also -said that she evils “outraged” to be dmwn into the case. and added that she ‘had and mntin- ues to have a good relationship” with the president. Her la~ er’s statement does not address whether there was an alleged sexual encounter with Clinton. Cccker de- clincd to comment on nny part of this story to Nnvsw~~~, snving it was a “honible injustice and invasion of privaw” to pub-

lish any details about his clicni’s private lift. For his part. the prcsidrnt. through his lawyer. Robert l? cnnctt. “adamantiy denies ~hat at any time the president ever said or did anything that was at all improper.”

The stoty behind las~ week’s hcadlincs is complicated and murky. Even in the most straightforward sew.& hnmssmcnt cases.

only two people know for sore what hap pcncd; motives and pcrccptions, can be mixed. and chmgc over time. Willcv muld be n shaky witness. She MIS sulfcring

through a family crisis at the time of the nl- leged incident. and was later briefly treated for emotional distrrss. Whoever first called Cammarata told the lawyer that “her hur bnnd” had killed himself. and that the nui- cidr h: td heen rqwrted in the conspizxry litcnture of the far right ns one of the “strange deaths” that have bcfnll~ n Clinton

~ssOchtcs. This clue Icd Cammnrata IO the widow of a Democratic fund miser nnmcd M Willey Jr.- who had killed himself on Nov. 29. I99: L N+ zwswmx hcgan invwti-

gating the allegations after getting a tip Imm Cammarara iast Janu-

ary. but rcccived no other help from Jones’s lawyers and shared none of its find- ings with them. What. ifany- thing, really happned bc- tween Clinton and Willcy remains unknown. It is pos aible. howcvcr. to rceon- atruct bow the charge arose. and lo shed some light on credibility and motive.

A f0rmcr fli& attendant. Willey m matried IO the son ofan influential Virginia state legislator. She dnwc expensive cars. skii at Vail and. with her husband. con- tr% uted to the Dcmocmtic Patty. In 1992 she helped or- ganize fund- misers for the then candidate Bib Cliiton. A friend Of Willeyk Julie

Steele. says she was present when Wiiey got a call al bomefzomCovemorClin- ton on Oct. 14.199!!. the day

before a presidential debate held in Rich-

mond. According to Steele, Clinton told Willeyhewasntfferingfrom~~ tis. urJ- Icy suggested cbiclcen soup. Wtiey told Steele that Clinton asked. why don’t -you bring me some? Willey declined. but she w- as ‘definitely !lattered,” said Steele.

Willey landed a volunteer job in the White House social office after the election and commuted t5um Richmond. About the same time. her husband, a lawyer deep in debt. was accused of embezzling S274.495

from a client. On Sunday. Nov. 23. 1993. there uas a tense tbmily discussion over ho~~, thcywercfioinfftoFcpaytftemoney.

She nccdcd a full- time. payingjob. So the next day W& y came to Washington. and

later told friends that she contacted Clin- ton’s appointments aecmtav and secured timewith tbepresidenttbataame? hemoon. This is not as remarkable as it might seem: tbougb a knv- kvel voluntcer~ sbc did have longshnding fund- raising tics to Clinton. Lit& t Tripp. then an executive assistant in the Wbitc House cound’s oflicc. recalls bnmping into Wilky in the West Wing after

Willcy had allegedly left the oval Office.

Willcy was ‘disheveled. Her iacc was red and her iipatick was OK She was ihts~ ered. happy and pjul.” Trim, told NEWSWEEK. Willcy said she had to talk to Ttipp right awav. According to Trlpp. Willey said the pr& idmt had taken her from tbc Oval Of- ficr to his private olllcc. a small adjoining hidrswnv. and kissed and fondled her. She was not ‘in any way “appalled.” Tripp told

Nnvw- WK. . . Tripp. who soys she and Willcy were orcc friendly but arp no longer. agreed 10 spe. ak IO Ntxswa~~ “to make it clear that

this was not II mse of sexual krwment.” Tripp’s 84xount. of coumc. is still d8m8ging to tk president. Bennett. Clinton’s kryer. 8qs Tripp “is not to k bckved.” In l! P94 ~movedhnmtkWhitcHause~ l’s

dfitO~ h& kpti~ P~ jX¶ St8tthePen-

tagcJn( ajobshe8tiJlhohi8). Tkncxtyur she g8vc8ume testimony at tk Whitew8tcr ~~~ g8~ rntldly embrmssing to

Wilky’s friend Juk Steck raises further do& &out Willcy’r desc@ ion of the in- cident to her. At first. Steele told Nm- wmui tkt wfiey kd grqhic8Uy dc 8crikd king fondled by the president. Steele said that W* kd told her 8boUt the incident on the night it 8lkgedJy oc- cun- edPndth8tshekdbundiittnrght But hurt week Steele admitted to NEWS- WEEX that w& y had asked kr to ‘lie” aboutwkthappened. inordertogtveaed- ibility to tk pliegation that sk had ken klassed. (w& y% lawyer- toann- ‘mcnt to N~ WREX on Steele’s charge. or on nny other aspect of Tripp’s or Steele’s accounts.) In 13ct. said Steele. Willey had told kr about tk incident weeks after it happened. sqying 0nIy that the president had made a pass at her. To Steele. WiJley kd~ t3~~~~ itat~ t~~

In December 1993. Willey got n paying job in the cmmsel’s office that k& d 10 months. In 1995. at the White House’s invi- tation. she served 8s a of U. S. dele gations to interrurtiomil conferences on so-

Stnte Dep8rtment Ameri- can participant euper- tise in the issues under cost

of her trips to tk t8qm- yers was about g7.000. Frank Prwyn. tk director of the St8te Department Office of Intem8tional Rogmms. said hew8s’kind ofsurprised” to 5ee her on tk trip to Indonesia But. he 8dded.‘ agoodwaytogetyourselfintoaj8m

8t S Who’s tc& ng truth? It is akays to know in these matters, 8nd p8infui to find out. l

<: 11 I M I’

A Brush With Terror

They were making bombs in Brooklyn, their e eon a suicide subway attack. How did they get SO Y ar?

BY TOM MORCANTHAU AND GrtEGonY BEALS

HE: PLAN WAS To IKBMD A SullWAY station in Brookl_ yn- 8nd tk big question. zher New York poke

IWTOW1)‘ 8WrtGd 8 cPt8Stl+ liC 8Ct

oftmwisml8stweekw8showthe prime suspect kd gotten into the a~~ try in tk first place. Gh8zi Ib+ im 2

Maizar. 24. aWestBank~ ’

three times to enter the United Stntes from Caruda8ndwasjailedbt8tJ8nwrybythe U. S. Immigmtion and N8turtdiition Serv- ice in Washington state. Hc then appkd for political asylum because, k said. k would k persecuted by Ismeli 8uthoritifis.

Despite dil that, Ak MPiznr wps set free by a U. S. immigmtion judge in June after promising to le8ve the cotmtry voltmtari- ly. He went to New York City instead- where. police said, he 8nd 8nother pilestin- ian immigrant built a powcrfirl pipe bomb for a suicide attack much like last week’s terror bombing in Jendem.

Tipped off by one of the suspects’ friends. a heavily armed poke SWAT toam de- scended on their dingy Brooklyn quutment

kforc &urn 8nd cutghl Ak Mahr 8nd !& year& d lrtfi KkM skeping. 3oth were shot8ndwoundedwhem8cundmgtono_ lice. they tried to trigger tk bombs. One kmbw8s8nine- nmhpipep8dc8dwith gunQowder. n8iisand9nunt8Jkts. The other lvpf 8 four- pip monstrosity tkt wouldh8vekiUedevuynrewithinSSfeetif deton8tedin8nen& s4s$ 8celike88ub w8yc8r. PokefiYundhundmdsofp8gesof H8nl8spoppgrndnUtd8prrtrpitOfShi? ik AhdtdOmarR8hm8n. theblindMu8hm cleric convicted of inspiring the World Trade Center bombing. They aJ~. found what wns desaiixd ;IS a terrorist manifkto eqessing h8tr8d for the United %8& s 8nd Ismel that was allegedly written by Abu Maizar. Hospitalized for their wounds-

kkiiZUW8SShOttWiCtZdKhalil8thSt five times- both men were ckrgcd with conspiring to use explosives to destroy property. ‘I think we were close to a disas- ter.” said Jvncs K8llstrnm. head of the FBff New York field o& e. “ft didn’t hap pen. and that’s tk good news.”

Tkbadnw. onceagain. wasAmcri- 85 wlnnbiity to teITolism- vzhich rais- . . . es uoublmg quabons about tk

fedenl govemment’s inability to spot would- k terrorists at the kr- der. In hindsight. pn_ may. Abu M8i78rseemedanobvioussecurity risk: he MS briefly demined by Is- meh 8uthorities during tk ia@ drz.

whenkw8sabout15.= rdoneof hisbrotkrswasonccdeported fromIsmelfor~ ingtkPopr t& r From for the Libemtbn of Palestine. But his family now s8_ ys it supports peace md tkt M8nx. who has denied tkt k is 8 men& r of H8mas. hss ever been a pohtic8J or religious militant. A spokesman

fog tk INS s8. v~ tk can- includ- mg Maizais release pending vnlun- ~d~~-~~~~ tk book. Like most F% kstin* ns wk come to this country. he wps not on atry U. S. -Hutch list” asa suspected terrorist. lhis guy is kind of cr8xv.- one kv- enforccment officki z& d. “He USIS just a wanwt- bc. ’ But th81 doesn’t solve the problem -betswe even wanna- bcs can kilt.

1752

1753

Tab 15

1755

Page 18

September 13, 1997, Saturday, Late Edition - Final SECTION: Section 1; Page 37; Column 1; Business/ Financial Desk LENGTH: 109 words HEADLINE: COMPANY NEWS; IMPERIAL HOLLY AND SAVANNAH FOODS SEAL MERGER PACT

The New York Times BYLINE: Reuters BODY:

Savannah Foods and Industries has accepted a $491 million bid from the Imperial Holly Corporation, ending a takeover battle. Under the deal, which is 70 percent in cash and 30 percent in stock, Savannah Foods' shareholders will receive $20.25 a share, a higher price than signaled a few days ago. Earlier this week, Savannah Foods, based in Savannah, Ga., terminated an agreement to merge with Flo- Sun Inc., the private holding company of the Fanjul family of Florida, and paid Flo- Sun an unspecified termination fee. Savannah Foods shares rose 93.75 cents, to $19. Imperial Holly, based in Sugar Land, Tex., near Houston, dropped $1.0625, to $13.50.

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH LOAD- DATE: September 13, 1997

1756

Tab 16

1758

Page 1 ritation

Z/ 97 FORBES 073 ?+ dZ/ 97- Forbes 073 1997 WL 14780038

1759

Monday, September 22, 1997 Law and Issues Privilege- seeking ? If you want to understand government in century, you had better know something about Gordon Tullock's

seeking. It enables you to see Washington for what it really machinethat enables special interests to extract money from

By Peter Brimelow WHAT DO THESE PICTURES have in common?

Database FORBES

the late 20th concept of rent-

is: a powerful everyone else.

n "Lobbying has become Washington, D. C. 's largest private employer.... There are 125 people working to influence government policy for every member of Congress, up from 31 lobbyists per congressman in 1964."

-From "Washington's Lobbying Industry: A Case for Tax Reform," a orandum prepared by the office of House majority leader (and Ph. D. economist) Dick Armey (R- Tex.)

n "In 1989 we had essentially no compliance function. Then we hired our first compliance officer. He hired a staff of half a dozen. The whole focus changed from building the business to papering the files. Of course, when there was a [Securities & Exchange Commission] audit, he was a local hero. But it was of no benefit to the clients. We never had any intent to deceive them. And if we had, we could still have done it. He [the compliance manager] became a partner. I left."

-Disgruntled Wall Street money manager n "I signed the Family Leave Act; it was my very first bill. And I'm proud of it because it symbolizes what I think we ought to be doing.... [It] has let 12 million families take a little time off for the birth of a child or a family illness without losing their job. . .. I never go anywhere, it seems like, where I don't meet somebody who's benefited from the Family Leave Law. In Longview, Tex. the other day I met a woman who was almost in tears because she had been able to keep her iob while * & spending time with her husband, who had cancer.

-Bill Clinton, in second presidential debate, Oct. 16, 1996 .aswer: - They all involve what economists call "rent- seeking"- the

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

_ --_

use

g/ 22/ 97 FORBES 073

1760

Page 2 political or institutional power to extract "rent" (essentially, wvoidable payments) from the rest of the economy.

(" Rent- seeking- it's a terrible name," says economist David Henderson of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. Henderson speculates that the name's repellent clunkiness may have delayed general recognition that rent- seeking, parasitic and pervasive, is a fundamental economic reality in the modern world. His suggestion: "privilege- seeking." Hey, these are economists, not poets.)

Whatever its name, this is how rent- seeking works: n The Washington lobbyists are public- sector rent- seekers. They are being paid to extract rents by influencing legislation on behalf of their corporate clients.

And they succeed. One example from Congressman Armey's collection: Sugar import quotas raise the price American consumers pay for sweeteners by about $1.4 billion annually. This benefits a remarkably small number of sugar producers and processors. One family alone, the Fanjuls of Osceola Farms, Fla., earns an estimated $65 million annually in artificial profits because its lobbyists have persuaded Congress to make it possible for the family to sell sugar at more than its natural

. yket price. ‘n The empire- building Wall Street compliance bureaucrat is a private- sector rent- seeker. He is diverting profits earned by the firm's productive activities to himself and his empire.

Note, though, that he is able to do so because of a sort of tacit alliance with the public- sector regulators. They make his job necessary.

n The First Rent- Seeker was congratulating himself on a newly popular subcategory of rent- seeking: so- called mandated benefits. The government uses political power to extract rents from the general public. Then it directs them to favored constituencies. The numbers can be very large: The Society for Human Resource Management estimated in 1989 that the Family Leave Act- no matter how nice a thought- would still cost nearly $440 million a year.

The government is still in effect buying votes with other people's money. But rent- seeking- in this case rent- giving- tactfully avoids the need to raise the money first through taxation, which often causes such distress. Employers and, ultimately, all consumers pay. A (relatively small) class of employees benefit. Plus, of course, the politicians. They can crow about how "caring" they are.

Tent- seeking matters- a lot. Its cost to society is not just the rents lsferred but also "rent- avoidance"- resources expended in trying to

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1761

g/ 22/ 97 FORBES 073 Page Z lel efforts to extract rents, for example, by hiring your own AiIbyists. As Gretchen Morgenson showed in our last issue (Sept. 81, any business that neglects to hire a lobbyist is likely to become a victim of other rent- seekers who do have lobbyists.

Surprisingly, however, the realization that rent- seeking exists dawned on economists only quite recently. Too bad, because it's a valuable concept that helps us understand what the politicians are doing to us when they say they feel our pain and offer to assuage it.

The father of the rent- seeking concept is Gordon Tullock, a quizzical, quirky, somewhat owlish 75- year- old professor of economics and political science at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Tullock was long associated with Nobel economics laureate James M. Buchanan, now at Virginia's George Mason University, in the development of what is now called "Public Choice Theory," the application of economic analysis to political and governmental action.

Many observers were surprised that Tullock was not included in the Nobel Prize Buchanan received in 1986. The omission was particularly striking since Buchanan and Tullock had actually coauthored the classic public choice text, The Calculus of Consent (1962). Speculation continues that Tullock will eventually win a separate Nobel Prize for i- '-; work on rent- seeking. In January 1998 he will be made a

tinguished Fellow of the American Economics Association. (" A plaque- nc, money," he says.)

Tullock was not trained as an economist- and beneficially, he argues -with characteristic wryness. This, he argues, is an advantage in understanding economics. (He compares the economics profession's current preference for abstract mathematics to the drift from science to theology in classical Alexandria- and suggests that its function is merely to avoid political conflicts with noneconomists in the faculty lounge.) In 1947, after three years' Tullock took a J. D. wartime service as an infantryman,

degree in a University of Chicago Law School accelerated program. He has no bachelor's degree because, in a decision possibly reflecting his Scottish heritage, he declined to pay the required $5 fee.

Tullock then joined the State Department and was posted to the Chinese city of Tianjin. He observed the city's fall to the Communists in 1949 and began his study of monetary cycles amid the disastrous inflation accompanying the Chinese Nationalist collapse. Thereafter, he was. seconded to Yale and Cornell for three academic years to study Chinese. He notes gleefully that by reading Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises' Human Action in his spare time during this period, he found himself in key respects better prepared technically than an economics Ph. D.

temporary. Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1762

g/ 22/ 97 FORBES 073 Page 4 t is universally agreed that Tullock does not have a diplomat's t.__., perament . He eventually resigned from the State Department. In 1959, while a post- doctoral fellow at the University of Virginia's economics department, he began working with Buchanan on what became The Calculus of Consent.

In 1987 Tullock moved to his present post in Arizona. A lifelong bachelor, he spends holidays with his sister's family in Iowa. In an unusual departure for an academic economist, he is a major stockholder (" best investment I ever made") and longtime director of the family's Dodger Co., a small Iowa- based firm that makes sports clothing, and its Whink, Inc., which makes industrial cleaners. He says this experience contributed greatly to his education in economics.

Tullock's stint in China was crucial to his rent- seeking insight: "See, you go into these cultures where people have produced just immense cultural achievements but are living in bitter poverty, and you discover very quickly they have a dominant government and the government is corrupt. Conventionally, economists have argued that a corrupt government doesn't really cost anything because the man who receives the bribe gains what the man who pays the bribe loses. Well, you can't really believe that if you're in China."

yimilarly, Tullock points out, China provided the evidence for a key ly effort by Anne Krueger- now an economics professor at Stanford Ulr, versity- to quantify his insight. (Krueger must also take the blame for coining the term "rent- seeking." ) Krueger had estimated that the cost to Turkey and India of the bribes necessary to get around their various regulations amounted to 7% to 15% of GNP. This cost was not simply the expense of the bribe, but also the resources wasted by individuals in acquiring otherwise useless credentials and intriguing for appointments in the appropriate government bureaucracy.

Every major economics journal rejected "The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies and Theft," Tullock's original article on rent- seeking. It was finally published three years later, in 1967, in the Western Economic Journal, then new and little- read.

As an intellectual pioneer, Tullock is a connoisseur of such rejections. (He began his 1980 presidential address to the Southern Economics Association by celebrating the fact that the association's journal would be compelled to publish it, after years of rejecting his submissions.) He savors the irony that because a standard textbook quickly picked up his rent- seeking concept, "there was a period when a lot of brand- new elementary [economics] students knew about it and no one else did."

'ullock's serene but somber conclusions on the inefficient nature of intellectual market: "The safe article for the young academic is one

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. W. S. Govt. Works

1763

g/ 22/ 97 FORBES 073 t makes a short, sound step forward in a well- established direction." Sounds like good advice. But it's advice that Tullock himself- author of 15 books (the sixteenth, On Voting: An Introduction to Public Choice, due January 1998) and over 150 papers, on subjects ranging from game theory to "The Coal Tit As Careful Shopper," respected,

part of his little- known, but highly contribution to biological theory- has somehow never quite gotten around to taking.

---- INDEX REFERENCES ---- LAYOUT CODES: Law (LLW) Word Count: 1579 g/ 22/ 97 FORBES 073 END OF DOCUMENT

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1764

1765

Tab 17

1766

1767

Adrmnistnztion of William J. Clinton. 1997 As we observe National Children’s Day this year. kt us recommit ourselves to creat- ing a society where happy children; wff””

nts can raise healthy. ere every newborn is chtrishai, where every child is encouraged to succeed, and where all our young people are free to ursue their dreams.

NW, I&, fore, I, William J. Clinton, President of the United States of America. by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States. do hereby proclaim October 12.1997, as National Children’s Day. I urge ah Ameri- cans to express their love and appreciation for children on this day and on eve throughout the year. I invite Federal o r; y

day u5als. State and local governments, and particularly all American families to join together in ob- serving this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities to honor our Nation’s children.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of October, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and nine- tv- seven. and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty- second.

William J. Clinton

[FM with the Office of the Federal Register.

1126 am.. October 14.1997] Nm: This proclamation will be published in the

F& end Reguteron October 15.

Digest of Other

White House Announcements The following list includes the President’s public schedule and other items of general interest M- nounced by the Offke of the Press Secretary and not included elsewhere in this issue.

October4

In the afternoon, the President and Hillary Clinton traveled to Belt& he. MD, to ob- serve U. S. Secret Service tactical expertise and training exercises at the James J. Rowley Training Center. Later, they returned to Washington, DC.

1549 In the evening. the President traveled to Arlington. VA. Later, he was joined by Hil- buy Clinton. and they traveled to Camp David, MD.

October6 In the morning. the President and Hihary Clinton returned to Washington. DC. in the evening, the President hosted a dinner for President Ezer Weizman of Israel in the Blue Boom at the White House.

The President announced his intention to nominate James C. Hormel to be Ambas- sador to Luxembourg.

The President announced his intention to nominate Gerald S. M& wan to be Ambas- sador to Portugal.

The President announced his intention to nominate Lyndon L Olson. Jr., to be Ambas- sador to Sweden.

The President announced his intention to nominate Kenneth R. Wylie to be Adminis- trator of the Federal Highway Administra- tion at the Department of Transpotition.

October 7 In the morning, the President attended a meeting with Northern Ireland Ulster Unionist Party leader David Trimble in Na- tional Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger’s office at the White House.

In the afternoon, the President met with congressional Democrats to discuss fast- track trade legislation. in the evening, he met with representatives of State and local govem- ment and business and community leaders from the Midwest

The President announcedhis intention to nominate Christopher Ashby to be Ambas- sadorto Uru

The Presi !Y

en); announced his intention to nominate James A Larocco to be Ambas- sador to Kuwait.

The President announced his intention to nominate Mark Erwin to be a member of the Overseas Private investment CorPora- tion.

The President announced his intention to nominate James H. Bailey to serve as Deputy Director of the Federal Emergency Manage- ment Agency.

The President announced the nomination of Bill B& a& on and A. Peter BurIeigh to be U. S. Representatives and Richard Sklar.

1768

1550 Victor Marrero, and Nancy E. Soderberg to be U. S. Alternate Representatives to the 526 General Assembly of the United Nations.

The President announced the nomination

of Nancy E. Soderberg to be Alternate U. S. Representative for Special Political AfGrs at the United Nations, with the rank of Ambas- sador.

October8

In the morning. the President traveIed to Newark, NJ. In the afternoon. he traveled to West Orange and Florham Park, NJ. Lpter in the afternoon. he traveled to Philadelphia, PA. arriving in the evening.

in the evening, the President attended a Democratic National Committee reception

at CoreStates Arena Later, he returned to Washington. DC.

The President announced the admix& m- tion’s intention to appoint Rev. Jesse Jackson to be Special Envoy for the President and the Secretary of State for the promotion of democracy in Africa.

October 9 In the afternoon, the President had a tele- phone conversation with Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom concem- ing the Prime Minister’s recent visit to Russia and the President’s October 7 meeting with Northern Ireland Ulster Unionist Party lead- er David Trimble.

Later, the President had a telephone con- versation with retiring University of .Nortb Carolina men’s basketball coach Dean Smith to commend him on his long and succc& ul career.

The President announced his intention to nominate David B. Hermelin to be Ambas- sador to Norway.

The President announced the nomination of Betty Eileen King to be an Alternate U. S. Representative to the 52d General Assembly of the United Nations. Ms. King has also been nominated to be U. S. Representative on the Economic and Social Council of the

United Nations, with the rank of ~mbas- sador.

The President announced his intention to nominate Kevin Cover to be Assistant Set- retary for Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior.

~~ n& nZtion Of William]. Clinton, 1997 October 10

The President announced the nomination of Mary Mel French to be Chief of Protocol at the State Depivtment

The President announced the nomination of Richard W. Fisher to be Deputy U. S. Trade Representative (Washington). with the rankof Ambassador.

The President announced the nomination of Robert T. Crey. Jr., to be U. S. Representa- t& e to the Conference on D- t.

The President announced the nomination of Joy Ha+ to be a member of the National Council on tbe Arts.

The President announced the nomination of Ida L Castro to serve as the Director of the Women’s Bureau at the Department of Lobor.

The President announced the nomination of Carl Spielvogel as a member of the Bmad- casting Board of Covemors for the Inter- national Bmadcasting Bureau.

The President announced the nomination of Robert S. Warshaw to se~ e as Associate Director of the Office of National Drug Con- trol Policy for the Bureau of State and w Affairs.

The President announced the nomination of Thomas H. Fox to be Assistant Adminis- trator for Policy and Program Coordination at the Agency for International Develop ment.

The President announced the nomination of Donald C. Lubick to be Assistant Set- retary for Tax Policy at the Department of the Treasury.

The President announced the nomination of Fred P. Ho& berg to serve as Deputy Ad- . . muustmtor of the Small Business Admin& na-

tion. The President announced his intention to appoint Arthur M. Hamilton and Sally Ann Jochum as members of the President’s Com- mittee on Mental Retardation.

The President announced his in& ion to designate David J. Barram. in his capaci as Administrator of the General Services Ax - miniion, Andrew M. Cuomo, ib his ca- pacity as secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and Rodney E. Slater. in his capacity as Secretary of Transportation, to serve as members on the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

1769

1608 Oct. 17 / Adminadifmof Wan. Clinton, 1997

In addition, I afn also announcing today

that I want to work with Congress to find a solution to the gmwin roblem of future Ii&& es and extended e f& ys in completing ongoing projeck. Each year, Congress adds

more and more pmjccts withuut ruffint

resources to complete existing mjects in a

timely way. Some of them i ncp ude -year

Fdeni commitments. involving hundreds of

millions of doltus. The more

added, the longer the delays in mishing the F mjects are

existing ones. Because of limited Feded resources, the gap between the number of projects that am approwd and the number we can afford will keep growing. I believe that now is the time

for the administration and Congress to ad- dress the problem. I have asked the adminis- tration’s senior officials who work in this area to reach out to the key Member of Congress to work toward a solution.

NOTE: The reports detailing the cancelldions were published in the Fedeml Register on October 20. H. R. 2203. approved Oaober 13. was assigned

Public Law Number 105- 62. Letter to Congressional Leaders on Line Item Vetoes of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1998

October 17.1997

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. Preside%:)

In accfxdance with the fine item Veto

Act, I hereby cancel the dollar amounts of discretionary budget authority, as specified

in the attached reports. contained in the “En- ergy and Water Development A

roJ propriations

Act, 1998” (H. R. 2203. ap B

October 13, 1997). I have determine that the cancelIa- tion of these amounts will reduce- the Federal

budget deficit. will not impair any essential Government functions, and will not harm the national interest. This letter, together with its attachments, constitutes a special message under section 1022 of the Congressional Budget and Im~ und~ nt Control Act of

1974. as amended. Sincerely,

W” illiam J. Clinton

NOTE: identical letters were sent to Newt Cing- rich, Speaker of the House of Representatives,

d Albert Core. Jr., Resident of the Senate. The reports ck& ng the enna? j) Ptiont were pubkuhed ~~ F& mlRcgLtrronCktober20. H. R.!? D3, appmved october 13. was assigned pub. kw No. 105 61.

Statement on the Death of James A. Michuler odobc1’17, t9Q7

HilbuyandIaregreadysaddenedbythe la* of one of our country’s most g& d story- tellers. James A. Uichener. Through his rich nam& ves ww2n on tbe grandest scale. Uichener made our imaginations soar and our history come alive. From the sandy shores of the South Pacific to the barren tun- dra of Akts4 we fM Michener on epic journeys &rough time and place. along the

way cekkting such time- honored virtues as patitism, courage. and common sense. And even after achieving great fame and wealth. Michener never forgot his humble mats. He was a major bene& ctor to cotleges and tit- ers’ groups, event& y donating much of his

fortune for the benefit of others. America has lost a rich voice and a generous spirit.

Digest of Other White House Announwments

The foliowing list idudes the President’s public schedule and other items of gencrd interest an- nouneedbytheOfkxofthePrrsjSecmtary8nd not induded elsewhere in this issue.

October19

In the morning. the President and Hilhuy Clinton traveled to Caracas, Venezuek arriv- ing in the afternoon.

In the evening. the President met with President R& e1 Calden of Venezuela in President Caldera’s o& e at La Casona.

octoberI

In the morning, the President pprtidrpated

in a wmath- laying ceremony at El Panteun. In the tiemoon. the President and H& y

Clinton tnweled to Bmsilia. Brazil, arriving in the evening.

1770

Aasnini5tnltion of w& nll J. clinton. 1997 October 14

In the morning, the President had meet- ings with President Fernando Cardoso of

Brazil in the Qualienca Room and the Meet-

ing Room at Plan& o Palace. In the afkemoon, the President met with the leadership of the Bra& an Congress in Salon Nobre at the National Congress. Later.

he greeted American and Bra& an personnel at the U. S. Embaq.

In the evening, the President and Hillary

Clinton travekd toSao Paula. Brazil. OClOber 15

In the morning. the President traveled to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, arriving in the after- noon. Later. he trawled to Buenos Aires, Ar- gentina arriving in the evening.

The President announced his intention to appoint Judith A. Scott as a member of the

Advisory Committee to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

October 16

In the morning. the President met with President Carlos Menem of Argentina in the Salon Blanco at La Casa Rosa. Later. he met with Argentine political opposition leaders in the Ceibo Room of the Sheraton Hotel.

In the afternoon. the President met with Argentine Jewish leaders in the Executive Room at the Sheraton Hotel.

October 17 In the afternoon. the President and Hillary

Clinton traveled to San Carlos de Bariloche. The President announced the appoint- ment of Wii Martin and J. Nussman as U. S. Commissioners of the International Commis- sion for the Consewation of Atlantic Tuna.

Nominations

Submitted to the Senate

Non: No nominations were submitted to the Senate during the period awered by this issue.

1609

Checklist of White House Press Releases

The fdiowing list contains &ascs of the OtTice of the Press Secncpry that are neither printed as itemf IK) T -red by entries in the Digest of

Other White House Announemts.

R& aaedoc& 3ber12 Transcript of a press briefing by Press Sec- rewy Mike McCurry

R& 5& 0ctcJber13

Transcript of a E

ress briefing by National Drug Control PO ‘cy Director Barry McCaf- frey on counter- drug- trafkking strategies with the Venezuelan Covemment

Transcript of a press briefing by Energy Sec-

retary Federico Peiia on Venezuela- U. S. en- ergy. trade, and environmental agreements

Fact sheet: U. S.- Venezuelan Partnership for the 21st Century: Promoting Common Solu-

tions for Energy and Development. Trade

and Investment, and Protecting the Environ- ment

Released October 14

Transcript of a press briefing by Press Sec- retary Mike McCuny and Deputy National z Security Adviser Jim Steinberg on the Presi- dent’s meeting with President Fernando Cardoso of Brazil

Transcript of a B

ress briefmg by O& e of Management an Budget Director Franklin Raines. National Security Council Director for Defense Policy and Arms Control Bob

Bell, and Deputy Defense Sec& ary John Hamre on the President’s line item vetoes of the Department of kfense Appropria- tions Act, 1998

Statement by Press Secretary Mike McCuny on the a pointment of S - As& ant to

the Presi s Kz ent and LegalA . Fact sheet: The U. S. Brazil Partnership: Im- proving Education in the’ 21st Century

Fact sheet: U. S.- Braziban Partnership for the 21st Century

1771

&ninistfation of W& am]. Clinton, 1997 term, so must our licics be. We have an opportunity to buil $ a new century in which China takes its rightful place as a full and strong partner in the community of nations, working with the United States to advance

and prosperity, freedom and securi or both our people and for all the worf r .

We have to take that chance. Thank you very much.

Nm Tbe President spoke at 250 p. m. in the auditorium at the Voice of America In his R- marks. he referred to Nicholas Platt. president, The Asia Society; and President Jiang Zemin of china.

Digest of Other White House Announcements

The following list includes the President’s Public schcduk and other items of gcnenl interest an- nounced by the Of& e of the Press Secrcq and not included eisewbere in this issue.

October 18 In the evening, the President and H& y Clinton traveled from San Carlos de Btiloche to Buenos Aires. Argentina. Later. they returned to Washington, DC, arriving the following morning.

October 21 The President announced his intention to nominate William J. Lynn III to be Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller.

The President announced his intention to nominate Richard M. McCahey to serve as Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Depart- ment of Labor.

The President announced his intention to nominate Cyril Kent McCuire to serve as AS- sistant Secretary of Educational Research and Improvement at the Department of Education.

The President announced his intention to nominate Robert McNamara, Jr., to sewe as General -Counsel at the Central Intelligence Agency.

The President announced his intention to nominate Daryl L. Jones to be Secretary of the Air Force.

1653 The President announced his intention to appoint former Representative John Bzyant as head of the U. S. delegation to the Inter- national Telecommunication Union’s 1997 World Radiocommunications Conference in Geneva, Switzerhmd. with the personal rank of Ambassador.

The President announced his intention to appoint Sam W. Brown with the personal rank of Ambassador during his service as the head of the US. delegation to the Organiza- tion on Security and Cooperation in Europe’s

Ministerial Preparatory Conferences in Vi- enna, Austria

The President announced his intention to appoint Robert L. F5axter as a member of the Advisory Committee to the President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure PI& tection.

October 22

In the afternoon. the President met with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I in the Oval office.

The President announced his intention to nominate John Charles Horsley as Associate Deputy Secretary and Director of Intermod- alism at the Depaxtment of Transportation.

The White House announced the Presi- dent’s intention to appoint the following indi- viduals as members of the Advisory Commit- tee on Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters: Charles Benton. Frank Blythe. Peggy Charren. Harold C. Grump. Frank Cruz, Robert Decherd, Barry Diller, William Duhamel. Rob Claser. Jim Coodmon. Paul La Camera, Richard Masur.

Newton Minow, Shelby Scott, Cigi Sohn. Karen Pelt2 Strauss, Cass R Sunstein, Lois Jean White, and James Yee.

The White House announced that tbe President received the final report of the Presidential Commission on Critical Infra- structure Protection on October !20.

October 23 The President announ his intention to nominate Mary Beth West for the rank of Ambassador to be Deputy Assistant See- retary of State for Oceans and Space.

1772

1773

Tab li

1775

Page 1

LAT - 11/ 9/ 97 LATIMES Al '9/ 97 L. A. Times Al

Sunday, November 9, 1997 National Desk Lobbying for 'Fast- Track' Trade Power Intensifies Congress: Despite frenzy of action, little headway was made as countdown continues to today's vote to give Clinton authority he seeks. House, Senate also try to break deadlocks on other issues. JANET HOOK; FAYE FIORE TIMES STAFF WRITERS

WASHINGTON -- Both houses of Congress were pressed into service Saturday as lawmakers made a mad dash to wrap up the year's work and prepared for a cliffhanger vote on President Clinton's bid for expanded trade authority.

The Senate and House struggled to break deadlocks on a range of hot- button issues-- from abortion funding to the 2000 census -- that have stalled several funding bills that must be passed before Congress can adjourn for the year.

But much of the action occurred behind closed doors, as the countdown continued toward today's scheduled House vote on Clinton's request for "fast- track" trade negotiating authority.

'e White House sent a phalanx of Cabinet officials and other top aides to make peace with jority of House Democrats furious about Clinton's efforts to woo Republican support for me fast- track trade legislation. .__

In addition, the administration pursued intensive, one- on- one negotiations in an effort to pick up fast- track votes from within a tiny and dwindling band of Democratic fence- sitters.

"This is a blitz," said U. N. Ambassador Bill Richardson, one of the administration officials on Capitol Hill to work the issue. 'It's going down to the wire."

Clinton, in his Saturday radio address, made another appeal for House members to support the fast- track legislation, which would strengthen the president's hand in negotiating trade agreements by allowing Congress to accept or reject-- but not amend-- the pacts.

"A 'yes' vote is a vote for confidence in the world's strongest economy," Clinton said. "But a 'no' vote says we don't want our country to negotiate lower trade barriers-- we're pulling back."

The day's frenzy of lobbying did not seem to have much effect on undecided members, 'many of whom may be waiting until the roll is called today on both sides reported little movement in the head votes short of the majority needed for passage.

before making their_ positions known5__ A,$ es count, leaving the administration a few _

Nonetheless, House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R- Ga.) said he was encouraging the administration to remain committed to holding the vote today. "My advice is to go for it," he said.

But some lawmakers said the vote might be delayed if Clinton cannot round up the votes he r. -ds. The House is scheduled to go into session at 2 p. m. EST, but a fihal vote on the

-track bill is unlikely before the evening. If the . _ Jre passes the House, Senate approval is considered probable.

While the fate of fast- track remained undecided, Capitol H. ill became a legislative

1776

Page 2

three- ring circus as House and Senate leaders pushed to wrap up the rest Of this year's work

. today or Monday. *n major action Saturday, Congress sent to the White House two bills challenging presidential priorities. The Senate voted, 91- 4, to join the House in passing an $80- billion social- spending bill that includes a rider delaying Clinton's plan to establish national education testing. The compromise was declared a victory by conservatives opposed to national testing, but Clinton has said he would accept it.

The House voted, 352- 64, to approve a bill overturning Clinton's line- item veto of 38 military construction projects worth $287 million. The House's overwhelming vote, which followed a comparably strong vote in the Senate, suggests that Congress could override Clinton if he were to veto the overall measure, as he has promised.

In an effort to break the logjam on three remaining appropriations bills-- for the District of Columbia, the departments of State, Commerce and Justice and foreign aid-- the Senate Appropriations Committee passed a measure that combined all three bills into one. But House leaders said the combined legislation includes language on abortion and other issues unacceptable to the lower chamber.

The fast- track legislation had been scheduled to come to a vote in the House on Friday, but the White House requested a postponement until at least today so it would have more time to round up support.

The politics of the issue have become deeply entwined in the process of wrapping up annual appropriations bills. Many conservative House Republicans have declared they would not vote for fast- track unless the White House makes concessions on a number of fronts, including Clinton's proposal to establish national education testing, a dispute about the 2000 census and antiabortion restrictions on foreign aid.

7use Democrats, most of whom oppose the fast- track legislation, have been furious at the .e House for what they see as an effort to make concessions in those areas to pick up ttrpublican votes.

They called top administration officials-- including Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles-- to an emotional meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, where members aired their fury at the maneuvering around fast- track.

Administration officials have denied that they are making deals to pick up fast- track votes, particularly on the contentious issue of abortion. Democrats who attended the closed- door meeting said Bowles reiterated the White House's commitment to veto foreign aid legislation if it includes antiabortion language.

The abortion dispute is one of the biggest obstacles to completing work on this year's funding bills. At issue is a provision of current law that prohibits international family- planning organizations from using U. S. aid for abortions.

Conservative Republicans in the House want to tighten that restriction to prohibit U. S. aid from going to any international group that uses even its own money for abortions. The Senate and the White House have opposed that.

On the census, leaders of the black, Latin0 and Asian congressional c'aucuses assembl&% anger Saturday after hearing of the deal the White House struck with GOP leaders regarding the conduct of the population count in 2000.

The agreement, which would allow the Census Bureau to test a statistical counting method in Sacramento during a trial census in April, leaves GOP lawmakers ample opportunity next year to kill the sampling method, which they fiercely oppose.

ether sampling is used has great import for California, which was severely undercounted .990 and lost out on federal funding and one congressional seat as a result.

Leaders of the minority caucuses, who wanted broader use'bf sampling, thought Clinton had

Page 3

conceded too much on the census in order to win votes for the expanded trade negotiating ar*+ hority he desperately wants. They accused him of forsaking minority groups, children ant

Door, who were the most undercounted in 1990. '31r. President, don't sell us out over fast- track," implored Rep. Robert Menendez (D- N. J.:,

Their ire won at least one concession. An oversight board set up to report on the census that had previously been Republican- dominated, will now be made up of an equal of iepublicans and Democrats. It was unclear, however, whether Republicans would share the $3 nillion that would fund the board, money Democrats say will be used as a public relations nachine to make sure census sampling is killed next year.

While the maneuvering on appropriations bills could help Clinton pick up Republican votes for fast- track, the White House turned up the heat in an effort to garner more support among Ihe handful of fence- sitting Democrats.

Among them is Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D- N. Y.), a leader of abortion- rights forces who said she light be more inclined to oppose fast- track if Clinton compromised on his opposition to new restrictions on international family planning.

Clinton's aides have been wooing Democrats representing agricultural districts with jromises of trade protections for commodities such as peanuts, je hurt by expanded foreign trade. citrus and tomatoes that might

Some Democrats said the White House had been promising presidential help in political und- raising to those who come on board, and who fear a loss of labor contributions in etaliation.

The combined effect of PC ‘9 could be enough to

fear that they will * SANCHEZ IMPASSE: GOP election victory. A38

White House promises and GOP leaders' control over congressional produce a come- from- behind victory, one fast- track opponent conceded.

win," said Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D- Ore.). "They always do." .__ ._.

leaders refused to debate the dispute over Rep. Loretta Sanchez's * CLINTON DRIVEN: Washington is discovering how badly the president wants fast- track uthority. A24

TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH IN THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE .

PHOTO: Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D- Md.), Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and Agriculture secretary Dan Glickman, from left, meet at Capitol to discuss fast- track trade authority 'resident Clinton is seeking.; PHOTOGRAPHER: Associated Press

---- INDEX REFERENCES ---- :Y WORDS: CONGRESS (U. S.); LEGISLATION -- UNITED STATES; GOVERNMENT SPENDING; )BBYING; UNITED STATES -- TRADE; ABORTION; CENSUS

IEWS SUBJECT: Politics; Trade Issues; Health (PLT TRD HLT) .'ORY ORIGIN: WASHINGTON iEWS CATEGORY: LEAD STORY ;OVERNMENT: Congress (CNG)

: United States; North America (US NME) 'ITION: HOME EDITION

Page 4

Word Count: 1324 J/ 9-/ LATIMES Al

. -_ OF DOCUMENT Copr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1779

Tab 19

1780

1781

Page 1

BALTSUN - 11/ 14/ 97 BALTSUN 17A 3 "14/ 97 Balt. Sun 17A

Friday, November 14, 1997 NEWS Zedillo champions free trade; Mexican president notes worry about future deals REUTERS

WASHINGTON -- Mexico's President Ernest0 Zedillo expressed Latin America's disappointment yesterday over the Clinton administration's failure to get special negotiating authority to extend free trade in the hemisphere.

At the start of a 36- hour visit to Washington, Zedillo told businessmen that the North American Free Trade Agreement has been a great success in expanding commerce, employment and investment in

Canada, Mexico and the United States. Mexican- U. S. trade has doubled since NAFTA was created in 1994 to $165 billion this year, the Mexican leader said.

Zedillo said Latin America had had "tremendous expectations" over free trade. President Clinton failed to gain Congress's approval of the so- called fast- track authority needed to keep his ! promise to build a free- trade area by 2005.

Zedillo was to dine privately with Clinton at the White House yesterday and return today for a session with Cabinet officials on drug trafficking, law enforcement, migration, trade and environmental issues.

U. S. and Mexican officials signed agreements to expand the extradition treaty between the two countries. and to demarcate their maritime borders to allow exploration of potentially vast oil r. eserves in the Gulf of Mexico.

But they only provided a progress report on talks to devise a joint strategy to combat the flow of narcotics into the United States from Mexico -- the most critical issue between the two countries.

Today, Zedillo and Clinton will attend the signing of an agreement to combat trafficking in illegal firearms, explosives and ammunition, an initiative proposed by Mexico.

Pub Date: 11/ 13/ 97 ---- INDEX REFERENCES ---- STORY ORIGIN: WASHINGTON EP" ION: FINAL

Count: 248 ;1,14/ 97 BALTSUN 17A ZND OF DOCUMENT

1782 C-- v. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

Page 2

1783 Tab 20

1784

1785

Page I ation 15/ 97 WASHPOST A06 11/ 15/ 97 Wash. Post A06 1997 WL 14713125

Search Result Rank 1 of 1 Database WP

Saturday, November 15, 1997 A Section

Democratic Donor Chung Invokes 5th Amendment; House Members Informally Interview Businessman

Edward Walsh Washington Post Staff Writer

Democratic contributor Johnny Chung invoked the Fifth Amendment against self- incrimination before members of a House committee yesterday, but then provided some information, not under oath, about his role as a major financial backer of President Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.

Chung spent about three hours yesterday morning with members

’ investigators of the House Government Reform and Oversight Lbtiunittee and continued the session after the committee held a public hearing on campaign financing improprieties during the 1996 election cycle.

"We did get some information we think will be helpful down the line," Chairman Dan Burton (R- Ind.) said of the informal interview with Chung. "We will pursue those leads."

But Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), the committee's ranking Democrat, said he had heard nothing to change his view that Chung was simply a political "hustler" who hoped to exploit his purchased access to the White House to advance his private business interests. Waxman said Chung earlier had submitted to similar informal interview sessions with investigators from the Justice. Department and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. Chung was not called to testify before the Senate committee.

Chung, a California businessman, gave $366,000 to the DNC before the 1996 election. All of his contributions have been returned, including a $50,000 check that he handed to Hillary Rodham Clinton's chief of staff during one of his many visits to the White House complex in 1995. Two days after making that donation, Chung, with the b- lp of DNC officials, escorted six Chinese businessmen to the White

se to watch the president deliver his weekly radio address. Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1786

Page 2 11/ 15/ 97 WASHPOST A06

>n Thursday, Nancy Hernreich, Clinton's appointments and scheduling aide, told the committee Clinton had expressed displeasure about the presence of the Chinese businessmen at the radio address. A month later, White House aides asked the National Security Council if they should give Chung photos from the visit showing Clinton with the businessmen.

Former NSC aide Brooke Darby testified that, based on information from Robert L. Suettinger, then the NSC's China expert, she recommended against giving Chung the pictures.

In what is now a well- known description of Chung, Suettinger told Darby release of the pictures would do no "lasting damage to U. S. foreign policy" but warned that Chung was a "hustler" who was trying to advance his business and would become "a royal pain" to White House officials.

Suettinger told the panel yesterday that he knew of or was able to verify that all but one of the Chinese visitors were officials of legitimate Chinese enterprises. The exception was James Y. Sun, described by Chung as a "young entrepreneur and self- made millionaire."

There are relatively few self- made millionaires in the t, gle's Republic of China," Suettinger said in deadpan fashion.

TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH IN THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE CAPTION: House panel Chairman Dan Burton, left, escorts Democratic donor Johnny Chung down Rayburn Building hall, where they faced throng of- photographers.

---- INDEX REFERENCES ---- .KEY WORDS: NATIONAL EDITION: FINAL Word Count: 450 11/ 15/ 97 WASHPOST A06 END OF DOCUMENT

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1787

Tab 21

1788

Uniti States IDMrict Court

~DISTRICTOF-

TO: William Jefferson Clinton

SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY

YOUARECOM~ DEDbappearandtesWybeforetheGrendJuryaftheUnitedStatesDlstridCourt at the place, date, and time spsdfkd below.

PLACE I aNRlRooM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT GRANDJURY ROOM

401 Courthouse Square Alexpndria, Virginia 22314 I DAlEANDnME

Jammy 27,1998 9soAlK

YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you ths following d oamlsnt( s) or object( s):*

See attached rider.

opluraa -hbmdnalnm

Thii subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf I DAIE

NORMAN~ YER, JR., CLERKOFTEECOURT

(eY1 January20,1998 (VOO2)

Thb8lbpoemislssuedonrpplicstion

OfthOlJMJdStatssOfAmerlca Kelmttb w. Starr OFFIc! EOFTBEINDEPENDENTCOuNsEL Office of the Independent Counsel KENNETEW. STARR 1001 Pemsyltia Avc, NW, suite 4! Bo- N

Wuhiagton, D. C. 20004 (202) 514- 8688

1790

Subpoena # VOO2 To: William Jefferson Clinton

A. Produce all documents and things referring or relating to Monica Lewinsky. These documents and things should include, but not be limited to, the following:

any and all gifts, presents, or things to or from Monici. Lewinsky (directly or indirectly) including, but not limited to, any tie, mug, paperweight, b& ok, or other article;

2. any and all cards, letters, notes, or other correspondence to or from Monica Lewinsky;

3. any and messages or other Lewinsky;

all photographs, videotapes, audiotapes, voice recording of or relating or referring to Monica

4. any and all documents and things containing the _ - . _ handwriting, signature, or other mark of Monica Lewinsky; and B. Any and all affidavits, depositions, pleadings, memoranda, notes, and other statements, including drafts, referring or relating to Monica Lewinsky or Linda Tripp.

C. Produce any and all diaries, journals, address books, and Rolodexes from January 1, 1995.

D. Produce any and all calendars or daytimers from January 1995. 1,

E. Produce any and all documents referring or relating to Monica Lewinsky's employment or her seeking employment since January 20, 1993. These documents should include, but not be limited to, resumes, correspondence, travel records, telephone records and message slips, applications, evaluations, letters of recommendation, and references.

F. Produce any and all documents referring or relating to McAndrews & Forbes or Revlon, Inc. and their employees, agents, or representatives, including, but not limited to, Vernon Jordan, Ron Perelman, Howard Gittes,- and Barry Schwartz.

G. Produce any and all answers to interrogatories, admission, affidavits, declarations, and depositions Jefferson Clinton in Jones v. Clinton .

: - l-

requests for of William

1791

a. The term ndocumentn or "documents" as used in this subpoena means all records of any nature whatsoever within your possession, custody or control or the possession, custody or control of any agent, employee, representative (including, without limitation, attorneys, investment advisors, investment bankers, bankers and accountants), or other person acting or purporting to act for or on your behalf or in concert with you, including, but not Jimited to, draft, pending or executed contracts and/ or agreements, sample documents, insurance policies, financial guarantee bonds, letters of credit, communications, correspondence, calendars, daytimers, datebooks, telegrams, facsimiles, telexs, telefaxes, electronic mail, memoranda, records, reports, books, files (computer or paper), summaries or records of personal conversations, meetings or interviews, logs, summaries or records of telephone conversations and/ or telefax communications, diaries, forecasts, statistical statements, financial statements (draft or finished), work papers, drafts, copies, bills, records of payments for bills, retainer records, attorney time sheets, telephone bills and records, telefax bills and records, tax returns and return information, employee time sheets, graphs, charts, accounts, analytical records, minutes or records of meetings or conferences, consultants' reports and/ or records, appraisals, records, reports or summaries of negotiations, brochures, pamphlets, circulars, maps, plats, trade letters, depositions, statements, interrogatories and answers thereto, pleadings, docket sheets, discovery materials, audit letters, audit reports, materials underlying audits, document productions, transcripts, exhibits, settlement materials, judgments, press releases, notes, marginal notations, invoices, documents regarding collateral or security pledged, settlement statements, checks disbursed or received at settlement, inspection reports, title policies, financial statements and/ or federal tax returns submitted by any person in support of any loan application, items related the repayment, if any, of any interest or principal on the loan, items relating to any default on the loan, commission records, evidence of liens, documents relating to filings under the Uniform Commercial Code and/ or its equivalent, foreclosure and mortgage documentation, cashiers checks, bank drafts, money orders, bank and brokerage account statements, debit and credit memoranda, wire transfer documentation, opening account cards, signature cards, loan applications, any employment and bank account deposit verification documents, loan histories, loan files, records of loan repayment or any and all efforts to secure repayment, including foreclosure or records of lawsuits, credit references, board resolutions, minutes of meetings of boards of directors, opinion letters, purchases and sales agreements, real

-2-

1792

estate contracts, brokerage agreements, escrow agreements, loan agreements, offer and acceptance contracts, or any other contracts or agreements, deeds or other evidence of title, escrow accounts and any other escrow documentation, savings account transcripts, savings account deposit slips, savings account withdrawal slips, checks deposited in savings accounts, checking account statements, canceled checks drawn on checking accounts, deposit slips and checks deposited into checking accounts, credit card accounts, debit and credit documentation, safe deposit records, currency transaction reports (IRS Forms 47891, photographs, brochures, lists, journals, advertising, computer tapes and cards, audio and video tapes, computerized records stored in the form of magnetic or electronic coding on computer media or on media capable of being read by computer or with the aid of computer related equipment, including but not limited to floppy disks or diskettes, disks, diskettes, disk packs, fixed hard drives, removable hard disk cartridges, mainframe computers, Bernoulli boxes, optical disks, WORM disks, magneto/ optical disks, floptical disks, magnetic tape, tapes, laser disks, video cassettes, CD- ROMs and any other media capable of storing magnetic coding, microfilm, microfiche and other storage devices, voicemail recordings and all other written, printed or recorded or photographic matter or sound reproductions, however produced

or reproducdd. The term "document" or "documents" also includes any earlier, preliminary, preparatory or tentative version of all or

part of a document, whether or not such draft was superseded by a later draft and whether or not the terms of the draft are the same as or different from the terms of the final document.

b. The term excommunications or "communicationsW is used herein in its broadest sense to encompass any transmission

or exchange of information, ideas, facts, data, proposals, or any other matter, whether between individuals or between or among the members of a group, whether face- to- face, by telephone or by means of electronic or other medium.

C. NPossession, custody or control" means in your physical possession and/ or if you have the right to secure or compile the production of the document or a copy from another person or entity having physical possession, including, but not limited to, your counsel.

d. The term "referring or relating" to any given subject means anything that constitutes, contains, embodies, reflects, identifies, states, refers to, deals with, or is in any manner whatsoever pertinent to that subject including, but not limited to, documents concerning the preparation of other documents.

-3-

1793

e. The term “you” means yourself, any person or agent acting on your behalf or at your suggestion or direction, and any of your companies, partnerships and business entities with which you have been affiliated and any employees, partners, associates or members of any firm with which you have been affiliated.

2. a. The originals. of all documents and communications must be produced, as well as copies within your possession, custody, or control.

b. If any original document cannot be produced in full, produce such document to the extent possible and indicate specifically the reason for your inability to produce the remainder.

C. Documents shall be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business, as organized in the files.

d. File folders, labels, and indices identifying documents called for shall be produced intact with such documents. Documents attached to each other should not be separated.

e. In reading this rider, the plural shall include the singular and the singular shall include the plural.

f. The words "and" and "or" shall be construed conjunctively or disjunctively as necessary to make the request inclusive rather than exclusive. The use of the word "including" shall be construed without limitation.

g- In the event that any document, or portion thereof, called for by this subpoena is withheld on the basis of any claim of privilege or similar claim, that document shall be identified in writing as follows: (a) author; (b) the position or title of the author; (c) addressee; (d) the position or title of the addressee; (e) any indicated or blind copies; If) date; (g) a description of the subject matter of the document; (h) number of pages; (i) attachments or appendices; (j) all persons to whom the document, its contents, or any portion thereof, has been disclosed, distributed, shown, or explained; and (k) present custodian. Each basis you contend justifies the withholding of the document shall also be specified. With respect to those documents or records as to which you may claim privilege, or attorneys' work product, set forth as to each such document the basis for such claim, including the purpose and circumstances surrounding the creation of the document, the identity of each person who has been privy to such communication reflected in the document, the identity of any person or entity instructing the

-4-

1794

subpoena recipient or the attorney of the subpoena recipient to withhold production of the document, and whether you will submit the document to the Court for an in camera determination as to the validity of the claim. If the existence of a joint defense agreement or any agreement as to common interest is relevant to the assertion of any claim of privilege or similar claim, please provide a copy of that agreement; if any such agreement is not in writing, please set forth the date of the creation of the agreement, the identities of all parties to the agreement and the specific individuals who entered into the agreement on behalf of those parties, and the objects, purposes, and scope of the agreement.

h. In the event that any document called for by this subpoena has been lost, destroyed, deleted, altered, or otherwise disposed of, that document shall be identified in writing as follows: (a) author; (b) the position or title of the author; (c) addressee; (d) the position or title of the addressee; (e) :

indicated or blind copies; (f) date; (g) a brief description of the subject matter of the document; (h) number of pages; (i) attachments or appendices; Cj) all persons to whom the document, its contents, or any portion thereof, had been disclosed, distributed, shown or explained; (k) the date of the loss, destruction, deletion, alteration, or disposal and the circumstances thereof; and (1) the reasons,. if any, for- the loss, destruction, deletion, alteration, or disposal and the person or persons responsible.

i. If any information or data is withheld because such information or data is stored electronically, it is to be identified by the subject matter of the information or data and the place or places where such information is maintained.

-5-

1795

Offke of the Independent Counsel 1001 Penntyhmia Rvenwe, N. W.

Suite 490- North Washington. DC 20004 (202) 514- 8688 Fm (202) 514- 8802

January 21, 1998 David E. Kendall, Esq. Williams C Connelly 725 Twelfth Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20005

Re: William Jefferson Clinton Jurv Subppeaa # VOO2

Dear David: Pursuant to our telephone conversation this afternoon, enclosed please grand jury subpoena number VO02. Also enclosed please find a copy of the Special Division's jurisdictional Order and its Order authorizing limited disclosure. Both Orders are under seal.

Thank you for accepting service on behalf of your client.

Sincerely, Robert J. Bittman Deputy Independent Counsel

Enclosures

1796

******** 8* t8** t****** *** TX REPORT *** ** 8**~************ t**

TRANSYISSION OK

TX/ RX NO

CONNECTION TEL SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PCS. RESULT

1025

B4545792

01121 17: 15 06'52

11 OK 01/ 21/ 66 WED 17: 21 FAX @l00J

oFFxclzoFTHEINDEPENDNTcouNsEL

suite 49cMuorth 1001 Iknnsyld A*., N. W.

Wash& ton. DC. 2ONM tel (zoz) 514- 8688 fax (202) 514- 8802

fax transmittal

to: David E. Kendall, Esq.

fax #: 4344792 from: Robert J. Bittman

date: January 21, 1998

E: President William Jefferson Clinton

pages: 1 10, including this cover sheet I

1797

Tab 22

1798

Pa Citation l/ 21/ 98 WASHPOST A01 l/ 21/ 98 Wash. Post A01 1998 WL 2463182

1799

Search Result Rank 1 of 1 Dat WP

Wednesday, January 21, 1998 A Section

ClintoaAccu8ad of UrgingAidoto Lie; Starr Probes Whether President To Woman to Deny Alleged Affair to Jones's Lawyers

Susan Schmidt, Peter Baker and Toni Lacy Washington Post Staff Writers

Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr has expanded his investigation of President Clinton to examine whether Clinton and his close friend Vernon E. Jordan Jr. encouraged a 24- year- old former White House intern to lie to lawyers for Paula Jones about whether the intern had an affair with the president, sources close to the investigation said yesterday.

A three- judge appeals court panel on Friday authorized Starr to examine allegations of suborning perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice involving the president, the sources said. A Justice Department official confirmed that Attorney General Janet Reno had forwarded Starr's request to the panel that oversees independent counsels after Starr had asked her for "expeditious" consideration of his request.

The expansion of the investigation was prompted by information brought to Starr within the past few weeks by a former White House aide who surreptitiously made tape recordings of conversations she had with the former White House intern describing a relationship with Clinton.

The former intern, Monica Lewinsky, began work in the White House in 1995 at age 21 and later moved to a political job at the Pentagon, where she worked with Linda R. Tripp, who had moved there from an administrative job at the White House.

Sources said Tripp provided Starr with audiotapes of more. than 10 conversations she had with Lewinsky over recent months in which Lewinsky graphically recounted details of a year- and- a- half- long affair she said she had with Clinton. In some of the conversations -- including one in recent days -- Lewinsky described Clinton and Jordan directing her to testify falsely in the Paula, Jones sexual harassment case against the president, according to sources.

Copr. 8 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1800

l/ 21/ 98 WASHPOST A01 Lewinsky gave an affidavit in connection with the Jones case Jan. 7 and sources who have seen the sworn statement said she denied having an affair with Clinton. She is scheduled to be deposed by Jones's lawyers Friday. In his own deposition in the Jones case Saturday, Clinton was asked about Lewinsky and denied under oath having a sexual relationship with her, according to a source familiar with the testimony.

White House officials said they were unaware of the expansion of Starr's investigation and referred calls to Robert S. Bennett, the president's lawyer in the Jones case.

"The president adamantly denies he ever had a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and she has confirmed the truth of that," Bennett said. "This story seems ridiculous and I frankly smell a rat."

Neither Bennett nor White House officials would comment on whether the president had conversations with Lewinsky about her testimony. Efforts to reach both Lewinsky and Tripp this week were

unsuccessful. William Ginsburg, an attorney for Lewinsky, confirmed that Starr is investigating his client's involvement with Clinton. and said he has talked with Starr's staff. He would not discuss the substance of the case but portrayed his client as an innocent young victim of the political system. He would not comment on whether Lewinsky had a sexual relationship with Clinton.

"If the president of the United'States did this -- and I'm not saying that he did -- with this young lady, I think he's a misogynist," he said. "If he didn't, then I think Ken Starr and his crew have ravaged the life of a youngster."

He added that a young person like Lewinsky can be devastated "if you're not terribly sophisticated and you're misled by the people at the center 'of the political system, and that includes the president and his staff and the special prosecutor."

William Hundley, who represents Jordan; said he was unaware of the investigation and declined to discuss it. "It's all news to me,": he said. "I'm not disputing what you're telling me, but at this time I'm certainly not going to comment and I can assure you that Mr. Jordan would not comment. . . . You can rest assured that we're going to cooperate with the authorities."

On the tape recordings made by Tripp, sources said, Lewinsky described her sexual relationship with Clinton and said the president advised her not to worry about the Jones case because Jones's lawyers would not find out about the relationship. Lewinsky said that when she

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1801

l/ 21/ 98 WASHPOST A01 was notified by Jones's lawyers in mid- December that they wanted her testimony, she called the president and. he advised her to deny the affair, the sources said.

She said that Clinton then told Lewin'sky that Jordan would help figure out what to say, the sources said.

Jordan, a prominent Washington lawyer and civil rights figure, has been a regular Clinton golfing partner and among the president's closest advisers outside the White House.

He has come to Starr's attention before for helping another Clinton friend, former associate attorney general Webster L. Hubbell, line up lucrative consulting fees while Hubbell was under investigation for fraud and tax evasion. Starr wants to determine whether any of that money was intended to encourage Hubbell's silence about Whitewater matters.

While Starr's original mandate was to look at the complicated Whitewater real estate deal, it has been expanded several times by the court over the years to cover other incidents involving the president, including the firing of White House travel office employees and the improper collection of FBI background files on former Republican White House officials.

It was unclear last night how the new Starr inquiry might affect the Jones case, which has been moving toward a public trial scheduled for May.

In her suit, Jones alleged that Clinton crudely asked her for sex in a Little Rock hotel suite in 1991 while she was a state worker and he was governor. For several months, Jones's lawyers have been searching for women who could testify about experiences with Clinton that might prove a pattern of behavior.

Their research has led them to several women who have testified about sexual encounters with Clinton and ultimately to Lewinsky. In a deposition Saturday, Clinton was asked by Jones's lawyers about a number of women with whom he has been linked, according to a source.

The affidavit Lewinsky gave is sealed in federal court in Little Rock. In it, she is named only as a "Jane Doe" and says she should not have to testify in the Jones case because she had- no relevant information, according to a source familiar with the document. Clinton,

Lewinsky said she never had a sexual relationship with that he never asked for one and that she never benefited or suffered on the job as a result of any sexual overtures, said. the source

Copr. 6 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1802

l/ 21/ 98 WASHPOST A01 Pa

James Moody, a lawyer for Tripp, said last night that "Linda has been subpoenaed for the Paula Jones case and beyond that I cannot comment."

Tripp formerly worked in an administrative position in the Bush White House and then in the White House counsel's office during the first years of the Clinton administration. She joined the Pentagon press office in August 1994.

Last summer, Tripp was quoted in. a Newsweek story about seeing a woman emerge from the Oval Office after she allegedly had a romantic encounter with Clinton. Tripp said Kathleen Willey, another White House aide, appeared in the hallway with her makeup smeared and clothing askew, Tripp said, and told Tripp she had just had an encounter with Clinton.

Willey was subpoenaed by Jones's lawyers and tried to resist testifying but ultimately was forced to tell her story under oath earlier this month. According to a source familiar with her account, she said she went to Clinton seeking a better job and he grabbed her, started kissing and groping her and said, "I've always wanted to do that."

Bennett, Clinton's lawyer, has denied that Clinton engaged in any improper behavior. After the Newsweek story ran, Bennett publicly questioned Tripp's credibility. Some time after that, Tripp began recording her conversations with Lewinsky, who coincidentally was working in the same Pentagon press office.

Lewinsky started at the White House as an unpaid intern in the office of then- Chief of Staff Leon E. Panetta in the summer of 1995 and impressed colleagues there with her dedication, according to a source familiar with her job history. During the government shutdowns several months later, she volunteered to come into work and manned phones left unattended, according to the source. earning gratitude among White House officials,

Lewinsky was hired in December 1995 as a staff assistant in the Office of Legislative Affairs, where she worked in the correspondence section opening and handling letters from members of Congress. At times, according to the source, she would be responsible for delivering correspondence to the Oval Office, usually leaving it with the president's confidential assistants, Nancy Hernreich or .Betty Currie, and she sometimes ran into Clinton during these duties.

"She's like 10,000 other kids who come to the White House," said a colleague. him. . . .

"They're all star- struck and they all want to see that." Did I notice that? Yeah. But I didn't see anything beyond

She left the Pentagon several months ago to move to New York, Copr. Q West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1803

Pa l/ 21/ 98 WASHPdST A01

associates said. A Justice Department official said there was no question about approving Starr's request.

"Starr made it clear that he needed this," the Justice source said. "We did not want to look like we were slowing down the process." As a result, Reno made her decision "right away."

The source said that Justice officials were shocked by the allegations. "It was really a situation where people were floored," the source said.

Staff writer Dana Priest contributed to this report. TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH IN THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE CAPTION: KENNETH W. STARR

---- INDEX REFERENCES ---- KEY WORDS: NATIONAL EDITION: FINAL Word Count: 1571 l/ 21/ 98 WASHPOST A01 END OF DOCUMENT

Copr. ' 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1804

1805

Tab 23

1806

1807

INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON BY JIM LEHRER TO BE AIRED WEDNESDAY NIGHT ON “THE NEWS HOUR WITH JIM LEHRER” ON PBS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21,1998

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, welcome. PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you, Jim. MR. LEHRER: The news of this day is that Kenneth Starr, independent counsel, is investigating allegations that you suborned petjury by encouraging a 24- year- old woman, former White House intern, to lie under oath in a civil deposition about her having had an affair with you. Mr. President, is that true?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: That is not true. That is not true. I did not ask anyone to tell anything other than the truth. There is no improper relationship. And I intend to cooperate with this inquiry. But that is not true.

MR. LEHRER: “No improper relationship” - define what you mean by that.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I think you know what it means. It means that there is not a sexual relationship, an improper sexual relationship. or any other kind of improper relationship.

MR. LEHRER: You had no sexual relationship with this young woman?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: There is not a sexual relationship; that is accurate. The -- we are doing our best to cooperate here, but we don’t know much yet. And that’s all I can say now. What I’m trying to do is to contain my natural impulses and get back to work. I think it’s important that we cooperate, I will cooperate. but I want to focus on the work at hand.

MR. LEHRER: Just for the record, to make sure I understand what your answer means, so there’s no ambiguity about it -

PRESIDENT CLINTON: There is no - MR. LEHRER: All right. You had no conversations with this young

1808

woman, Monica Lewinsky, about her testimony or possible testimony before -- in giving a deposition?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I did not urge - I did not urge anyone to say anything that was untrue. I did not urge anyone to say anything that was untrue. That’s my statement to you. And beyond that -

MR. LEHRER Did you talk to her about it? Excuse me, I’m sorry.

PRESIDENT CLlNTON: - I think it’s very important that we let the investigation take its course. The -- the - but I want you to know that that is my clear position. I didn’t ask anyone to go in there and say something that’s not true.

MR. LEHRER: What about your having had - another one of the allegations is that - that you may have asked, or the allegation that’s being investigated is that you asked your fiend Vernon Jordan --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: To do that. MR. LEHRER: -- to do that. PRESIDENT CLINTON: I absolutely did not do that. I can tell you. I did not do that. I was -- I did not do that, he is in -- in no way involved in trying to get anybody to say anything that’s not true at my request. I didn’t do that. Now, I don’t know what else to tell you. I’ve -- I -- I don’t even know -- all I know is what I have read here. But I’m going to cooperate. I didn’t ask anybody not to tell the truth. There is no improper relationship. The allegations I have read are not true. I do not know what the basis of them is, other than just what you know. We’ll just have to wait and see. And I will be vigorous about it, but

I have got to get back to the work of the country.

I was up past midnight with Prime Minister Netanyahu last night. I’ve got Mr. Arafat coming in. We’ve got action all over the world and a State of the Union to do. I’ll do my best to cooperate with this, just as I have through every other issue that’s come up over the last several years, but I have got to get back to work.

MR. .LEHRER: Would you acknowledge, though, Mr. President, this is very serious business, this charge against you that’s been made.

1809

PRESIDENT CLINTON: And I will cooperate in the inquiry of it. MR. LEI- IRER: Mm- hmm. What’s going on? What - what - if it’s not true, that means somebody made this up. Is that - is that - is that-

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Look. You know as much about this as I do right now. We’ll just have to look into it and cooperate, and we’ll see. But meanwhile, I’ve got to go on with the work of the country. I got hired to help the rest of the American people.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. All right, speaking of the work of the country, other news today - the pope is arriving in Cuba almost as we speak-

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good thing. MR. LEHRER: All right. Is the time come, maybe, for the United States to also bury some economic and political hatchets with Cuba?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I think that our previous policy - the one that we’ve had now and the one we’ve had through Republican and Democratic administrations -- of keeping economic pressure on and denying the legitimacy of the Cuban government has been a good policy. I have made it clear from the day I got here that we would be prepared to respond to a substantial effort at a political or economic opening by Cuba. And we have, as you know, a system for communicating with each other. Nothing would please me greater than to see a new openness there that would justify a response on our part, and I would like to work on it. And I think Mr. Castro knows that. I’ve tried to proceed in good faith here.

MR. LEHRER: Have you thought about doing something dramatic? I mean, this is your second term. Getting on an airplane and going down there, or inviting him to come up here, something like that? Just like what the pope is doing?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I’m glad the pope’s going there. I hope that we will have some real progress toward freedom and opening there, and I’ll work on it. But that’s still mostly up to Mr. Castro. I hope -

1810

MR. LEHRER: Why is it up to him? PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, because -- look what the pope is saying. The pope is saying I hope you will release these political prisoners. You know, no American president getting on an airplane and going down there or having him come up here is going to deal with that. I mean the Cuban American community, I know a lot of people think they’ve been too hard on this, but they do have the point that there has been no discernible change in the climate of freedom there. And I hope that the pope’s visit will help to expand freedom, and I hope that, after that, we’ll be able to talk about it a little bit.

MR. LEHRER: The pope, in fact, was interviewed on his plane a while ago by some reporters. And they asked him what message would you give to the American people, and he said - about the embargo. And he said, “Change. To change, to change.” That would be his message to the American people.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, His Holiness is a very great man, and he -- and his position on this is identical to that, as far as I know, of every other European leader. And only time will tell whether they were right or we were.

MR. LEHRER: Explain to Americans who don’t follow the Cuban issue very carefully why Cuba is different, say, than China, a communist country, North Korea, a communist country. Vietnam, we had a war with Vietnam, as we did with Korea and, in some ways, China as well. We have relations with them. Why is Cuba different?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I think Cuba is different in no small measure because of the historic legacy we have with them going back to the early ’60s. I think it’s different because it’s the only communist dictatorship in our hemisphere, a sort of blot on our neighborhood’s commitment to freedom and openness. And a lot of Americans have suffered personal losses of significant magnitude. And I think, as a practical matter, we probably think we can have a greater influence through economic sanctionson Cuba than we can in other places. Now. I have worked over the last five years, in a number of different ways, to explore other alternatives to dealing with this issue, and I wouldn’t shut the door on any other alternative. But I believe that our denial of legitimacy to the government, and our economic pressure, has at least made sure that others didn’t go down

1811

that path, and that now -- I think it’s one of the reasons that every country in this hemisphere is a democracy and a market economy, except for Cuba. And I think a lot of people forget what the impact of our policy toward Cuba, and what that highlighting of the Cuban policies, have done to change the governmental structures in other countries in our neighborhood. So I am hoping - nobody in the world would be happier than me to see a change in Cuba and a change in our policy before I leave ofice. But we have to have both. We just can’t have one without the other.

MR. LEHRER: You don’t see anything happening anytime soon as a result of the pope’s visit?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Oh, no, I am very hopeful. I was very pleased when I heard he was going. I wanted him to go, and I hope it’d be a good thing.

MR. LEHRER: The Middle East; as you said a moment ago, you met with Mr. Netanyahu twice yesterday and (you’re meeting ?) Mr. Arafat tomorrow. First on Netanyahu, what is it exactly you want him to do?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, let’s talk about what he wants. What we want is not nearly as important as what he wants, what the Palestinians want, what the other people in the Middle East want. What we want is a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. What I believe he and his government want is an agreement to go to final- status talks in the peace process under circumstances that they believe maximize their security. I think what the Palestinians want is an agreement that moves them towards self- determination under circumstances that maximize their ability to improve the lives of their people and the reach of their popular government. And we’ve been out there now for a year - I mean another year -- of course, five years since I’ve been president. But since the Hebron withdrawal, we’ve been out there for a year in the Middle East, looking around, listening, talking, and watching the frustrations, seeing the growing difficulties in the Middle East peace process. And we came up with an approach that we thought, in the ballpark, would satisfy both sides’ objectives. We worked with Mr. Netanyahu yesterday exhaustively to try to, you know, narrow the differences. And we didn’t get them all eliminated, but we made some headway. And we’re going to work with Mr. Arafat tomorrow to try to do that. And then we’re going to try to see if there’s some way we can put them together. And I’m very

1812

hopeful, because I think it’s not good for them to keep on (dealing/ dueling ?) with this and not making progress.

MR. LEHRER: Why does it matter that much to an American president that these two men get together and make an agreement?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, first of all, I think it matters in the Middle East, because of our historic ties to Israel and the - the difficulty that it would cause us if there were another war in the region. Secondly, of course, we have major energy interest in the region. It’s -- a big part of our economy recovery is having access to it. The third thing is, we have a lot of friends in the region beyond Israel, and if they all fall out with one another, that’s - that’s bad for America. And of course, then, if - if deprivation among the Palestinians leads to a rise of violence and leads to a rise of more militant Islamic f% ndamentaIism in other countries throughout the region, then that could be a destabilizing fact that could really make things tough, if not for me, then for my successors down the road and for the American people down the road, in the 2 1 st century.

MR. LEHRER: So you believe with those who say only America can make peace in the Middle East?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I believe America is uniquely situated to help to broker a peace in the Middle East. I actually believe only the parties can make peace in the Middle East. I think only Israel and the Palestinians and the -- Syria and Lebanon can join Jordan at that table. That’s what I think. And so I think, in the end, we - we need to be very aggressive in stating what our views are. And we need to fight hard to at least have our position taken seriously. But in the end. you know, they have to live with the consequences of what they do or don’t do -- all of them do. And they’re going to have to make their own peace.

MR. LEHRER: The word around, as I’m sure you know, is that you and Netanyahu really just don’t like each other very much. Is that right?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I don’t think so. It’s certainly not true on my part. But we have -- had differences of opinion on occasion in approach to the peace process. And then there - you know, there’s been a little smattering in the press here, there, and yonder about

1813

those differences and whether they were personal in nature. But for me they’re not personal in nature. I enjoy him very much, I like being with him, I like working with him. We had a difficult, hard day yesterday; you know, we had a long session in the morning, and then he worked with our team, including the vice president, secretary of state, through much of the afternoon. Then, after my dinner last night, I came back and we worked again for a couple of hours. So, it’s hard to do that if you don’t like somebody. I really believe that he is an energetic man, and I think that within the - the limits of his political situation, I believe he’s hoping to be able to make a peace and to get to the point where he and Mr. Arafat can negotiate that. But our job is to see, if you will, from a different perspective the positions of both the Palestinians and the Israelis. You know, we - it’s sort of like standing too close to an Impressionist painting sometime; there’s lots of dots on the canvas, and the people who are standing too close to it, even though they’re painting the canvas, may get lost in the weeds. And then the people that are standing back can see the picture, and it’s a beautiful picture, if it all gets painted. And so that’s what I’m trying to do. I’ve got to -- I have to keep backing the painters back so they can see the whole picture, and then getting to the details and trying to help them ram it home, you know, because the one thing that I worry about is that you just sit there and have the same old conversation over and over again till the cows come home. and it’s easy to do.

MR. LEHRER: Oh, yeah. Yeah. PRESIDENT CLINTON: And so that’s what I’m trying - I’m trying to broker this thing, be a catalyst, get the people together, and give an honest view of what the picture looks like from back here about what the two artists can live with.

MR. LEHRER: Well, some people say that it doesn’t look like to the innocent observer that either one of these guys want to make peace. that you may be talking -- you may be forcing them to do something that deep down in their either political hearts, or otherwise -

PRESIDENT CLINTON: That could be. Yes, that could be. MR. LEHRER: - they just don’t want to do it.

1814

PRESIDENT CLINTON: That could be. And I don’t know what to say about that.

MR. LEHRER: But you’re not going to give up on it? PRESIDENT CLINTON: No. No. You know, if I don’t make any progress, I’ll level with the American people and the rest of the world and tell them I’m doing my best but I’m not making any progress. But, you know, we were hitting it last night till late, and then we’re getting ready now for Mr. Arafat to come, and we’ll hit it hard tomorrow. And that’s all I know to tell you. We’re just going to keep hitting it. MR. LEHRER: On Asia, the Asia financial crisis, what business is it of the United States to save these failing Asian economies?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, first of all, we can’t save the Asian economies if they won’t take primary steps to help themselves, the way Mexico did. You remember, we loaned Mexico some money, and they paid it back early with interest, and we made about $500 million because they took tough steps to restore economic growth, create jobs, raise incomes, and get their financial house in order. That’s the first and most important thing the Asians have to do. But in order to make it, they also need the backup of the International Monetary Fund and a plan designed to deal with the particular problems of each country, and then the U. S. and Japan and Germany and the rest of the Europeans to stand behind that to say, if necessary, we’ll put together a package to really restore confidence. In most of these Asian economies, the problem is the financial system and people can’t pay back their loans, or investors take their loans -- when their loans are repaid, investors take the money and go somewhere else. What’s that got to do with America? Well, every day now in some of our newspapers you can see what’s happening in the Asian stock markets and the Asian currency markets. What happens when a country’s currency drops? When a country’s currency drops, it doesn’t have much money in dollars, and therefore, it can’t buy as many American exports. A big part of America’s economic growth since 1993 has occurred from exports,. a big part of that from exports to Asia. If all their -- the value of all their money goes down, they can’t keep buying our exports, and that hurts us. Also if the value of their money goes down, everything they sell in other places in the world is all of a sudden much cheaper, so they can push us out of those markets.

1815

MR. LEHRER: Cheaper than our stuff. PRESIDENT CLINTON: Correct. So if you want to just look at the plain, brutal, short- term economic interest, that’s the short- term economic interest. If you want to look at the long run, we’ve got an interest in Asia in having stable democracies that are our partners, that work with us to help grow the region and grow with us over the long run, to help shoulder burdens like climate change, cleaning up the environment, dealing with global disease, dealing with weapons of mass destruction, contributing to the efforts in Bosnia, ending the nuclear program in North Korea. All those things we depend on the Asian countries to be a part of. They can only do that if they’re

strong. So we live in a world that’s so interdependent that we need them to be strong if we’re going to be strong.

Q As you know, there are some members of Congress who are saying what this really boils down to is welfare for international bankers, that’s what we’re up to. How do you respond to that? That’s going to get - that seems to be growing, particularly in the last few days.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: It -- that bothers me a lot. First of all, there is some truth to it. That is, if a country like Indonesia gets money from the International Monetary Fund to deal with its financial problems, what are its financial problems? You’ve got to pay notes when they’re coming due. And if somebody made a foolish loan that they should not have made in the first place, that’s an only 9O- day loan on a building that’s going to last for 20 years, for example, you hate to see them get their money back plus a profit at someone else’s expense. On the other hand -- and let me say, we are sensitive to that. Secretary Rubin has done a very good job of trying to get these big banks to roll over their debt.

MR. LEHRER: Take some hits themselves? PRESIDENT CLINTON: Take some hits; at least, ride the roller coaster. They’ll actually to get their interest back --

MR. LEHRER: -- if they hang in there? PRESIDENT CLINTON: -- and the principal if they hang here. But they need to hang in there. They don’t need to just take the money

1816

and run. On the other hand, if you start saying, “Well, everybody is going to get half back of what they put in,” that will actually speed the rate at which people take money out and reduce the rate at which people put money in. You don’t rebuild confidence, and therefore, the collapse is more costly. That’s what bothers me, and - I mean, nobody likes the idea - you know, I don’t think any American likes the idea that, you know, every single banker in one of these countries that made every bad loan will get paid back. And that, in fact, won’t happen. But when you try to pay back most things to stabilize the situation, the reason you’re doing it is not to give the people who made the loans their money back. The reason you’re doing it is to send a signal to the world that business is back up and going, that you have to be more careful now, but you can trust this country now, and you can invest. So I think -- you know, I am convinced we’re doing the right thing for our own economy; I am convinced we’re doing the right thing for our values and our principles, and I hope I can persuade the Congress that we are.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Another subject. Iraq. Bad news today.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Bad news. MR. LEHRER: Apparently, Mr. Butler left. What can you tell us about where that thing stands --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well - MR. LEHRER: - in terms of whether the inspectors are going to be allowed to do what they want to do, et cetera?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: They seem to want to wait until early March to open the --

MR. LEHRER: Iraq does? PRESIDENT CLINTON: -- Iraq -- that - open the sites that Mr. Butler believes that ought to be opened. That’s a problem for us because we believe that we have to do everything we can, as quickly as we can, to check the chemical and

1817

biological weapon stocks. And as I told the American people the last time we had this standoff with Saddam before he relented and let the inspectors go back - you know, my concern is not to refight the Gulf War; my concern is to prepare our people for a new century, not only in positive ways, like creating a big international financial framework that works for them - as we just talked about - but also to make sure we have the tools to protect ourselves against chemical and biological weapons. So I won’t - tonight, I can’t rule out or in any options. But I can tell you I am very concerned about this. And I don’t think the American people should lose sight of the issue. What’s the issue? Weapons of mass destruction. What’s the answer? The U. N. inspectors. What’s the problem? Saddam Hussein can’t say who, where, or when about these inspection teams. That has to be done by the professionals. And sooner or later, something is going to give here, and I am just very much hoping that we can reason with him before that happens, but we’ve got to have those sites open.

MR. LEHRER: Now, Ambassador Richardson with the U. N., and others in the administration, have said the military option -- just to pick up, just to continue your sentence -- the military option remains on the table. The ambassador from Iraq to the U. N. was on our program recently, and he pretty much acknowledged that Iraq is banking on that not being real, that the U. S. alone is not going to go in there and take out -- you know - some suspected anthrax facility, particularly if it’s in a -- in the palace where Saddam Hussein lives, et cetera, et cetera.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, the United States does not relish moving alone, because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. We’d like to be partners with other people. But sometimes we have to be prepared to move alone. You used the anthrax example. Think how many people can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax. And think about how it’s not just a question of whether Saddam Hussein might put them on a scud missile -- an anthrax head -- and send it to some city of people he wanted to destroy, but think about all the terrorists and drug runners and other bad actors that could parade through Baghdad to pick up their stores if we don’t take the strongest possible action. I far prefer the United Nations. I far prefer the inspectors. I have been far from trigger happy on this thing. But if they really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act

1818

alone, they are sadly mistaken. And that is not a threat. I have shown that I do not relish this sort of thing. Every time it’s discussed around here, I say - you know, one of the great luxuries of being the world’s only superpower for a while - and it won’t last forever, probably, but for a while - is that there is always time enough to kill. And therefore, we have a moral responsibility to show restraint and to seek partnerships and alliances, and I’ve done that. But I don’t want to have to explain to my grandchildren why we took a powder on what we think is a very serious biological and chemical weapons program - potentially - by a country that has already used chemical weapons on the Iranians and on the Kurds, their own people.

MR. LEHRER: So you would order an airstrike, or whatever it would take, to take out some facility if you couldn’t get rid of it any other way?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I’m going to stay with my tried and true formulation. I’m -- I’m not ruling out or in any option. I’m just - I was responding to what you said that the -

MR. LEHRER: Sure. PRESIDENT CLINTON: - that the Iraqi official thought we were just talking because we wouldn’t want to discomfit anyone or make them mad. That’s not true. This is a serious thing with me. This is a very serious thing. And you imagine the capacity of these tiny amounts of biological agents to cause great harm. It’s something we need to get after. And I don’t understand why they’re not for getting after it. What can they possibly get out of this? He really cared about his people -- he’s always talking about how bad his people have been hurt by these sanctions. If he really cared about his people, he’d open all these sites. let everybody go in and look at them.

MR. LEHRER: To get it behind him. Yeah. PRESIDENT CLINTON: If he’s telling the truth, there’s nothing there.

1819

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. PRESIDENT CLINTON: And if he’s not, he’d get it - behind it one way or the other. And we could then - he could say, “Okay, what grounds does the United States have now for stopping the ZJ. N. from lifting the sanctions? I have done everything I’ve been asked to do.” And that would be a hard question for us, even though we’ve got reservations now. We’d have a hard time answering that question.

MR. LEHRER: But would you go along with lifting the sanctions now?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Right now -- well, our position is, if he complies with all the United Nations sanctions -- the conditions of all U. N. resolutions leading to sanctions, that - that’s what we want Iraq to do. But what he wants is - is he wants to have it both ways. He wants to get the sanctions lifted, because he thinks people want to do business with him, and he wants to be able to continue to pursue a weapons program that we think presents a danger to the region and maybe to the world and certainly to our own interests and values. So I just want him to think about it again before they wait all this -- two months. I think that’s a mistake. I want them to think about it and let these inspectors go back.

MR. LEHRER: One more foreign policy area, and that’s Bosnia: That just hasn’t worked out the way you had hoped, has it?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, it hasn’t worked out as fast as I’d hoped. but it actually is kind of working out the way I had hoped, in the sense that the Dayton peace agreement is very much alive and well. And we’ve separated the troops and the -- I mean the forces and the people. And we’ve got some relocation going on, and we’ve collected a lot of the bad weapons and destroyed them. And we -- we’re making some progress on the joint institutions and other things. And we’re trying to get that country together. And I must say, I - I was very impressed on my recent trip there by the level of support for the United States and the international community and our presence there, the level of support for our staying there. and the level of commitment of so many people to genuine pursuit of peace. And I think we can make it in Bosnia. I do think -- I’m -- did I think we could all withdraw by now? Yeah. I did. But if you had told me, on the other hand -- that’s the

1820

downside. If you’d told me, on the other hand, “You can go there and stay a couple of years, and there won’t be any gunshots fired, and the only people you’ll lose will be in accidents of one kind or another, and you’ll have an increasing amount of harmony in the urbanized areas that you hadn’t imagined you would get,” and some of the other positive things that have happened, I think we’d all have been very happy about that. So I’m going to stay after this. Again, this may be my congenital optimism, but I believe we’re going to make the Bosnia peace process work.

MR. LEHRER: U. S.~ troops are going to have to be there a long time, aren’t they, Mr. President?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, that depends on how long it takes to achieve the mission. What I do think we should do since it just invites recalcitrance on the part of any parties in Bosnia that don’t want to do something that’s in the Dayton peace agreement, if the Americans say “Well, we’re leaving in a year” and then the Europeans say “We’re going to leave as soon as they do”, then the people who have to make changes say “Well, all I’ve got to do is hang around for a year and I won’t have to make any changes at all.” So I think we should lift the sort of time certain -

MR. LEHRER: No more deadlines. PRESIDENT CLINTON: -- for withdrawal. Yeah. Because it - you know. the world community really hasn’t done’anything like this in a while. Not like this. And it’s very complicated. But on the other hand at bottom it’s about people getting along together and working together and serving together as citizens. And I have been quite impressed by how much has been done.

MR. LEHRER: We’ve been talking now about all these foreign policy things. And 1 was just - if you’d go back through here, only the U. S. can keep peace in Bosnia, only the U. S. can make peace in the Middle East, only the U. S. can stabilize --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Facilitate peace. MR.. LEHRER: Yeah. Facilitate peace.

1821

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Facilitate peace. MR. LEHRER: Okay, facilitate peace. PRESIDENT CLntsTON: They got to make the peace.

MR. LEHRER: Okay. Only the U. S. can help stabilize the economies of Asia. Only the U. S. can stare down Saddam Hussein and Iraq. If there are going to be any coalitions, the U. S. has to organize them and make them work. Is this the role of the United States of America for the immediate future?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, it’s a big part of it. But it also is a part of our role to put together a broad coalition on the climate change treaty to deal with global warming. it’s also our role to pm together global efforts to stiffen our efforts against biological warfare, to put together, you know, a global effort to support the International Monetary Fund and the nations themselves in dealing with the Asian financial crisis. We live in a world that’s interdependent in two or three ways. Number one, what happens in one country affects what happens in another one. We can see that. Number two, what happens on economic issues increasingly have a security impact, and vice versa. You know, I mean, I’ll just give you the most blatant example is there’s all these articles in the paper about all these countries that their currency dropped and, therefore, they can’t buy jet airplanes for their air forces. That’s the most obvious case.

MR. LEHRER: Thailand being an example of that, yeah. PRESIDENT CLINTON: Yeah. And so there’s the economics and the security, there’s the national and the international - there’s all this interdependence. And I just think that in this world, if you happen to be at the moment it’s occurring, that this huge new world of interdependence is occurring, and plus you’ve got all this interdependence at a citizen level with the Internet exploding and the information explosion, we’re going to have all kinds of implications with the scientific explosions going on now, and we just happen to be, at this moment in history, the strongest and the wealthiest country around. It is a unique gift for our people. They’ve worked hard for it, but it’s still a blessing. But it’s also a unique responsibility.

1822

And, you know, looking back over the last five years -- I just celebrated my fifth anniversary here - I think that our administration has had good success in changing the role of govemment and changing the debate about government from - you know, the debate I heard for the 12 years before I got here was the government was the problem versus as a solution. And we sort of come up with, “No, no. Government’s neither. Government% a catalyst. It’s got to give people the tools to solve their own problems. It’s got to be a good partner. It’s got to empower neighborhoods and peopte.” So we’ve got a smaller, more active government, and yet we’ve invested more in education, more in science and technology, more in the environment. And it’s working. We’ve got good results. We’ve not been as successful in convincing people in very practical terms about the interdependence of foreign and domestic policy, of economic and security policy. We just haven’t been, But I’m hoping we can be more successfX

MR. LEHRER: Because the way it would come back to you would be this way, Mr. President. If there’s a problem - like if Asia has an economic problem, we’re the folks that send the most money. You’ve got a problem in Bosnia, Somalia, a military problem, we’re the ones who send the most troops. That’s how it translates in --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Yeah, but if you look at it, if you look at -- there are some areas in the Bosnia peacekeeping operation, like

civilian police, for example, where the Europeans have nine times as many as we do -- we put up more money -- I mean, you look at the different allocations. If you look at what’s going on in the United Nations. if the congressional position -- which is that we ought to have our U. N. dues lowered to 20 percent -- prevails, since a lot of really poor countries pay even less than their fair share of the world’s GNP. we’d actually be getting off light compared to many, many other countries - really light. So it’s just not true that we always pay an unfair share. But it is true that we are called upon to bear the largest burden, If it helps us. 1 think if we ought to do it. And if it’s right and we can do it at an acceptable price, we ought to do it, whether or not we’re sure it helps us. But if you - it’s hard to quarrel with the argument that we‘ ve been hurt by having 220- odd trade agreements in the last five years when- you look at what’s happened, and a third of our growth coming out of trade. It’s hard to quarrel with the argument that we’ve been hurt by our leadership in Bosnia or the Middle East or Northern Ireland or

1823

any of these other places. It’s hard to quarrel with the fact that our efforts to work with other countries to deal with chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, to deal with climate change, to deal with global disease spread, those things are good for Americans right where they live. And we just simply don’t have an option to say, “Well, I’m sorry; it looks bad in the newspaper today, so I think I’ll check out of this old world.” But it looked pretty good there for a couple of years and we were getting a whole lot more than we were getting - (giving ?), so we liked that. We’ve got to be consistent. And we’ve got to realize that there is an interdependence within our country on each other and beyond our country. And I’ve been working on that, and I’m supposed to be a pretty good communicator, but I don’t think I’ve done as well as I need to. I’ve got to do more to persuade people.

MR. LEHRER: On a domestic issue, one that you’ve also been talking about a lot -- recently, in particular, but you’ve always talked about it -- and that’s the racial divisions in this country. Where would you put that in terms of your own concerns and the concerns that you think the average American should have about their counrry right now as we sit here?

.-_ PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I think the average American should be concerned about it particularly as it relates to the racial

disparities and the results we get in living and working and educating in America. I mean, if you look at the number of minorities who are in poor inner city schools where the performance is lower than it should be. if you look at the number of people who either don‘ t have jobs or are still underemployed, no matter how strong the economy is, if you look at the patterns of opportunity wherever there are differences. I think we should be concerned about that. And we don’t have to -- you know, we don‘ t have to have a fight over affumative action every time. We can actually say, you know, how are we going to make it Possible for more people to live together, learn together, and serve together, work together, at the same level of excellence? I think everybody should be concerned about it. I think everybody ought to be concerned about discrimination where it still exists; and it still does. And finally, you know, the vice president gave a brilliant speech on Martin Luther King’s Day, Monday, down in Atlanta, talking about how Profoundly embedded in the human heart and culture and history the feelings of racial prejudice are.

And I think it’s really worth - if we’re going to be an interdependent country Ieading an interdependent worid, then all this interdependence has got to work. And with all of our diversity, we‘ ve got to keep working on our hardest. It’s not just a question of education. You got to reaIiy work at it all the time.

MR. LEHRBR: Why are you having trouble getting some blunt talk started on this?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I don’t know. We finally got some blunt talk going on affirmative action. And there were some pretty compelling stories told in Phoenix the other day. But I would like to see some blunt talk, you know, we -

MR. LEHRER: On affirmative action? PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, we had some blunt talk on affirmative action. I don’t think the whole debate ought to be about affirmative action. I mean, you know, look at what we’ve done, for example, with something that’s supposed to have a civil rights impact that’s Iargely economic -- the Community Reinvestment Act. Passed in 1977, over 20 years ago. Now, the Community Reinvestment Act was set up to say to the bank reguiators: Look, you guys go in and look at these banks and tell them, you got to take some of your money and invest it in inner cities and neighborhoods, and with people who otherwise would not get it so they have a chance to build homes, to build businesses, to create jobs. to build neighborhoods. In the 20- year history of the Community Investment Act, 85 percent- plus the money loaned out under it to poor inner city neighborhoods has been loaned in the five years since I’ve been president.

So I think there are things we can do to improve education, to improve job growth, to -- not just having jobs, but also income and ownership among minorities, to create opportunities for service that will bring people together that will also mean fewer racial discrimination claims that have to be dealt with by government, and also, I think will help to tame the savage heart that still lurks within so many of us.

MR. LEHRER: What should the American people think about their president right now? You’re going into your -- the last three years of your administration, you’ve got all this controversy today, you’ve

1825

got ail kinds of things in the air - PRESIDENT CLINTON: I think they ought to frrst of all think that -- I came to office in - after the ‘92 election with a real theory of what I wanted to do to build America’s bridge to the 2Ist century; that I wanted to strengthen our union, and I wanted to broaden our set of opportunities, I wanted to deepen our freedom, and I wanted to prepare for this modem world. I had an idea about changing the philosophy of government, which I talked about earlier. I had an idea that all of our policies ought to be rooted in my three little words: opportunity, responsibility and community. We had a plan for changing the economic policy of the country, the welfare policy of the country, the crime policy of the country, the policy helping people balance work and family; integrating economic and other kinds of foreign policy - we had all these plans. And I think you’d have IO say, on balance, it’s working pretty good. So the first thing I would hope they say is, the president might be right about his philosophy of government and the values and the principles that we ought to be looking to, and about this whole interdependence business. Because we do have the lowest unemployment rate. the lowest inflation rate in a generation, the lowest crime rate in a generation. the biggest drop in welfare ever, dropping rates of juvenile crime. teen pregnancy, drug use. And we - we’re moving ahead in the world. The second thing I’d like for them to say is, we’ve still got some significant challenges out there before we are completely prepared for this new era. We’ve got the entitlement challenge -- how are our parents going to be on Social Security and how are the baby boomers going to be on Social Security without bankrupting their kids? We’ve got the work and family challenge still there. How -- how can you do the most important work of society, raising children, and still be good at work ? We’ve got the environment and economy challenge out there. How do you deal with climate change and clean air, clean water. safe food. diseases spreading, all this sort of stuff? preserving the environment, growing the economy? Those are just three of the big changes out there. Look at the world. We all -- you know, in America we talk about diversity. and it’s a real positive thing. We say we’re going to get all these people together. In a world where the Internet can also give you information about how to make a terrorist bomb, and there’s more and more diversity among religious and racial and ethnic hatreds, how can you make sure the world is about community, not conflict?

1826

These are huge questions. And I don’t think any serious person befieves we’ve resolved all these questions. So when I look at ‘98, yes, I want to balance the budget. Yes, I’ve got this great child- care initiative, which deals with work and family. I’ve got a Medicare initiative and the Medicare commission, which deals with our -- honoring our obligations to our parents. But we’ve still got a bunch of work to do. So the second thing f want them to say is, “Yes, he was right at the first five years, and were way ahead of where we were five years ago. But we’ve got a huge amount to do yet, a huge amount before we’re really ready for the year 2000 and the 2 1 st century.”

MR. LEHRER: But on a more personal level, Mr. President, you’re beginning - you’re a week from your State of the Union address, and here you’ve got - you’ve been - you’re under investigation for a very, very serious crime and - ahegation of a serious crime. I mean, what does that do to your ability to do all of these things that we’ve been talking about, whether it’s the Middle East or whether it’s child- care reform or what?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I’ve got to do my best. You know, I’d be - I’d be less than candid if I said it was, you know, just hunky- dory. You know, these - but I’ve been living with this sort of thing for a long time. And my experience has been, unfortunately, sometimes, you know, when one charge dies, another one just lifts up to take its place. But I can tell you, whatever I feel about it, I owe it to the American people to put it in a little box and keep working for them. This job is not like other jobs, in that sense. You can’t -- it’s not -- you don’t get to take a vacation from your obligations to the whole country. You just have to, you know, remember why you ran, understand what’s happening and why, and, you know, go back and hit it tomorrow. That’s ah you can do.

MR. LEHRER: But going back to what we said at the beginning when we were talking about it, isn’t this one different than ah the others? This one isn’t about a land deal in Arkansas, or it’s not even about sex. it’s about other things, about a serious matter. Do you - I mean -

PRESiDENT CLINTON: Well, but all the others, a lot of them were about serious matters -

1827

MR. LEHRER: Sure. I don’t mean - PRESIDENT CLINTON: - they just faded away. MR. LEHRER: I’m not suggesting that they weren’t serious. But I mean -

PRESIDE; NT CLINTON: I don’t mean - I just - all I cau tell you

is, I’ll do my best to help them get to the bottom of it. I did not ask anybody to lie under oath I did not do that. That’s the allegation. I didn’t do it. And we’ll just get to the bottom of it, we’ll go on. And meanwhile, I’ve got to keep working at this. 1 can’t just - you know, ignore the fact that every day that passes is one more day that I don’t have to do what I came here to do. And I think the results that America has enjoyed indicates it’s a pretty good argument for doing what I came here to do.

MR. LEHRER: That whatever the personal things may be, the polls show that the people approve of your job as president, even though they may not have that high regard -- that high regard of you as a person.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, hardly anyone has ever been subject to the level of attack I have. You know, it made a lot of people mad when I got elected president. And the better the country does, it seems like the madder some of them get. But that’s -- you know, that’s not important. What’s important here is what happens to the American people. I mean, there are sacrifices to being president, and in some periods of history, the price is higher than others. I’m just doing the best I can for my

COWltry.

MR. LEHRER: We’re sitting here in the Roosevelt Room in the White House. It’s 4: 15 Eastern Time. All of the cable news organizations have been full of this story all day. The newspapers are probably going to be full of it tomorrow. And the news may - this story is going to be there and be there and be there. The Paula Jones trial coming up in May. And you’re going to be -

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I’m looking forward to that. MR. LEHRER: Why?

1828

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Because I believe that the evidence will show what I have been saying; that I did not do what I was accused of doing. It’s very difficult - you know, one of the things that people learn is you can charge people with all kinds of things; it’s almost impossible to prove your innocence. That’s almost impossible to do. I think I’ll be able to do that. We’re working hard at it.

MR. LEHRER: What about the additional element here? You’re the President of the United States. Certainly you’ve got personal things that you want to prove or disprove, et cetera. But when does it, just the process, become demeaning to the presidency? I mean, somebody said - in fact, just said it on our program, that this trial in May will be tabloid nirvana and -

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, 1 tried to spare ihe country that. That’s the only reason that we asked the Supreme Court to affirm that absent some terrible emergency the president shouldn’t be subject to suits so that he wouldn’t become a political target. They made a different decision. And they made a decision that this was good for the country. And so I’m taking it and dealing with it the best I can.

MR. LEHRER: And the new thing? They’re going to be -- you know, pour it on, nothing’s going to change?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I have got to go to work every day. You know, whatever people say about me, whatever happens to me, I can’t say that people didn’t tell me they were going to go after me because they thought 1 represented a new direction in American politics and they thought we could make things better. And I can’t say that they haven’t been as good as their word every day, you know. Just a whole bunch of them are trying to make sure that get done. But I just have to keep working at it. You know, I didn’t come here for money or power or anything else. 1 came here to spend my time, to do my job, and go back to my life. That’s all I want to do - and that’s what I’m trying to do -- for the best interests of America. And so far the results have been good, and I just hope the people keep that in mind.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, thank you very much. PRESIDENT CLlNTON: Thank you.

1829

Tab 24

1830

1831

INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON BY ROBERT SIEGEL AND MAR4 LIASSON BROADCAST ON “ALL THlNGS CONSIDERED” ON NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO 5: 07 P. M. EST WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21,1998

MR. SIEGEL: Mr. President, welcome to the program. Many Americans woke up to the news today that the Whitewater independent counsel is investigating an allegation that you, or you and Vernon Jordan, encouraged a young woman to lie to lawyers in the Paula Jones civil suit. Is there any truth to that allegation?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: No, sir, there’s not. It’s just not true. MR. SIEGEL: Is there any truth to the allegation of an affair between you and the young woman?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: No. That’s not true either. And I have told people that I would cooperate in the investigation, and I expect to cooperate with it. I don’t know any more about it than I’ve told you, and any more about it, really, than you do. But I will cooperate. The charges are not true. And I haven’t asked anybody to lie.

MS. LIASSON: Mr. President, where do you think this comes from? Did you have any kind of relationship with her that could have been misconstrued?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Mara, I’m going to do my best to cooperate with the investigation. I want to know what they want to know from me. I think it’s more important for me to tell the American people that there wasn’t improper relations, I didn’t ask anybody to lie, and I intend to cooperate. And I think that’s all I should say right now so I can get back to the work of the country.

MS. LIASSON: Mm& m. But you’re not able to say whether you had any conversations with her about her testimony, had any conversations at all.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I think, given the state of this investigation, it would be inappropriate for me to say more. I’ve said everything. I think, that I need to say now. I’m going to be cooperative and we’ll work through it.

1832

MR. SIEGEL: But is the fact that in this case, as we understand it, a close friend of this young woman was outfitted with a wire, with a microphone, to record conversations with her at the instruction of the Whitewater counsel, does that disturb you? Do you regard that Mr. Starr is playing the inquisitor here in this case?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, that’s a question the American people will have to ask and answer, and the press will have to ask and answer, the Bar will have to ask and answer; but it‘ s inappropriate for me to comment on it at this time. I just have to cooperate, and I’ll do that.

MR. SIEGEL: And a broader question. I understand that you don’t want to comment on this. There are some commentators - on our network it would be Kevin Phillips - who’ve said that the moral leadership of the presidency justifies the kind of scrutiny that you’re receiving. Do you agree with that?

PRESIDENT CLMTON: Well, I think there has been - there is a lot of scrutiny and there should be, and I think that’s important. I’ll leave it to others to define whether the kind we have received, in volume, nature and accuracy and sometimes downright honesty, is appropriate. That’s for others to determine. You know, I just have a certain number of days here. I came here as not a Washington person. I came here to try to change the country and to work to build the future of America and a new century. And I just have to try to put this in a little box, like I have every other thing that has been said and done, and go on and do my job. That’s what I’m going to work at.

MS. LIASSON: Mr. President, earlier today you said you tried your best to contain your natural impulses and get back to work. Were you furious? Is that what you were referring to?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I was. I was.

MS. LIASSON: And what were you furious about? PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I worked with Prime Minister Netanyahu till 12: 30 last night. I’m getting ready for prime - for Mr. Arafat. I’m working on the State of the Union. And we’ve got a lot of big issues out there in the -- within and beyond our borders. And I don’t think any American questions the fact that I’ve worked very hard at

1833

this job. And anything that’s a distraction, 1 dislike. And - MS, LIASSON: Do you see this as a partisan attack? Is that what you were - PRESIDENT CLINTON: 1 didn’t say that. 1 don’t know what the facts are. 1 don’t know enough to say any more about this. 1 don’t want to get into that. You know at least as much about it as 1 do. 1 worked till 12: 30 last night on something else. 1 have - that’s why 1 have given the answer that 1 have given to your questions today.

MR. SIEGEL: Moving on to the matter you were working on late at night last night, first, it seems the message to Mr. Netanyahu from the U. S. was: We want to see you withdraw from Some part of the West Bank. First, what’s the message to mat, if you could sum it up?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, first of all, let’s talk about what they want. What - 1 think what Israel wants is a peace that moves - a peace process that moves immediately to final status negotiations and has - gives them a stronger sense of security. 1 think what the Palestinians want is a peace process that gives them a stronger sense of self- determination and of possibility and dignity. So what we’ve tried to do is - for 12 months now, ever since the Hebron redeployment, we have been out involved in the region talking to all the players -- l say -- that’s not the royal “we” -- 1 mean me, the secretary of state, Mr. Ross, Mr. Berger, others involved - trying to analyze what it would take to get the peace process back on track. And we formulated some ideas and we talked to the Israeli prime minister about them yesterday. We’re going to talk to Mr. Arafat about them tomorrow. We hope, by the time we finish the talk, that both sides will be closer together than they were before we started. And if they are, then we’ll try to close. But 1 think there may be circumstances under which we could take a real leap forward in the Middle East peace process, if we get a break or two.

MR. SIEGEL: This week? PRESIDENT CLINTON: 1 wouldn’t - no, 1 wouldn’t go that far. It takes - it’s going to take a while to -- we have to work the Palestinians tomorrow. Then we have to analyze where we are with both and whether we can go forward. And we may not make any progress at

1834

all, and if we don’t, I’ll tell you that. MR. SIEGEL: I’d like to ask you, though, after spending so much time with Mr. Netanyahu on this visit and on other visits - some people regard him as a man who always opposed a land- for- peace settlement to the conflict with the Palestinians, certainly wouldn’t have negotiated the Oslo accords, had he been in office then, has never liked them particularly. Some would say he’s really trying to thwart that process and contain the damage, from his standpoint. Do you think so?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: No, I can’t say that, based on what I’ve seen. I do believe he’s made no secret of fact that he has principal differences with the Oslo process, which he has pledged to support. And we all know he has a different political coalition and that indeed the political forces in Israel itself are different than they were even a few years ago, in terms of the composition of the population, the rise of these - the small parties and immigrant- related intense groups and all that. So I think that’s all there. I think that historically there’s been a little bit of difference in the - kind of the texture of the relationship between the Likud Party and the Palestinians, and the Labor Party and the Palestinians. So there are a lot of layers here. But the bottom line is, I think Mr. Netanyahu is an intelligent man who wants to make peace and understands that -- that there has to be some formula where -- that some marginal increase in territorial insecurity by giving up land is more than offset by a dramatic increase in security by a changing of the feelings of the people, the climate. the capacity for growth and opportunity. When -- so we’re just trying to hammer out what each side would have to do to take another step. I’m hopeful.

MS. LIASSON: Mr. President, in Iraq, diplomacy hasn’t worked yet. UNSCOM is still barred from doing its job the way it sees fit, getting into the sites that it wants to inspect. Yet. on the other hand, military action also has downsides. It might upset any progress you’re making with allies on other issues. Do you think the U. S. has any good choices on Iraq?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, there are no easy choices. If we define “good” as easy, the answer is no. But you know, let’s - let’s (do ?) -- what is the problem? The problem is the weapons- of- mass-

1835

destruction program, chemical and biological weapons, primarily. What is the solution? Letting the UNSCOM inspectors go wherever they want, and that means that Saddam Hussein cannot determine when, where and who, when it comes to the UNSCOM teams. So now he says that he is going to determine that, and there’s

not going to be any “when” for a couple of months, during which time he’ll be bree to move whatever he wants wherever he wants. I think that this is a big mistake, and I believe that the United Nations will see it as such in the real thwarting of its position. And we just have to see where we go from here.

MR. SIEGEL: Do you feel that, even with the threat of military action - possible military action - that you have to be able to point to some progress in the Arab- Israeli negotiations in order to maintain the support of the U. S. fiends in the region? Is there some linkage between the problems?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: No, not - I don’t think there is a linkage, a direct linkage. You know, it may affect the atmospherics; just, you know, the attitude about America. But I think it would be wrong to say there’s a direct linkage. The main thing is every country in the region, and throughout the world. has a vested interest in seeing that no one who would either use or sell weapons of mass destruction -- especially chemical and biological weapons, which could be carried around in small amounts and little releases - that no one who would use or sell them has a big program of them, which is why the whole United Nations is against the Iraqi program. Now, they need to think long and hard, these countries that have been a little squeamish about being firm, whether or not it’s possible that they could be the victims of this, if not directly from Iraq. from some group or another that Iraq sells to in the future. So I think we need to be firm, and I am going to do my best to keep rallying support and keep working ahead. I’d prefer the inspections. I’d prefer the diplomatic pressure -- I am not a -- I have not been trigger happy on this. Some here in our country think that we should have acted before. But I don’t think we can rule out any option

MS. LIASSON: Mr. President, moving to domestic policy and the budget surplus; Republicans and Democrats on the Hill have already said what they want to do with it, either cut taxes or pay down the debt. or spend more money on social problems. But so far. you’ve been silent on this. And I’m wondering if you are

1836

ready to make a commitment to using whatever surplus there might be to shoring up the Social Security trust funds, making sure that safety net is there for the Baby Boom generation when it retires.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I’ll make a commitment that in the State of the Union address, I’ll announce what I think should be done.

MS. LIASSON: Well, what do you think should be done? PRESIDENT CLINTON: I have decided, but I don’t what to announce yet. I need to have something to say in the State of the Union that’s new. But let me say, before I say that, I would like to just caution - we’ve had great - we’ve had five great years, and we’ve always done better than we were predicted to do on the deficit. But I think I would still caution the Democratic and Republican leaders of Congress from passing some big five- year program to spend money through spending programs or tax cuts that hasn’t yet materialized. We do not yet have a balanced budget. And I just - we’ve worked so hard for so long to get this done, I’d sure hate to start counting our chickens before they hatch. That’s - so I would like to start with that. And then when I speak at the State of the Union, I’ll say what I think ought to be done.

MR. SIEGEL: Would you like to caution equally against shoring up the Social Security Fund in that case?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, in general, I believe -- you know, my position on Social Security is that we need a bipartisan and fairly rapid process to work through the options and prepare for the long- term health and viability of the Social Security system along with the efforts that are going to made by the Medicare Commission, which I’m very hopeful about. I mean, I think one of the big things I hope to achieve before I leave office is entitlement reform in both major systems. So 1 will -- I’ll tell you, I think that that needs to done, and we’re exploring how best to do that.

MS. LIASSON: Well, we don’t want to let you off the hook too easily. You’re not saying you‘ re against using the surplus to shore up the Social Security Trust Funds?

1837

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I’m not saying one way or the other. I’m saying I’d like to have something to amxounce on State of the Union night.

MR. SIEGEL: Mr. President, on tobacco, there’s talk on Capitol Hill of writing and passing a “kids only” bill as opposed to seeking a huge global settlement. And that would achieve the aims, in theory, of raising the cost of a pack of cigarettes by so much that it would be beyond the reach of teenagers, achieve your major aim and not take companies off the hook for future liability. Are you in favor of such a bill? PRESIDENT CLINTON: Now you’d have a children’s only bill that did what? I’m sorry, I just - you had a lot of points.

MR. SIEGEL: Yes, well, first it would raise the price of a pack of cigarettes simply to deter teenage purchases of cigarettes.

MS. LIASSON: And strengthen the hand of the FDA, do some marketing restrictions, but not be a complete global settlement.

PRESIDENT CLlNTON: Well, I would favor doing something like that without committing to the specifics if we fail to get a global settlement. But I think we owe it to the attorneys general and the others who worked with us on this in good faith to try to achieve one. Because I think long term we need to deter teen smoking with more than just a higher price tag for cigarettes. I think there are lots of other things that can be done, and I think that we ought to have certain benchmarks of performance for the tobacco companies, too,

which in my view will help, because then they’ll be free to do more if they even have to spend a little more money than they’re obligated to under the agreement. If they’re not meeting the targets they may decide they ought to do that to save even more money down the road. so -- Now, I’m going to look for a global settlement in the tobacco case for the benefit of our children. If we fail, then l’ll look at something else.

MS. LIASSON: Mr. Clinton, following up on that, you’ve cautioned Congress not to spend the surplus ‘til they have it, yet you have committed $60 billion of some projected tobacco settlement bill before it’s even passed to new spending. Do you think that’s wise? And if you don’t get a tobacco settlement, are you committed to those

1838

programs? Will you cut elsewhere in order to keep that new spending? PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, Iet me just say this. I will not under any circumstances favor funding anything I have recommended with the surplus, with the projected surplus.

MS. LIASSON: So you’d -- if you don’t get the tobacco settlement you’d fund it elsewhere?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: No, if I don’t get it -- in other words, if we don’t get the tobacco settlement we’ll either have to cut the size of the child care initiative or cut elsewhere or do something else because I will not just on my own get up and propose that we spend the proposed settlement or part of it on these programs. I think they’re terribly important, but right now we’ve got other fish to fiy, and we’ve got to make sure - The most important thing is to keep this economy growing, to keep discipline, to keep strong, to do what makes sense. And that‘ s what‘ s

gotten us here: five hard years of that. And we don’t want to forget that. So, well, we do have new spending in our programs, but it’s new spending within the context of fiscal discipline, it’s new spending with the smallest federal government since Kennedy was president and the size of it continuing to go down.

MR. SIEGEL: Federal prosecutors reportedly rejected a plea bargain agreement not long ago with Theodore Kaczynski, with his lawyers. at least, that might have guaranteed his imprisonment for life. Evidently they want the death penalty. Is it important to you, say. if he’s convicted that there be an exercise of the federal penalty?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, it’s what’s -- if he’s guilty, he killed a lot of people deliberately. And therefore I think it’s something that the jury should be able to consider. From my point of view, I approve of the laws that we have in America now. this sort of two- tiered trial where you determine guilt and then you determine penalty. And I would want to hear all the testimony before I decided how I’d vote in that case. But I do think it’s - should be presented to the penalty phase.

MR. SIEGEL: Even if you had a guilty plea that, as there is no parole in the federal system, guaranteed none, and spared any

1839

possibility of an acquittal, you would still prefer to reject that plea, to offer the jury the option of the death penalty?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I think the jury should have the option. Now, also, you know, as a practical matter, there aren’t many inmates - perhaps he would be one - that actually do get life without

parole. And that’s probably not a terrible thing; that is, in a prison system where you don’t want prison riots, you have to reward people who do, you know, an extraordinarily good job of being good inmates within the prison system. Perhaps the practice of allowing people who have life sentences to be paroled after quite a long period of time is a good one, or at least defensible. But juries know that, too. I think the - you know, it’s just - it’s hard to generalize. But this was a case where, based on what I know, I would consider it appropriate to present that to the jury.

MS. LIASSON: Mr. President, on the Asian financial crisis, a lot of Americans don’t understand why taxpayers should help bail out banks and investors in the U. S. or Japan or in Europe who took a risk and made some mistakes. Don’t they bear some responsibility?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Absolutely. MS. LIASSON: Don’t they have to take some of the hit? PRESIDENT CLINTON: They do bear some of the responsibifity, and they shouldn’t all be bailed out. And that’s one of the most frustrating things about this. On the other hand, what this is about is about rebuilding confidence in the investment climate of these countries. I don’t think they ought to get one red cent unless the governments commit to do things for the future that will mean these banks will have to take a bigger risk and get their act cleaned up, unless their -- the International Monetary Fund plan is implemented, and then the U. S. and Japan and these other countries come in as a backup. But if we refuse on the front end to do anything, the problem is it could hurt us a lot worse than it could hurt the odd banker that doesn’t get his money back, because if a lot of people start not getting any of their money back, then other people say, “Well, I’m going to get my money out,” and then others say, “Well, I’m not going to put my money in.” And then all of a sudden, the value of the currency goes way down. Then what happens? They don’t have any money

1840

to buy American products, and all their products are cheaper competing against ours and other countries’. So we have a big economic interest, as well as a huge interest in a stable, democratic Asia. And that’s why I think we’re doing the right thing. I hope in the State ofthe Union f can persuade the American people that it’s the right thing.

MS. LIASSON: I want to ask you about “Clintonism.” We’ve been hearing a lot about Clinton& m lately - a coherent political p~ losophy that may or may not be identi~ ed with you. Do you think there is such a thing? And what is it?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I do. I think, first of all, it’s a very - it’s a ~~ e~~ en~ d political p~ lo~ phy that attempts to break the logjam between the 1980s and early ’90s debate of the Republican position that govemment is the enemy and the Democratic position is -- sort of government is the solution if we do more of the same, we just need to do more. My position is we need a different kind of gove~ ent for a different kind of society and a different kind of world, and we need to focus more on giving people the tools they need to make the most of their own lives, more on being a catalyst for good ideas, more on empowering the disadvantaged. That’s __ and creating opportunity, enforcing responsibility, building

community. I think that’s what Clintonism is about, and I think it will get us to the 2 1 st century_

MR. SIEGEL: Mr. President, thank you very much for talking with us.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you. 10

1841

Tab 25

1842

1843

PNS Transcript Page 1 of21

) THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON, DC REGULAR BRIEFING; ) BRIEFER: MICHAEL MCCURRY 12: 22 P. M. EST WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1998

TRANSCRIPT BY FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE. 620 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING. WASHINGTON. DC 20045 - FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE IS A PRIVATE FIRM AND IS NOT AFFlLlATED WlTH THE FEMRAL GOVERNMENT - COPYRIGHT 0 1998 BY FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE GROUP. INC.. WASHINGTON. DC 20045 USA. NO PORTION OF THIS TRANSCRIPT MAY BE COPIED. SOLD OR REfRANSMlllED WITHOUT THE WRilTEN AUTHORl? Y OF FEMRAL NEWS SERVlCE GROUP, INC. - COPYRIGKT IS NOT CLAIMED AS TO ANY PART OF THE ORIGINAL WORK PREPARED BY A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AS A PART OF THAT PERSON’S OFFlClAL CUllES. - FOR INFORMATION ON SUBSCRIBING TO THE FNS INTERNET SERVICE. PLEASE EMAIL JACK GRAEME AT INFO@ FNSGCOM OR CALL 202- 824- 0520.

MR. MCCURRY: Well, ladies and gentlemen. We have all these concocted things that we could talk about, but it probably is not what you’re interested in talking about, so whatever you want to talk about.

Q What about the statement? Q Did Bennett see the president? MR. MCCURRY: Not that I’m aware. I think the president spent some time with Mr. Kendall. Mr. Bennett was here and he talked to Mr. Ruff, and Mr. Ruffalso talked to Mr. Kendall.

Q Bob Barnett was here. Was he also on this subject? MR. MCCURRY: I didn’t know he was here. I would have to check on that. Q What is Chuck Ruffs role in all of this? MR. MCCURRY: Well, the Office of White House Legal Counsel has throughout all the many inq& ies that have occurred, including the Whitewater inquiry by Mr. Starr, works, as it has worked in every presidency, to protect the institution of the presidency itself, and there are times there are all kinds of issues that arise in which there are overlapping concerns about representation, and those

have been adjudicated in courts. I think you’re all familiar with that. Terry? Q Mike, you said this morning that the president did not have an improper relationship with his former intern. What do you mean by an improper relationship?

MR. MCCURRY: I’m not going to parse the statement. You all got the statement I made earlier,

and it speaks for itself. Claire? Q Are you saying no relationship? Q But would an improper relationship -- MR. MCCURRY: I am not going to parse the statement. You’ve got the statement I made earlier,

http:// wuw. fnsg. com/ sbin/ showst? F= 7598012101211335.56& Q= 9/ 7/ 98

1844 FNS Transcript Page2of21

and it speaks for itself. Q It doesn’t speak for itself. I mean, we need a definition of what an “improper” relationship means.

MR. MCCURRY: I am not going to -- Q Are you standing by that statement? MR. MCCURRY: That statement is where we are, and that’s what I am -- that’s what I said. Q Does that mean there was a sexual relationship? MR. MCCURRY: Claire, I am just not going to parse this statement for you. It speaks for itself. Q Mike, has -- MR. MCCURRY: Wolf Blitzer! Q -- has the president been informed that Kenneth Starr has now expanded his probe to look into these allegations?

MR. MCCURRY: Not that I am aware of. And I checked with White House legal counsel, and as far as they know, there’s been no direct contact with the OIC on this matter that I am aware of.

Q To what extent will the president cooperate? This is a patsy question, I know. But to what extent will he cooperate --

MR. MCCURRY: A patsy question from Sam Donaldson! Q -- with Starr? MR. MCCURRY: He has cooperated fully with Mr. Starr and would cooperate fully if, in fact, any matter such as this was within the purview of the independent counsel.

Peter? Q He will make -- excuse me -- he make available -- you will make available the White House logs that show the visitors?

MR. MCCURRY: I am not going to speculate on what the OIC might ask for. Peter? Q Mike, could you describe the president’s demeanor when he discussed this story with you and how his demeanor has been through the morning?

MR. MCCURRY: Matter of fact. He approved the statement I gave you earlier today.. And he’s had to work on some other matters today. He spent time on the State of the Union address and on Iraq, particularly on Iraq, and spent a fairly significant chunk of time with Mr. Berger and Mr. Steinberg and others on that subject.

Q Mike -- Q Mike, you said he was -- MR. MCCURRY: Paul?

http:// www. fnsg. comfsbin/ showst? F= 7598012101211335.56& Q= 917f98

ENS Transcript Page 3 of 21

1845

I’ll come back, Scott. Q -- outraged this morning, and now you say matter of fact -- MR. MCCURRY: Paul? I’ll come back, Scott. Paul? Q What kind of relationship did he have with her? Any? MR. MCCURRY: I am not characterizing it beyond what the statement that I’ve already issued Says.

Q Did they ever do anything socially at all or -- MR. MCCURRY: I am not going to parse this statement. I am not going to beyond what I said already.

Scott? Q You said he was outraged this morning. Now you say his reaction is matter of fact. Which is it? MR. MCCURRY: I’ve given you the statement. He’s outraged about the allegations. I am telling you about the business that the president has attended to today on behalf of the American people.

Q How distracted is the president as a result of these allegations? MR. MCCURRY: He’s -- look, it’s been five years, and there have been distractions of various types from time to time, and the president keeps on working on what he has elected to work on. And

that’s what he is going to continue to do. Liz? Q Mike, can you give us a sense of what the White House is like today? Have there been meetings on this? How many of them?

MR. MCCUmj. There’s more of you around. Q Other than that. MR. MCCURRY: There’s been -- you know, we had our first meeting to kind of talk about how we’re going to prepare the rollout of the State of the Union next week. I think, you know, we have to continue to do the work that we are doing on behalf of the American people in fulfillment of the prerogatives and priorities of this president. That’s what we get paid to do, and that’s what we do on behalf of the American people.

Q Mike? MR. MCCURRY: Yeah? Q Is the president seeking to amend any part of his deposition from Saturday? MR. MCCURRY: Not that I am aware of, but that should be a question you’d direct to Mr. Bennett.

http:// www. fnsg. comlsbinlshowst? F= 7598012101211335.56& Q= 917198

1846

FNS Transcript

Yeah?

Q Mike, would it be improper for the president of the United States to have had a sexual relationship with this woman?

MR. MCCURRY: Look, the president has made a statement that has expressed his outrage at allegations. I’ve made it very clear I’m not going to go beyond that statement, and you can stand here

and ask a lot of questions over and over again which will elicit the exact same answer. Q But, Mike, you’re leaving -- you’re willing to leave -- MR. MCCURRY: I’m not leaving any impression, David, and don’t twist my words. It’s very clear what the president has said in the statement. He said he has had no improper relationship with this woman. That clearly means that there would be things that would be improper, and I think you

all know what they are and I don’t need to, you know, parse it any further. Scott? Q Mike, the president is saying he did not commit petjury? MR. MCCURRY: Look, the president has made it clear, and I’ve made it clear in the statement I’ve issued on behalf of what he’s said. He tells people to tell the truth.

Yeah? Q The president, and particularly Mrs. Clinton, have frequently said in matters like this that they believe that political enemies originate these kinds of stories. Is it his belief that this particular allegation is also part and parcel of a partisan, political attack on him?

MR. MCCURRY: I think when we have suggested that in the past, it’s been on information that you know to be true, that has been reported, that is factual. And in this case, we have no information available to suggest what motive may have arisen for these outrageous allegations. I think it’s -- those who have made the allegations, those who pursue them have to address the question of motive.

Karen? Q Mike, does the White House consider this a legitimate avenue of inquiry for Ken Starr? By “this” I mean a further investigation into another --

MLMCCURRY: That’s a question that the OIC has to address, and they’ve made an application to the Justice Department, and the Justice Department can properly address that.

Helen? Q Who is Linda Tripp? MR. MCCURRY: I do not know. I mean, I don’t know enough about -- Q And how long did she work here? MR. MCCURRY: I don’t have employment records on either her or the other one. Q Why would she -- why would she -- (inaudible)? &4R. MCCURRY: I’m the last person on the face of the earth that can answer that question for you. But you should properly direct that question to the Office of the Independent Counsel, I would

http:// www. fhsg. comlsbin/ showst? F= 7598012 101211335.56& Q= 9/ 7/ 98

FNS Transcript

1847

Page 5 of 21

think.

Q Mike? MR. MCCURRY: Yeah? Q Just for the record, the president is also saying he never encouraged anyone to commit perjury? MR. MCCURRY: The president’s statement speaks for itself. I’m not going to go beyond the statement that we’ve already issued.

John? Q Mike, has the president, so far, or does he plan to speak with his own staff7 I’ve talked to several people here at the White House today who have had their own confidence shaken just because of the nature of these allegations and the less than sort of blanket denial of them.

MR. MCCURRY: He’s been working with his staff and I think, as you all know, he’s got an opportunity to conduct some interviews later today. And my guess is that information will - that question would probably come up.

Q Would you be able to say that you are absolutely confident these are not true? How about you personally?

MR. MCCURRY: Look, I -- my person views don’t count. I’m here to represent the thinking, the actions, the decisions of the president. That’s what I get paid to do.

Yeah? Q Mike, part of what you get paid to do also is to make sure that the American people are informed correctly of what it is the White House is trying to say. So if --

MR. MCCURRY: I’m doing my best at that at the moment. Q And that’s why I’m asking you. Are you trying to leave us with the impression that a president could have a “proper” sexual relationship with this woman?

MR. MCCURRY: Of course not, David. And that’s -- the question flies in the face of the statement you’ve gotten from the president that I think addresses that pretty clearly.

Yeah, Deborah? Q Mike, I think what’s puzzling us is that the president, we are told, on Saturday denied any sexual relationship with this woman.

You have said -- @lR. MCCURRY: Well -- Q Let me just finish the question, and then -- MR. MCCURRY: I can’t -- Q Mike, let me finish the question -- MR. MCCURRY: I cad speak to the deposition that the president gave, because of the gag order that the court has in place on that deposition, Deborah. So you know I can’t even get into the

http:// www. fhsg. com/ sbin/ showst? F= 7.598012101211335.56& Q= 917198

1848

FNS Transcript Page6of21 question.

Q Let me finish the question. What is puzzling to many of us is that we’ve invited you probably two dozen times today to say there was no sexual relationship with this woman, and you have not done so.

MR. MCCURRY: But the president has said he’s never had any improper relationship with this woman. I think that speaks for itself.

(Cross talk.) Q So there were no sexual relationships - Q Add the word “sexual.” Put the word “sexual” in. That’s the problem. MR. MCCURRY: I didn’t write the statement. Wolf -- Q Who wrote the statement, Mike? MR. MCCURRY: It was prepared by the counsel’s office, and I reviewed it with the president, to make sure that it reflected what he wanted me to say.

Q Why wouldn’t the counsel put in the word “sexual”? MR. MCCURRY: Because -- I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer. Yeah? Q The president didn’t write the statement; it was written by his lawyers. But you showed it to the president. What did the president say about it?

MR. MCCURRY: Oh, well, it was developed in consultations between the lawyers and the president clearly, Scott.

Wolf? (Cross talk.) Q And when you showed it to the president -- MR. MCCURRY: I’ll come back, Scott. Wolf? Q Monica Lewinsky’s lawyer says she’s distraught, she’s been very upset about all of this. Does the president have anything to say to Monica Lewinsky? That she’s been dragged into what is obviously a very unpleasant affair?

MR. MCCURRY: I have not discussed that with him, but I’m -- you know, the president always, when any member of this staff is distraught over any circumstances, is very compassionate. He’s a very compassionate person.

Yeah? Q Have you asked the president whether he knows Monica? &lR. MCCUFUZY: I’ve not questioned him directly on this matter and don’t intend to.

http:// www. fnsg. comlsbin/ showst? F= 7598012101211335.56& Q= 917198

PNS Transcript Page 7 of 21

1849

Yeah?

Q Mike, do you know if anybody from the White House has done anything to get in contact with Monica Lewinsky?

MR. MCCURRY: I don’t have any information on that. Mr. Donvan? Q Mike, how in the world could the president be matter- of- fact about anything he’s doing today when this is blowing up around him?

MR. MCCURRY: He‘ s matter- of- fact about, you know, getting the business done of addressing this question, given the outrageousness he feels about the allegation.

Yes, sir? Q Would the White House be willing to make public the logs of the comings and goings of Monica Lewinsky --

MR. MCCURRY: Asked and answered. Anything else? Yes? Q Mike, when you showed the statement to the president, what did he say about it? &IR. MCCURRY: He said fine. (That ?) -- Q That’s a direct quote? The president just said, “Fine “3 That’s all he had to say about that issue? .

MR. MCCURRY: He said tine. He looked at it, and he said fme. Q Mike, this morning, I kind of had the impression -- Q (Off mike) -- outraged, tine? Q -- that the president really shaped that statement. MR. MCCURRY: Oh, he did. I mean, it was prepared - Q (Off mike) -- gave it to him. MR. MCCURRY: No. No. It was prepared in consult& ion between the lawyers and the president. The counsel’s office gave it to me. I wanted to, of course, verify that that’s exactly what the president wanted me to say on his behalf.

James? Q Will you describe what Monica Lewinsky’s duties were at the White House?

MR. MCCURRY: I can’t. I don’t have her position description. Q Can you describe the intern program? MR. MCCURRY: The intern program, there are, you know, about 250 at any time of the year who are here as interns. They tend to be college- aged students between 18 and 23, equally balanced

http:/ lwww. fnsg. comlsbin/ showst? F= 7598012101211335.56& Q= 9/ 7/ 98

1850

FNS Transcript Page 8 of 21 male and female. They work full- time during the summer and up to 25 hours a week during the school year. There are two sessions of interns during the summer and one each in the fall and spring.

Q They don’t get paid. MR. MCCURRY: They go through the same kind of background checks and EOP checks that are required for other staffers.

Q Is this a paid intern? MR. MCCUFlRY: Terry? No, it’s a volunteer. Q In your statement when you say it’s outrageous, does that mean the allegation about the sexual allegation or about the charge --

MR. MCCURRY: Terry, again, I’m not going -- 4 -- or about the charge of obstruction of justice -- MR. MCCURRY: I’m not parsing the statement. Q -- and pejwy?

MR. MCCURRY: I’m not parsing the statement for you. Mr. Ring? Q Mike, do you know the last time the president spoke to Vernon Jordan, if he’s had any discussions with Vernon Jordan, about this subject?

MR. MCCURRY: I know the answer to neither question. Yes? Q Mike, can you say why you’re not going to ask the president about this subject? MR. MCCURRY: Because I think it’s proper for the counsel to deal with the president on that.

And I will, as I often do, get the information that I need to pass on from counsel. Yeah? Q Mike, does the president appreciate that this is an order of magnitude different than the allegations --

MR. MCCURRY: Oh, I think the president is smart and would understand that of course. ____ Q Mike, what‘ s your next move or counsel’s next move or the president’s next move? MR. MCCURRL My next move is to get off this podium as quickly as possible. (Laughter.) Q What’s the next step from the White House?

MR. MCCURRY; Well, the president -- you know, the president is, I imagine, going to. want to address this. We have, you know, an interview with PBS, an interview with NPR, a fortuitous bit of

http:// www. fnsg. com/ sbinlshowst? F= 7598012101211335.56& Q= 9Uf98

1851

FNS Transcript Page9of21 scheduling that’s probably a lot better than the $25 pledge I sent in during pledge week. (Laughter.)

Yeah? Q Beyond the interview, what do you do? MR. MCCURRY: So, what do I do? What do you mean? We go about doing the business of the United States of America. And there’s a lot other right now that we haven’t talked about today.

Q What about this situation? MR. MCCURRY: This situation, if it is in fact going to be explored by the independent counsel, will go into the same place that most matters go. It will become the province of lawyers and people who look into these things, and the amount that I talk about it here will be quite measured - &a& fully.

Q The statement that said that the president’s always told everyone to tell the truth, or words to that effect.

MR. MCCURRY: The words were that he’s made clear from the beginning that he wants people to tell the truth in all matters.

Q Is he now then directly saying to Ms. Lewinsky that he wants her to tell the truth? MR. MCCURFtY: He’s said that to anyone who is ever in a position to be required to provide factual information.

Q Including her? MR. MCCURRY: He has not directed any communication that I am aware of directly to her. Yeah? Q I’m asking (you to ?) do that now. MR. MCCURRY: Yes? Q Do you know -- does the first lady know Monica? Does the first lady know Monica Lewinsky? MR. MCCURRY: I have no idea. Yes? Q Mike, how long -- Q And did she have any hand in terminating her duties? MR. MCCURRY: I have no idea. Q Mike, how long was the president with David Kendall? MR. MCCURRY: I don’t know the length. It was not -- it happened some time ago. I don’t think it was extremely long.

Q Well, who’s taking the lead in this case, David Kendall or Robert Byrd (sic) -- Bennett? MR. MCCURRY: I’ve referred additional questions on this particular matter to Mr. Kendall --

http:// www. fnsg. comlsbinlshowst? F= 7598012101211335.56& Q= 9/ 7/ 98

PNS Transcript

1852

Page 10 of 21

MR. MCCURRY: -- although Mr. Kendall and Mr. Bennett, you know, have clearly talked to each other about the question.

Q Why (would he talk to ?) Kendall on this matter? MR. MCCURRY: Because of the suggestion in news reports that it’s in the province of Mr. Starr’s inquiry.

Q And to follow that up, which lawyers prepared the statement - Kendall, Bennett, or Ruff? MR. MCCURRY: Oh, I think all three reviewed it. (Cross talk.) Q Does the president still have complete confidence in his legal team? MR. MCCURRY: Sure. Absolutely. Yeah? Q Mike, there was a suggestion that Linda Tripp recorded these conversations because she was angry that Mr. Bennett had called her a liar over the Kathleen Willey matter. Does that have anything to do with this being the catalyst --

MR. MCCURRY: I have absolutely no basis upon which to speculate on any of that. Yeah? Q Mike, did Monica Lewinsky call the president, as I’ve seen reported somewhere, and %aIk about what she should say?

MR. MCCURRY: I have no information to answer that question, and I’d refer- you to Mr. Kendall. I imagine, if it’s in fact true, that that’s going to be subject to inquiry by Mr. Starr. They’re probably going to explore that matter.

Peter? And then I’ll come back, Helen. Q Mike, does the president have any intention of addressing the nation on this in a more formal way than through you or through interviews?

MR. MCCURRY: I -- not that I have heard of at this point. I think that he obviously is probably going to address it later today, in a fashion that people will be able to see what he has to say.

Helen? Q Since we’re all interested in whatever the president has to say, we’d like to have his answers, you know, sometime in the afternoon, after he gives this interview. I think it’s only fair, since we’re all asking the same question, and --

MR. MCCURRY: Helen, it’s a good point -- Q It’s not the question -- I know these were prearranged interviews and exclusive, but --

MR. MCCURRY: Right. It’s a good point. These interviews were scheduled as part of our

http:/~ www. fnsg. com/ sbin/ showst? F= 7598012101211335.56& Q= 917198

1853

FNS Transcript Page 11 of 21 buildup to the State of the Union and just happened to fall at this particular moment. But we’ll contact the news organizations involved and see if they want to be helpful.

4 Is the president prepared to - if it comes to that, to cooperate with an impeachment investigation on Capitol Hill?

MR. MCCURRY: There’s no reason that I know of to think that we’ll be dealing with something like that.

Mary? 9 Has the president given any thought of accompanying Mr. Arafat to the Holocaust Museum? MR. MCCURRY: Not that I have heard. I think the president thinks it’s very appropriate for him to be given a VIP tour of the museum. The president thinks that the museum makes a significant emotional impact on people who see it, and it will no doubt have that effect on the chairman as well.

The chairman has indicated, en route to Washington, that he is anxious to see the museum, if that is to be arranged.

Yeah? Q Mike, when the president saw the statement, did he complain that it was not as broad a blanket denial as he would have liked?

MR. MCCURRR He said -- I reviewed it with him. I said, “This is what I propose to say.” And

he said: “That’s fine. Say it.” Q -- he wishes to have an addendum to that statement? (Laughter.) MR. MCCURRY: I think he suspects he will be addressing this himself at some point, Yeah, Carl? Q Mike, do you know when -- if -- when the president plans a formal press conference -- MR. MCCURRY: We, you know, want to do one reasonably soon. Q Mike, how is this matter different -- MR. MCCURRY: Oh, Carl, by the way, he will of course, have a press conference with Prime Minister Blair, at the conclusion of the working visit that Prime Minister Blair will have, at the end of the first week of February, February 5th -- official visit -- official visit.

Q Mike, how have these reports and dealing with a bevy of lawyers disrupted his day today? What was planned, and what did he end up doing instead?

MR. MCCURRY: It’s his -- we’ve had -- we were going to do these interviews that I am talking about a little earlier in the day. So we’ve had to push them back. But, other than that, he’s had to, you know, pursue the other matters that he would pursue on any given day.

Yeah. Deborah? Q Mike, you were saying in regard to the impeachment question that that doesn’t seem like a serious issue. But George

Stephanopoulos seems to think that might be an issue. Does that not concern you? http:// www. fhsg. com/ sbinlshowst? F= 7598012101211335.56& Q=

1854

PNS Transcript Page 12 of 21 MR. MCCURRY: He says things all the time -- (laughter) - assassinations, impeachments, you know --

Q We pay him well. MR. MCCURRY: That’s what -- Mr. Donaldson makes the point he gets paid well to say those things, and God love him for it.

Yes?

Q Mike, do you know by chance Monica Lewinsky’s precise time was here at the White House and exactly what she did?

MR. MCCURRY: I don’t have an employment record on her. Yeah? Q Can you get that for us? MR. MCCURRY: I will see if that is something we can make available. Yeah? Q Taking into account that the White House is maintaining that these allegations are untrue, is the

White House preparing any response to these people making the false allegations against the president?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, I think that’s pretty much what I have been doing here. Q No, but in addition -- in addition to just denying -- in addition to just denying the allegations. MR. MCCURRY: Well, you know, there is a likelihood, if the news reports are correct, that Mr. Starr will be looking into it, that we’ll probably have to provide extensive information on it -- so it goes.

Yeah? Q Just one more stab at this. So is your interpretation of that statement that he meant to categorically deny that he had a sexual relationship?

MR. MCCURRY: I am not parsing that statement. The statement speaks for itself. I don’t have anything to add to what I told you earlier.

Q Do you understand why a lot of us think it doesn’t speak for itself? MR. MCCURRY: I am not going to interpret statements for you. I’m just going to give you the statements that I’ve been authorized to give. Q Mike? MR. MCCURRY: Yes, Mr. Pelley? Q Who has told you that you can’t say? MR. MCCUMK My own good judgment tells me not to try to parse this statement. So no one

http:// www. fnsg. com/ sbinlshowst? F= 7598012101211335.56& Q= 9/ 7f98

1855

FNS Transcript Page 13 of 21 has told me to do that. That’s the way I’m electing to deal with your questions right now.

Q So Rut% office, the other lawyers, haven’t told you say this and say nothing else? MR. MCCURRY: They trust my judgment, amazingly enough. Q But it seems that -- you know, lawyers are very careful people, and they seem to have -- MR. MCCURRY: So am I. Q - picked a very imprecise word. So - MR. MCCURRY Well, look, I’m not going to characterize the statement for you. Q Is this the low point in the Clinton presidency? MR. MCCURRY: No. This -- Q Not yet. (Laughter.) MR. MCCURRY: Look, you know, there have been for five years from time to time we go through episodic reports like this, and yet through all that period, this president has kept his focus on the work he’s been elected twice by the American people to do. And the American people have indicated that they are more than satisfied with the work he’s doing and they want him to continue to keep this economy strong, to make the kind of changes that we need to make to get this country prepared for the 21 st century. They expect the president not to be distracted about allegations, however outrageous, and to keep his eye on the ball.

And that president has got a lot of work that he needs to do to do exactly that on this particular day. We’ve got a State of the Union address coming up. And we’ve got the chairman of a U. N. commission in Baghdad who’s just had some difficult meetings that are going to have a lot of consequences, and we’re going to have to deal with those consequences after Chairman Butler gives his report to the Security Council on Friday. And we’re dealing simultaneously with issues related to a deployed force in Bosnia, which is going to occupy some of the president’s time.

And we’ve got a lot of pretty interesting initiatives that we’re laying before Congress, and

beginning to do the work of trying to find a bipartisan coalition that will pass some of the president’s ideas.

That’s a lot of hard work ahead. And this president has always, when facing allegations, been able to sort of say that’s over there and I’ve got to keep focused on what I need to do on behalf of the American people. And I think the American people expect him to do that.

Yeah, Skip? Q The difference with these charges, though, is they stem -- of this personal -- (inaudible) -- they stem from actions that occurred here. I mean, is that going to affect his legislative agenda or his foreign policy agenda?

MR. MCCURRbT; We’ve dealt with all manner of, you know, stories that have dealt with actions that occurred here. I mean, that’s not -- that’s happened from time to time.

Q Mike, has the counsel’s office been officially notified that Starr’s probe was expanded? And -- MR. MCCURRY: As I said earlier, Karen, not that I’m aware of, and I checked with the counsel’s office and they didn’t give me any indication that they had received that communication from OIC. I have - you know, my assumption is that that will be a matter that Mr. Kendall will pursue.

http:// www. fnsg. corn/ sbinlshowst? F= 7598012101211335.56& Q= 9f7l98

FNS Transcript Page 14 of 21

1856

Q Would such an expansion be appropriate, in the White House’s opinion? MR. MCCURRY: I already answered that question. I said it’s in the province of the attorney general upon application of the OIC to make that determination.

David? Q Why are these allegations outrageous? MR. MCCURRY: Look. You’ve tried now I think a dozen different ways to get me to amplify on the statement. I’m clearly not going to do it. I’m sorry if you’re disappointed that I’m not doing it. I don’t want to render my own personal opinion about the nature of these charges. And so we are

where we are. There’s nothing more to say. Scott? Q Mike - MR. MCCURRY: Scott? Q Mike, has the White House received any subpoenas from the FBI related to this case? MR. MCCURRY: Not that I’m aware of. Q Mike, are they “outrageous” because they’re not true or are they outrageous because it would be morally reprehensible if they were true?

MR. MCCURRY: There are probably many different reasons why they are outrageous in the mind of the president. But having not explored the degree of outrageousness that the president attaches to the allegations, I’m not going to amplify on the statement that he’s made.

Yeah? Q Let me bring up a subject from last week, which now is particularly germane -- the president’s ability to pay for his legal expenses.

MR. MCCURRY: Oh. Q Has there been now some movement on a new effort to get some money in, because this clock this morning was running with all these lawyers. (Laughter.) And they don’t work cheap.

MR. MCCURRY: They get paid when they talk to you, too. Did you know that? That makes it -- adds to the expense.

I did check -- you asked me to check on that. And they are -- our understanding is that some of the president’s supporters on the outside have begun some efforts to establish some kind of fund. They are not in a position yet, that I’m aware of, to make any formal declarations on that. In any event, they would have to be in contact at some point with the president’s legal counsel on that so that the president’s legal counsel could render an opinion to the president on whether the establishment of any such fund would be ethical and proper under law.

Q But Mike, don’t these -- MR. MCCURX Yeah? Q When did the president and his legal advisers know that this was -- that this story was coming?

http:// www. fnsg. comlsbinlshowst? F= 7598012101211335.56& Q= 917198

1857

FNS Transcript Page 15 of 21 Did they have advance knowledge? Or after the meeting last night with Netanyahu? When?

MR. MCCURRY: I don’t -- I personally don’t know that anyone that I deal with here knew much about it before late yesterday.

Yeah? Q Mike, you were talking about the president’s need to deal with major foreign policies in Iraq and Bosnia, elsewhere; he’s meeting with Middle East leaders. But don’t these kinds of accusations impair, hurt his ability to deal effectively with these kinds of critical national security issues?

MR. MCCUFZFZY: He has faced allegations somewhat like this in the past and they have not impacted on his ability to do the job that he constitutionally must do as president on behalf of the American people.

Q Allegations like perjury and obstruction of justice, Mike? Q Let me go back to the fund, if I may. Are you -- am I correct in that until the legal counsel has made a ruling, until that is done formally, there are no contributions actually being made, and

certainly no money is being expended? Or are they being made now? MR. MCCURRY: Yeah, my understanding and belief would be that until such a fund was constituted, there would be no ability for it to receive any contribution. The previous fund, which was not allowed to solicit contributions, has now ended its operations. So there wouldn’t be any entity to which one would make a contribution.

Q What could be different, though? I mean, the previous fund was thought not to be proper. What could be different that would now make a new fund proper?

MR. MCCURRY: No, it was thought to be very proper, it was just hobbled by the rules that applied to it on interpretation of the Office of Government Ethics that made it impossible to solicit any contributions. People were not aware of it, therefore, you know, revenues did not match the costs __

Q Expectations? MR. MCCURRY: Expectations, costs. Whatever. Jeff7 Q Mike, you said that you don’t see an impairment on his constitutional duties. But how concerned are you as to how he might be perceived by these other world leaders, in spite of these domestic issues?

MR. MCCURRY: I don’t speak for other world leaders, I speak for Bill Clinton the world leader. Yeah? Q When I asked if the White House logs will be made public -- of Monica Lewinsky’s coming and going -- you said, “Asked and answered.”

Yet there’s a contingent in this area that doesn’t know what the answer was. MR. MCCURRY: Didn’t get it? Oh, okay. Q Was it that it will be made available to Kenneth Starr or to the press and the public?

http:/ iwww. fnsg. cornfsbinJshowst? F= 7598012101211335.56& Q= 917198

1858

FNS Transcript Page 16 of 21 MR. MCCURRY: I said we want to cooperate with the inquiry by the independent counsel. And if in fact this is a matter the independent counsel is pursuing, and if in fact he pursues evidentiary material like that, I know that the president would expect the White House to cooperate it (sic) and provide it. And I think until that question is (resolved ?), it’s going to be hard to satisfy a lot of the news organizations who have been asking for that.

Yeah?

Q You can’t give it to us and then give it to him -- MR. MCCURRY: I think until the question is resolved of whether or not this is something that the office of independent counsel is seeking, it would be difficult for us to satisfy requests.

Q Why? Mike, but why does -- (off mike) -- MR. MCCUHBY: Because we clearly want to cooperate with the OIC. Yeah? Q Mike, has the president asked his lawyers - either here or his private lawyers -- to appeal to Starr not to pursue this issue, because both parties deny it?

MR. MCCURRY: I don’t know the answer to that question. Yeah? Q Mr. Netanyahu said that he would look favorably on - (inaudible) -- suggestion of the meeting between him and Chairman Arafat. Does that change the White House’s stand on if the meeting should be arranged between --

MR. MCCURRY: Well, I think he’s indicated that he would want such a meeting to be substantive. So we would we. I’m not aware of any plans for such a meeting at this point. You know, clearly, at some point, we will have to get these parties talking to each other directly, but we want to do that at a time that the parties are likely to make progress.

Q So that could be this week? CJ Do you mean to tell me that if reporters talk to sources who perhaps should not talk because of the gag order -- and I’m not saying they do -- but should they talk to us anyway, that in fact if they are -- and I’m not saying they are -- (scattered laughter) - members of the president’s team -- they CHARGE the president for talking to us in violation of the gag order? (Scattered laughter.)

MR. MCCUBRX That’s a complicated question of legal billing that I would have to direct to the attorneys involved. (Laughter.)

Q I would say if there are any attorneys -- MR. MCCURRY: But I would be interested in the answer. Q If any attorneys like that exist, they would be shameful to charge the president -- 4 (Gasps.) MR. MCCURRY: Or to be running the meter -- Q Gag order!

http:// www. fnsg. comlsbin/ showst? F= 7598012101211335.56& Q= 9/ 7/ 98

FNS Transcript

1859

Page 17of21

(Cross talk.)

MR. MCCURRY: Yeah? Q I guess I won’t get invited to the Christmas party next year. Q Mike, maybe you were asked this before, but could you clarify - did the president know of the stories out today last night, before he spoke at the fund- raiser? When did he first learn --

MR. MCCURFtY: I’m not sure when he first heard about the particular story, the Washington Post story, we’re dealing with. There was a fair amount swirling around in the ether yesterday, but at what point he focused in on it I can’t tell you.

Q Did he huddle in a meeting when he got back? Did he have any time to talk to Podesta or anybody when he got back?

MR. MCCURRY: I don’t know the answer to that. Yeah? Q Mike, Mr. Bennett says he smells a rat in this situation. Do you smell anything? MR. MCCURFtY: How does one smell a rat? What does a rat smell like? Q How would I know? (Laughter.) Q Do you smell anything? A rat or anything? MR. MCCURFtY: I smell the lights in here cooking fiercely everyone who’s standing here. Q It’s ?? who smells a rat. MR. MCCURRY: Anything else? Yes? Q Mike, tomorrow is the 25th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Does the president have anything to say on this occasion beyond his desire to keep abortion safe and legal?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, the president’s views on the issue are very well known. He continues to believe that abortion needs to be safe and legal in the United States of America, but it ought be rare.

And that is the position he has frequently articulated, and we have done things in furtherance of exactly that policy by the president.

Q Any message to the opponents -- thousands who are going to be here tomorrow? MR. MCCURRY: The president respects the views of those, as a matter of conscience, take a different point of view on such fundamentally important issues. But I think the president believes it is a matter that should be decided as a matter of conscience, and based on the private reasoning of the people who have to struggle with complicated questions of life and death, and the president will always respect the right of a woman to make that choice free and of her own volition. And the

president does not believe, in any event, that it’s something that the government should dictate answers to.

Yeah?

Q What’s on tap for tomorrow with Chairman Arafat? And what can you tell us about the package http:/ lwww. fnsg. comlsbin/ showst? F= 7598012101211335.56& Q= 917198

1860

FNS Transcript Page 18of21 that President Clinton will be discussing with him, however provisional that may be?

MR. MCCURRY: I’ve got a lot of great -- you know -- foreign policy diplospeak about what we’re going to do, but I won’t satisfy your desire for details on what ideas the president presented. I think we provided you a pretty good series of briefings and briefers during the course of the day yesterday and they made it clear what they’re willing to say about the substance of the dialogue, which is enough that you get some general idea of the subjects being covered, but not enough that you have any explicit review of the diplomacy we’re pursuing.

We obviously will need to take the discussions that we’ve had with Prime Minister Netanyahu, ask Chairman Arahat to reflect on them, and to gain his thinking and perspectives on the issues that have been addressed now in the meetings with the government of Israel, and then see if there’s a way to bridge some of the differences that clearly exist. That may or may not be possible, and at this point it’s impossible to predict whether or not these discussions can lead to the kind of progress that the United States so fervently desires.

John? Q Mike, do you have anything on another report that Ambassador Richardson offered Miss Lewinsky a job?

MR. MCCURRY: I don’t. I don’t have anything on that. Yeah? Q Mike, on -- back to Roe v. Wade, do you have any comments on a group of anti- abortion protestors who took the public tour this morning?

They said -- they complimented the Secret Service on their treatment, and they said it was rather uneventful. Did you know about this ahead of time?

MR. MCCURRY: We had heard that there was some interest on the part of people to freely express themselves during the course of a tour, and I think the service and the uniformed division always handles such matters with sensitivity but also consistent with what their law enforcement responsibilities are.

John? . Q Who makes the final judgment about the perhaps conflicting goals of the president’s defense in tlus? As a legal matter, lawyers always want to be absolutely as circumspect as possible. As a public and political matter, obviously the president would like to get his side of the story on this as quickly and as explicitly as possible. How do you balance those two, and who makes the final judgment?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, the balance is always a delicate one because there are sometime conflicting aims. But the president, as president and as client, is the one that ultimately has to reconcile differing point of views. And we, you know, in each and every case weigh the difference exigencies that arise.

Yeah? Q Mike, what can you tell us about Linda Tripp’s work here at the White House? And what led to her moving over to the Pentagon?

MR. MCCURRY: I don’t have her employment record here, nor her position description. Q Can you get that for us?

http:// www. fhsg. com/ sbin/ showst? F= 7598012101211335.56& Q= WI98

1861

FNS Transcript Page 19 of 21 MR. MCCURRY: I’ve already said that I would see if -- look into seeing if I can. Q Back on the protesters. Do you think a public tour of the White House is an appropriate venue for making political statements?

MR. MCCURRY: I think that in and around the White House, people find this a platform for expressing views. And that’s as it should be. I think it should be done with respect for a house that all the American people own and enjoy seeing.

Q Was anyone arrested? MR. MCCURRY: You’d have to ask. I gather from Jeff not.

Yeah?

Q Mike, you said earlier that Chuck Ruff was involved in the discussions today because he represents the institution of the presidency. In what way is this issue and these allegations - how are they impinging on the institution of the presidency and the official business of the White House?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, we’ve spent a lot of time - you know, you’ve spent a lot of time asking me questions today that demonstrate it very vividly. I’ve been asked for employment records, I’ve been asked for appointment records here at the White House, all of which are the custody of the

White House and the presidency itself, and it’s exactly the protection of that institution that the

White House Legal Counsel is charged with. So, I mean, there are a number of examples even arising here in the briefing that indicate what the interests would be in the White House lawyers in these types of discussions.

Q Was the president asked about it, or did he have any comment about whether Tripp’s allegation that she saw Kathleen Willey leaving the president’s oficc and making an allegation that she had been kissed or fondled?

MR. MCCURRY: I think we dealt with that matter a long time ago, if I recall correctly. Yeah. Q Did the president send any message to the pope, or do we have any independent observers there?

MR. MCCURF2Y: The president did not send a direct personal message. But on behalf of the administration, on behalf of the president our diplomats have had good and detailed conversations with the Holy See in advance of the pope’s visit in which we have certainly wished the holy father well for the trip that he is making. And we have expressed our views that we hope that the outcome of his visit will be better respect for the rights of people to worship freely according to their own conscience in Cuba, a right that has been too long denied to the people of Cuba.

Q Is our ambassador there? MR. MCCUeY: Say again? Q Is our ambassador there? MR. MCCUFLRY: We do not have an ambassador to Cuba. We have an interests section there,

and we - we have an interests section there. Q Not Cuba, our ambassador to the Vatican. MR. MCCUFXRY: Oh, to the Vatican. She’s -

http:// www. fnsg. com/ sbin/ showst? F= 7598012101211335.56& Q= 917198

FNS Transcript

1862

Page 20 of 21 (To staff) She’s part of the trip? STAFF: No. She’s in Rome. MR. MCCURRY: She’s in Rome. Q Her daughter is in Cuba. MR. MCCURRY: Her daughter spends a lot of time with Sam. (Laughter.) 9 Ways and Means chairman Archer today suggested using a budget surplus to lower taxes and reduce the debt as well as create a cushion in case projection of the revenue is off. And it looks as if the administration thinks it’s a prudent approach.

MR. MCCURRY: Well, the administration and the president believe it would be prudent to see what kind of surplus we’re talking about before we spend it and give it away. It might - there might be some interest in some quarters for spending money that we may or may not have, but I think the president is more interested in seeing if we can secure the surplus, making absolutely sure we keep strongly committed to the path to a balanced budget and to keeping fiscal discipline sort of at the top of our minds as we make budget policy. And then, as to any future surpluses, I think the president will be interested in seeing that they address the long- term needs of this country. And I think the president will want to say more about that during the State of the Union.

Yeah. Q Mike, is there any directive written, verbal or otherwise circulating in the White House

instructing people not to talk about the Monica Lewinsky allegations or not to talk about her or not to talk about anybody else involved?

MR. MCCURRY: I’m not aware of anything. And I think that, you know, that you rely on common sense to prevail. People shouldn’t be talking about this if it’s in the province of the president’s attorneys and, you know, a future - likely future inquiry by an independent council,

Q Has the Iraqi situation worsened now? MR. MCCURRY: I think that the situation in Iraq certainly has not got to the point where the president or the United Nations wants it to be, which is full compliance by the government of Iraq with the requirements of the U. N. Security Council. What we’ve had today is a lot of excuses, but no compliance. And I think it’s time for the government of Iraq to recognize that when Chairman Butler says “Here’s what I need in order to fulfill the mandate of the Security Council”, they’d better listen

and stop trying to dictate to him the terms that would govern inspections. We expect Chairman Butler to make a full report to the Security Council Friday, and then we will pursue our diplomacy

and perhaps other options beyond. Yeah.

Q Has the White House been briefed by Butler at all on the conversations? MR. MCCURRY: My understanding from our U. S. U. N. mission is that he has had a brief conversation with the president of the Security Council, the French permanent representative, and that has been passed on to other permanent members of the Security Council. But a fuller report will await Chairman Butler’s return to New York Friday.

Yes? Q Did anyone in the U. S. government send a message through the Pope to Fidel Castro?

http:// www. fnsg. comlsbinlshowst? F= 7598012101211335.56& Q= 9/ 7/ w

1863

FNS Transcript Page 21 of 21 MR. MCCURRY: I’m not aware of any channel for such a communication. We have a diplomatic channel, and that is the one which any exchanges with the government of Cuba would occur.

Yeah? Q Do you have any more information on the tourist incident earlier? (Pause.) Q Guatemala?

Q spray paint. Q spray paint. MR. MCCURFtY: Oh. Oh. Oh, no I don’t. I’d have to refer you. I understand the U. S. Attorneys Office is the one pursuing that now.

Q Thank you. MR. MCCURRY: Thank you, Helen. Q Now you print up our colloquy, distribute it, we saved the president thousands of dollars in legal fees, and I want a cut! (Laughter.)

END. http:// www. msg. comlsbinlshowst? F= 7598012101211335.56& Q= 9/ 7l98

1864

1865

Tab A

1866

1867

Page If ritation Search Result L l/ 98 USNWSW (No Page)

-L1/ 98 U. S. Newswire (Pg. Unavail. Online) 1998 WL 5682372

-Rank 5 of 5

(Publication page references are not available for this document.)

Wednesday, January 21, 1998 Excerpts of Telephone Interview of Clinton by Roll Call WASHINGTON, Jan. 21 /U. S. Newswire/ -- Following was released today by the White House:

EXCERPTS OF TELEPHONE INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT BY ROLL CALL 4: 26 P. M. EST THE PRESIDENT: Hello. How are you? Q Hello, Mr. President. How are you? A few questions about the breaking news. Do you think that this Monica Lewinsky story is

i_ ng to overshadow your State of the Union address?

-THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope not. But you guys will have to make that decision. The press will make that decision.

Q Some Republicans have been talking about impeachment for months now. And even your former advisor, George Stephanopoulos, mentioned it this morning, that it could lead to that. What is your reaction to the suggestion that this may lead to impeachment?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't believe it will. I'm going to 'cooperate with this investigation. And I made it very clear the that allegations are not true. I didn't ask anybody not to tell the truth. And I'll cooperate. So I think that there will be a lot of stirring and there will be a lot of speculation about how this all was done and what it means and what it portends, and you all will handle it however you will. I'm just going to go back to work and do the best I can.

Q Do you think you have to refer to it in some way in the speech on Tuesday?

THE PRESIDENT: I've given no thought to that, no. Q Will this cloud your ability to get anything done with this jress as you head into the new session? _-

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works Database

ALLNEWS

1868

Page 15

l/ 21/ 98 USNWSW (No Page)

'Publication page. references are not available for this document.)

L THE PRESIDENT: Well, that will be up to them. I don't think so. It's election year; they'll want to get some things done, too. And we've got a lot to do. I'm going to give them the first balanced budget three years ahead of time, and a great child care initiative, and an important Medicare initiative. We've got a Medicare commission meeting. We're going to be able to actually see this budget balanced and start to run a little surplus. We've got a lot of things to do around the world, so I think this is quite important.

Q Okay. Let me just ask you one more question about this. You said in a statement today that you had no improper relationship with this intern. What exactly was the nature of your relationship with her?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me say, the relationship was not improper, and I think that's important enough to say. But because the investigation is going on and because I don't know what is out -- what's going to be asked of me, I think I need to cooperate, answer the questions, but I think it's important for me to make it clear what is not. And then, at the appropriate time, 1'11 try to answer what is. But let me answer -- it is not an improper relationship and I know what the word means. So let's just --

_ Q Was it in any way sexual? THE PRESIDENT: The relationship was not sexual. And I know what you mean, and the answer is no.

---- INDEX REFERENCES ---- KEY WORDS: NATIONAL NEWS SUBJECT: Politics (PLT) NEWS CATEGORY: CLINTON; ROLL; CALL GOVERNMENT: Federal Government (FDL) Word Count: 528 l/ 21/ 98 USNWSW (No Page) END OF DOCUMENT

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1869

Tab 26

1870

REMARK! 3 BY PRESIDENT CLINTON AT PHOTO OPPORTUNITY WITH PAL, ESTl- NIAN AUTHORITY CHAIRMAN YASSER ARAFAT THE WHITE HOUSE lo: 22 A. M. EST THURSDAY, JANUARY 22,1998

PRESIDENT CLINTON Let me say before we begin that I am very pleased to welcome Chairman Arafat back to the United States as our partner in the peace process. As I did with Prime Minister Netanyahu, I want to emphasize what a critical time this is in the process and the importance of both parties’ meeting their obligations.

I also would like to take just this second to underlie (sic) the principles of the peace process; mutual obligations and the concepi of land for peace so that Israelis can live in security, recognized by all their neighbors, and the Palestinians can realize their aspirations to live as a free people. If we can focus on these principles, I am convinced we can make some progress.

I am going to give Chairman Arafat a little report on my meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, and then we’re going to go to work.

Q Mr. President, when do you think the Israelis will finally meet their U. N. obligations, their treaty obligations, to give back conquered land?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, we’re going to discuss that. We’re working on it. You know, we believe, you know, the Oslo process sets out a schedule for redeployment, and that’s obviously one of the major issues to be discussed.

Q But they’re not going to meet it, are they? PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, let -- give us chance. We’re working on it.

Q (In Arabic.) CHAIRMAN ARAFAT: (In Arabic.) Q Mr. President, what’s the next step now? And is there a time frame where you want things to (word inaudible)?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, we’re going to have a - after this meeting, then what we’ll do is to see whether we have moved the

1872

parties closer together. And if we have, then we’ll try to figure out how to close the loop and get an understanding on what the next steps are. And if we can do that, we want to do it, obviously, fairly quickly. We don’t want to just keep dragging this out. I think we -- we have a sense of urgency here.

(Cross talk.) Q (Through interpreter.) What would you be asking President Clinton for?

CHAIRMAN ARAFAT: (In Arabic_) PRESIDENT CLINTON: One more. Q Mr. Arafat, do you believe progress was made with Prime Minister Netanyahu? Do you believe progress has been made this week? And would you agree to a (few- stage ?) withdrawal?

CHAIRMAN ARAFAT: (Through interpreter.) As long as there is pressure and efforts by President Clinton, I’m fully confident that the peace process will be protected and will be succeeded.

And we should not forget that the president also has sent Madeleine Albright, secretary of state, and Mr. Ross to the region many times to push the peace process forward.

Q So you believe Mr. Netanyahu will stand by his commitment? CHAIRMAN ARAFAT: We hope so -- he would do so. PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you. STAFF: Thank you, Mr. President. (Cross talk.) Q Mr. President -- (inaudible) - important issues in the Middle East --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Go ahead.

Q -- but could you clarify for us, sir, exactly what your 2

1873

relationship was with Ms. Lewinsky and whether the two of you talked by phone, including any messages she may have left?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me say, first of all 2 I want to reiterate what I said yesterday - the allegations are false, and I would never ask anybody to do anything other than tell the truth. Let’s get to the big issues there - about the nature of the relationship and whether I suggested anybody not tell the truth. That is false.

Now there are a lot of other questions that are, I think, very legitimate. You have a right to ask them. You - that - you and the American people have a right to get answers. We are working very hard to comply, get all the requests for information up here. And we will give you as many answers as we can, as soon as we can, at the appropriate time, consistent with our obligation to also cooperate with the investigations. And that’s not a dodge; that’s really what I’ve - what I’ve - I’ve talked with our people. I want to do that. I’d like for you have more rather than less, sooner rather than later. So we will work through it as quickly as we can and get all those questions out there to you.

(Cross talk.) Q Mr. President, would you comment -- PRESIDENT CLlNTON: Thank you. Q Mr. President, would you comment -

STAFF: Thank you.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you Q Did the pope in Cuba, Mr. President -- PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you. STAFF: Thank you. PRESIDENT CLINTON: What about the pope in Cuba? Q What are your impressions of the remarkable scenes of the pope in Cuba? And what about his call for an end to the embargo?

1874

Well, of all, I am glad he went to I it’s a wonderful thing, and I am glad Mr. Castro

come. I am glad the government people in Cuba celebrate Christmas last Christmas, acknowledge it in the explicit

Cuban government, would enable closer together ways, and it

Q (Inaudible) (Cross talk.) STAFF think we ?) - can get out of ladies

Thank you very Q (Inaudible) about your comment -- PRESIDENT CLINTON: (Inaudible.) STAFF (?): you, again. STAFF: Thank Thank you.

(Cross talk.)

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you all. We’ve got to go to work. Let us hit it.

1875

Tab 27

1876

1877

Fv Michael Isikoff Last weekend, there were two. extraordinary dramas playing out in dshington. On Saturday, at the offices of his attorney Robert Bennett, President Clinton was being questioned, as a media army waited outside. under oath, by Paula Jones's lawyers

Clinton was asked if he had ever had a sexual encounter with Jones. As he has before, Clinton denied it. But unknown to the reporters in the street, the president was also asked about a woman named Monica Lewinsky- Eager to prove a pattern of sexual harassment, Jones's lawyers were searching for other women who might have been the subject of Clinton's advances. Under oath, the president denied ever having had a sexual relationship with Lewinsky.

Across town, in a small'apartment at the Watergate, Lewinsky was in a bind-. She had been informed the day before that Whitewater special prosecutor Kenneth Starr was investigating net for perjury and obstruction of justice in the Paula Jones case. Lewinsky had signed an affidavit swearing t'hat she had never had a sexual relationship with the president, But, Starr's deputies had informed her, they had tapes of her suggesting that her denial was a lie-- and that they suspected she had been advised to lie by the president .and by the president's friend and adviser, Washington superlawyer Vernon Jordan. Now Starr's people offered her a tough choice: cooperate with prosecutors and turn against the president, or face the possibirity of criminal charges ,herself. NEWSWEEK was aware of Lewinsky's situation. For nearly a year, NEWSWEEK's Michael Isikoff had been aware of allegations that Clinton was 7 -ring a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. That Wednesday, January 14,

Lkoff learned that Starr was investigating obstruction of justice and jury in the Paula Jones case, and that Lewinsky was a target of the i& vestigation. For the next three days, On Saturday at 12: 30 a. m., Isikoff continued to report the story.

Isikoff and NEWSWEEK editors heard a tape of conversations between Lewinsky and a woman named Linda Tripp, NEWSWEEK could not independently verify the authenticity of the recording, and some of the statements on the tape raise questions about Lewinsky's credi- bility.

But the tape seems to confirm that Lewinsky told at least one friend on repeated occasions that she was having an affair with the president, and that she had discussed with Clinton and Jordan the fact that she had been subpoenaed- in the Paula Jones case. On the tape, Lewinsky sounded distraught but not unbalanced. She talks spontaneously about what she suggests is a .

sexual relationship with the president, brought into the Paula Jones case, expresses her anguish about being

and plaintively declares her wish that the president would "settle" the case. Dejectedly, she says that Clinton is "in denial. He'll never settle." Lewinsky affirms to Tripp that Lewinsky will deny -tny sexual relationship when she is deposed by Jones's lawyers. "Look," she says, *'I will deny it so he will not get screwed in the case, but I'm going to get screwed personally," Lewinsky says. "because it will be obvious... When Tripp asks why, Lewinsky replies, jowever, it will be obvious to him... that I told you."

there was no clear evidence on the tape that would confirm or deny Pripp's allegation that Clinton or Vernon Jordan had coached Lewinsky to lie.

Thursday January 22, i9qG America Online Page 3.

1878

Because the magazine did not have enough time fqr sufficient independent porting on Lewinsky, her credibility, and her alleged role in the drama-- and b hopes of learning more about the truth by not interfering with Starr's probe at a critical juncture -- NEWSWEEK decided to hold off publishing the story last week. Above all, because Lewinsky's name had not surfaced, NEWSWEEK's editors felt there was insufficient hard evidence> to drag her into the media maelstrom.

On Tuesday, Jan. 20, the story began to leak out to a number of news organizations. On Wednesday, Jan. 21, NEWSWEEK obtained what may be an important new piece of evidence. It is a written document allegedly given to Tripp by Lewinsky. The document coaches Tripp on "points to make in affidavit" in order to contradict the account of another former White House staffer, Kathleen Willey, who recently testified in her own deposition to unsolicited sexual advances made by the president in 1993. It was Tripp who partly confirmed Willey's claims that she had had a sexual encounter with Clinton-- as reported in a NEWSWEEK story in August. In these talking points, Tripp is urged to undercut Willey's crcdibifity, be a "team player" and submit an affidavit for review to "Bennett's people"-- Clinton's lawyers. It's not clear who prepared these talking points, but Starr believes that Lewinsky did not write them herself. He is investigating whether the instructions came from Jordan or other friends of the president. President Clinton has denied all allegations of a sexual relationship with Lewinsky or a cover- up; Jordan refused to comment on Wednesday and his lawyer did not return repeated phone

NEWSWEEK will have full coverage of this entire story in its next issue, on r._ sstand~ Monday, January 26. But because NEWSWEEK and others have been able to confirm further details of the investigation-- and because the magazine has developed exclusive reporting on the nature of the- evidence&- the editors of NEWSWEEK have decided to publish this chronology of events on NEWSWEEK Interactive on AOL :

Monday morning, January 12. Linda Tripp, met with her lawyers in Washington. She had been subpoenaed in the Jones case and needed to prepare her testimony. She had a disagreement with her lawyers, whom she feared were too close to the White House. Angrily, she left her lawyers' office and called the office of Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Within a few hours, there were federal prosecutors and an FBI agent sitting in Tripp's living room in Columbia, Md. They heard Tripp. tell an extraordinary story-- and much of the drama that follows is based on Tripp's version of events,

She told the FBI agents and Starr's deputies that she had. been a friend of tionica Lewinsky, 24. Lewinsky and Tripp worked together in the public affairs office at the Pentagon. Tripp described Lewinsky's background: Lewinsky had Ione to work at the White House as an intern in the summer of 1995 shortly after graduating from Lewis and Clark College in Oregon. In December 1995, Lewinsky had been given full- time job as a staffer in the legislative affairs yFfice in the White House. The previous month, Lewinsky allegedly told Tripp,

Thursday January 22, 1998 America Online Page 2

1879

2 had begun having a sexual relationship with President Clinton. Lewinsky s 21 at the time. As Lewinsky told the story to Tripp, Lewinsky had been htracted to the president. At a White House party in mid- November 1995, Lewinsky wore a revealing dress and made eye contact with Clinton as he worked the crowd. The president and the young staffer had begun a consensual affair shortly thereafter. The president and Lewirisky allegedly had a number of sexual encounters, most of them during late- afternoon or weekend visits (and one late at night in a small private study off the Oval Office). Lewinsky told Tripp that she was flattered and excited by the attention from the president. She told Tripp that the president would sometimes ignore her frantic phone calls, but at other times he would call her in the middle of the night. Tripp told Starr's staff that she had persotially heard messages from Clinton on Lewinsky's answering machine.

Tripp also told Starr's deputies that she had been angered and offended by what she considered the president's "callous" behavior toward Lewinsky. Tripp, a longtime federal employee who had begun work at the White House in the Bush administration, had had a number of run- ins with the Clinton White House. In 1993, Tripp was an executive assistant to Bernard Nussbaum, then. the White House counsel. Early in the Whitewater probe, she had testified before a federal grand jury and. the Senate Whitewater investigating committee about the so- called Travelgate affair, the firing of staffers in the White House travel office by the Clinton administration in '1993. She told Starr's assistants that she had been urged by her lawyers -- whom the. White House arranged to represent

r -- not to volunteer information she had about Hillary Clinton's role in $velgate, Tripp also talked to Starr's deputies about Kathleen Willey. In

fall of 1993, Tripp said, she had seen Willey, a White House aide, shortly aher Willey emerged from the Oval Office with her make- up smeared and her clothing askew. Willey told Tripp that she had just had a sexual encounter with the president. In late July, Tripp had told this story to NEWSWEEK, which published it in an issue the first week of August. At the time, Bennett, Clinton's lawyer, publicly questioned Tripp's credibility. Tripp became concerned that she would be put in a compromised position if she was later subpoenaed by Jones's lawyers: either perjure herself, or tell the truth and be attacked by the White House-- possibly at the cost of her job at the Pentagon. It was then, Tripp said, that she began to secretly record her phone conversations with Monica. Tripp's lawyer, Jim Moody, denied that his client has a personal vendetta against the president. "She is not an enemy of this administration. She is a proponent of the truth."

As she anticipated, Tripp had been subpoenaed in mid- December by Jones's lawyers, who were trying to locate any and ali alleged.. paramours of the president to bolster their sexual harassment case against Clinton. Realizing that she would have to testify under oath, Tripp told Lewinsky that she was going to tell the truth -- that Lewinsky had told her that she was having an affair with the president. According to Tripp, Lewinsky responded that she intended to lie. She told Tripp that Clinton had told her not to worry about the Jones case because Jones's lawyers would never find out about the relationship. According to Tripp, Lewinsky said that Clinton had advised her

Thursday January 22, 1998 America Online Page 3

1880

deny the affair. Tripp also reported that Lewinsky had told here that she i met with Vernon Jordan, Clinton's old friend and personal adviser. - Lewinsky first went to see Jordan at the instruction of Betty Currie, Clinton's personal secretary, last November. Jordan asked her to take her frustration and anger at Clinton and vent it at him. Lewinsky told Jordan she was worried about a subpoena from Jones's lawyers. Jordan offered to set Lewinsky up with an attorney, Frank Carter. (Carter declined comment.) According to Tripp, Lewinsky assured Jordan she would stick with "the cover story: ' Lewinsky said, "This is what. 1 signed up for when I began the relationship."

Tripp told Starr that Lewinsky met again with Jordan at a later date in the back of his limousine. Jordan advised Lewinsky to remain silent. "They can't prove anything," Jordan allegedly told her. "If they thought they could, your answer is it didn't happen, it wasn't me." He told her that witnesses are never indicted for perjury in civil cases. He also promised to help Lewinsky get a job in the private sector. Earlier this month, Lewinsky responded to a subpoena in the Jones case by signing a sealed affidavit swearing that she had no relevant information to offer. In the affidavit, Lewinsky swore that she never had had a sexual relationship with Clinton.

At that first meeting on Monday, January 12, Starr's deputies listened to Tripp's story w. ith great interest. After four years and at least $30 million, the investigation by the independent prosecutor's office is still moving slowly. Starr's deputies believe that they are being stonewalled by the White

use at every turn. Here was an opportunity to get inside the president's ?tective circle. Jordan was of particular interest to Starr. Jordan is ,eady under investigation by Starr in another matter, involving former Dsputy Attorney General Webster Hubbell. Jordan is one of several friends of Clinton who helped get Hubbell lucrative consulting fees when Hubbell was under investigation by the Whitewater special prosecutor in 1994. Starr is investigating whether Jordan and others. were funnelling hush money to Hubbell.

Starr's interest was also piqued by Tripp's tapes of her conversations with Lewinsky, which Tripp turned over to Starr in response to a subpoena. There are 17 of these audio tapes, consisting of about 20 hours of surreptitiously- taped phone conversations. Most of the tapes were made from Tripp's home in Maryland, a state which generally prohibits taping unless all parties to the conversation consent. (Tripp argues that the tapes were justified because she was trying to protect herself against allegations of perjury, according to her lawyer.) NEWSWEEK has heard several of these conversations. On the go- minute tape, Lewinsky can be heard weeping and clearly intimating that she had a sexual relationship with the president. She says that she intends to lie about it if questioned by Paula Jones's lawyers. She never directly names the president, referring instead to "the big he" and "the creep," but it is obvious from the tape that she is referring to Clinton. She ponders telling Clinton that she has revealed the affair to others, including Tripp. She hopes that, somehow, Clinton can be persuaded to settle with Jones. Maybe, Lewinsky wonders, she should threaten to tell all-- tell Clinton that she intends to tell the truth if she is questioned by Jones's

Thursday January. 22, 1998 America Online Page 4

1881

.yers. "Look," Lewinsky says to Tripp, "Maybe we should just tell the creep. Ibe we should just Say, don't ever talk to me again, I f---- d you over [by &lling others about the affair], now you have this information, do whatever you want with it." Linda says, "Well, if you want to do that, that's what I would do. But 1 don't know if you're comfortable with that. I think he [the president] should know." But Monica, sounding despairing, responds, "He won't settle [the Paula Jones case]. He's in denial." At another point in the tape, she says she simply cannot tell Clinton that she has revealed the affair to several others. "If I do that," she moans, "I'm just going to f--- ing kill myself."

On the tape, Lewinsky can also be heard saying, "I have lied my entire life." In the context of the conversation, she is saying that it wasn't hard for her to conceal her sexual relationship with Clinton. But the statement raises the possibility that the affair itself was a lie, an exaggeration of a flirtatious moment, perhaps, that grew into a big lie. Still, Lewinsky sounds truly worried that her alleged relationship with Clinton will be exposed. She begs Tripp to lie about it. She speaks of exchanging gifts and letters with the president and worries that Jones's lawyers will find them and use them as incriminating evidence. At one point she says, "I was thinking about the fact that I sent a note to Nancy [Hernreich, as assistant to the president], a note to Betty [Currie, the president's personal secretary], and a note to creep to thank them all for when my family came for the radio address. The note I sent to him, 'Dear Schmucko, thank you for being, as my little nephew said, it was

eat to meet the principal of the United States. '" Later she says that inton gave her a dress, and she makes a vague reference to an official

I. .otograph that Clinton sent her, apparently with some kind of personal inscription. She suggests to Tripp that, in response to the subpoena from Jones ’ s lawyers I which asks for any letters, photographs, gifts, etc. that she received from Clinton, that she turn over a different photograph that the president gave her, one without the inscription.

NEWSWEEK has obtained receipts from a Washington messenger service showing that Lewinsky sent packages addressed to the White House on nine separate occasions between October 7, 1997, and December 8, 1997. The contact number on the packages is 456- 2990, the phone number of Clinton's personal secretary, Betty Currie. According to Tripp, Lewinsky told her that the packages were letters and in one case a sexually- provocative audio tape for President Clinton. Asked about the deliveries last week by NEWSWEEK, Currie said she didn't recall them, but that she would look into the matter and get back to a reporter. Contacted again on Wednesday, Jan. 21, Currie said, *'I have no knowledge whatsoever," and hung up the phone;

Another piece of key evidence would be secret service logs that would show whether Lewinsky came and went from the White House at odd hours. Jones's lawyers have subpoenaed secret service records, but the Justice Department has moved to quash that subpoena, citing in part executive privilege.- Sources say that records show a "pattern of visits" by Lewinsky to the White House "in the late afternoons and evenings," with Currie listed as the contact.

Other administration aides wondered about Lewinsky, who was moved to the Thursday January 22, 1998 America Online Page 5

1882

ltagon in 1996. Lewinsky told Willie Blackwell, former deputy assistant ._ zretary of defense, that she lost her job at the office of White House legislative affairs when Evelyn Lieberman, then deputy White House chief of staff, twice spotted her hanging around the West Wing and questioned why she was there. A spokesman for Lieberman said that Lieberman was displeased with Lewinsky's performance in part because she was spending a lot of time in the Rose Garden and at White House events rather than doing her job. It was the run- in with Lieberman, Lewinsky told Tripp, that prompted White House personnel to arrange a job for Lewinsky with Pentagon spokesman Ken Bacon. Lewinsky told Tripp that the president had assured her that he would "get her back" after the election, but it never happened.

On the tape recorded conversations that NEWSWEEK listened to-- a conversations that happened shortly before Christmas-- there is at least two references to Jordan's first name, Vernon. It appears that Lewinsky did meet with Jordan, or at least claims to have met with him. The references to Jordan are cryptic, however, and neither support nor contradict the allegation that Jordan was encouraging Lewinsky to lie. She talks about acting "based on what Vernon said," but it's not clear what Jordan told her to say. At. another point in the tape, in an apparent reference to the multiple subpoenas from Jones's lawyers, Tripp says, "Maybe Vernon was right, it's a huge fishing net because of the rumor." On Wednesday, Jan. 21, William Hundley, Jordan's lawyer, did not return repe- ated phone calls.

Tuesday, January 13. As she recounted her story to Starr's team on Monday, pp said that she was meeting with Lewinsky for drinks at the Ritz Carlton b.~ at Pentagon City the next day. Starr's deputies set up a sting operation. On Tuesday, the FBI agents working for Starr wired Tripp with a secret listening device. When Tripp met with Lewinsky around noon, there was a team of FBI agents and prosecutors listening as a hidden tape recorded the conversation. According to knowledgable sources, Lewinsky again discussed conversations with Jordan about keeping quiet in the Jones case. She also talked about Jordan's efforts to get her a job in New York. (Lewinsky quit her Pentagon job on December 26; MacAndrews & Forbes, a New York firm that owns Revlon, confirmed that they offered Lewinsky a public relations job this month after she was referred to the company by Jordan, a member of Revlon's board of directors.) The incriminating tape gave Starr's deputies hope that they could "flip" .Lewinsky and make a her a witness for the prosecution. They hoped to "sting" Jordan or Currie by getting Lewinsky to place phone calls to them that Starr's staff would monitor.

Wednesday, January 14. Lewinsky picks up Tripp at the Pentagon and offers to drive her home. Lewinsky gives Tripp *'talking points" about how she should respond to questions from Jones's lawyers in the Willey matter. NEWSWEEK has obtained the document. "Points to make in affidavit," it reads. Tripp is to modify comments she had made to NEWSWEEK back in July-- that she had'seen Willey coming out of the Oval Office with her make- up smeared. Tripp is now to 'ell Jones's lawyers that "you do not believe that what she claimed happened

Thursday January 22, 1998 America Online 1 Page 6

1883

,lly happened. You now find it completely plausible that she herself smeared : lipstick, untucked her blouse, etc." The document also seems to reflect concerns that Tripp has already told others about Lewinsky's claims of a sexual relationship with the president. In case Tripp is questioned about the rumors about Lewinsky by Jones's lawyers, the talking points suggest that she say Lewinsky "turned out to be this huge liar" who "left the White House because she was stalking the P or something like that."

At about this time, NEWSWEEK learned that Starr was investigating Lewinsky, Jordan, and Clinton. NEWSWEEK told Starr's deputies that the magazine was planning to run with the story in the issue that appeared that Monday. NEWSWEEK needed to get a response from. the people involved. Starr's deputies asked NEWSWEEK to hold off. 'The investigation was at a delicate stage. Starr was hoping to confront Lewinsky and persuade her to cooperate as a witness for the prosecution. Starr's deputies did not want to tip off Lewinsky or Jordan or the White House. NEWSWEEK. agreed to wait. until Friday afternoon, in part because the magazine was reluctant to interfere with an ongoing federal investigation and in part because the editors believed that NEWSWEEK would .. learn more about the truth behind the story by waiting.

Friday, January 16. Starr decided to formally expand his inquiry to investigate subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice in the Paula Jones case. In conversations the previous day, Starr's deputies had described- Jordan as a principal target of the probe, and got Justice Department approval

seek a formal expansion of his jurisdiction. The three- judge appeals court Tel that supervises the independent counsel gave its authorization. That -'__ .le day, Starr's deputies had Tripp lure Lewinsky to another meeting at the Ritz Carlton. As the two were sitting down for lunch, FBI agents for Starr moved in and asked Lewinsky to step upstairs for a talk.

Friday- Saturday, January 16- 17. Starr's deputies tried to "flip" Lewinsky. Obviously, she was in a fix. If she admitted to the affair, she would be contradicting her own sworn affidavit. But if she denied it, she would be vulnerable to criminal prosecution. Lewinsky called her mother in Los Angeles. At the urging of Starr's staff, NEWSWEEK decided to wait one more day before contacting Lewinsky and Jordan for comment.

Saturday, January 17. A Los Angeles lawyer, William Ginsburg, flew to Washington to represent Lewinsky. Still uncertain about whether Lewinsky was telling the truth about a sexual relationship with Clinton and a White House cover- up, and running out of time to reach the major players in the story-- or assess Lewinsky's credibility or role -- NEWSWEEK, whose deadline is SaturUay night, decided to hold off publication.

Monday, January 19. Negotiations between Starr's staff and her attorneys broke down. On Monday morning, Lewinsky's name surfaced in the Drudge Report, a widely read but somewhat unreliable gossip column on the Internet. Drudge had picked up rumors that NEWSWEEK was debating whether to run a piece about

Thursday January 22, 1998 America Online Page 7

1884

insky, and reported that after a ** screaming fight" in the editors' offices c Saturday night, the story had been spiked. (There had been no screaming; the story was not spiked but put on hold while NEWSWEEK's reporters continued to gather information.) According to Starr's deputies, the fear that Lewinsky's name would become widely known was enough to torpedo the negotiations between Starr and her Lewinsky's lawyers. As of now, Lewinsky is not cooperating. According to knowledgeable sources, Starr is now considering whether to indict her for perjury. Lewinsky is scheduled to be deposed by Jones's lawyers on Friday. Sources tell NEWSWEEK that she will take the Fifth Amendment.

Newsweek Interactive Special Report: Nation/ Diary of a Scandal Thursday January 22, 1998 America Online, Page 8

Tab 28

1886

@NW c_ Of- Iz: r

itsfn( s} m3d betow wsm: Cl ReaivedFrom Cl ReturnedTo

13 !? eWsedTo

1888

1889

1890

item( s) listed bdow wsfe:

Df? eoeivedFran .

0 -10 0 -10 clseized

1892

Tab 29

1894

1895

Thursday, January 22, 1998 NEWS ABC NEWS SPECIAL REPORT WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING .SAM DONALDSON / JACKIE JUDD, PETER JENNINGS

PETER JENNINGS: You know these allegations that President Clinton had an affair with at young White House intern, which also involve his close friend Vernon Jordan, and then is accused of having asked her to lie about it have very much consumed the Washington political establishment, so the President is again in potentially serious trouble.

We've interrupted regular programming because the President's spokesman, Mike McCurry, is about to hold his daily briefing for the

White House Press Corps, and the President, as you may also know, said yesterday and again today these stories not true. But for a variety of reasons, involving Monica Lewinsky are

the matter will not rest. Copr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U S. Govt. Works

Page 1

1896

Page 1

-QANSCRIPTS - l/ 22/ 98 ABCNWSSPR :ut what Ken Starr's office believes is this -- that the Lewinsky -.. vestigation is part of the broader investigation. That is looking into the question of whether this White House has obstructed justice by trying to silence witnesses who would be harmful to the President and to the administration. Silence them through hush money, offering them promotions, etc. And so that's how Starr will justify him taking over this aspect.

PETER JENNINGS: OK, Jackie, thanks very much. There was some tumultuous reception for Mr. Starr this morning when he came out.

This is different, as many people have noted today, because the President and his friend Vernon. Jordan have been accused of supporting perjury -- the penalty for that might be five years -- and for obstructing justice, as well. And Mr. Jordan, one of the most powerful men in Washington, very close friend to the President, been at the President's side in all sorts of difficulties, is going to issue a statement at 3: 30 this afternoon, and we'll be here to tell you what that is.

And here, finally, is a glimpse of the President today in a meeting with the Palestinian chairman Yasser Arafat at the White House, being asked again in person whether or not he's going to shed any light today on these allegations that he had an affair with this young woman and

Copr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

'" PNSCRIPTS - l/ 22/ 98 ABCNWSSPR

1897

Page I

these allegations that he had an affair with this young woman and -tempted to cover it up.

Pres. BILL CLINTON: The allegations are false, and I would never ask anybody to do anything other than tell the truth. Let's get to the big issues there about the nature of the relationship and whether I suggested anybody not tell the truth. That is false. Now, there are a lot of other questions that are, I think, very legitimate. You have a right to ask them, you and the American people have a right to get answers. We are working very hard to comply and get all the requests for information up here, and we will give you as many answers as we can as soon as we can at the appropriate time, consistent with our obligation to also cooperate with the investigations. And that's not a

dodge. That's really what I -- I've talked with our people. I want to do that. I'd like for you to have more rather than less, sooner rather than later. So we'll work through it as quickly as we can and get all those questions out there to you.

PETER JENNINGS: Very difficult time for the President, very difficult time for the country. And we're going to continue our coverage of this story throughout the day on abcnews. com. We'll be here when Mr. Jordan makes his statement at 3: 30. We'll have a complete roundup on World News Tonight.

Copr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1898

Page 1

"" ANSCRIPTS - l/ 22/ 98 ABCNWSSPR 'm Peter Jennings in New York. Thank you for joining us.

ANNOUNCER: For continuing coverage of this story, stay with ABC News and abcnews. com on the Web and AOL. This has been a Special Report from ABC News.

transcript may not be reproduced in whole or in part without prior written permission. For further information please contact: ABC News's Office of Rights, Clearances and Permission Practices.( 212) 456- 4059

---- INDEX REFERENCES ---- NEWS CATEGORY: PACKAGE Word Count: 5131 l/ 22/ 98 ABCNWSSPR (No Page) END OF DOCUMENT

Copr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1899

Page 1

"= ANSCRIPTS - l/ 22/ 98 ABCNWSSPR ut as Mike McCurry said at the end of that briefing, it is extremely _, ficult to get the nation's business done when so much of the nation is focused currently on this.

I'm Peter Jennings in New York. Thank you for joining us. ANNOUNCER: For continuing coverage of this story, stay with ABC News and abcnews. com on the Web and AOL. This has been a Special Report from ABC News.

---- INDEX REFERENCES ---- NEWS CATEGORY: PACKAGE

Copr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1900

1901

Tab 30

1902

1903

Page 5

Roll Call January 22, 1998 LENGTH: 443 words HEADLINE: Partial Transcript Of ClintonInterview BODY:

ROLL CALL: A few questions about the breaking news. Do you think that this Monica Lewinsky story is going to overshadow your State of the Union address?

President CLINTON: Well, I hope not. But you guys will have to make that decision. The press will make that decision.

ROLL CALL: Some Republicans have been talking about impeachment for months now. And even your former advisor, George Stephanopoulos, mentioned it this morning, that it could lead to that. What is your reaction to the suggestion that this may lead to impeachment?

CLINTON: Well, I don't believe it will. I'm going to cooperate with this investigation. And I made it very clear that the allegations are not true. I didn't ask anybody not to tell the truth. And I'll cooperate. So I think that there will be a lot of stirring and there will be a lot of speculation about how this all was done and what it means and what it portends, and you will all handle it however you will. I'm just going to go back to work and do the best I

C! a. Il.

ROLL CALL: Do you think you have to refer to it in some way in the speech on Tuesday?

CLINTON: I've given no thought to that, no. ROLL CALL: Will this cloud your ability to get anything done with this Congress as you head into the new session?

CLINTON: Well, that will be up to them. I don't think so. It's election year; they'll want to get some things done, too. And we@ ve got a lot to do. I'm going to give them the first balanced budget three years ahead of time, and a great child care initiative, and an important Medicare initiative. We've got a Medicare commission meeting. We're going to be able to actually see this budget balanced and start to run a little surplus. We've got a lot of things to do around the world, so I think this is quite important.

ROLL CALL: OK, let me just ask you one more question about this. You said in a statement today that you had no improper relationship with this. intern. What exactly was the nature of your relationship with her?

1904

Roll Call January 22.1998

CLINTON: Well, let me say, the relationship was not improper, and I think that's important enough to say. But because the investigation is going on and because I don't know what is out - what's going to be asked of me, I think I need to cooperate, answer the questions, but I think it's important for me to make it clear what is not. And then, at the appropriate time, I'll try to answer what it is. But let me answer - it is not an improper relationship and I know what the word means. So let's just...

ROLL CALL: Was it in any way sexual? CLINTON: The relationship was not sexual. And I know what you mean, and the answer is no.

and Damon Chappie LANGUAGE: ENGLISH LOAD- DATE: January 22, 1998

1905

Tab A

1906

1907 Pr Citation Search Result l/ 22/ 98 STLTI Al7 l/ 22/ 98 Seattle Times Al7 1998 WL 3135298

Rank 140 of 144 The Seattle Times

NEWS CLINTON'S ANSWER TO QUESTION TODAY

AP Comments by President Clinton today on allegations that he had an affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The question was asked during a photo session with PLO Chairman, Yasser Arafat:

Question: "Could you clarify for us, sir, exactly what your relationship was with Ms. Lewinsky and whether the two of you talked by phone, including any messages she may have left?"

President Clinton: "Let me say, first of all, 'I want to reiterate what I said yesterday. The allegations are false, and I would never ask anybody to do anything other than tell the truth. Let's get to the big issues there - about the nature of the relationship and whether I suggested anybody not tell the truth. That is false.

"Now there are a lot of other questions that are, I think, very legitimate. You have a right to ask them. You and the American people have a right to get answers. We are working very hard to comply, get all the requests for information up here.. And we will give you as many answers as we can, as soon as we can, at the appropriate time, consistent with our obligation to also cooperate with the investigations. And that's not a dodge; that's really what I've talked (about) with our people. I want to do that. I'd like for you to have more rather than less, sooner rather than later."

---- INDEX REFERENCES ---- NEWS CATEGORY: TEXT OF STATEMENT EDITION: FINAL Word Count: 233 l/ 22/ 98 STLTI Al. 7

Datz. USNE

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1909

Tab 31

1910

1911

. .

(Signature)

1912

LAW OffICES

JANIS. SCHUELHE & WECHSLER

1728 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE. NW. WAStilNGfON. D. C. 20036

January 23, I998

TELEPHONE I2021 86l- 0600

TcLEccmcN QOU 223- 7230

Kenneth W. Starr, Esq. Office of the Independent Counsel 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Suite 490- N Washington, D. C. 20004

Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum to Betty W. Currie, Grand Jury # 97- 3

Dear Mr. Starr: In response to the above- referenced subpoena duces tecum to Ms. Betty W. Currie, enclosed please find the following:

: “6 ne copy of the State of the Union address dated Januaty 23,1996, in a brown envelope. :& e autographed photograph of President Clinton, held between two cardboard panels. ,“ Qne green dress with a “Black Dog” logo, size L. i- One turquoise T- shirt with a “Black Dog” logo, size L. ‘ Z0ne white T- shirt with a “Seal of the Black Dog of Martha’ s Vineyard” on the front, size

?% ie blue baseball cap with a “Black Dog” logo. \,“ ve three- page facsimile message. ‘ .% o twenty- page newspaper inserts from the Washington Post, February 14, 1997. l&& e jewelry pin in “Casual Comer” box. &CA tw( flv ri M b* m8/ 17/& Z& e hatpin with a globe- like base in a black box with gold stars on it.

1913 Kenneth W. Starr, Esq. January 23,1998 Page 2

fw e framed signed picture of President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. y& 6 bottle, in its box, of Tiffany Spa Moisturizing Hand Cream. @6e bottle, in its box, of Tiffany Spa Refreshing Body Mist. ;* e sympathy car& with envelope. $& ne card with joke re snowman and carrot, with envelope. ?* e thank- you card dated September 17, 1997, with envelope.

Sincerely, Karl Metzner’ Enclosures

1914

1915

Tab 32

1916

1917 -

CBS News Transcripts SHOW: SATURDAY MORNING (8: OO AM ET)

January 24, 1998, Saturday TYPE: Newscast LENGTH: 955 words HEADLINE: FEDERAL PROSECUTORS SUBPOENA SWORN STATEMENTS GAVE IN DEPOSITIONS IN THE PAULA JONES AFFAIR

ANCHORS: RUSS MITCHELL REPORTERS: SCOTT PELLEY BODY:

RUSS MITCHELL, co- host: THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON

Washington awakens this morning suffering from something of an information hangover. The flurry of allegations and leaks and rumors was downright dizzying over the past three days. And it is not over yet. CBS News White House correspondent Scott Pelley joins us with the latest.

Good morning, Scott. SCOTT PELLEY reporting: Morning, Russ. And there's more information this morning. CBS News has learned that federal prosecutors have now subpoenaed at least some of the sworn statements of the president, statements the president gave in depositions and in interrogatories in the Paula Jones affair. The subpoenas went out yesterday-- late yesterday and demand all affidavits and depositions of William Jefferson Clinton.

You will recall that on Saturday, the president gave a sworn deposition here in Washington and CBS News is told that in that deposition he denied ever having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Now that statement would appear to be at odds with Lewinsky's contention on secretly recorded audiotapes that she did indeed have an affair with the president.

Also, CBS News has learned that last week Lewinsky was offered complete immunity from prosecution if she was willing to cooperate with independent counsel Kenneth Starr in an undercover sting operation. But while Lewinsky was thinking about that offer, her name became known and the offer was withdrawn.

Last week, the FBI swept Lewinsky into a hotel room filled with agents and - _-

1918

Page 7 CBS News Transcripts, January 24.1998, Saturday

prosecutors. She was shown surveillance photos of herself meeting with former co- worker Linda Tripp. Tripp had recorded Lewinsky's admission that she had lied under oath about an affair with Mr. Clinton. Lewinsky's lawyer, Bill Ginsburg, says she was offered a deal.

Mr. WILLIAM GINSBURG (Lewinsky's Attorney) : They wanted to suggest to her, and they did suggest to her, as I understand it, frankly, from them, that she be wired, to have conversations with other people, that she intervene on telephone conversations that might well be recorded. They wanted her cooperation.

PELLEY: You say 'conversations with other people. ' You're talking about the president of the United States?

Mr. GINSBURG: I-- I don't know that. But I would assume, based on everything that I've seen in the media, that the president of the United States, Vernon Jordan, and others would have been among their-- their guest list.

PELLEY: In secretly recorded tapes, Lewinsky told her friend Tripp there. had been a long affair and she had been encouraged to cover it up. But in a sworn affidavit, she insisted there was no sexual relationship.

When you say that your client stands by the affidavit, you are telling us that the affidavit is true. It is the truth?

Mr. GINSBURG: No, I am telling you-- I am telling you that my client stands on the affidavit at this time.

PELLEY: At this time. If it's true, how could there be any question about whether she's going to stand by it today, tomorrow, the next day?

Mr. GINSBURG: I am not prepared to do anything except say, as a professional, that she is standing by her affidavit at this time.

PELLEY: Sources tell CBS News FBI agents had Lewinsky's consent to search her apartment in the Watergate Complex. The agents had a list of items they wanted and left with Lewinsky's computer, some of her clothes and the gifts. CBS News has also learned Lewinsky claims to have received from the president several items from the Black Dog gift shop in Martha's Vineyard plus a dress, gold broach and a book of poetry by Walt Whitman.

And now Lewinsky's parents have been drawn into this investigation. Prosecutors now consider them to be material witnesses because of things Lewinsky might have told them. On Tuesday, here in Washington, a federal grand jury will meet in the case and will begin taking testimony from the president's friend Vernon Jordan and the president's personal secretary. That is the very day that Mr. Clinton will be delivering the State of the Union address. Russ.

MITCHELL: Scott, yesterday there was talk that the president would make a statement, maybe even give a news conference to kind of diffuse these charges before his State of the Union address. Anything new on that?

PELLEY: Russ, we are being told at this moment that the president does not plan to address the charges in any significant way before the State of the Union address. I hesitate to predict the future on this because this is a very

1919

CBS News Transcripts, January 24.1998, Saturday dynamic situation. There are a number of people here at the White House who have been urging that the presi -- the president should go out on the press. But at the moment, the lawyers are prevailing and they are saying for the moment he should stay silent.

MITCHELL: Yesterday, four members of the president's Cabinet came out in a show of support. But from all accounts, it appears that there are a lot of long faces at the White House these days. How would you describe the mood there this morning?

PELLEY: Well, I'll-- I'll tell you, I spoke to a high administration official yesterday who described the first two days of this as bleak. He said it was like a hurricane had gone through the White House and knocked everybody off their feet. He sa-- he told me that the White House staff now is trying to get back on their feet, dust themselves off, and get back to work.

MITCHELL: Scott Pelley at the White House, thank you very much. Scott will return in our next hour with more on this still- unfolding story. And we'll have more from the White House with Mark Knoller a bit later. Plus, we'll talk with reporter Carl Bernstein. We'll see how he compares thi-- if-- if he compares this at all-- with Watergate.

LANGUAGE: English LOAD- DATE: January 24, 1998, Saturday

1920

1921

Tab 33

1922

1923

Page 48 Search Result Rank 46 of 450 Citation i/ 98 FACENATION it+ 3198 Face Nation (Pg. Unavail. Online) 1998 WL 9105888

(Publication page references are not available for this document.)

Database ALLNEWS

Sunday, January 25, 1998 Interview: Representative Henry Hyde discusses the allegations against

President Clinton from a legal perspective BOB SCHIEFFER, host: For some perspective from the legal point of view, two people who know a lot about these things. Here in the studio, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Henry Hyde, who would have the responsibility of calling impeachment hearings if it came to that, and in our Washington newsroom, former independent counsel Joe diGenova.

I begin with you, Mr. Chairman. As I understand it, the law is c-; te specific. If the independent counsel should come up with

lence that he considers evidence of an impeachable offense, he is co'iiipelled by law to refer that to you.

Representative HENRY HYDE (Republican, Illinois; Chairman, Judiciary Committee): That's correct. To Congress, actually, the statute says. If he comes up with substantial and credible evidence of a crime or of an impeachable offense or offenses, he is obliged to report promptly to Congress.

SCHIEFFER: And then Congress, I take it, has to vote on whether to begin an impeachment hearing.

Rep. HYDE: Well, not necessarily. If a bill of impeachment is filed, that would be a sign to the Judiciary Committee if precedent follo-- is followed, and we would-- we would begin taking action on that. But I want to emphasize, right now all we're dealing with are allegations and charges, not proof. And it's in the bosom of the independent counsel. He has the resources, the personnel, the deposition authority, access to the grand jury, immunity power. Let him do his job and then, when he does that, we will then do ours.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. Chairman, what is an impeachable offense? 'ep. HYDE: Well, it's deliberately vague in the Constitution:

Ason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. A high crime is at .- Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1924

l/ 25/ 98 FACENATION

(Publication page references are not availsble for this document.)

otxs end of the s-- spectrum and a misdemeanor is certainly a crime of lesser import. So you have to look at-- at precedent, but it has to be something that's very serious-- and I can't stress this too much-- it has to elicit bipartisan support. Because at the end of the day, the Senate has to vote on whether or not to remove the person from office by a two- thirds vote.

SCHIEFFER: Mm- hmm. Rep. HYDE: . . . so nothing much will happen until the Democrats decide something should happen.

SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you quickly. If a president tried to encourage someone to commit perjury or if a president committed perjury, would that be considered, in your view, an impeachable offense?

Rep. HYDE: I d-- really don't like to answer 'what if' questions. SCHIEFFER: OK. Rep. HYDE: But, certainly, it is serious and would be considered.

3HIEFFER: I think everybody in Washington understands this to be a-=,-- a problem of some gravity, a very serious matter. If it came to impeachment hearings, do you think the Democrats in Congress would let it go that far?

Rep. HYDE: Again, that's speculating, but I think, as with President Nixon, nobody wants a-- long, attenuated hearings that bring out sordid, lurid charges and accusations. So I think Democrats would appropriately make suggestions to the president. But, again, I-- I really am crossing the line there. We don't have any proof now. We have allegations, and we should wait because the-- the presumption of innocence belongs to the president.

SCHIEFFER: But what-- what you seem to be saying is, there'd be such an overwhelming appealing in the Congress, you think that Democrats would just urge the president to leave rather than go into something like that?

Rep. HYDE: I can speculate that that might happen, although I hate to speculate.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Mr-- Mr . Hyde, the president goes to the Capitol on Tuesday to give his State of the Union message. What do

think the reaction up there is going to be? Page 49

Copr. Q West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1925

Page 50

l/ 25/ 98 FACENATION

(Publication page references are not available for this document.)

I; ep. HYDE: I really don't know. I've thought about that. I've thought that the Democrats may have an exaggerated enthusiasm in an effort to be defensive and protective. On the other hand, it may be just civilized restraint. 1 think it's one of the interesting spectacles to see what the reaction's going to be.

SCHIEFFER: This one's going to be different though, isn't it? Rep. HYDE: Oh, very much so. SCHIEFFER: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for joining us this morning. Program Time: 10: 30- 11: oo AM Nielson Rating 2558000 Reference: 980125

-tiord Count: 700 l/ 25/ 98 FACENATION (No Page) END OF DOCUMENT

Copr. @ West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1926

1927

Tab 34

1928

1929

Page 1 Citation

S/ 98 NIGHTLINE Search Result Rank 1 of 1

&6/ 98 Nightline (Pg. Unavail. Online) 1998 WL 5372969

(Publication page references are not available for this document.)

Database ALLNEWS

Monday, January 26, 1998

NEWS

CRISIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE WILL THE PRESIDENT'S WORD BE ENOUGH? JOHN DONVAN / CHRIS BURY / DAVE MARASH, TED KOPPEL

ANNOUNCER: January 26, 1997. TED KOPPEL, ABC News: (voice- over) Monica Lewinsky meets with her lawyers. President Clinton prepares for tomorrow's State of the Union address but takes a few seconds out to respond forcefully to his critics.

res. WILLIAM J. CLINTON: I want to say one thing to the American p-- c> ple. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, never. These allegations are false and I need to go back to work for the American people.

TED KOPPEL: (voice- over) Tonight, crisis in the White House -- will the president's word be enough?

ANNOUNCER: From ABC News, this is Nightline. Reporting from Washington, Ted Koppel.

TED KOPPEL: It is not easy to make sense out of what is happening in Washington these days and for the moment at least it is next to impossible to determine the truth. Yesterday., ABC News Correspondent Jackie Judd quoted unnamed sources as saying that there may have been a witness, possibly a secret service agent, to an intimate encounter between President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. This morning, as you have just heard again, President Clinton angrily denied any sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Now comes tomorrow's edition of the Dallas Morning News, not only citing sources confirming Jackie Judd's report of yesterday, but adding new details. The Dallas paper cites its own sources as stating that a secret service agent witnessed the T -sident and Ms. Lewinsky in a compromising situation and that the

It has already been in communication with the office of the - Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1930

Page 2 l/ 26/ 98 NIGHTLINE

(Publication page references are not available for this document.)

Laependent counsel, Ken Starr. Only a couple of hours ago, though, I spoke with a member of Ms. Lewinsky's legal team who said, speaking on behalf of all her lawyers, we know nothing about this agent who has alleged to have witnessed an intimate moment.

A senior law enforcement source whom we contacted late tonight did little to unravel the confusion. It would be highly unusual, he indicated, for a secret service agent to reveal private information about any president, unprecedented to do so about a sitting president. Having said that, he acknowledged that there was no statute that would prevent it.

On Wednesday, President Clinton will visit Lacrosse, Wisconsin. That trip was planned a long time ago, but as John Donvan now reports, it has taken on a whole new flavor.

JOHN DONVAN, ABC News: (voice- over) It is, to say the least, getting awkward for Lacrosse. Government class this afternoon at Logan High.

1st LaCROSSE RESIDENT: It's a disgusting display of morals for us Y -. t. ng kids that maybe look up to the president.

wnd LACROSSE RESIDENT: Does he claim that s- he has this dress that's seamy? It's kind of disgusting.

JOHN DONVAN: (voice- over) Yes, it's getting awkward. (on camera) Because tonight as they begin building the stage that the president will speak from on Wednesday and as the town began filling up with White House advance people and reporters, it wasn't really clear what this presidential visit means to Lacrosse anymore. It was supposed to be a moment of pride and celebration. Now, it's a lot more complicated than that.

(voice- over) Listen to the mayor, John Medinger, a lifelong Democrat. JOHN MEDINGER: The most frenzied part is hoping that it all comes together and that we have a successful event here on Wednesday afternoon. I expect it's going to happen, but I'm not sure anymore.

JOHN DONVAN: (voice- over) Eleven days ago, it was a different story. SCOTT HACKWORTH, News 19 Reporter: More information tonight about President Clinton's visit to Lacrosse next weekend, where you can get t' *kets.

Copr. Q West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1931

Page 3 l/ 26/ 98 NIGHTLINE

(Publication page references are not available for this document.)

REPORTER: A controversy surrounds President Clinton as he tries to continue his presidential duties...

JOHN DONVAN: (voice- over) And two days ago, Saturday, as the mayor bounced between meeting with the White House team and the five block long Packer parade, he also had to deal with the first serious backlash against the president's coming here. It was about money and the standard letter that the White House had sent the mayor last Friday explaining that, "Costs incurred in connection with the staging of any events are the host's responsibility." In other words, Lacrosse was being asked to pay an estimated $40,000 for the president's visit. The mayor knew that was not going to get through the city council.

JOHN MEDINGER: And in light of what was going on I indicated to him that I was getting calls from members of the city council saying why should we pay these bills. They're getting calls from their constituents, you know, indicating the same thing, we don't want the taxpayers to spend any money for that person in the White House.

OHNDONVAN: (voice- over) He says he warned the White House advance team this could be trouble.

JOHN MEDINGER: I says, you know, this isn't a slam dunk in the city council. We may have some problems. And it finally, you know, a light went on and they says you mean like they might vote it down? And I says yeah, like they might vote it down. And they says well, we can't let that happen.

JOHN DONVAN: (voice- over) The White House got the message and at Saturday's council meeting, Medinger was able to announce that the federal government will pay most of the cost.

JOHN MEDINGER: There will be no cost to the city of Lacrosse for any of this stuff that's on here.

JOHN DONVAN: (voice- over) Crisis averted, the visit is still on. But as the president tried again today to bailout his sinking reputation, the people of Lacrosse watched and mostly they seemed embarrassed, some embarrassed for the president, others embarrassed by the president. There was P. J. Jacobs, a short order cook at Mr. D's.

P. J. JACOBS: What he did was wrong, that's for sure. But I think . ?t they're doing to him is even worse. I don't know. It's the man's I .vate life. As far as I'm concerned, leave him alone. And maybe I'm

Copr. Q West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1932

Page 4 I l/ 26/ 98 NIGHTLINE

(Publication page references are not available for this document.)

'L,- only woman in the United States who would say something like that. LAURIE MINSNER: (ph) Now the children made pictures and wrote his name and this is a present for him.

JOHN DONVAN: (voice- over) Over at city hall, Laurie Minsner came by with her five -year- old son Zack. (ph) They were dropping off a sign that Zack's class had made for the president's visit.

LAURIE MINSNER: And he was asking what that meant, what sexual relations meant. I told him the best that I could that he understands that people are married and that meant perhaps having some sort of relationship with someone other than a wife. And he understands that and he knows in his mind so far what's right and wrong.

JOHN DON- VAN: (voice- over) Chip Denure, (ph) a probation officer, says he's just disgusted.

CHIP DENURE: I'd prefer that he stayed home and resigned. That's just .ny opinion. I know he'll probably get a good crowd here in Lacrosse, but people shouldn't read too much into that because I think mostly a lot of the people will just be going down to see a president of the IT-; ted States.

COHN DONVAN: (voice- over) That much is probably true. When they started handing out tickets on Saturday, there were people lined up outside the doors.

3rd LACROSSE RESIDENT: We felt it was really IPO whenever we have a chance to let our teenage daughter see something as important as the president of the United States and his entourage, that we be a part of it.

4th LACROSSE RESIDENT: It's just exciting for the kids to be able to see the president.

JOHN DONVAN: Are they all excited about it? 4th LACROSSE RESIDENT: Oh yeah. JOHN DONVAN: How do you guys feel about having the president come to Lacrosse?

5th LACROSSE RESIDENT: It's pretty cool. JOHN DONVAN: (voice- over) It was, said the lead man in the White House 7 -ante team, heartening to see.

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1933

Page 5 l/ 26/ 98 NIGHTLINE

(Publication page references are not available for this document.)

L (interviewing) Do you have any doubts or have you had any doubts about how this event is going to go in light of what's happening in Washington?

RICK JASCULCA, Presidential Advance Team: Never. JOHN DONVAN: But you know what it's, like back in Washington right now. RICK JASCULCA: Well, this isn't Washington, John. JOHN DONVAN: No, it's not, and as someone who has been in both cities this week, I can report that Lacrosse is not nearly as obsessed with this story as Washington is. Here there is little fever for catching the president in a lie. Here it's much more a fervent prayer that he's telling the truth.

John Donvan for Nightline in Lacrosse, Wisconsin. TED KOPPEL: ABC News has conducted another poll on how the American public at large is reacting to ongoing news of the allegations and denials. On the question of whether the allegations are interfering with the president's ability to serve, 58 percent said yes, 41 percent s-: d no.

‘- A new snippet of news together with a newly surfaced videotape are not likely to help. In some video taken at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser on May 9th of 1996, the president is seen once again on what is called a rope line meeting and hugging Monica Lewinsky. She is also seen in the front left in white as the president speaks at the Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Washington. Ms. Lewinsky wrote a $250 check to attend the event.

Meanwhile, ABC News learned today that Ms. Lewinsky is heard on one of her tape recorded conversations with her friend, Linda Tripp, telling Tripp that she placed a personal ad in the Washington Post last Valentine's Day and that it was intended for the president. The ad, addressed to Handsome and quoting from Romeo and Juliet is signed simply, "Ml'. Tomorrow morning's Washington Post reprints this copy of the ad.

(Commercial Break) TED KGPPEL: White House officials with daily access to the president are in the all but impossible position of wanting to defend him but making themselves subject to subpoena and the likelihood of huge legal expenses if they actually talk to Mr. Clinton about the case. Indeed, t‘ . president himself may be inhibited for legal reasons from saying all L c he might want to say in public. Today, as Nightline's

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works-

1934

Page 6 l/ 26/ 98 NIGHTLINE

(Publication page references are not available for this document.)

'bY, respondent Chris Bury reports, the president made as categorical a denial as he could.

Pres. WILLIAM J. CLINTON: I did not ask anyone to tell anything other than the truth. There is no improper relationship and I intend to cooperate with this inquiry.

CHRIS BURY, ABC News: (voice- over) If the president's first, somewhat subdued explanation last Wednesday failed to clear the air, then his guarded response the following day during a photo op with Yasir Arafat only made matters worse.

Pres. WILLIAM J. CLINTON: (January 22) You and the American people have a right to get answers. We are working very hard to comply, get all the requests for information up here and we will give you as many answers as we can as soon as we can at the appropriate time consistent with our obligation to also cooperate with the investigations. And that's not a dodge.

CHRIS BURY: (voice- over) Only today, five days after the allegations first surfaced, did the president, with Hillary Rodham Clinton close at his side, look squarely into the camera, clench his jaw and show some r'- qer in his voice.

WRES. BILL CLINTON: I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, never. These allegations are false and I need to go back to work for the American people.

CHRIS BURY: President Clinton's reluctance to make that kind of forceful response before today has been one of the most damaging factors in this scandal. After all, the Clinton team perfected the war room and those rapid response counter attacks during previous crises. This time, the president's defenders have been uncharacteristically slow off the mark and their familiar tactics are just now beginning to emerge.

ANN LEWIS, White House Communications Director: I can say with absolute assurance the president of the United States did not have a sexual relationship because I have heard the president of the United States say so.

CHRIS BURY: (voice- over) In the last few days, Mr. Clinton's most trusted political advisers have fanned out across the air waves. Tactic number one, if the president said so, it must be true.

-AUL BEGALA, Clinton Adviser: (Courtesy "This Week with Sam and . iel') Like, you know, I'm like Dale Evans with the Bible -- God wrote

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1935

Page 7

l/ 26/ 98 NIGHTLINE

(Publication page references are not available for this document.) .L, I believe it and that settles it.

JAMES CARVILLE, Clinton Adviser: (Courtesy NBC's "Meet The Press") He's denied it to his staff, he's denied it to the news media, he's denied it to the American people and denied it to his cabinet and denied it to his friends. Can't be any more emphatic about that.

CHRIS BURY: (voice- over) But none of those defenders could say they had personally asked the president a single question about Monica Lewinsky.

HOWARD FINEMAN, "Newsweek": (ph) I think the performance by the spin doctors yesterday was pretty darned weak.

CHRIS BURY: (voice- over) Howard Fineman is chief political correspondent for Newsweek.

HOWARD FINEMAN: They weren't able to go on the air and say look, we are good friends of Bill Clinton's, we've looked him in the eye and we are here to tell you that that's a man who's telling the truth. All they said was we heard the same denials on TV that you all did, and that's not very convincing.

"HRIS BURY: (voice- over) Tactic number two, the lawyers won't let us k. L

ANN LEWIS: We had some very educational meetings with the lawyers. The legal counsel has explained to us... Our lawyers have explained to us that when such serious charges, words like subornation of perjury, when those kinds of charges are in the air, your first obligation is to cooperate fully with the investigation.

CHRIS BURY: (voice- over) Nightline reviewed the White House public relations performance with Stuart Taylor, a lawyer who writes for the National Journal.

STUART TAYLOR, "National Journal" :Innocent people with nothing to hide who tell the truth don't need to surround themselves with phalanxes of lawyers. They simply tell the truth. They rely on that rather than on their ability to construct a story with elaborate help from experts at constructing stories after they've studied everything everybody else might say.

il & GEORGE STEPHANOPOLOUS, ABC News Consultant: I know that if I were

Iside and I asked the president a question and then I came out and 'ked to you, the next call I would make would be to my lawyer because this world we're in now, a super heated world of special prosecutors, .-

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1936

l/ 26/ 98 NIGHTLINE

(Publication page references are not available for this document.)

%d conversation with a person involved in the investigation becomes subpoenable, becomes actionable in court and I perfectly understand why the president's spokespeople over the weekend took that stance.

CHRIS BURY: (voice- over) Tactic number three, go after independent counsel Kenneth Starr.

JAMES CARVILLE: This started out as a $40,000 land deal that lost money and about $50 million and five years later, after nobody could find anything we're wiring up people in hotels and feeding 'em whiskey trying to get 'em to talk and everything else. This is a scuzzy investigation.

FtAHM EMANUEL, Senior Presidential Adviser: (From CNN's Late Edition) Ken Starr, for three and a half years, has been walking around with a loaded subpoena. He started investigating a 24- year- old real estate deal and now he's investigating a 24- year- old young lady and the only common thread I can find, and I'm not a lawyer, is that they're both 24- years- old.

STUART TAYLOR: It's all Kenneth Starr, Kenneth Starr, Kenneth Starr. Kenneth Starr didn't make these audiotapes. Kenneth Starr didn't put I'? da Tripp up to it. Kenneth Starr didn't tell Monica Lewinsky what to

on the audiotapes. HOWARD FINEMAN: If you look at Bill Clinton in crisis, you see a pattern. First, the silence. Then the angry denials. Then this hair splitting. And then the full bore attack on whoever the accusers happen to be. They did it to Gennifer Flowers in '92 with some success. They did it to critics on the draft in those days. Now they're looking for enemies and they've found one in Ken Starr.

CHRIS BURY: (voice- over) Perhaps even more critical than what the president and his defenders are saying is what they are not.

(interviewing) The White House has not yet put forward some kind of plausible story line or explanation, which is a huge omission, it seems.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: That's the big one. You know, in the end, I think this is one of those stories where spin is essentially meaningless, in the long run, because in the end, only one question matters, is the president telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? And if he is, everything will be okay. If he's not, no spin will help.

CHRIS BURY: (voice- over) Today, on that one big question. Page 8

1LF BLITZER, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: (from White House press Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1937

Page 9 l/ 26/ 98 NIGHTLINE

(Publication page references are not available for this document.)

Liference) Why is it so hard then to simply explain to the American public what was the nature of their friendship or relationship?

CHRIS BURY: (voice- over) The White House spokesman simply would not answer.

WOLF BLITZER: Why is that such a difficult question to answer? MIKE McCURRY, White House Press Secretary: It's not difficult, I just don't think it needs to be done here.

WOLF BLITZER: Why? MIKE McCURRY: Because the president's been very straightforward and very clear about what he said and I think most Americans heard him and they know exactly what he means and I don't want to get into, you know, a description of different permutations on what is very clearly an unambiguous statement.

CHRIS BURY: So no one at the White House, from President Clinton down to his press secretary, has yet given a straightforward plausible account describing exactly his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. And p7'l the president's denials, no matter how often they are repeated by

supporters, may never be taken at face value until that fundamental cipestion is answered, too.

This is Chris Bury for Nightline in Washington. TED KOPPEL: The issue of Kenneth Starr and his motives, when we come back.

(Commercial Break) TED KOPPEL: What about Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel? We asked that in our ABC News poll. Is he trying to hurt the president politically? And 56 percent said yes; only 30 percent said no.

If anyone is saying less publicly than President Clinton these days, it is Judge Starr, who is sitting in the middle of his web, encouraging evidence to be brought to him. Here's Nightline correspondent Dave Marash.

WILLIAM GINSBURG, Monica Lewinsky's Attorney: We have made a complete proffer to the office of the independent counsel.

DAVE MARASH, ABC News: (voice- over) In the midst of typical Washington . jia mayhem tonight, Monica Lewinsky's attorney announced he had just

L__ yed what may be his final card, a formal proffer, a promise of Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1938

Page 10 l/ 26/ 98 NIGHTLINE

(Publication page references are not available for this document.)

mactly what his client will say in court. WILLIAM GINSBURG: We are now in a position where the ball is totally in Judge Starr's court and Judge Starr has to tell us what he wants to do.

DAVE MARASH: (voice- over) What will Ms. Lewinsky testify? Ginsburg wouldn't say. What does the lawyer want in exchange? Full immunity for Lewinsky, not more limited use immunity. What's the difference?

MICHAEL ZELDIN, Former Special Prosecutor: Use immunity essentially is that you can't be prosecuted for the words out of your mouth. It's a more limited form of immunity. Full immunity irmnunizes you from all criminal conduct save perhaps for perjury.

DAVE MARASH: How will Starr respond? No answers yet tonight, but there was this hint that prosecutors may already be reorganizing their case. Nightline has learned tonight that Monica Lewinsky's grand jury appearance, scheduled for tomorrow, has been postponed until Wednesday at the earliest.

WILLIAM GINSBURG: If these allegations are true then I have to be extremely, extremely angry, and I am.

AVE MARASH: (voice- over) From the moment he arrived in Washington, sttorney William Ginsburg has followed what many fellow lawyers consider a peculiar strategy, all but conceding that the allegations his client had a sexual relationship with President Clinton are true and that Ms. Lewinsky perjured herself in her affidavit in the Paula Jones lawsuit.

WILLIAM GINSBURG: Her greatest fear is wearing the proverbial scarlet letter of indictment and conviction for the rest of her life and the possibility of spending some very unsavory time in a prison.

DAVE MARASH: (voice- over) While Ginsburg's poor little rich girl Lewinsky portrait may have won public sympathy, few lawyers consider that jail threat credible.

JOHN BARRETT, Former Special Prosecutor: The reality is that there's no real threat of her prosecution. There's just no jury appeal. There's no serious reason why she deserves the full prosecutorial resources of the government focused on her. She's a much better witness and if that leads to other people, that's clearly what Starr wants to do.

KENNETH GORMLEY, Duquesne Law School: It's hard to imagine how Kenneth Starr goes forward without her and it's also hard to imagine why he I .ld not grant her immunity.

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1939

Page 11 l/ 26/ 98 NIGHTLINE

(Publication page references are not available for this document.)

,_ dAVE MARASH: (voice- over) So, what's all the haggling been about? Time, say several legal eagles, time for Starr to gather corroborating evidence and witnesses, time for President Clinton and his advisers to stew.

MICHAEL ZELDIN: I think that what Bob BeMett and the legal team is working against when they have to meet with the political team, which is they're saying these charges are too amorphous. We can't get a handle on what it is that is being alleged here. Keep quiet and let it play out. That's a difficult thing for a political person who wants, that's watching numbers drop in the polls and is watching the American people saying we want to hear from our president, we want to hear from our president.

DAVE MARASH: (voice- over) Law professor Jeffrey Rosen recently wrote in the New York Times worrying about this case, which necessarily invades presidential privacy and about the man prosecuting it.

JEFFREY ROSEN: An independent counsel unconstrained by financial or political accountability. So I do think it's fair to worry about whether Mr. Starr, with or without explicit cooperation, may have turned himself into an unpaid investigator for Paula Jones' lawyers.

AVE MARASH: (voice- over) While law professor John Barrett sees tihing to fear.

JOHN BARRETT: And I think what the independent counsel statute exists for and what appears generally to be happening in these cases is a credible investigation, a credible prosecution, a day in court that will establish the truth or the falsity of these charges. -

DAVE MARASH: When might a Clinton- Lewinsky courtroom confrontation come?

Ken Starr's critics and his advocates agree it must come quickly or not at all.

I'm Dave Marash for Nightline in Washington, TED KOPPEL: I'd like to warn our affiliates that we'll be going just a minute or two over our normal allotted time. We have an update to a story I reported at the beginning of this broadcast. I'll have that update for you, in a moment.

(Commercial Break) 'ED KOPPEL: One late breaking development. The White House called

after we went on the air tonight to advise us of their reaction to Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works.

1940

l/ 26/ 98 NIGHTLINE Page 12

(Publication page references are not available for this document.)

t Dallas Morning News story where the secret service agent was &epared to testify that he saw President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky in wa compromising position".

President Clinton's attorney David Kendall (ph) denounced the story as false and malicious. His statement goes on to say, and I quote, "This is another false political leak for obvious and political reasons on the eve of the State of the Union."

Peter Jennings will anchor an ABC News special on President Clinton's State of the Union address at 9: 00 Eastern, 8: 00 Central time tomorrow night.

That's our report for tonight. I'm Ted Koppel in Washington. For all of us here at ABC News, good night.

Content and programming copyright (c) 1998 American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Transcribed by Federal Document Clearing House, Inc. under license from American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to ABC News. This transcript may not be reproduced in whole or in part without prior w--; tten permission. For further information please contact: ABC News's

ice of Rights, Clearances and Permission Practices.( 212) 456- 4059 ---- INDEX REFERENCES ---- NEWS CATEGORY: PACKAGE Word Count: 4129 l/ 26/ 98 NIGHTLINE (No Page) END OF DOCUMENT

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1941

Tab 35

1942

1943

Page 1

Monday, January 26, 1998 NEWS PRESIDENT CLINTON DELIVERS REMARKS CHILD CARE, EDUCATION INITIATIVE AT WHITE HOUSE JACKIE JUDD / JEFFREY TOOBIN / SAM DONALDSON, PETER JENNINGS

ANNOUNCER: This is an ABC News Special Report. "Crisis in the White House."

PETER JENNINGS: Good morning, everybody. I’ m Peter Jennings in Washington. We're going to interrupt a previously scheduled event at the White HOUSe today to give you a pretty good example of the dilemma

in this city today.

The President and Mrs. Clinton are at a ceremony in The Roosevelt Room of the White House this morning to celebrate part of the President's child care initiative. And we interrupt partly to give you a sense of

Capr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1944

TQANSCRI PTS - l/ 26/ 98 ABCWWSSPR :t of the kids that get in trouble get in trouble after school closes .. d before their parents get home from work. So in the adolescent years and later, it's profoundly important to try to give kids something to say yes to and something positive to do. But we can't do it alone.

As I said, our plan involves a public- private partnership. So it's fallen to me to announce that our distinguished guest from the Mott Foundation of Flint, Michigan, has pledged up to $55 million to help insure that after- school programs supported by federal funds are of the highest quality.

That is an astonishing... (Applause) Thank you, Bill White. Thank you. (Applause) We are determined to help Americans succeed in the workplace; to raise well- educated, healthy kids; and to help Americans succeed at the

toughest job of all, that of being a parent. And the Mott Foundation has gone a long way toward helping us. I thank them.

Page 1

Copr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1945

Page 1

mQAWSCRIPTS - l/ 26/ 98 ABCNWSSPR gone a long way toward helping us. I thank them.

Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I‘ m

going to say this again.

I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. I

never told anybody to lie, not a single time -- never. These

people. Thank you.

(Applause) PETER JENNINGS: The President speaking in The Roosevelt Room to the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, which is a

public- private program between the government and the Mott Foundation to help children after school and saying again there -- we had known in advance he was going to say something -- he wants the American people listen to him, he did not have a sexual relationship with Monica

Copr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1946

Page 1

"" 9NSCRIPTS - l/ 26/ 98 AHCNWSSPR ten to him, he did not have a sexual relationship with Monica -winsky, he never told anyone to lie and those allegations are not correct.

The person who has been covering what is indisputably a crisis in the Clinton presidency at the moment for us since the beginning is ABC's Jackie Judd. Jackie, when you hear the President say that this morning, I'm inclined to ask you first, what does the special prosecutor currently have to work with that we know can be confirmed?

JACKIE JUDD: Ken Starr's investigation is now working on two tracks,

Peter. First, there are still efforts to get Monica Lewinsky to cooperate. For Ken Starr to be. convinced that she will give her full and complete testimony. Those negotiations are still going on.

The second track is that his office is trying to find evidence, find eyewitnesses to establish a case that could stand on its own with or without that full and complete testimony of Monica Lewinsky.

We reported, for example, over the weekend, Peter, that Starr's office is investigating whether or not there was a witness to a moment between the President and Lewinsky at the White House. If true, that kind of witness could support allegations of an affair again with or without Ms. Lewinsky.

'r. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1947

Page 1

"" ANSCRIPTS - l/ 26/ 98 ABCNWSSPR ut, most notably education, trying to prepare kids for the next -2ntury is imperiled by this story of sex and possibly perjury, and possible obstruction of justice that looms over him.

Hope you'll stay with us for breaking news. I'm Peter Jennings in Washington.

Content and programming copyright (c) 1998 American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Transcribed by Federal Document Clearing House, Inc. under license from American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to ABC News. This transcript may not be reproduced in whole or in part without prior written permission. For further information please contact: ABC News's Office of Rights, Clearances and Permission Practices.( 212) 456- 4059

---- INDEX REFERENCES ---- NEWS CATEGORY: PACKAGE Word Count: 3436 l/ 26/ 98 ABCNWSSPR (No Page) END OF DOCUWENT

Copr. {C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1948

1949

Tab 36

1950

1951

WHITE HOUSE EDUCATION NEWS CONFERENCE

PARTICIPANTS: PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, FIRST LADY HILLARY CLINTON VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE EDUCATION SECRETARY RICHARD RILEY BILL WHITE, PRESIDENT, C. S. MOT- l- FO~ A~ ON ROOSEVELT ROOM, THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON, DC 10: 17 A. M. EST MONDAY, JANUARY 26,19!@

MRS. CLINTON: (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you and good morning. Please be seated. Welcome to the White House. It is a pleasure to have all of you join the president and the vice president and Secretary Riley, Bill White (sp) of the Mott (sp) Foundation, and Mr. and Mrs. Bass (sp). And I’ m especially pleased to see in the audience so many people who care so much about education and child care. This morning we come together to hear about the president’ s plans to strengthen education, to discuss his historic child care initiative, and particularly to talk about how he has made quality after- school programs a national priority. I’ d like to start by talking about the child care initiative itself because it is the single largest investment in child care in our nation’ s history, and it will go a long way toward helping our nation’ s working parents find the care they can afford and trust. This initiative will make care more affordable and it will also double the number of children receiving subsidies and increased tax credits for child care. It will help local communities and it will promote early learning and health child development opportunities. It will ensure higher standards for child care by stepping up enforcement. But we all know that high- quality child care needs don’ t disappear when children start school It’ s estimated that up to 5 million school- age children spend time as latchkey kids without adult supervision. That’ s why. as part of this initiative, the president is making a significant investment in after- school care. This is so important for so many working families. We want more of America’ s children to say no to drugs and alcohol and crime, and yes to reading and soccer and computers. And with this expanded investment in after- school care, combined with public- private partnerships in communities, we will be able to give our children those opportunities. This moming‘ the president will announce how one such partner, the C. S. Mott Foundation, is providing critical support to strengthen and improve after- school programs.

1952 This afternoon I will be visiting a model program in Harlem, at the Harriet Tubman School, to underscore once again how important these programs am for all of our children. Now it is my great privilege to introduce someone who has been so committed to our children, and that is the secretary of education, Dick Riley. (Applause.)

SEC. RILEY: Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause continues.) Good morning. Thank you so much, and good morning to all of you. You know, today over 52 million will sit in our nation’ s classrooms, and the quality of education that they will get during the school day will determine really the future of this country. But what goes on after the school day ends is very important also. After- school progtams can be an important part of a child’ s education- They can give children more time to learn. They can offer young people safe and drug- free havens and keep kids out of trouble. They can give children the chance to enhance their lives through the arts and through music and through community service. And they can reassure working parents that their kids are in the right place and doing the right thing. Unfortunately, there are not enough quality after- school or before- school programs in our schools and communities right now. And that’ s why President Clinton and Vice President Gore and Mrs. Clinton are making a major commitment to the after- school effort. The administration’ s 1998 budget included a down payment of $40 million for after- school programs, but now we really want to step on the gas. We will ask Congress for $1 billion over the next five years to serve 500.000 students in 4,000 programs. We are going to call them the 2 1 st Century Community Learning Centers. And in order for communities and schools to get the best information possible on how to start after- school programs, we and the Mott Foundation are sponsoring 1 I regional workshops starting in February. We are honored so much today to have with us a conscientious American citizen, Bill White, the president of the C. S. Mott Foundation; a person, along with his board - and several members are here -- are concerned deeply about children, about their families, about their safety and about their education. And Bill will make a very important and significant statement about the foundation’ s participation in this effort. And thank you, Bill, very much for being with us. (Applause.)

1953 MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I only wish that C. S. Mott, who died in 1973, was here today. He loved kids, and this is about kids. Frankly, this historic partnership between the Department of Education and the Mott Foundation is a symbol of the full spectrum of public and private partnerships that we can expect to spring to life as this initiative is embraced by communities all over the United States. The Mott Foundation has made this commitment, in part, because there are certain things which we can fund, which federal funds won’ t cover. And so that’ s what we’ re about, is looking at the long- term sus~ abili~ of these programs, the leadership of these programs, and those types of activities. Mr. Vice President, I want to thank you for your deep understanding and personal commitment and articulation and support for these programs. And Mr. President, 1 believe this initiative will go down among the most important initiatives because it’ s about the future of our country. Thank you very much. (Applause.) Mrs. Clinton, in 1939, another first lady who cared deeply about children. and it was Mrs. Roosevelt, came to Flint to tour programs funded by the Mott Foundation. They were early child care and after- school programs. I believe that these programs have been proven by the test of time, and they’ re as important today -- perhaps more so -- than they were 60 years ago. And finally, I’ d love to talk about these programs; I’ ve seen many of them. But I probably have the best job here today, and it is my privilege -- and, if I may say, high honor -- to introduce two parents who have kids in such programs, and they are Rand and Deborah (sp) Bass from Arlington. Mr. and Mrs. Bass. (Applause.)

RAND BASS: Thank you, Mr. White. We want to thank the president, the first lady, and Vice President and Mrs. Gore for this op~~~ ity today to tell you a little bit about our positive experience with the extended day program at our children’ s school. Deborah (sp) and I have two children: Mitchell, who is 8, and Susie (sp), who is 6. They attend Barcroft Elementary School in Arlington. an ethnically diverse public school with a strong focus on the arts and a wonderful extended day program. We did a lot of research on both public and private schools before we decided to send Mitchell and Susie to Barcroft. There were many factors to consider, of course, but the availability of after-

1954 school care on the premises was an important one. We both firmly believe we made the right choice for our children three years ago. We know the children are safe, well cared- for, and among friends. The program is quite structured, with a wide range of activities available, from dodge ball in the gym to crafts, reading aloud, library visits, board games, and other - card games. There’ s even a special quiet, supervised homework room for those students who want to get a head start on their homework. Our children are very happy in extended day, and that makes all the difference for us as parents. We hope that by the time Mitchell and Susie are in middle school, we will have similar options for high- quality after- school care for them. On behalf of all the working parents in America, we want to thank the administration’ s leadership for their efforts to create more after- school programs. We know that with the leadership from the president, the first lady, and vice president and Mrs. Gore, that all the children in our country wifl have a better future. And now it’ s our great pleasure to introduce someone whose long- standing commitment to children, education and after- school programs is much appreciated by all parents. Ladies and gentlemen, we are honored to introduce a hard- working parent himself, the vice president of the United States, Al Gore.

VICE PRESIDENT GORE: (Applause) Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. And on behalf of the president and first lady, I want to acknowledge the presence of Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, Thank you. Dianne, for your hard work in this area. (Applause.) And also Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut. We appreciate your presence here, Chris. And I know that Senator Barbara Boxer, I think, is in

back there. And there are members of a lot of education groups and child care groups. community groups, parent- teacher groups, school boards association. I’ m not going to try to acknowledge everyone who should by rights be singled out here. But thank you for your participation and presence and hard work over the years on these issues. I want to thank Rand and Deborah (sp) Bass for introducing me and for giving that wonderful statement. I know of Barcroft Elementary. Tipper and I lived in Arlington for quite a long time. And 1 also want to express my deep appreciation to Bill White, the president and CEO of the Mott Foundation. And I want to thank the board of directors and other representatives of the Mott Foundation, who are also present with us here today. Bill, it’ s a wonderful

1955 co~ i~ ent that you’ re making, and it’ s going to make a huge difference in the lives of so many children and families across this country. And of course, Secretary Riley has offered such tremendous leadership and vision and steadfastness of all these topics. We are really grateful to you Mr. Secretary. We’ re here today, of course, to hear the president announce important new details of his commitment to education and his plan to give all of the children in this country the tools needed to succeed in the 21st century. But first of all, I’ d like to say something that everybody knows. These landmark investments would not have been possible without the dedication and hard work and achievement of our first lady, Hi& u- y Rodham Clinton. I want to acknowledge her leadership and her great advocacy for all of these programs. (Applause.) For 25 years, she has worked to put children and families at the top of our national agenda. She deserves the admiration and gratitude of every parent in America, and she certainly has mine. And in fact, the White House Conference on Early Childhood Development and then the one on child care both helped to set the stage for the national dialogue that we’ re now having. And I thank to Bill White and his Board of Directors for this generous commitment, but the president will describe that in just a moment and you will see just what a historic co~ i~ ent it is. And the president will speak more broadly about his overall education agenda because this morning’ s ~o~ cement should be seen in the context of how we prepare the people of our country, and especially children and families, for the challenges of the 2 I st century. Before presenting the president, I want to say just a few words about an area that’ s of special importance to me. It’ s been mentioned already -- after- school care. As Rand and Deborah (sp) Bass know very well. when children start school, it becomes especially hard for parents to balance the needs of home and work and raise strong families. That is why the president and first lady’ s commitment to child care is so significant, and that is why our commitment to after- school care is such a critical part of our child care plan The need for quality after- school care has often been raised at the annual family conferences that Tipper and I have in Nashville every year. We’ ve had them for the last six years. And, especially at last year’ s conference, which was on families and education and parents’ involvement in their children’ s education, we learned how serious it -- the challenge is, and how needed these after- school programs are.

1956 There are 5 million children, as the first lady said, who leave school before their parents get home. This period of time between the school bell and the factory whistle is the most vulnerable time for children. These are the hours when children are more likely to engage in at- risk behavior and are more vulnerable to the dangers that still exist in too many neighborhoods and communities. That puts some parents in a gut- wrenching dilemma: Do they stay at home and forego the family income that they need, or do they stay on the job and worry that their children will be in danger while they’ re away? Parents need help balancing those competing priorities. That is why the president announced that he will increase by an unprecedented 400 percent the 2 1 st Century Coals Learning Center grants that can be used to start, expand, and improve local after- school care. And I want to formally acknowledge Senator Barbara Boxer, who has worked her way through the media, through the crowd here. (Applause.) Thank you. Of course, this whole child- care program and the education agenda and after- school care represent just some of the ways that President Clinton is investing in the future of our children and giving parents more of the tools they need to raise strong famihes. So now I am very pleased to introduce America’ s true education president and the greatest champion of working parents and working families that the United States of America has ever known: President Bill Clinton. (Applause.)

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you Mm (inaudible). Thank you. (Applause continues.) Thank you very

much. Thank you. Please be seated. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. (Applause continues.) Thank you. Thank you very much. First. let me thank all of you who are here. Many of us have been working together now for 20 years on a lot of these issues, and this is a very happy day for us. I thank the first lady for all she has done on this issue for as long as I’ ve known her. I thank the vice president and Mrs. Gore for their family. conference and the light it has shed on the ~o~ cement we are here to emphasize today. I thank you. Secretary Riley, for the community learning centers. And I’ m very proud of what we’ ve done there. Thank you. Bill White. I’ ll talk more about your contribution in a moment, but it is truly remarkable. And I thank Rand and Deborah (sp)

1957 Bass for giving us a Iiving breathing example of the best of America, parents who are working hard to do their jobs, but also determined to do their most important job very well with their children. I thank Senator Feinstein, Senator Dodd and Senator Boxer for being here. Tomorrow, in the State of the Union address, I will spell out what we seek to do on behalf of our children to prepare them for the 21st century, but I want to talk a little bit about education today and about this announcement in that context. Education must be our nation’ s highest priority. Last year, in the State of the Union address, I set out a lo- point plan to move us forward and urged the American people to make sure that politics stops at the schoolhouse door. Well, we’ ve made a lot of progress on that it)- point plan; a remarkable - a nmarkable array of initiatives to open the doors of college to every American who is willing to work for it; strong progress toward high national standards in the basics, the America Reads challenge to teach every 8- year- old to read, continued progress in the vice president’ s program to hook up all of our classrooms and libraries to the Internet by the year 2000. This has been the most important year in a generation for education reform. Tomorrow I set out the next steps on our continuing road: First, I will propose the first- ever national effort to reduce class size in the early grades. (Applause.) Hillary and I worked very hard, 15 years ago now, to have very strict class sizes, at home, in the early grades. And it was quite controversial and, I think, enormously beneficial when we did it. Our balanced budget will help to hire a hundred thousand teachers, who must pass state competency tests but who will be able to reduce class size in the fust, second and third grades, to an average of 18. nationwide. (Applause.) Second, since there are more students and there will be more teachers, there must be more classrooms, so I will propose a school- cons~ ction tax cut to help co~~ ties modernize and build new schools. Third, I will promote a national effort to help schools that follow the lead of the Chicago system in ending social promotion but helping students with summer school and other programs to give them

the tools they need to get ahead. Al1 these steps will help our children get the future they deserve. And that’ s why what we’ re announcing here is so important as well. Every child needs someplace to go after school. With after- school programs, we can not only keep our kids healthy and happy and

1958 safe; we can help to teach them to say no to drugs, alcohol and crime, yes to reading, sports and computers. My balanced budget plan includes a national initiative to spark private- sector and local community efforts to provide after- school care+ as the secretary of Education said, to half- a- million more children. Now let me say in addition to all the positive benefits, I think it’ s important to point out that the hours between 3: 00 and 7: 00 at night are the most tierable hours for young people to get in trouble for juvenile crime. There is this - this sort of assumption that everybody that gets in trouble when they’ re young has just already been abandoned. That’ s not true. Most of the kids who get in trouble get in trouble after school closes and before their parents get home from work. So there - in the adolescent years and later years, it’ s profoundly important to try to give kids something to say yes to and something positive to do. But we can’ t do it alone. As I said, our plan involves a public- private partnership. So, it’ s - fallen to me to announce that our distinguished guests from the Mott Foundation of Flint, Michigan, has pledged up to $55 million to help ensure that after- school programs supported by federal funds are of the highest quality. That is an astonishing (gift ?). (Applause.) Thank you, Bill White. Thank you. (Applause.) We are determined to help Americans succeed in the workplace, to raise well- educated, healthy kids, and to help Americans succeed at the toughest job of all, that of being a parent. And the Mott Foundation has gone a long way toward helping us, and I thank them. . Now I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech, and I worked on it till pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’ m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you. (Applause.)

Tab A

1960

1961

Page Citation Search Result Rank 3 of 38 I/ 27/ 98 ASSOCPPS (No Page) l/ 27/ 98 Associated Press Pal. Serv. (Pg. Unavail. Online) 1998 WL 7380187

Databa ALLNEW

(Publication page references are not available for this document.)

Tuesday, January 27, 1998 WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a strangely strained setting, President . . .

WALTER R. MEARS Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) In a strangely strained setting, President Clinton is proclaiming the State of the Union to be strong as he begins his sixth year in the White House _ but he can make no such claim about the state of his presidency.

The State of the Union address is a president's grand stage, an occasion of state, his hour to set the agenda and declare his goals before Congress, the Cabinet, diplomats and the nation. This is prime time television on his terms, unlike the TV torrent over accusations, which he denies, that he was sexually involved with a former White House intern, now 24, and attempted to cover it up.

He does not plan to speak of it in his address tonight, but there's no avoiding the impact of the Monica Lewinsky case. That led him to a remarkable finale to a routine White House ceremony on education Monday.

"I want to say one thing to the American people," Clinton said, glaring at the TV cameras and shaking a finger for emphasis. "I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie. Not a single time. Never. These allegations are false, and I need to go back to work for the American people."

That certainly sounds categorical, but given the adroitly worded denials that enabled Clinton to brush off past questions about affairs, his draft record and the marijuana he didn't inhale, there were more.

Presidential spokesman Mike McCurry said there were indeed answers yet to be provided, and that they would be at the proper point, but that Clinton left no ambiguity on the central ones: sex with an ntern and allegations that she'd been asked to lie to conceal it.

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1962

l/ 27/ 98 ASSOCPPS (No Page)

(Publication page references are not available for this document.)

"I think every American that heard him knows exactly what he meant," McCurry said when he was asked whether the denial covered any form of sexual contact.

Ann Lewis, the White House communications director, said flatly that it did. "Sex is sex, even in Washington, I've been assured," she said.

The aim was to get past the allegations of scandal, back to the business Clinton wants addressed, telling Congress and the nation what he wants done, and boasting in an election year of what has been done during the Democratic administration so far.

The budget deficit is the lowest in 30 years, with the first balanced budget since 1969 in prospect next year. The economy has grown for seven years without a recession, the third longest expansion in history. Both inflation and unemployment are low, and despite stress abroad, in Iraq and with the extended U. S. military mission in Bosnia, it is peacetime.

But with the barrage of questions, accusations and rumors, Clinton's prospects have dimmed for getting things done his way in an election- year with a Republican Congress.

McCurry acknowledged the obvious, that what the White House is doing "has been in something of a shadow because of this incident."

He said Clinton's major address of the year is "being given in stranger circumstances" than in the past. That includes speculation about impeachment or resignation should allegations of perjury or encouraging it be proven.

There's been nothing like this since Watergate- worn Richard Nixon declared to Congress in his 1974 State of the Union address that he had no intention of resigning. Eight months later he quit, after Republican leaders told him he could not avoid impeachment for the cover- up role proven on his own tape recordings.

In his memoirs, he quoted a memo to himself, written on New Year's Day. "Fight, because if I am forced to resign, the press will become a much too dominant force in the nation, not only in this administration but for years to come," he wrote. "Fight, because resignation would set a precedent and result in a permanent and very destructive change in our whole constitutional system."

But after a long struggle, he surrendered. This case and these times are different. It wasn't a week before

Page Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1963

l/ 27/ 98 ASSOCPPS (No Page)

(Publication page references are not available for this document.)

there was talk, and not only from the fringes, that Clinton might be forced from the White House. All hedged with an if, since there's no proof.

But all said and replayed, along with allegations that not long ago would have been X rated beyond broadcasting. And all adding to the distraction as Clinton addresses the State of the Union and his audience tries to appraise his.

EDITOR'S NOTE Walter R. Mears, vice president and columnist for The Associated PTess, has reported on Washington and national politics for more than 30 years.

---- INDEX REFERENCES ---- KEY WORDS: EDUCATION; MUNICIPAL; POLITICAL STORY ORIGIN: UNITED STATES Word Count: 771 l/ 27/ 98 ASSOCPPS (No Page) END OF DOCUMENT

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1964

Tab B

1966

1967

Page 1

I :ation Search Result -! 7/ 98 TODAY (No Page) i/ 27/ 98 Today (Pg. Unavail. Online) 1998 WL 5261146

Rank 3 of 3 Database TODAY

Tuesday, January 27, 1998 Interview: Hillary Rodham Clinton discusses allegations against her husband,

child care, and State of the Union address MATT LAUER, co- host: On CLOSE UP this morning, the first lady of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton, good morning. Mrs. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Good morning, Matt. Matt, before we get into your questions, I just want to express again, Bill's and my condolences to Katie and her children, and Jay's entire family. And I know that everybody who watches the show, feels as we all do

h her, and want to help her in any way. LAUER: I spent some time with her yesterday. And I know she appreciated your call. Thank you very much.

We appreciate your being here. This -- this interview had been scheduled several weeks ago to talk about the subject of chi_ ld care, which we will talk about this morning.

Mrs. CLINTON: Right, mm- hmm. LAUER: But we appreciate you honoring the commitment, even in light of recent events. Thank you very much.

There has been question on the minds of a lot of people in this country, Mrs. Clinton, lately, and that is what is the exact nature of the relationship between your husband and Monica Lewinsky? Has he described that relationship in detail to you?

Mrs. CLINTON: Well, we've talked at great length. And I think. as this matter unfolds, the entire country will have more information. But we're right in the middle of a rather vigorous feeding frenzy right now. People are saying all kinds of things, plltting out rumor and innuendo. And I have learned over the last

y years being involved in politics, and especially since my jband first started running for president, that the best thing to

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1968

l/ 27/ 98 TODAY (No Page) Page 2 in these cases is just to be patient, take a deep breath, and the truth will come out. But there's nothing we can do to fight this firestorm of allegations that are out there.

LAUER: But he has described to the American people what this relationship was not...

Mrs. CLINTON: That's right. LAUER: . . . in his words. Mrs. CLINTON: That's right. LAUER: Has he described to you what it was? Mrs. CLINTON: Yes. And we'll -- and we'll find that out as time goes by, Matt. But I think the important thing now is to stand as firmly as I can and say that, you know, that the president has denied these allegations on all counts, unequivocally, and we'll-- we'll see how this plays out. I guess -- everybody says to me, 'How can you be so calm? ' or 'HOW can you just, you know, look like you're not upset? ' And I guess I've just been through it so many times. I mean, Bill and I have been accused of everything, including murder,

some of the very same people who are behind these allegations. -- from my perspective, this is part of the continuing political campaign against my husband.

LAUER: To the best of my knowledge, Mrs. Clinton, has your husband ever given or received gifts from or to Monica Lewinsky?

Mrs. CLINTON: I'm not going to comment on any specific allegation, because I've learned we need to put all of this into context, and it will be put into context. And anyone who knows my husband knows. that he is an extremely generous person to people he knows, to strangers, to anybody who is around him. And I think that, you know, his behavior, his treatment of people will certainly explain all of this.

LAUER: When you-- when you say he's a generous person, so it is possible that he has given gifts to Monica Lewinsky?

Mrs. CLINTON: I think it's possible, of course, because if you know my husband, you know that he is somebody who will, you know,-. say 'Matt, how would you like this? ' I mean, I've seen him take his tie off and hand it to somebody, you know.

LAUER: So that wouldn't be -- that wouldn't be a behavior that would unusual for him dealing with an intern in the White House?

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1969

l/ 27/ 98 TODAY (No Page) Page Z

- Irs. CLINTON: Dealing with anybody, Matt. I mean, seriously, I have-- I've known my husband for more than 25 years, and we've been married for 22 years, and the one thing I always kid him about is that he never meets a stranger. He is kind, he is friendly, he tries to help people who need help, who ask for help. So I think that everybody ought to just -- just stop a minute here and think about what we're doing. And it-- it's not just what we're doing in terms of making these accusations against my husband, but I'm very concerned about the tactics that are being used and the kind of intense political agenda at work here.

LAUER: I want to talk about Ken Starr in a second. Be-- before I get to him, let me just ask you, do you know Monica Lewinsky?

Mrs. CLINTON: No. Unh- unh. LAUER: You've never met her? Mrs. CLINTON: I may have. You know, there are hundreds and hundreds of young people who serve as interns. And, you know, we have big events for them. We take pictures with them. But unless they work directly in my office, I'm-- I'm not likely to meet them.

'> AUER: Did-- did Evelyn Lieberman, the former deputy chief of - iff, or any other White House staffers, Mrs. Clinton, ever come to you and say 'We may have a problem with one of the interns at the White House, ' and mention Monica Lewinsky...

Mrs. CLINTON: No. LAUER: . .. by name? Mrs. CLINTON: No, that never happened. LAUER: So these charges came as big-- to-- as big as shock to you as anyone?

Mrs. CLINTON: And to my husband. I mean, you know, he woke me .~ p Wednesday morning and said 'You're not going to believe this, but... ' and I said 'What is this? ' And so, yeah, it came as a very big surprise.

LAUER: When he said 'But, ' he said 'But' what? Mrs. CLINTON: 'But I want to tell you what's in the newspapers. ' LAUER: I -- I think the-- the part of this that makes certain people oss the country uneasy is that we have a Zl- year- old intern at the -_ te House, who moves to the Pentagon, who then gets a job interview

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1970

l/ 27/ 98 TODAY (No Page)

. the UN with Bill Richardson himself, and then a very dear friend ui your husband's, Vernon Jordan, recommends her for two jobs in this city, here in New York, and then drives her personally to a lawyer's office when she's subpoenaed by Kenneth Starr. Does it not appear though -- that-- that this intern had more clout in Washington than most others do?

Mrs. CLINTON: I don't know the circumstances of any of that, Matt. I think that, you know, I-- I just can't describe to you how outgoing and friendly Vernon Jordan is. I mean, when he stood up and said what I believe to be the absolute truth, that he has helped literally hundreds of people, and it doesn't matter who they are. And if he were asked to help somebody, he would help that person. I've seen him do it countless times, so I guess I know the people involved. I know them personally. I know them well. I've known Vernon longer than I've known my husband.

LAUER: So when people say there's a lot of smoke here... Mrs. CLINTON: LAUER: . .. your ?rs. CLINTON:

- :n through for been accused of.

There's... message is 'Where there's smoke... ' There isn't any fire, because think of what we've the last six years, and think of everything we've

And, you know, initially, when this first started and I would be accused of something, or my husband would be accused of something, I would be really upset, and I would want to rush out, and I'd say, 'That's not true. ' And then somebody would nitpick and say 'Well, what about this? ' And I'd say 'Well, I hadn't thought about that. ' And then I'd rush around., I'd say, 'Well that's not true. '

LAUER: Are you saying, though, that you're no long-- that this doesn't upset you any more, you-- you're...

Mrs. CLINTON: Look, it's... LAUER: _.. almost numb to it? Mrs. CLINTON: . . . it's not being numb so much as just being very experienced in the unfortunate, mean- spirited give and take of American politics right now. So, having seen so many of these accusations come and go, having seen people profit, you know, like Jerry Faiwell, with videos, accusing my husband of committing murder, of drug running, seeing some of the things that are written and said about him, my attitude is, you know, we've been there before, we have

n this before, and I am just going to wait patiently until the ;th comes out.

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works Page 4

1971

l/ 27/ 98 TODAY (No Page) Page 5 LAUER: So if-- so if what you have heard is something you can klieve, and if what the president has told the nation is the whole truth and nothing but the truth...

Mrs. CLINTON: Right. LAUER: . . .then you'd have to agree that this is the worst and most damaging smear of the 20th century.

Mrs s CLINTON: Well, I don't know. There have been a lot of smears in the 20th century, but it's a...

LAUER: This is pretty devastating. Mrs. CLINTON: . . .pretty, pretty bad one. Well, just think about it, and this is what concerns me, this started out as an investigation of a failed land deal. I told everybody in 1992, 'We lost money. ' People said, 'It's not true, ' you know, 'they made money. They have money in a Swiss bank account. ' Well, it was true. It's taken years, but it was true. We get a politically motivated prosecutor who is allied with the right- wing opponents of my husband, who has literally spent four years looking at every telephone...

LAUER: Spent $30 million. Mrs. CLINTON: . . .more than that now, but looking at every relephone call we've made, every check we've ever written, scratching for dirt, intimidating witnesses, doing everything possible to try to make some accusation against my husband.

LAUER: We're talking about Kenneth Starr, so let's... Mrs. CLINTON: We're talking... LAUER: . . . use his name, because he is the independent counsel. Mrs. CLINTON: . .. well. we're talking about -- but it's the whole operation. It's-- it's not just one person, it's an entire operation.

LAUER: Did he go outside of his rights, in your opinion, to expand this investigation? After all, he got permission to expand the investigation from a three- judge panel.

Mrs. CLINTON: The same three- judge panel that removed Robert F; ske and appointed him. The same three- judge panel that is headed

someone who is appointed by Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth. Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1972

l/ 27/ 98 TODAY (No Page) LAUER: Also, Judge Reno approved... Mrs. CLINTON: Well, of course... LAUER: . . -this expansion of an investigation. Mrs. CLINTON: . .. well. you're-- of course she is, because she doesn't want to appear as though she's interfering with an investigation. I don't-- look, I-- I'm not going to take all that on, because I've learned that we just have to ride this out. It's just a very unfortunate turn of events that we are using the criminal justice system to try to achieve political ends in this country. And-- and, you know, when I'm here today, I'm not only here because I love and believe my husband, I'm also here because I love and believe in my country. And if I were just a citizen out there, maybe because I know about the law and I have some idea, some of the motivations here, I would be very disturbed by this turn of events.

LAUER: When-- when-- the last time we visited a subject like this involving your family was 1992, and the name Gennifer Flowers was in the news...

Mrs. CLINTON: Mm- hmm. ,AUER: .__ and you said at the time of the interview, a very famous quote, 'I'm not some Tammy Wynette standing by my man. '

Mrs. CLINTON: Mm- hmm. LAUER: In the same interview, your husband had admitted thpt he had, quote, "caused pain

Mrs. CLINTON: ~- h~.

” LAUER: Six years later husband...

Mrs. CLINTON: Mm- hmm. LAUER: . . . through some today, Mrs. Clinton, do

in your marriage .m you are still standing by this man, your difficult charges. If he were to be asked you think he would admit that he again has caused pain in this marriage?

Mrs. CLINTON: No. Absolutely not, and he shouldn't. You know, we've been married for 22 years, Matt, and I have learned a long time ago that the only people who count in any marriage are the two that are in it. We know everything there is to know about each other,

-1 we understand and accept and love each other. ,And I just think It a lot of this is deliberately designed to sensationalize charges

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works Page i

1973

l/ 27/ 98 TODAY (No Page) _ rinst my husband, because everything else they've tried has failed. And I also believe that it's part of an effort, very frankly, to undo the results of two elections.

LAUER: Le-- let me talk about your role. There have been reports that you've taken charge at the White House and decided to be the chief defender of your husband, of the president, and deflect these charges. How much of a role are you taking in this, do you think you should take?

Mrs. CLINTON: Well, I certainly am going to defend my husband. And I'm certainly going to offer advice. But I am by no means running any kind of strategy or being his chief defender. He's got very capable lawyers and very capable people inside the White House, and a lot of very good friends outside the White House.

LAUER: But you're probably the most credible defender of the president at this time.

Mrs. CLINTON: Well, I probably know him better than anybody in the world, so I would hope that I'd be the most credible defender.

,AUER: James Carville, who you know... __ Mrs. CLINTON: Great human being.

alive LAUER: I'm sure you like him, especially at this time. He has said that this is war between the president and Kenneth Starr. You have said, I understand, to some close friends, that this is-- the last great battle, and that one side or the other is going down here.

Mrs. CLINTON: Well, I don't know if I've been that dramatic. That would sound like a good line from a movie. But I do believe that this is a battle. I mean, look at the very people who are involved in this, they have popped up in other settings. This is the great story here, for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it, is this vast right- wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president. A few journalists have kind of caught onto it and explained it, but it has not yet been fully revealed to the American public. And, actually, you know, in a bizarre sort of way, this may do it.

LAUER: Has-- has your husband, though, through some of his actions, possibly made it easier for those people to attack him.

rs. CLINTON: Well, you know, Matt, that's a tough question Jause I can remember in Bill's very first race, in 1974, there was

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works Page -

1974

l/ 27/ 98 TODAY (No Page) Page E

_ Jreat effort against him then. But one of the funniest things tnat ever happened -- although at the time it wasn't funny-- is that the people who were against him, claimed that he had been up in a tree demonstrating as President Nixon during the Texas/ Arkansas football game in 1969. It didn't matter that he was in England at the very day listening to the game on shortwave radio. They took a picture out of a newspaper, they cut the head off the man who was in the tree, they put Bill Clinton's head on it. They printed thousands of them. They passed them out in every country church and every country store, so you had hundreds of thousands of people believing this. Now I have to say, I don't know what it is about my husband that generates such hostility, but I have seen it for 25 years.

LAUER: Let-- let me take you and your husband out of this for a second. Bill and Hillary Clinton are involved in this story. If an American president had an adulteress liaison in the White House and lied to cover it up, should the American people ask for his resignation?

Mrs. CLINTON: Well, they should certainly be concerned about it. LAUER: Should they ask for his resignation? Irs. CLINTON: Well, I think-- if all that were proven true, I .nk that would be a very serious offense. That is not going to be proven true. I think we're going to find some other things. And I think when all of this is put into context, and we really look at the people involved here, look at their motivations, look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for. -_

LAUER: One more subject before I get to child care. I've talked to a lot of people about this story. It's certainly a topic of conversation...

Mrs. CLINTON: It's a big story, I know, LAUER: . . . around the country. Mrs. CLINTON: I know. LAUER: One of the comments I hear a lot, Mrs. Clinton, is how is Chelsea handling this? It's not easy being a freshman in college., anyway.

Mrs. CLINTON: Right. Well... .AUER: How is she doing?

Copr. 0 West I998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1975

1127198 TODAY (No Page) Page C

- Irs. CLINTON: . . .she's all right. And I really want to thank people for just letting her continue to be a freshman. Because any time-- accusations of any kind, but especially like this with such publicity around the world are made, it really does affect your whole family. I mean, it's not only my daughter, it's my mother, it's Bill's stepfather, it's our brothers, our sister- in- laws, all of us.

LAUER: How often do you talk to Chelsea about it, or have you? Mrs. CLINTON: We've talked a lot. Both Bill and I have talked to her a lot.

LAUER: Does she offer any advice to you? It's usually the other way around, but has she offered you any advice?

Mrs. CLINTON: It's not advice so much, but, you know, since she was six years old, I have known, both because-- I think my husband's personality and his kind of gregariousness, and his-- as well as his political ideas really do engender a very deep hostility. So I was telling Chelsea when she was a child that 'This is going to happen, and it's very unfortunate. ' I honestly wish if people had political differences, if you don't like his stand on something, fight it out on that. Don't just try to destroy somebody personally. So I have

.d her that this is the kind of thing that would happen, and she seen many, many examples of it in her very short life. So it's not a pleasant experience, but it's given her sort of the grounding to be able to see what this is and get through it.

LAUER: Want to talk a little child care? Mrs. CLINTON: Yeah, I'd like to talk about the State of the Union, and not only child care, which I'm very excited about, but also some of the possible programs for the millennium that the president will be announcing tonight.

LAUER: Go ahead, I give you an opportunity. Mrs. CLINTON: Thank you. Well, you know, the child- care proposal has been, I think, well put out thefe, and we're getting a fabulous response from around the country. And, you know, we had an announcement yesterday at the White House, and I was here in New York talking about it again yesterday. I think it's going to make a big difference in the lives of a lot of working people. So I hope there is going to be support for that. And I have a sense that we're going to have bipartisan support for child care.

l, AUER: While you're talking about bipartisan, I heard one critic

/ that this was more of a Republican plan than the one you first ,sibly talked about when you came to Washington five years ago.

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1976

l/ 27/ 98 TODAY (No Page) deals with tax credits... Mrs. CLINTON: Right.

Page 1C LAUER: . . . and grant blocks to the states... Mrs. CLINTON: Right. LAUER: . . . which takes some power away from the federal government. Mrs. CLINTON: Right. LAUER: How do you respond to that? Mrs. CLINTON: Well, I think it's a good plan. And I -- I have no problem taking good Republican ideas and mixing them with good Democratic ideas to get good ideas for Americans. And I think that you'll see that some of the Republican members of the Congress are coming up with some other ideas. And I hope that at the end of the day, we'll have the best mix we can possibly have.

But I did want to mention one other thing about what the president wj. 11 talk about tonight. And that is, you know, we are going to be

.ebrating the millennium, and the turn of the century. And I've 3n working very hard with the president to come up with a way that we could honor the past and imagine the future. And I've learned in my studies there are-- a lot of what we value as Americans is in real disrepair, like "The Star Spangled Banner" is in danger of disintegrating. And our Constitution, our Bill of Rights have to be, you know, really better taken care of. And there are many examples of that around the country. So we're going to launch a public/ private partnership-- some money in the federal budget, but I hope raising some private money, to go out and save these precious parts of our past.

LAUER: It's interesting in listening to you talk, that when you deal with the allegations against the president, you refer to him as your husband.

Mrs. CLINTON: Right. LAUER: And when you deal with issues in the State of the Union address, you talk to him, and refer to him as the president.

Mrs. CLINTON: You know, this has been so hard for me, because, you know, I remember reading one time that-- when President Kennedy became president, even his brother said 'I can no longer call you

k, I have to call you Mr. President.! Well, obviously, I call my jband 'Bill, ' and I refer to him as my'husband, but when he's

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works'

1977

l/ 27/ 98 TODAY (No Page) Page 11 :ing in his official capacity, like he will tonight when he stands up and talks about where we are as a nation, I guess I feel that he's my president as well as my husband.

LAUER: Just a few seconds left. Based on what you know now... Mrs. CLINTON: Uh- huh. LAUER: . . .five years after coming to Washington, the personal attacks, the political attacks, do you sit home at night and think it's worth it -- it has been worth it?

Mrs. CLINTON: I do, Matt, and I'll tell you why. Obviously, I've thought a lot about that, because this has been a grueling ordeal. And it has required every bit of religious faith, or spiritual resources Bill and I have. It has been a-- an incredible personal challenge, but I think about it in two ways: I believe the country is better off because my husband has been president. I think the economy, the crime rate, a lot of the social problems were finally addressed with a smart strategy, and we've seen the results. You know, just yesterday in New York, I mean in elevators and in a hotel, you know, waiters, other people came up to me, grabbed my_ bands and said 'You tell the president to stand firm, we need him.

's on our side. ' He is. He is on the side of the American _- ,ple. So when I balance what he's accomplished and the hope he's given to people, and the way the economy has created opportunities for people against all of the challenges we've been through personally, it is worth it.

Now do I wish that we didn't live in a time where people were so malicious and evil- minded? Of course. But, you know, that's human nature, so you -- you take the good with the bad. And the good has far-- far outweighed any bad at all.

LAUER: Mrs. Clinton, we-- we certainly appreciate your time, and your candor this morning. Thank you...

Mrs. CLINTON: Thank you. LAUER: . .. very much. Mrs. CLINTON: Thank you, Matt. LAUER: Seven twenty- four. This is TODAY on NBC. Program Time: 7: 00- 9: 00 AM Nielson Rating 5879400 f? Tference: 980127

:d Count: 4019 Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1978

l/ 27/ 98 TODAY (No Page) _ :7/ 98 TODAY (No Page) ct\ lD OF DOCUMENT

Copr. 6 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

1979

Tab 37

1980

1983

REMARK! 3 BY PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON AND BRITISH PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR DURING A PHOTO OPPORTUNITY THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON, DC APPROXIMATELY 12: 15 P. M. EST -DAY, FEBRUARY 5,199s

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me just say, to start out, the reason we’ re kind of hanging around like this is we’ re about to go into the back dining room there so we can have a working lunch. And I’ m looking forward to this. We’ re going to have two good days. And we have a lot to discuss, not only Iraq, which everyone knows about, and Ireland, but also the plans that we’ re making together, or at least in common, for our countries domestically, and a lot of other issues that will affect both the people of Great Britain and the people of the United States. So this is going to be a good meeting.

Q Mr. President, would you mind -- would you like to use this occasion to tell the American people what kind of relationship, if any, you had with Monica Lewinsky?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I’ ve already said that the charges are false. But there is an ongoing investigation.

And I think it’ s important that I go back and do the work for the American people that I was hired to do. I think that’ s what I have to do now.

Q Are you going to exert executive privilege, sir? PRESIDENT CLINTON: First, let me make it clear. For four years we’ ve been cooperating exhaustively. And that’ s a hypothetical question, as far as I know. Should it arise, I will await a recommendation from the White House counsel about the institutional responsibilities of the presidency, and when I get it, then I’ ll make a decision.

Q Mr. President, there are a lot of Republican leaders and arm- chair generals who want you to change your policy toward Iraq and to take out Saddam. What is your feeling about that now?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I would make two points. First of all -_ and I believe the prime minister has also made this point. What is

the cause of the present stand- off? It is the suspension of the inspections by the United Nations inspectors and the restrictions on

1982 where they can inspect. Our interest is in preventing Saddam Hussein from building biological, chemical, nuclear weapons capability, the missiles to deliver such weapons. That is our interest. That’ s where the authority from the United Nations resolutions rests. So that’ s the first thing.

Now, second thing, as a practical matter, we can pursue that interest with available options. Would the Iraqi people be better off if there were a change in leadership? I certainly think they would be. But that is not what the United Nations has authorized us to do, that is not what our immediate interests is about.

Now, we intend to be very firm on this, and I hope that we will have the world community with us. But what I really hope most of all is that there will be a diplomatic resolution of this, that Saddam Hussein will move away from his present position.

Q But if you were to order military strikes, they would not be directed specifically at him?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, first of all, there is an executive order that’ s been place for over 20 years on that subject.

Q (Off mike.) PRESIDENT CLINTON: It does. Now -- but let’ s not discuss hypothetically what targets might be there or what we might do. I think it is important that he understand that we are very resolute on the issue of the inspection system. And it’ s not an American issue. You might want to ask the prime minister about it.

Q Are you saying there’ s an order to take him out? PRESIDENT CLINTON: No, no, no! No, no. No. I was referring to the executive order, I believe first issued by President Ford, saying that it is against -- that political killing or assassination, if you will, is against American foreign policy interests, that we don’ t do that.

But we are very firm in our resolve. And I was very heartened by the prime minister’ s statement in the White House there about his position.

Q Are you concerned about Mr. Yeltsin’ s comments about the possibility of leading towards a war? I know he backed off that a little bit. But what are our views on that?

1983 PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I doubt that that would happen. We had a good talk the other day -- President Yeltsin and I did. And I know that he very much hopes that a violent confrontation can be avoided. So do I. But in the end, it is up to Saddam Hussein, it is not up to the rest of us. We don’ t -- and I don’ t - I haven’ t talked to a single soul who hopes there will be some sort of violent encounter here, not a soul.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Yeah, that’ s absolutely right. Q There are also diplomatic efforts by the French and the Russians in Baghdad right now. Do you think they can bear fruit and avoid a military strike?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Of course everyone hopes that a diplomatic solution is available and can work. We all want that. But I think all of our experience with Saddam Hussein teaches us that diplomacy has very little chance of working, unless it is clear to him that if diplomacy does not work, then the threat and the reality of force is there.

And the reason why it’ s important for us to take the position we are is because over these past few years, the U. N. weapons inspectors have uncovered literally thousands of chemical weapons, they’ ve discovered biological warfare capability, they’ ve discovered the beginnings of nuclear capability. It is for that very reason that the inspectors are there. It’ s for that very reason that the U. N. has made it quite clear that the U. N. inspectors have got to go in so that we destroy that capability to develop weapons of mass destruction.

And I think that the entire international community, whatever varying degrees of enthusiasm for using the military option, understand that Saddam Hussein has to be stopped, and that it is absolutely essential in the long- term interests of world peace that we make sure that he can’ t develop these weapons of mass destruction because he is a man who has used those weapons before; he will use them again, if he’ s given the opportunity to do so.

STAFF: Last question. (Cross talk.) Q Aside from your role on Iraq, do you have a specific role in the Middle East peace process now?

1984 PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Well, we obviously want to do everything we can, both as Great Britain and also as the president of the European Union at the moment, to back up the efforts that are being made here to try and secure a peace settlement in the Middle East. And I, myself, have both seen and corresponded regularly with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Yarser Arafat. And we continue the whole time to see what we can do to move that process forward because there is a process underway; it is in a very difficult situation at the moment. But as we know from our own attempts to secure peace in Northern Ireland, if we don’ t try and push these processes forward, they very quickly slip back. So I think there is a great deal of urgency there, and we will obviously work with our American colleagues to see what we can do to help.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: We’ re going to talk about this quite a bit. And I’ m -- I view the prime minister’ s interest in the Middle East in a very positive light. And as you know, we are working -- Secretary Albright has been working very hard to jump- start these negotiations again, to get them through this next phase so we can go on to fmal status talks. And we’ re going to need all the help we can, and we need all the help we can in the world to rebuild the economic fabric as well as -- of the Palestinian areas, and as well as a climate of confidence and trust between all the parties. So I’ m hopeful we can make some headway. We’ re going to talk about it.

Thank you. STAFF: Thank you. (Cross talk.) Q (Inaudible.) PRESIDENT CLINTON: I can only say -- I’ ve said the charges aren’ t true, there’ s an investigation going on. While that’ s going on, it’ s my duty to keep doing the job I was hired to do by the American people. And that’ s my position.

1985

Tab 38

1986

1987

JOINT NEWS CONFERENCE WITH PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON

AND BRITISH PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR THE WHITE HOUSE, THE EAST ROOM WASHINGTON, DC 11: 07 A. M. EST

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 61998

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good morning. Please be seated. First, let me say that it’ s been a real pleasure to welcome my friend Prime Minister Blair here to Washington, with the entire British entourage. It continues the great tradition of partnership between our nations, anchored by common values, driven by common vision, eager to meet the challenges of this new age.

Today we pay tribute to that heritage with a visit to the FDR memorial. Earlier in this century President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill led the community of free nations that prevailed in world war. Now, on the eve of the 2 1 st century, the prime minister and I seek to shape the peace in a world that is rich with possibility and promise, but still not free from risk.

We have a very similar outlook on preparing our own countries for the future. And if I might just take a moment to talk about the latest economic news, the strategy we are both working is to prepare all our people for the Information Age and a global economy.

Today we have new evidence that that strategy is working here. In the last month America had 358,000 new jobs, over a million in the last three months. We’ re approaching 15 million new jobs in the last five years with the lowest unemployment in 24 years. Wages are rising, inflation is low, the role of government has changed. We have the smallest percentage of these new jobs in the public sector and the highest percentage in the private sector, in the United States since the 1920s. By maintaining fiscal discipline, opening more markets, investing more in our people, we will continue to expand opportunity and promote prosperity.

We also share a common view of the changes that are occurring in the world and a belief in the importance of working together to harness them to the benefit of our people. We’ ve reviewed our progress in building an undivided Europe; welcoming Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland into NATO; forging strong relations with the new democracies there, including Russia and Ukraine; helping the parties in Bosnia to fulfill the requirements of the Dayton peace accord. Both our nations agree we should take part in a follow- on security presence when the SFOR mission ends in Bosnia in June. We reaffirmed our determination to combat modem cross- border threats like terrorism and the spread of the weapons of mass destruction.

On Iraq, we stand together. Saddam Hussein must know that we are

1988 determined to prevent him Corn threatening his neighbors and the world with weapons of mass destruction. The prime minister and I would both prefer a genuine diplomatic solution. The best way to stop Saddam from developing an arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the missiles to deliver them, is to get the inspectors back to work with full and free access to all relevant sites. But let me be clear. If Saddam does not comply with the unanimous will of the international community, we must be prepared to act - and we are.

On Libya, 10 years later, we haven’ t forgotten the victims of the bombing of Pan Am 103 in the skies over Lockerbie, Scotland, or their loved one. We will not rest until Libya complies with the requirements of the world community and surrenders for trial in the United States or Scotland, the two Libyans accused of that brutal crime.

We addressed our commitment to advance the cause of peace, and I welcome Britain’ s efforts as president of the European Union to spur greater cooperation in the Middle East peace process.

I also commend the prime minister for his courageous steps in cooperation with the Irish government to promote a climate of confidence and hope in Northern Ireland. The multi- party talks provide the best chance for a real solution to that conflict. I urge all the parties to show the vision and the forbearance and the determination to succeed.

I unequivocally condemn this recent sectarian killings and beatings and threats. Nothing worth having in Northern Ireland can be accomplished through violence. I told the prime minister that we will continue to do all we can to advance the cause of peace. And, of course, I asked for and received his advice in that regard.

The recent financial crisis in Asia demands action from the international community. On our increasingly interconnected planet, trouble in the far end of town can easily become a plague in our own neighborhood. We agree that every affected nation must take responsibility for implementing tough reforms, and that other nations, when they do that, when those nations that are affected do their part, other nations should support helping them through the International Monetary Fund.

We also looked at ways that we could work together to benefit our people at home. As president of both the European Union and the G- 7, the United Kingdom will host two important summits in Birmingham this May. The prime minister told me he wants to take these summits to take action that really will make a difference in our people’ s daily lives, that lift their horizons and their dreams, stepping up our efforts to combat drug tra% ckers and helping every child to grow up in a safe community.

Shielding our planet from the threat of global warming and

1989 bringing our people the benefits of a growing economy and a clean environment are important to us as well.

It’ s also important that we give our people the tools to make the most of their lives through world- class education and training, help people to move from welfare to work - and I applaud the efforts that the prime minister is making on that - give them access to the wonders of the Information Age - that’ s something we talked about yesterday at the Montgomery Blair High School in Maryland -- and dealing with the question of how to provide greater security in the retirement years when the baby boom generation retires. We finally know that our two nations must continue to work and to lead the world, for security, prosperity, and peace.

In 1942, in the midst of the Second World War, President Roosevelt sent a message to Mr. Churchill, which said as follows: ‘ When victory comes, we shall stand shoulder to shoulder in seeking to nourish the great ideals for which we fight.”

Today, on the verge of a new century and a new millennium, that prediction has proved right. America is proud to stand with the United Kingdom and with Europe, and to work with its leader, Prime Minister Tony Blair, to build an even brighter future.

Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. The floor is yours. PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Thank you, Mr. President. And can I begin by saying how grateful we have been for such a wonderful and warm welcome here in the United States of America.

As the president has just indicated, we discussed, obviously, a range of different topics. At the top of the list, of course, was the situation in respect of Iraq. And what we agreed was that we had to do three things in particular. We have, first of all, to make sure that our own public opinion was properly educated as to why it is so essential that the U. N. inspectors are able to do their work, the unount of weapons that they have already uncovered in the six or seven years that they have been doing this task, and why it is therefore absolutely essential that Saddam Hussein is brought back into line tith U. N. Security Council resolutions and the inspectors can go about their task unhindered.

We ourselves a couple of days ago in Britain published a document where we listed precisely all the various weapon finds the inspectors have made. And when you go through that list and see all of the various attempts there have been, to try and prevent the inspectors’ carrying out their functions, then I think people can understand why it is so necessary, so important for us to be prepared to take whatever action is necessary to ensure those inspectors can go back in and fulfill their task.

1990 Secondly, though, in relation to Iraq, it is important that we stress, all the time, of course we want a diplomatic solution. But it must be a diplomatic solution based on, and fully consistent with, the principles that we have set out.

The question of whether there is such a diplomatic solution rests ultimately with Saddam Hussein. He has the choice. He can bring himself back into compliance with the agreements he entered into, and then that diplomatic solution can be fulfilled.

Thirdly, however, we have, of course, to prepare in case diplomacy cannot work. In view of the situation, we in Britain have been looking at our own military readiness, in case a diplomatic solution does not, in the end, prove possible.

We have decided to base eight Tornado GR- 1 aircraft in Kuwait, with the full agreement of the government of Kuwait. These are ground attack and reconnaissance aircraft. Their deployment is a precautionary measure, and it will take place over the next few days.

So, all the way through in respect of Iraq, we have agreed that we must educate, we must engage in diplomacy, but we also must prepare.

In respect of Ireland, I want to place on record yet again my thanks to the president for all the support he has given us in searching for a lasting and peaceful political settlement in Ireland. As I’ ve found when I’ ve addressed many members of Congress and the Senate here in Washington, there is tremendous interest in the United States of America in this process. And there is a great, much- appreciated willingness on your part to have that process succeed.

It isn’ t going to be easy; these things never are. But we do believe that we have the best chance that we have had for many generations to secure peace. And I wanted to emphasize yet again to you our total and complete determination and commitment to find a peaceful way through. With goodwill and with proper cooperation and with some trust on all sides, I think it is possible.

And I thank the president for his condemnation of those sectarian killings that have so disfigured the process over the past few weeks. And I say, yet again, what we must ensure is that those random, brutal, unjustified acts of violence perpetrated by a small minority, must not in the end, frustrate the wishes of the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland to secure a peaceful and stable future for themselves.

We discussed, of course, the Middle East peace process, and Bosnia and our commitment there. We discussed as the president has mentioned a moment ago, the global economy, the Asian crisis, and what measures we should take in order to ensure that such crises are mitigated and do not happen again.

1991 We also laid out for the president and his colleagues, our strategy as president of the European Union; our commitment to ensure the monetary union is successfully launched; our commitment to the enlargement process, bringing into the European Union those countries in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. And we discussed as well, and agree, that it was important that Europe strengthened its relationship with Turkey and that we build a strong relationship with Turkey; between Turkey and the European Union for the future.

As good and interesting as anything else has been also the possibility of exchanging ideas, ideas about how government meets the economic and social and political challenges of the future.

As I said in my speech this morning at the breakfast hosted by the vice president, there is a new Britain being shaped today. It is a Britain of confidence, dynamism. It is a Britain that is proud of its past but is not living in it, and is shaping a future of which we can be proud also. And I think in exchanging ideas, and in seeing how much there are common themes and common ideas for government between us, we can gain strength in Britain and United States from that partnership and relationship.

And finally, I would like to say, personally, how tremendously grateful I have been, as I say not merely for the warmth of the welcome extended to us here, but for the great comradeship and partnership between the United States of America and Great Britain that I know will strengthen and strengthen evermore in the future.

Thank you. PRESIDENT CLINTON: Now, here’ s what we’ re going to do, we’ re going to alternate, and so I’ ll call on an American journalist and the prime minister will call on a British journalist. Of course you’ re free to ask whomever whatever you please.

Helen? Q Mr. President, despite the ongoing investigation, you felt no constraint in saying what your relationship with Monica Lewinsky is not -- was not. So it seems, by logic, that you ought to be able to say here and now what was your relationship? Her lawyer says -- called it “colleagues.” Is that an apt description?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, let me first of all say, once again I never asked anybody to do anything but tell the truth. I know about the stories today. I was pleased that Ms. Currie’ s lawyers stated

1992 unambiguously this morning - unambiguously - that she’ s not aware of any unethical conduct.

But this investigation is going on and you know what the rules for it are. And I just think as long as it’ s going on, I should not comment on the specific questions because one - there’ s one, then there’ s another, then there’ s another. It’ s better to let the investigation go on and have me do my job and focus on my public responsibilities and let this thing play out its course. That’ s what I think I should do, and that’ s what I intend to do.

Q You are leaving people in the dark. PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I’ m honoring the rules of the investigation, and if someone else is leaking, unlawfully, out of the grand jury pmceeding, that’ s a di& rent story. I am going to do - I have told the American people what I think is essential for them to know about this and what I believe they want to know. What I’ m doing is going on with my work and cooperating with the investigation. And I do not believe I should answer specific questions. I don’ t think that’ s the right thing to do now.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR Michael? Q Michael Brownson of ITN in London. Is it not time, though, to drop the pretense that this is simply business as usual? Have we not seen, with the allegations that surrounding the British foreign secretary, but to a much greater degree yourself, Mr. President, that this does affect the conduct of public business?

And far from dodging the point as you did, Prime Minister, yesterday when you were asked about the private lives of public figures, should you not both be saying that the public have the right to expect the very highest standard in the private lives of public politicians?

PRIME MINISTBR BLAIR: Well, Michael, I hope we do that. But what I would say to you is that what is essential is that we focus on the issues that we were elected to focus upon. And in the discussions that we have had over this past two days, we have been focusing on issues like Iraq, where we are considering, if diplomatic solutions fail, taking military action; we’ ve been focusing on the peace process in Northern Ireland, that gives a chance for the first time in generations, after centuries of conflict, for people to find a way through; we’ ve been focusing on the problems of the world economy that, if they’ re not tackled, could have a serious impact on the living standards of people here and people in Britain, as well as

1993 people out in Asia.

These are the important questions for me, schools, hospitals, crime, living standards, jobs that people want us to focus upon. And I believe that it is absolutely essential that we stay focused upon those things and that we deliver for our people what we were elected to deliver.

Now, that is what I intend to do. And I think that that is, in the end, what the British people would expect me to do.

PRESIDENT CLlNTON: Terry? Q Mr. President, switching to Iraq, the prime minister said that you had to educate the public about Iraq; but I think the American public is largely in the dark about what to expect about a military attack on Iraq. Are you talking about something that lasts a day or two, or something that lasts for weeks or months?

And on a diplomatic note, you’ ve got France and China and Russia opposing this. Boris Yeltsin says that it could lead to World War III. What gives Britain and the United States the right to go it alone on this?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, you asked about five questions there in one. Let me try to unpack it.

First of all, the most important thing, the best thing that could be done, what we hope will happen, is that there will be a diplomatic solution to this which result in the inspection teams for the United Nations being able to return and have unfettered access to the appropriate sites, because, as -- the prime minister, I think, put out a paper just a couple of days ago pointing out the incredible work that’ s been done by the inspection teams. That’ s the best thing.

Now whether there is a diplomatic solution or not is entirely up to Saddam Hussein. If he decides that he wants to continue to have the freedom to rebuild his weapons program, then I believe that the clear mandate for the world community, based on not only the resolutions of the United Nations, but the danger this would present to the interests and values of the United States, the people of Great Britain, the people of the region, is to do what we can to weaken his ability to develop those weapons of mass destruction and to visit them on his neighbors.

You know, I never discuss operational plans; I wouldn’ t do that. I think the important thing is that you know that -- that I don’ t want this. Nobody wants this; we want a diplomatic solution. It’ s up to him.

1994 The second thing I would say is, the secretary of state has been working hard in the last several days, has traveled, as you know, widely. I have been on the phone a lot. I believe there is - there is more agreement than at first it appears about the necessity to push this thing through to the end. And I will continue to talk with the - with President Yeltsin, President Chirac, and others.

But consider the alternative. After all, this man is the only repeat offender around with chemical weapons. He used them on his people. He used them on the Iranians. And I believe it’ s a very serious thing. And I think that the American people will understand that.

Q (“ World war,” said ?) President Yeltsin -- PRESIDENT CLINTON: I just - I don’ t understand what chain of circumstances would lead to that development. I don’ t believe that will happen.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Peter? Q Peter Riddle (sp), the Times. On Iraq, you’ ve said the need was to educate, Prime Minister. But it isn’ t entirely clear what the objective of military action would be. Is it intended to as a punishment for Saddam Hussein? Is it intended as a substitute for the work of the weapons inspectors, destroyed? Or would it continue until Saddam said: “Right. I’ ll let them in”?

And also, you’ ve announced the deployment of some aircraft. Is there any intention to deploy ground troops at all, British ground troops?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: No. The deployment that we have made is the deployment that I have described, of the aircraft.

And with respect to the objectives; well, the objectives are very clear; that is, to ensure either that the weapon inspectors can come in and finish their task or that the capability that Saddam Hussein undoubtedly has and wants to develop for weapons of mass destruction, is taken out. And it is absolutely essential that what we do is focused upon the best way possible that we can do that.

Now obviously, as the president was saying a moment or two ago, it is not sensible or serious to start discussing the details of the military options available to us. But the purpose of this the whole way through, the reason we are in this situation, is because he has been developing weapons of mass destruction. The only barrier to that has been the inspectors. If the inspectors are prevented from doing

1995 their work, then we have to make sure, by the military means of which we are capable, that insofar as possible, that capacity ceases.

And that’ s the objective, and it’ s an objective that I think is fully in line, as I say, with the original agreements under which Saddam Hussein undertook - I mean, remember, he agreed, he undertook, to destroy any weapons- of- massdestruction capability, whether nuclear, chemical or biological. Now, he is in breach of that. And we’ ve got to make sure that he complies, one way or another, with it.

STAFF (?): (American ?). Q Mr. President, just to go back to the controversy that’ s been surrounding you lately; there have been various reports that in some ways, have come to be accepted as fact. And I just want to give you an opportunity.

One of them is that, in sworn testimony to the lawyers for Paula Jones, that you changed your version of your relationship with Gennifer Flowers. And I just wondered if you can tell us - I mean do you now --

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I can tell you, but let me just say this. Again, even though the judge’ s order has been routinely violated by the other side in the case -- the judge has issued strict orders in the case for -- for - that covers everybody, including me, not to discuss it.

I can tell you this -- and I’ m confident as this thing plays out it will become more apparent in the future -- if you go back - I told the truth in my deposition with regard to that issue, and I also did in 1992 when I did the interview, which I think was rerun the other night, the interview that Hillary and I did on “60 Minutes.” And you just have to know that, and that I think it will be -- become apparent, as this case plays itself out, that I did in fact do that.

But I am not going to discuss that. The judge has given us strict orders not to discuss anything related to that case. The other side has violated it on a regular basis. I don’ t intend to do that. I’ m just not going to do it.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: John? Q John -- (last name, affiliation off mike). Prime Minister, Mr. President, is it possible for you to launch an attack if you don’ t have on board the French, the Russians, the Chinese?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: I think, John, you have to distinguish very carefully between what, of course I accept, varying degrees of

1996 enthusiasm or commitment for the military option, with the complete unanimity there is in the world community that Saddam Hussein has to comply with the resolutions, and that his capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction must be halted.

Now, it is difficult for us to see, and for me to see, quite frankly, that if you take that as the position, how diplomacy, unless it is backed up at least by the threat of force, is ever going to work and succeed.

But it would be wrong, I think, to think that either our - for example, our French or our Russian colleagues were not absolutely insistent that Saddam Hussein comply with these resolutions, and they are making diplomatic efforts in order to ensure that that happens. I wish those efforts well, provided they are fully consistent with the principles that have been set out.

It is just that we take the view, and I think experience teaches us that this is the only realistic view of Saddam Hussein, that unless you back up whatever diplomatic initiatives you’ re taking with saying quite clearly, well, if diplomacy doesn’ t work, the option of force is there, then those diplomatic initiatives are unlikely to succeed. But it’ s important that we realize that it is in that area that any difference lies, not in the insistence of the world community that he must come into line with those U. N. resolutions.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Peter? Q Mr. President, your spokesman this morning described to us, in his words, a very dangerous environment following these alleged leaks. What’ s your own assessment of the legal atmosphere? And we understand that your attorneys are planning to take some action about this. What action do they intend to take?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: 1 think you should talk to them. I don’ t want to comment on what they’ re going to do. They’ re fully capable of speaking for themselves, and for me in this case.

Q And your comment, sir, on the effect of the leaks? PRESIDENT CLINTON: I don’ t have anything to add to what has already been said about that.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Phil. Q I’ m Phil Murphy from the Press Association. Could I ask the prime minister, you could have come here and simply talked about serious politics, but some people have been struck by the warmth of

1997 the personal statements of support that you’ ve given to the president. Could I ask you - I mean, have you ever considered that that might be a politically risky strategy?

Could I ask the president, have you appreciated those comments from Mr. Blair?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: To be quite honest, Phil, I mean I’ ve said it hecause I believed it and because I think it is the right thing to do. And I’ ve worked with President Clinton now for some nine months as British prime minister. I have found him throughout someone I could trust, someone I could rely upon, someone I am proud to call not just a colleague but a friend.

And in the end, you either decide in politics, when you’ re asked about people, you’ re going to say how you actually feel or you’ re going to make a whole series of calculations. And my belief is that the right thing to say is what you feel. And I happen to think - I don’ t know whether it’ s my place to say it or not - that if you look at the American economy, you look at the respect with which America is held right ‘ round the world today, if you look at the standing and authority of the president, it’ s a pretty impressive record for anyone.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: You ask, do I appreciate it? No, I - (laughter). He should have come here and jumped all over me, I mean -- (laughter).

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Do you want me to come back in now? (Laughter).

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Of course I do. But, you know, I -- I think it’ s also a testament about the -- there’ s been a lot of -- a lot of people bandy about the word “character,“ and sometimes in loose and uncertain contexts. I think the people who -- who stand up and say things that they believe when it would be just as easy to walk away show a certain kind of character that I think is essential in a public leader, and I’ m very gratified that -- that Tony Blair has done that. Not only for personal reasons, but because I think it -- it will strengthen his authority as a world leader.

Q Mr. President? PRESIDENT CLINTON: Yes, go ahead?

Q Mr. President, all these questions about your personal life

1998 have to be painful to you and your family. At what point do you consider that it’ s just not worth it, and you consider resigning from office? (Mild laughter.)

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Neva. You know, I was elected to do a job. I think the American people know two or three things about me now that they didn’ t know the first time this kind of effort was made against me. They - I think they know that I care very much about them, that I care about ordinary people whose voices aren’ t often heard here. And I think they know I have worked very, very hard for them.

And I think they know now, more often than not, the ideas I had and the things I fought for turned out to be right in terms of the consequences to the American people. I think they know all that. And I’ m just going to keep showing up for work. I’ m going to do what I was hired to do, and I’ m going to try to keep getting good results for them.

The pain threshold, at least for our side, being in public today has been raised. But to give in to that would be to give in to everything that I fought against and that got me into this race in 1991 to try to run for president in the first place. I have tried to bring an end to this sort of thing in our public life. I’ ve tried to bring the American people together. I’ ve tried to de- personalize politics and take the venom out of it. And the harder I’ ve tried to do it, the harder others have pulled in the other direction. That doesn’ t mean I’ m wrong. And I would - I would - I would never walk away from the people of this country and the trust they placed in me.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Robert? Q Sir, Robert -- (last name inaudible) - from the National Times. Prime Minister, this morning you said that the U. K. faced two painful years. Could you expand on what you meant by that?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Yes. I mean, as I was saying to people this morning, I mean, there are some very tough decisions that we have had to take in order to deal both with the structural budget deficit, with the inflation that was back in the system that we inherited when we came to power, and with an education and welfare system that, frankly, is just nowhere near where it needs to be for the 21 st century. And making those changes is going to be tough. Welfare reform isn’ t going to be easy; it will be unpopular in certain quarters. Taking the measures to cure the budget deficit has been hard. When people want more money spent on more public services, we’ re saying, look, we can’ t go on with ever- higher debt levels and

1999 borrowing. We’ ve got to act.

So we’ ve taken the action on interest rates and giving the Bank of England independence. We’ ve cut the structural deficit. A balanced budget is something we’ ll be able to talk about on the other side of the water as well, in a few years time. We’ re putting through a massive program of reform on education and welfare, but it will be tough, and it will take us some time to get it through.

But as I said this morning, I am an unashamed long- termist. PRESIDENT CLINTON: (Chuckles.) PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: I believe in making sure that the decisions that we take aren’ t based on the next day’ s headlines, but are based on where we really want the country to be some years down the line. And particularly when we’ re facing such enormous global economic challenges, we can’ t afford either to lose a grip on monetary or fiscal prudence, or to leave our education and welfare system in the state they’ re in.

So yes, it’ ll be tough. But it’ ll be worth it in the end. PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, if I -- let me just me just make one comment to support something the prime minister just said -- when he said he was an unashamed long- term&. In a funny way, when societies change as fast and as much as our societies are changing today, when the -- the pace of events and their variety make it more difficult to predict what will happen next week or next month, it is even more important to be oriented toward the long term, because you have to figure that if you lay in a structure of opportunity and -- for a free people, they’ ll get it right, and they’ ll overcome all these unpredictable developments in the meanwhile. And I think that - that’ s why I think the approach that he has taken is so wise and so right, not only for Great Britain, but for any other country as well.

(Cross talk.) Yes, Mara? Go ahead. Q I’ m wondering if you could elaborate on something that the first lady said recently about a right- wing conspiracy who’ s working against you. Could you explain how that conspiracy works? And specifically, are Linda Tripp, Ken Starr, and Monica Lewinsky part of that conspiracy?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Now you know I’ ve known her a long time -- the first lady -- and she’ s very smart. And she’ s hardly ever wrong about anything. (Laughter.) But I don’ t believe I should amplify on

2000 her observation in this case. (Scattered laughter.)

Q Do you agree with that? PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Yeah, Adam?

Q Adam -- (last name off mike). One of your common shared themes you keep on telling your voters is this matter of their rights go with responsibilities. Now you, as elected leaders, have extraordinary rights and privileges. Yet you seem to be saying that there’ s no extension of responsibilities as far as personal integrity is concerned. Is that what you’ re really saying? If you’ re delivering on the job, the big picture, it doesn’ t matter what you get up to in your private lives?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Nobody is saying that you don’ t have obligations of personal integrity. Of course, that’ s right. But what we are trying to say to you is the responsibilities with which we were asked by our people to discharge, those responsibilities are on the issues that -- where we can affect them as leaders of the country.

And if you go to Britain today and you talk to the British people __ and I do ask -- it just could be that sometimes you guys in the

media are not in exactly the same place as a lot of public opinion in terms of the priorities people have. But if you go out there and you talk to British people and you say, “What do you want this new Labour government to do?” they will talk to you about ensuring we don’ t have boom and bust but that we have steadily rising living standards. They’ ll talk about job security. They’ ll talk about the state of their schools. You know, they’ ll talk about the national health service. They’ ll talk about the welfare system and the crime in their streets. They’ ll talk about security and old age. They will talk about these things, and they will care about these things. And they will expect us to deliver those responsibilities.

And of course, it’ s a great privilege for us to occupy the positions that we do. But in the end, the judgment that the people make of us is a judgment based on what we said that we would do and whether we fulfilled the promises that we made, and that’ s certainly what we intend to do. And I do think, also, that people understand and want political leadership that addresses these fundamental questions in a way that means something to them.

And when I was at the Montgomery Blair High School yesterday with the president and the president got up and addressed the young men and women, and the teachers and staff and parents that were there, and started going through the education program that he was unveiling, and it formed part of the State of the Union address and everything; and

2001

..-

some of those things in terms of class sizes and new technology in the schools that (are ?) very familiar to the British contingent here as things we’ re trying to do in Britain, I mean, the enthusiasm and the delight with which those things were greeted, because those people knew that in the end, that’ s what they elected their president to do. That’ s what they elected me to do; and that those are things that they want from us. And we’ ve got to make sure all the time, that we’ re focusing on that big picture.

And you know, whatever other issues come along and distract us, in the end the judgment of history upon us will be pretty poor if those weren’ t the things that, when we got to bed at night, we’ re thinking about. Those weren’ t the things that we’ re worried about and concerned about throughout the entirety of our society. Because those are the things which really make a difference to their lives.

Q Mr. President? Q Mr. Prime Minister? Q Sir? PRESIDENT CLINTON: Go ahead. STAFF: Let’ s make this the last round.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Go ahead. Q Mr. President, Monica Lewinsky’ s life has been changed forever - her family’ s life has been changed forever. I wonder how you feel about that, and what, if anything, you’ d like to say to Monica Lewinsky at this minute?

(Mild laughter.) PRESIDENT CLINTON: That’ s good. (Laughter.) That’ s good, but at this minute I’ m going to stick with my position - I’ m not commenting.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR (?): Yes? Q While relations between Britain and the United States appear to be splendid right now, there’ s a darkening cloud over relations with Italy. The prime minister, the president, the defense

2002

minister has issued some very harsh statements about the accident the other day when a low- flying Marine plane severed a cable and the car fell. There’ s a lot of anger; some people in Italy are even asking for the closing of the Aviano base. What do you have to say to them?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, first of all, what happened was horrible. And when I heard about it I was very shaken, and I - I, as you know, there were -- there was a period of a few hours there where it wasn’ t clear how many people had died, and where there was another whole gondola suspended, where many more people could have died and, thank God, they were rescued. And the whole thing has been an agony for the people of Italy, and there were large - a substantial number of Germans killed, and I’ m sure, for the pilot of the plane and the people in our military base in Aviano, where I have been on more than one occasion.

I can tell you what I think should be done. I called Prime Minister Prodi and I told him that I was heart sick about it; that I would make absolutely sure there was a no holds barred, full investigation on what happened; that the Italians would be kept fully informed and be a part of it; and that we would work with them in every way possible to make sure that they knew that we tried to get to the bottom of it and to handle it in the appropriate way.

You know, in our military every year -- I say this to the American people all the time, but let me - let me just say this. It is an inherently dangerous business. Now, we don’ t know what the facts are. Maybe somebody made a careless mistake, we don’ t know. I do not know what the facts are, and I will not render judgment until I do. But we lose about 200 people every year in military service in America on training exercise or otherwise on duty. And those planes fly very fast. And I don’ t know what the description of the mission was; I want to wait until I see exactly what the facts are, but it is inherently more dangerous than I think we think from time to time.

Now, I told the prime minister of Italy, and I’ ll tell you, I will do everything I can to find out exactly what happened and to take appropriate action and to satisfy the people of Italy that we have done the right thing. I understand why they are hurt and heartbroken and angry, and they are entitled to answers and we’ ll try to give them to them.

Q Mr. President? STAFF: Thank you. Last question. PRESIDENT CLINTON: Now, go ahead, the gentleman in the back. I promised one more. Last question.

2003

Go ahead. Q Mr. President, do you believe that aimtrikes alone are going to remove the threat of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons from Saddam Hussein? Is that a fair thing to expect from military action, should push come to shove in the Gulf?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, there have been many thoughtful public pieces, a lot of very thoughtful articles which have been written about the limits, as well as the possibilities of any kind of military action. I think the precise question should be - that I should have to ask and answer - is, could any military action, if all else fails, substantially reduce or delay Saddam Hussein’ s capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and to deliver them on his neighbors? The answer to that, I am convinced, is yes. I‘ m convinced there is a yes answer there. But you have to understand that those are the criteria for me.

I’ ve told you before, I don’ t believe we need to re- fight the Gulf War. It’ s history. It happened. That’ s the way it is. I don’ t believe we need to get into a direct war with Iraq over the leadership of the country. Do I think the country would be better served if it had a different leader? Of course I do. That’ s not the issue. The issue is that very sharp question.

If the inspection regime is dead, and therefore we cannot continue to make progress on getting the stuff out of there in the first place, and then -- keep in mind there are two things about this regime. There’ s the progress in getting the stuff out of there in the first place, and then there is the monitoring system, which enables people on a regular basis to go back to high- probability sites to make sure nothing is happening to rebuild it. So, if that is dead, is there an option which would permit us to reduce and/ or delay his capacity to bring those weapons up and to deliver them? That is - I think the answer to that is yes, there is an option that would permit that. .

Q Mr. President, as a follow- on to that -- PRESIDENT CLINTON: Do you want to ask one more question?

Q Mr. President, as a follow- up to that, please? Mr. President, as a follow- up to that please?

Q Prime Minister, as a man who understands the pressures of public life, and also a friend, and a religious man, I wonder what

2004

words of advice and support and comfort and sympathy you might have been able to offer personally to the president during these difficult times when he’ s under investigation.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: That’ s what in the British media is called “a helpful question.” (Laughter.)

(Chuckles.) If I can -- I don’ t presume to give advice at all. All I think that is important, which is what we’ ve managed to do, is to discuss the issues that we’ ve set out and listed for you. And as I say, I think we’ d be pretty much failing in our duty if we weren’ t to do that.

And I’ ve actually noticed, since I’ ve been here and I’ ve talked to many people here, that there is of course huge concern at the moment on what is happening in Iraq, this huge interest in Britain, in the new government, and in what we’ re trying to do in Northern Ireland. And you know, I think the best thing is for us to concentrate upon those issues for the very reasons I’ ve given -- that that’ s what we were elected to do. And that’ s what I intend to do. That’ s what President Clinton is doing, and I think he’ s quite right.

Q One more, sir? (Cross talk.) PRESIDENT CLINTON Thank you.

2005

Tab 39

2006

2007

Page 1 Citation

'14/ 98 WASHPOST. CO3 14/ 98 Wash. Post CO3 1998 WL 2467716

Search Result Rank I of 1 Database WP

Saturday, February 14, 1998 Metro Pedestrian Death on I- 95 Ruled Accidental; Brother of Clinton's Secretary

Darted Into Traffic After Crash Mike- Allen Washington Post Staff Writer

Virginia State Police have concluded that Theodore R. Williams Jr. of Fort Washington -- the brother of President Clinton's personal' secretary, Betty Currie -- did not intend to commit suicide when he ran onto Interstate 95 north of Richmond after a traffic accident and was struck and killed by a tractor- trailer.

1 But they say there is no explanation for why Williams bolted rrom the highway shoulder after talking to a trooper who was investigating the crash with another truck, which Williams had escaped without injury.

"This has been ruled an 'accidental death/ motor- vehicle crash, ' said Mary S. Evans, a state police spokeswoman.

Williams, a 52- year- old building mechanic for the Postal Service, died Dec. 15, weeks before Currie was called before a federal grand jury investigating former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky. President Clinton attended his funeral Dec. 20.

E! vans said investigators thought Williams's death "might have . been suicide," but ruled that out after learning that Williams was on his way to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to pick up his daughter.

"That's not usually when people commit suicide -- when they have an errand to run," Hvans said. She said family members said Williams had not seemed depressed.

Copr. 6~ West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

2008

2/ 14/ 98 WASHPOST CO3 Page 2

She said officials were not aware of Williams's connection to -/ zrie initially but did interview more friends and relatives than they usually would in a traffic case because of the possibility of suicide.

Bvans said investigators concluded that "this is a traffic accident, a non- story story."

According to Evans, investigators found 5.2 grams of marijuana under the floor mat on the driver's side of Williams's Chevrolet pickup. In the glove box, police found a pipe and rolling papers, she said.

The state medical examiner's report found no illegal substances in his body. But the report found that Williams had a blood- alcohol level of . 07 percent -- just below the legal limit for drunken driving, . 08 percent.

Williams was headed south on I- 95 in Hanover County about noon Dec. 15 when his pickup hit the back of a tractor- trailer. The tractor- trailer driver said he didn't feel a thing and continued down -he road until he was flagged down by motorists who had seen the

-ash. Williams ran off the left shoulder of the highway and down an embankment but was not hurt, according to the accident report.

Evans said that as Williams walked up the hill, state police Sgt. Jessie Roberts arrived on the scene and asked, "Are you okay?" When Williams said he was, the sergeant turned to speak to two witnesses to the accident who had stopped.

In that instant, Williams started walking toward the fast lane, Evans said.

"Get back! You're him.

going to get hit,( ' Roberts remembers telling Then to the shock of bystanders, Williams rushed into traffic and was hit by another tractor- trailer, according to Evans.

"Nobody knows why he ran across the road," Evans said. Copr. @ West 1998 No Claim to Orig'. U. S. Govt. Works

2/ 14/ 98 WASHPOST CO3 .-

KEY WORDS: METRO EDITION: FINAL Word Count: 482 2/ 14/ 98 WASHPOST CO3

ENDOFDOCUMENT

. .

2009

---- INDEX REFERENCES ---- Page 3

Copr. @ West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

2010

2011

Tab 40

2012

7/ 98 CHICAGOTR 1 ., 17/ 98 Chi. Trib. 1 1998 WL 2826917

Tuesday, February 17, 1998 NEWS EX- SECRET SERVICE OFFICER TESTIFIES Lewis Fox, a retired uniformed Secret Service officer, spent about two hours Tuesday morning before the federal grand jury in Washington investigating the Monica Lewinsky matter. Steve Goodin, a White House aide who until recently served as President Clinton's personal assistant, was the next witness to be called before the grand jury. Fox's lawyer, Michael Leibig, said Tuesday his client was guarding the Oval Office on a fall afternoon in 1995 when Lewinsky went in. Appearing on ABC's said Fox didn't "Good Morning America," Leibig

"didn't see anyone else at the time" with Clinton and Lewinsky but that Fox "didn't see all the exits" so he doesn't l- 3w if the two were alone.

.- ---- INDEX REFERENCES ---- KEY WORDS: GOVERNMENT; EMPLOYEE; COURT; ISSUE; SEX; RELATION EDITION: EVENING UPDATE; C Word Count: 114 2/ 17/ 98 CHICAGOTR 1 END OF DOCUMENT

uataoase CHICAGOTR

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to., Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

2014

2015

-Tab 41

2016

2017

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14

16 17 18 19

22 23 24 25

3\ 5lss 131

BY MR. HEATON: Q m. Ginsburg, tell'the Court what it is, precisely, that Ms. Lewinsky did in reliance on the agreement that was reached

on February 2nd, 1998. A What she did? Q Yeah. The reference is that she has acted in reliance -- or suffered in reliance on that agreement which you testified occurred on the evening of February 2nd, including suffering with respect to her rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. I would like for you to tell the Court what it is that she has suffered since that agreement went into effect. A An egregious invasion of her right of privacy and the requirement that she expose to you and to everyone working with you the most personal details of everything and anything that

she did in a consensual sexual act. I can't think, sir, of anything more egregious and more damaging to- one's psyche and ego and constitutional rights than that. Q Explain to the Court, sir, how it is that her rights under the Fifth and Sixth amendments have been harmed as a result of what you just described. A I do not want to go into an interpretation of the Fifth and Sixth- Amendments except -to say that when one has to admit

certain things that they shouldn't ordinarily have PO admit,. they may be giving up their right to confront the people who are accusing them, they may be giving up the right to self& _ 1

2018

1 2

3 4

5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

132

incrimination, they may be giving up the right to procedural and substantive due process, and in so doing, because this may be used in a grand jury. proceeding and other proceedings, they may well be giving up their right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

I mean, we can argue and debate that, but I think the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments are very much involved in the proffer process. Q If I understand you correctly, sir, you're talking about things that you perceive could possibly happen, as opposed to things that have happened. Is that right, sir? A NO, sir, I am not. The Fourth Amendment guarantees us an absolute right to security in our person, in our property, and our papers. And I think the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, in particular, embody the right of privacy. And she, in reliance on this process and this agreement, has essentially given up what I consider to be her right of privacy, which I consider to be the most valuable right we have. Q And it's on that basis that you have concluded that she has suffered in reliance on this agreement that occurred on February 2nd. Is that right? A I think she has suffered greatly based on her reliance on your word, yes. You, plural, meaning the Office of Independent Counsel.. \

2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13

14 15

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

2019 1

133 !

Q And this would be our oral word as you've conveyed it today, spoken by Mr. Udolf, is that right? At the conclusion of a two- week process. L

A your oral word as confirmed in an agreement integrating your oral word into a Writing. Q Mr. Ginsburg, you made various statements to the press, did you not, at or about the time of this purported agreement?

THH COURT: Let me just say this. He may or he may not have. And unless it goes to the heart of what we're diSCUSSing here, just move on to the issue. In other words, did you state to someone, if you have such information. BY MR. HEATON: Q Isn't it true, Mr. Ginsburg, that you told various members

:. of the press over the period February 3rd and 4th that you were

waiting on Mr. Starr and/ or the Office of Independent Counsel to get back to you in term6 of whether you had an agreement? A Which date, sir?

Q February 3rd and 4th. , A That was part of our agreement. Yes.

THH COURT: Fart of -Whose agreement? THB WITNESS: The Independent Counsel's Office, Your Honor; told me that they did not want me to tell the press that. we had an agreement. They wanted me to stay away from the press with regard to the agreement that we had struck on the

-. I evening of February the 2nd. "Do not say anything to the'

2020

2 3

4 5

6 7

0 9 10 11

12 13

14 15 16

17 18

19 20 21

22 23 24

25 134

?ress," they said, "please, about this agreement that we've

Struck." So when asked question6 about it, I said, "We have no agreement at this time.? And I stayed away from the issue of the entering into the agreement.

THE COURT: They, who? In other words, who in the Dffice of Independent Counsel told you that?

THEi WITNESS: Mr. Udolf or Hr. Emmick. IcaIlnot remember between the two who said to me, please, keep this away

from the press. My best 'memory, Your Honor, is Mr. Udolf said -- it may even have been Mr. Bittman; I simply cannot recall the exact person -- said, 'You have been talking a lot to the press. Please do not tell the press about this immunity agreement." I said, "You have my word on that. I won't."

So when the press made inquiries about this -- and they were around my home, they were around the place I was staying, they were everywhere I went, airports, everywhere. I said to them, 'We have no agreement." And I denied the . existence of the agreement in order to protect the sanctity of

what I had promised. There is no question I did that. BY MR. HEATON:

Q Mr. Ginsburg, just 60 we're clear here, it's your testimony that based on a statement made by Mr. Bmxnick or Mr. Udolf, or

both of them, not to reveal the existence of an, imqunity

agreement, you then stated to various report+ rs, including, for example,. A- P., thing6 to the effect of "We are waiting fok

2021

2 3 4

s 6 7

0 9

10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17

18 19

20 21 22

23 24 25

135 Starr to call us. We are not begging for immunity. We would like immunity. If he chooses to grar$ us immunity, that is fine." A I did everything to keep my word, including deflect all questions of any kind about the immunity agreement. Q Including lie about what the situation was; is that correct? A I don't consider that a lie, sir. I consider that a necessary function of keeping my agreement. I also consider it part of the process. Q You consider it a necessary part of your function to say something other than what is true to protect the secrecy of this agreement. Is that right? A Yes: sir, I did at the time. Q And is it the same standard that you apply in general with respect to the representation of your client? It's consistent with your function, when necessary, to say something other than what is the truth? A I will not tell a fib under perjury, sir -- penalty of perjury. But I will do what- is necessary to protect my client at all times as a vigorous advocate. Q Including lie. A Sir, I never lie. I do ,what is necessary to. prptect my client. You have to define the word "lie" for me before I can answer that.

2022

2023

Tab 42

2024

2025

GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEAL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN RE: GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS. 1

) Misc. Nos. 98- 095,98- O%, and ) 98- 097 (UNDER SEAL)

MEMORANDUM OF TIIE WAITE HOUSE IN OPPOSITION TO OIC’ S MOTIONS TO COMPEL BRUCE R LINDSEY AND SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL TO TESTIFY CONCERNING CONVERSATIONS PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY- CLIENT,

PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS, AND WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES

Of Counsel: W. Neil Eggleston Charles F. C. Ruff Tii&~ y K. Amwrong Counsel to the President HOWREY & SIMON THE WHITE HOUSE 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W. Washington, D. C. 20500 Washington, DC. 20004 (202) 456- 1414 (202) 783- 0800

Attorneys for The white House Dated: March 17,1998

2026 TABLE OF CONTENTS

~ODW~ ON *......*.*.**..*..***...*.**....*......*...*....*.*...*..*.**....*.....*......*..*.*.***..********...*...*..***.**.*.**.*,* 1 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*.......*....................................................................... 5

1. Factual Background- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*.............................................................. 5 2. Prior Proceedings Regarding Mr. Lindsey, Mr. Blumenthal, and

Ms. Hemreich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-............................. 6 ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*...................................*...............*....................................... 9 I. THE TESTIMONY THE OIC SEEKS TO COMPEL IS PROTECTED

BY THE WHITE HOUSE’ S ATTORNEY- CLIEN’ I- PRIVILEGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A. The Eighth Circuit’ s Deeply Flawed Decision Offers No

Persuasive Reason to Depart from the Authorities Recognizing the Governmental Attorney- Client Privilege . . . . . ..*....*....................*.......*...............*.*.. 10

l- The Governmental Privilege in General **.*.*...* f.***..*.*.*....**.**..**.*...*.*...**..*. 10 2. Flaws in the Eighth Circuit’ s Decision . . ..**....*.*.*......*...*.*....*.*.......*.....*...* 12

a. This Circuit has Long Recognized the Attomey- Client Privilege in the Governmental Context l ‘***.‘..**...****‘*..*.***... 13

b. Congress Did Not Abrogate the Governmental Attorney- Client Privilege in 28 U. S. C. (j 535( b) . . . . . . .. f.................. 16

B. The Co~~~ io~ at Issue Here are Privileged ..****.*.***.*...*.*..*..**.**...***...*..*.*.. 19

I. Bruce R Lindsey . . . . . . . . . . ..*............*............*....................................**.......... 19 2. Nancy Hemreich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*..........................*.... 20 C. This Court Should Deny the OK’ s Motion Even if the Attomey-

Client Privilege is Qualified, Rather than Absolute, in the GovemmentaI Context *..** f..*...*.****.**.*..********-....*.--..**..*..**..*.*..*..*.*.*.**.*...**.*.*.*****.. 20

D. Conversations Among Attorneys for the White House- and Private Counsel for the President are Privileged from Disclosure Under the Common Interest Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

-I-

2027

E. Certain of the Mate& Is Sought are Protected from Disclosure Because they Constitute Attorney Work Product. f*****.****.********.****.***********...*...***.. 22

II. THE OIC SEERS TO COMFEL CO~ CA~ ONS PROTECTED UNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGE l -..********..*******.***.. 23

A. Legal Framework for Evaluating a Claim of Rivilege for Presidential communications 93 *.*********************.****.*******..*************.***.******.*****.*****.****.~

1. The Presumption of Privilege *************************.****.*.******.****.********,********.**.*. 24 2. Communications to Which the privilege AppIies ********.****.********..*******.*.*** 26 3. The Showing Requited to Overcome the Presumption **************..************* 27 B, The Conversations at Issue Here are Privileged. ******* f**************.**********************.**. 29

1. The Communications at Issue Involved Official Presidential Decisions **************************************************.****.*.******.********.***** 30

a Discussions Relating to the President’ s State of the Union Address ****.********.*******..*************.*************.*.*..*..*****.*.******.***** 31

b. Matters of Foreign Poiicy and Military Affairs. **.*..***.***.**********.**. 32 c. Discussions of Possible Referral by the OIC to the

House Judiciary Committee *..*.*****.*****.************.*.**.******..,****.***.*.**. 33 d. Allocation of the President’ s Time Between public

Responsibilities and Defending Himself in the Jones Litigation and the Lewinsky Matter ************************************ 34

e. Ongoing Strategy Discussions Relating to the OIC’ s Investigation **********************..**********.****.****...******.*************,.************. 36

f. Discussions as to Whether to Assert the Presidential Communications Privilege *.*.********.*********..**.******.*.****.****..******....*.* 37

2. The OIC’ s Argument Misconstrues the Relevant Authorities **.**.******************************.***.**********************.***.*.******...**.*.************* 37

C. The OIC Has Made No Showing, Least of All the Extraordinary Showing Required, to Overcome the Privilege *********** f***************************************** 40

CONCLUSION *************.**..************.***.*******************.********.*.***********..******..************..************************ 41

2028

TABLE OF AUTHORITlE! S+

-. CASES

Bartholdi Cable Co. v. FCC, 114 F. 3d 274 (DC. Cir. 1997) ****.*****.************.***.**.***.*.****...*********** 24

Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665 (1972) ***********************************************************.*.*****..***.****.*****. 11

Brinton v. Dep ‘ t of State, 636 F. 2d 600 (DC. Cir. 1980) ***.*******************************************.*****.******* 13

CitibonA, N- A. v. Andkos, 666 F. 2d 1192 (8th Cir. 1981) ******************************.*******************.*********** 16

Clinton v. Jones, 117 S. Ct. 1636 (1997) **.********.*********.******.********************************************....** passim Coastal Corp. v. Lbzcan, 86 F. RD. 5 14 (D. Del. 1980) ****.*************************.************.******.*********** 14

FTC v. Grolier, Inc., 462 U. S. 19 (1983) *********.*..***************.***.*********************.************.***********...**** 22

Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, In re, 112 F. 3d 910 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,

117 S. Ct. 2482 (1997) *********.**********************************.************.************.************. 10,13,17,18

Grand Jury Subpoena, In re, 886 F. 2d 135 (6th Cir. 1989) ..***********.************.*****.******.***.*******..***** 11

Green v. IRS, 556 F. Supp. 79 (‘ ND. Ind. 1982), afld mem., 734 F. 2d 18 (7th Cir. 1984) *********.**********.*************** ***.**************************.************************.******.*.*.*****.*..*.**********.***** 14

Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F. R. D. 574 (E- D. Wash. 1975) ..*****.*.****.*****.***..*******.******.*****.**.***.******.**..*.***** 14 Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U. S. 495 (1947) ********..*****.*****.************.************.******.****..**.**...*..*.*.*.**.***** 22

Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, 343 U. S. 779 (1952) **********************************.*************************************. 17

Jafie v. Redmond, 116 S. Ct. 1923 (19%) ******************.*************************.************************** 11,15,16

Jupiter Painting Contracting Co. v. United States, 87 F. R. D. 593 (E- D. Pa. 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Linde Thomson Lungworthy Kohn & Van Dyke, P. C. v. RTC, 5 F. 3d 1508 (DC. cir. 1993) **.*************************************************.*.*******************.*****************.**.****.************ 16

Mead Data Central v. United States Dep ‘ I of the Air Force, 566 F. 2d 242 (DC Cir. 1977) *************************.**.************.************.************.***********************.*.*.****. 11,13,15

Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U. S. 19 (1990) ***.***********.****.******.*********.****************.******************* 17

t Authorities on which we chiefly rely arc marked with astaisks. - 111 -

2029

Murphy v, TKA, 571 F. Supp. 502 (D. D. C. 1983) *.**.*****.**********************************************.*.****.***.*.*. 12

Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F. 2d 700 (DC. Cir. 1973) ***.**.*******************************************************************,* 24

NLRB v. &ars, Roebuck & Co., 421 U. S. 132 (1975) ***.****.*********************.*****************.*****.***** IS, 22

Rosen v. NW, 735 F. 2d 564 (D- C. Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~......... 11

l SeaZed Case. In re, 121 F. 3d 729 (DC. Cir. 1997) *******.*..**********.*********.*.*.*********..******.*****.* passim Sealed Case, In re, 29 F. 3d- 7 15 (B. C. Cir. 1994) *.*** t* r***************.*************.*******************.**..**.*****..* 22

* Senate Select Committee on PresidMal Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F. 2d 725 (DC. Cir. 1974) **********.*********.************.********************..**********************.**** pwsim

Tax AnaZysts v. IRS, 117 F. 3d 607 (D. C. Cir. 1997) .*******************.************..**********.***.*****..*****. 11,13

United States v. AT& T, 642 F. 2d 1285 (D- C. Cir. 1980) *****.***************** f************************************** 22 United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338 (1974) *************.**.********..*********.*************.*.***************.****** 11

* United States v. Nixon, 4 18 U. S. 683 (1974) *.*******.********,*******.*..*.********....****.**.***.******.**.****. passim Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U. S. 383 (198 1) .*************.******.************..************.**********.**** passim Wilder v. UR., 607 F. Supp. 1013 (M. D. Ala. 1985) ****.************************.***************************.*******. 14

CON!? iTWTIONAL PROVISIONS U. S. CONST. Art. II, 5 2 Cl. 1 .*****.***.***.****.***************.**.**.*****.****************.**..,***************.***.*...*..*******. 32 U. S. CONS- r. Art. II, 0 3 Cl. 1 ..********.***.***********.*****.********.**************.***********,***********************..*******.... 31 U. S. CONST. ht. II, $3 Cl. 3 **.**.*.******..********..********.*.**.*****************.*****.****..********.**.**.****************.*** 32 U. S. CONSr. Art, a, 5 4 ********.**************************************************************************************************** 3,34

STATV’ X% S 5 U. S. C. 6 552( b)( S) **.**********.*********.*.***********.*******************************************.*****.*******.**********.***** 15,22 28 U. S. C. 0 535( b) **.*.*********************************************..*********.*******...**********.*.*********.******************** 16,18 28 USC 0 594( f) **.************************.***************.***.*******************.************.*.*.******************.***************** 21 28 USC. 0 595( c) .************************************************************************************************************************** 3

- iv -

2030

RULES D. C. Rule of Professional Conduct I .6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*...................... 14 D. C. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.13 *.,*............*...............,,,**....,.......*...........*...*........,............ 14 Fed. R Evid. 501 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*........ 16,21

Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union, 34

WEEKLY cO? APILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL I% UMENB 129 (Jan. 27, 1998)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Excerpt of a Telephone Interview With Morton Kondrake and Ed Henry of Roll

cd, 34 WEEKLY cOM. FILATION OF PRSIDEN’ IIAL &EUMENTS 115 (Jan. 21,1998) .32,34 . . . . . . . ..*...................................*........**..............*..............................*...........*....

Interview With Jim Lehrer of the PBS “News Hour “, 34 WEEKLY Comnmo~ OFPRESDEMlAL- 104 (Jan. 21,1998) ..*.............*.*....*............*......,.,,**.**.....* 32

Interview With Mara Liarson and Robert Siegel of National Public Radio, 34

WEEKLY CO~~ nON OF &ESIDENThU E) ocUMENTS I I6 (Jan. 21, 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

President’ s News Conference of July 6, 1955,1955 Puswc PAP= OF %

PRESIDENTS 665 . . ..*..*..*.**......*.**.***.*....*.*.....*.*.*****.*..*.*....***.**.*......**....*,..*........**.,.,**.....**.,. 25

President’ s News Conference With Prime Minister Blair, 34 W- Y

COMPILATION OF hESIDENTUL Docmams 213 (Feb. 9,1998) . . . . . . . . .. f......................... 32

Remarks Prior to Discussions With Chairman Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Authority and an Exchange With Reporrers, 34 WEEKLY coMpIf. MIoN OF

mm’ na Docms 123 (Jan. 22,1998) . . . . . . . . . . .. I.................................................. 33 Scalia, Antonin, Assistant Attorney General, Oflice of Legal Counsel,

~emor~ um for the Deputy Attorney General re: Disclosure of

Confidential Information Received by U. S. Attorney in the Course of

Representing a Federal Employee (Nov. 30,1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Statement Announcing Availability of Addirional Transcripts of Presidential Tape Recordings, 1974 PUBLIC PAPERS OF THE mm 62 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Tan; Ralph W., Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel,

Duty of Government Lawyers Upon Receipt of Incriminating Information in the Course of an Attorney- Client Relationship with Another Government Employee (March 29,198s) ..*..............*....*.......................,............*.*.**........ 18

-v-

2031

BOOKS AND TREATISES IO, !‘ mm B., %‘ ATERGAT’ E AND THE CoNsmvn: ON (1978) ,,,,....,............................,,...... 3 MUEUER, cMRIsropHER B., AND Lm C. KIRKPATRICK, FEDEIUL EVIDENCE

(2d ed. 1994) ,,,...........*,..,,..,,....,...*...,,*,,,,,..,,.,.,,,...,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,.,..............................,... 14,15

&STMEMENT (THIRD) OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS (Proposed Final Draft No. 1, Mar. 29,1996) ---...--*--- r..........,...,,,,,.,,,*..,....,,,.,,,,,,.,,,,,............-..-..........*...........,..,.. 15

ROZELL, MARK J., E~ E~~ RVE PRIVILEGE (1994) ,,.,,,..,,,,,,,.,,,,,.,,..,*................-......-............... 24,25 SALRXJRG, S- I- EPHEN A., ET At., Fmnw, RULES OF EVIDENCE MANUAL (6th

ed. 1994) ,...........................,....................,,.......*,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,................................. 16.22 SW STATIDORY CONSTRUCTION (5th cd. 1992 & Cum. Supp. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

WEIMTEXN’ S FEDS EVIDENCZ (Joseph M. McLaughlin cd., 2d ed. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . .. f............... 21

ARTICLES

Brodez, John M., Clinton Refkses to Discuss Independent Counsel’ s Request That He Test@ Before Grand Jury, N. Y. TIMES, Mar. 12,1998, at A24 . . . . .. f........................... 32

Chines, Francis X, and Jeff Gerth, Subpoenas Sent as Clinton Denies Reports of

an Affair With Aide at White House, N- Y. TIMES, Jan. 22,1998, at Al . . . . . . . . .. f................... 6

Cox, Archibald, Executive Privilege, 122 U. PA. L. REV. 1383 (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Gugliotta, Guy, ~m~ achment lnquiv Discussed in House, WASH. POST, Feb. i0,

1998, at A9 . . . . . .. f................~............~.....~.~....~...~.~..~~..~~~..~.~~.~~......~........................................ 6 Mauro, Tony, and Richard Willing, Impeachment Talk is Red, USA TODAY, Jan,

23, 1998, at 3A --.----.---..---...-...--.................................,,.,.,..,..,.,......,......................,.............. 6 Rogers, David, Lott Says Clinton- Star Sta~ o~ Hurts Government and Urges

Both Sides to Act, WALL ST. J., Mar. 10, 1998, at A24 ,,...,,..,...,.....**.........................,..... 30

Seetye, fcatharine Q., Clinton ‘ s Rapid- Response Squad Now Moves in Slow Motion, N- Y. TIMES, Jan. 24, 1998, at A8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Staley, Alessandra, American Puritanism or Zionist Plot? The World Weighs In, N. Y. TIMES, Jan. 24,1998, at A9 ..~..........~.~~...~~~..~~~.~............ f................................~.~......... 33

- Vl -

2032

OTHERAUTHORITIES

H. Res. 304, lOStb Cong., 1st Sess ,,,........,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,...,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,..................................,,..,... 3.34

H- R. Rep. No. 83- 2622, reprintedin 1954 U. S. C. C. A. N. 3551 ,,,,...........................,,.,,.,.,,......... 17

Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 503( a)( l), 56 F. R. D. 183,235 (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 503( a)( 3), 56 F. R. D. 183,236 (1972) .................................. 16

Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 503( b)( 3), 56 F. R. D. 183,236 (1972) .................................. 21 Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 503( b), 56 F. R. D. 183,236 (1972) ...................................... 16

2033

GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEAL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN RE: GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS. ) Misc. Nos. 98495.98496, and 1 98497 (UNDER SEAL)

MEMORANDUM OF THE WHITE HOUSE IN OPPOSITION TO OK’ S MOTIONS TO COMPEL BRUCE R LINDSEY AND SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL TO TESTIFY CONCERNING CONVERSATIONS PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY- CLIENT, PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS, AND WORK PRODUCI- PRIVILEGES

The Office of the President (“ White House”) submits this memorandum in opposition to the Motions to Compel the testimony of Bruce R Lindsey and Sidney Blumenthal, filed by the Office of the Independent Counsel (“ OIC”) on March 6,1998 (“ OIC Motions”). ’

INTRODUCTION

The President of the United States, if he is to perform his constitutionally assigned duties, must be able to obtain the most candid, forthright, and well- informed advice from his advisors. Only last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reaffirmed that principle, emphasizing the importance of preserving confidentiality of presidential commu- nications “to ensure that presidential decisionmaking is of the highest caliber, informed by hon- est advicd and full knowledge.” In re Sealed Case, 121 F. 3d 729,750 (DC. Cir. 1997).

Yet, the Independent Counsel now asks the Court to strip away this constitutional p& c- tion on the ground that, by merely completing a subpoena form and sending it to one of the

I On March 6.1998, the OIC also moved to compel testimony from Nancy Hemreich. By letter of March 4, 1998. however, the White House informed OK of its willingness to 8110~ non- lawyers such as Ms. Hemreich to testify to factual matters. We do not believe that, if rccakd to testify before the grand jury, Ms. Hemreich would assert the privilege as to any of the factual mstters about which the OIC seeks to compel her testimony.

-2-

President’ s lawyers or his senior advisors, he becomes entitled, without any showing of need, to invade the legal and other confidential advice on which the President must rely. The OIC asks the Court, as well, to strip away from government lawyers and their clients the attorney- client privilege- a claim that ignores the historical roots of the privilege, the Rules of Professional Conduct that apply in the District of Columbia, and the law of this jurisdiction.

As to the presidential communications privilege, the OIC ignores the teachings of the Court of Appeals and leaps from the bald assertion that only the President’ s private conduct is at issue here, to the conclusion that the advice he is given should not be protected. The OIC’ s contention is based on neither evidence nor logic. With respect to the Lewinsky matter, the grand jury is inquiring into actions allegedly taken by the President while in office-- indeed, actions that allegedly occurred in the White House itself And as to the President’ s deposition, the mere fact that the Jones case involves alleged conduct before the President took of& e does not mean that the advice he is given concerning his constitutional duties somehow becomes “private.” To the contrary, the Supreme Court itself acknowledged the potential impact of the

Jones litigation on the daily business of the Presidency- an impact that, however unlikely a prospect it was a year ago, is now all too real and tangible. Thus, even if one were to accept the OIC’ s description of the Jones case, or the President’ s alleged relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, as purely private, that description would be irrelevant to the question whether the communica- tions at issue here are protected by privilege. ‘ The critical question is not the nature of the un- derlying conduct; it is the purpose of the advice being given. 2

But if there were any question about the official nature of the matters about which these witnesses have provided advice, one need only look to the ultimate purpose of the OIC’ s investi- gation. The Ethics in Government Act requires the OK to submit to the House of Representa-

2 For example, the convetsations at issue in United Stutes v. Nixon, 4 18 U. S. 683 ( 1974). involved a burglary of the DNC offices and efforts to cover it up, and yet were found to be presumptively privileged. See i& z at 38. See

also Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nix05 498 F2d 725,73& 3 I (D. C. Cir. 1974) (presidential communications relating to the Watergate covetup held presumptively privileged and not disclosed).

2035

-3-

tives any evidence of impeachable offenses. 3 See 28 U. S. C. 0 595( c). Impeachment is, of course, an action specifically directed at the President in his official capacity and is specifically provided for in the Constitution. See U. S. CONST. Art. II, 0 4. Indeed, it is uncertain at best whether the OIC constitutionally can even ask the grand jury to take action against the President in his personal capacity. See, e. g., PHILIP B. KURLAND, WATERGATE AND THE CONSTITUTION

135 (1978) (reasoning that a sitting President could not be subjected to criminal prosecution because “[ h] e is the sole indispensable man in government”). Any advice sought by the Presi- dent to deal with the threat of impeachment is, by its very nature, official-- not private.

Even if there were no such threat overhanging the presidency, however, the advice at is- sue here must be treated as official and, thus, presumptively privileged. The distinction between those who give personal advice and those wbo give official advice to the President is clear. The President’ sprivorc counsel provide advice concerning the response he must make to the particu- lar demands the OIC and the Jones litigation place on him in his personal capacity. The White House Counsel and the President’ s senior advisors, on the other hand, provide advice concerning the official obligations of the President and the Office of the President, and are responsible for ensuring that, despite the pending litigation, he is able to perform his constitutional duties with maximum effectiveness. It is only as to this advice- from senior advisors like Mr. Blumenthal- that the presidential communications privilege has been invoked. Similarly, it is only as to legal advice given by Mr. Lindsey to the President in his official capacity that we have asserted the government’ s attorney- client privilege.

Finally, the circumstan ces under which the Independent Counsel has brought these Mo- tions make clear the overly intrusive nature of his inquiry- one launched with no sensitivity to the most rudimentary constitutional principles and seemingly intended to manufacture a consti- tutional confrontation. Recognizing the grand jury’ s legitimate interest in obtaining the evidence

3 The threat of referral for possible impeachment proceedings is not just hypothetical. There is now pending in the House of Represenratives a resolution to impeach Resident Clinton for an alleged “systematic effort to obsuuct, undminc, and compromise the legitimate and proper ftnctions and p- of the [E] xecutive [B] ranch[. l” See H. Res. 304,105th Con&. 1st Scss.

2036

-4-

it needs, we have made clear to the OIC from the beginning our willingness to provide the facts relevant to its investigation to the fullest extent consistent with the President’ s constitutional -~

obligations. But we have also made clear our fum conviction that the OIC can have no legiti- mate interest in the White House staffs discussions of political or legal strategy, much less in whether anyone, in or out of the White House, has spoken less than favorably about the OIC.

Consistent with this position, we informed the OIC as early as February 3,19! 38, that, in &aping any limited invocation of executive privilege that might be necessary for the President’ s non- attorney advisors, we WOUICI, as we had in other cases, see, e. g., Sealed Cuse, 121 F. 3d at

735- 36, distinguish between facts and advice. (See Declaration of Charles F. C. Ruff(“ RufT Decl.“) 132) . This position was reaf% mecl in our letter to the OIC of March 4,1998, but our offer was spumed. (See RtiDecl. Exhibits (“ Exs.“) 6,7). Indeed, the OK moved to compel the testimony of Nancy Hemreich on the very same day that it rejected the White House’ s offer to withdraw the assertion of privilege as to her. (See RuffDccl. Ex. 7). And two days before that, the OIC rejected the White House’ s request that, before it launched any litigation, counsel meet to determine whether there could be an accommodation of the grand jury’ s interests with those of the Presidency- a process specifically contemplated by the Court of Appeals as the vehicle for minimizin g the risk of unnecessary constitutional conflict. See Spied Case, 121 F. 3d at 735 (OIC’ s motion to compel production of documents followed considerable negotiations with the White House).

The Independent Counsel comes before this Court seeking essentially unfettered author- ity to inquire into every conversation the President, his lawyers and his advisors have had about the Jones case and the Lewinsky matter. He does so without being willing to proffer to the court the slightest justification for that inquiry- beyond his mere w&-- and in direct contravention of the Court of Appeals’ mandate that any intrusion into privileged communications must be nar- rowly focused and specifically justified. As the following discussion will make clear, that wish is bided neither in good law nor sensible ~~~ 0~ practice.

BACKGROUND

1. Factual l3ackgroond The roots of this dispute date at least back to May 27,1997, when the Supreme Court de- cided Clinton v. Jones, 117 S. Ct. 1636 (1997). The Court rejected the President’ s attempt to stay temporarily the ongoing civil proc&@ s against him in a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by a former Arkamas state employee. In holding that the President was not, despite his unique position in the constitutional strwtwe, entitled to a temporary stay of the civil proceed- ings against him, the Court opined that “it seems unlikely that a deluge of such litigation will ever engulf the Presidency” and suggested that the Jones case, “if properly managed by the District Court, . . . appears to us highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of petitioner’ s time.” Id at 1648.

In the wake of Clinron v. Jones, the President confronted an unavoidable dilemma. On the one hand, he remained the Nation’ s chief executive with a full panoply of domestic and foreign obligations which, the Court recognized, regularly required his personal attention for as much as twenty hours a day. See Chrun v. Jones, 117 S. Ct. at 1646 & 11x1.25- 26; RuEDecl. q 6. But on the other hand, by virtue of the Court’ s decision, the President was obliged to attend to the Jones litigation ongoing in Arkansas, inclu~ mg fo~~ at~ g discoveryresponses, submit- ting to a deposition, strategizing with counsel, and evaluating and responding to potential ave- nues of settlement. At its core, the Court’ s decision in Clinton v. Jones meant that the President could not choose one course or the other- doing the job to which he was elected, or defending himself against the Jones lawsuit. He was, instead, required to do both. (See Ruff Decl. fl4,7; Declaration of Bruce R. Lindsey (“ Lindsey Decl.“) 18). How the President reconciles these types of conflicting obligations is the focus of a major portion of the communications over which the White House now invokes the presidential communications privilege, discussed in more detail below.

On Saturday, January 17,1998, the President gave a deposition in Jones v. Clinton,

No. LR- C- 94- 290 (RD. Ark.). In this deposition, the President was asked certain questions

2038

-6-

tclating to Monica Lewinslcy, a former white House intcm. On or about January 2 1,1998, it was publicly announced that the jurisdiction of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr had been expanded to include an investigation of Ms. Lcwinsky and whether she or others suborned per- jury or violated any other fcdetaf. laws. (See RuffDecl. 7 10).

In light of the new allegations, particularly those involving alleged obstruction of justice, commentators publicly adverted to the prospects of impeaching the Ffesidcnt. 4 Those pruspcc~

took on a heightened reality when the Chaixman of the House Judiciary Committee publicly stated that %npcachmcnt might very well be an option” if the OK substantiated its latest allega- tions against the President. See Francis X. Clines & Jeff Gerth, Sulrpoenus Senr us Cloven De-

nies Reports of on Afm* r With Aide at White House, N. Y. TMES, Jan. 22, 1998, at Al, A24 (quoting Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R- Ill.)); accord Katkinc Q. Seelye, Clinton s Rapid- Response

Squad Now Moves in Slow Motion, N. Y. TXMES, Jan. 24,1998, at A8 (“‘ if indeed the President was guilty of obstruction of justice, I really would think that the word “impeachment” would be one of the words to be used. ’ “) (quoting Rep. Charles B. Range1 (D- NY)).

2. Prior Proceedings Regarding Mr. Lindsey, Mr. Blumenthal, and Ms. Hemrcich

From the outset, the White House has taken expansive measures to cooperate fully with the OIC’ s investigation. The White House promptly searched the entire Executive Office of the President for documents responsive to the UK’ s subpoenas, and has produced all responsive materials. (See Ruff Decl. ‘ g 13).

On January 30,1998, the OIC subpoenaed Bruce Lindsey, Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel, calling for him to appear before the. grand jury to testify on February 4, 1998. (See RufY Decl. 7 3 1). Around this time, the OIC also issued sub- to Siducy Blumenthal, Assistant to the President, and to Nancy Hemreich, Deputy Assistmt to the President and Direc-

4 See, e. g., Guy Gugliotta, Impeackenf lnquby D& ussed in Hause, WASH. Pm, Feb. 10.1998, at A9;

If& mine Q- Seeiye, Clinton 3 Rapid- hsponre Sqvcrd Now Mows in Slow Motioni N. Y. TIME!& Jan. 24.1998, u A8

(“ Georgt Stephanopodos, a main campaign aide in 1992 and Mr. CIiimn’ s senior adviser until a& r the 1996 eicction, was among the 45rst to use dre word ‘ impcachmcnt’ over the akgatioasf.~); Tony Mawo 4% Richard Willing, impeachment Talk is Real, USA TODAY, Jan. 23.1998, at 3A; Ruff Dccl. n21- 22,

2039 -7.

tor of Oval Office Operations. All three witnesses appeared before the grand jury and offered testimony.

The White House has, at every stage, sought to narrow and focus the issues over which any assertion of privilege may properly be invoked. Although the White House has endeavored to do so in cooperation with the OIC, as is plainly contemplated by sealed Case, 121 F. 3d at

735- 36, the OIC has generally declined to participate. For example, Charles Ruff, Counsel to the President, and Lanny Brcucr, Special Counsel, met with the OIC on February 3,1998 to discuss potential privilege concerns that could be raised during the grand jury testimony of Mr. Lindsey and John Podcsta, Deputy Chief of StaBE: (See Ruff Decl. 132). Mr. Ruff explained the potential privilege concerns that would necessarily arise if the OIC questioned Mr. Lindsey and other advisors regardiig advice given to the Prcsi- dent in his official capacity, and asked whether the OIC could specify the subjects about which they wished to elicit testimony. The OIC declined to do so (id), and ebony informed the White House that they would not recognize the applicability of executive privilege in this cast. (See RutT Decl. l/ 34). Nevertheless, following the negotiation process contemplated by Sealed

Case, Mr. Ruffreiteratcd the White House’ s desire to seek an accommodation of the parties’ respective interests by letter of February 5,1998. (See Ruff Decl. g 35- 36 & Ex. 2).

Subsequently, the White House voluntarily and unilaterally narrowed the scope of the communications over which privilege was being assert&. Yet, incredibly, in its haste to provoke

a ~0~~ 0~ ~~ n~ o~ the OIC actually n& c& the White House’ s offer to withdraw the assertion of privilege as to Ms. Hcrnrcich, one of the witnesses whose testimony the OIC has moved to compel.

By letter of March 21998, counsel for the White House reiterated the White House’ s de- sire to reach an accommodation between the OIC’ s desire for testimony and the White House’ s need to ensure the availability of candid advice to future Presidents, and off& cd to meet with the OIC to discuss the matter. (See RtihI. $45 & Ex. 4). The OIC responded by asking the

2040

White House to submit its proposal by noon on March 4,1998. (See RufTDecl. 146 & Ex. 5). The White House complied

In its proposal, the White House offered to narrow the scope of executive privilege it would assert. The White House’ s proposal would have relinquished the privilege and allowed non- attorney White House advisors, such as Ms. Hemreich, to testify fully to any relevant facts, ~~ l~ g conversations with the President. (See RufiQecl. 118 47- 59 de Ex. 6). As the proposal

(TJhe OfIke of the President is prepamd to instmct White House witnesses along the following general lines:

l White House Advisors (Non- Lawyer@ Advisors wiI1 be permitted to tes- tify as to t- hctld idormation regarding the Lewinslq matter, including any such axon imparted in conversations with the Presidtnt. We will continue to assert executive privilege with regard to strategic deliberations and communications.

* White House Attorney Advisors: Attorneys in the Counsel’ s Office will assert attorney/ client privilege; attorney work product; and where appro- priate, executive privilege, with regard to ~~~~ o~, ~clu~ g those with the President, related to theii gathering of portion the pro- viding of advice, and strategic deli& rations and communications.

(Ruff Decl. Ex. 6, at 2). I3y confining the assertion of executive privilege to ‘ :strategic delibera- tions and communications” and communications by and among attorneys in the white House Counsel’ s ofIke (ti), the White House believed that its proposal would lead to the accommoda- tion SeaZed Cuse contemplates.

Imtead, on March 6,1998, the OIC curtly rejected the White House’ s proposal outright,

including the proposed withdrawal of the privilege as to all factual testimony by non- attorneys such as Ms. Hemreich. (See RtiDecl. f 51& Ex. 7). The same day, the OIC filed the motions to compel that are at issue here.

Thus, although the White House has reserved the invocation of executive privilege to that inner core of conversations that cannot be disclosed without materially harming the ability of future Presidents to confer with advisors candidly, the OIC has shown itself to be much more

2041

-9-

&rcstcd in provoking a necdlcss constitutional controversy than in actually obtaining the fac- tual evidence it claims to want. For the tzasons that follow, the OIC’ s Motions must be denied.

ARGUMENT

In this consolidated reply to the OK’ s Motions to Compel, we addrcs, first, the attomey-

client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine as thei apply to the testimony of Bruce Lindsey, Deputy Counsel to the Prcsidcnt, and second, the ~d~ ti~ ~0~~~ 0~ privilege

as it appk to Sidney Blumenthal, Assistant to the President, and other non- attorney advisors, as well 8s to h4r. Lindsey.

The OIC seeks to compel Mr. Lindsey to divulge a range of communications presump- tively protected by the attomeyclient privilege: discussions with the President and senior White

House M for the purpose of affording legal advice; discussions with the President’ s personal counsel on matters encom~~ g his private and ofZiciaI interests; s and discussions with counsel for other individuals with whom the White House had a common interest The absolute privilege

protecting communications between an attorney and his client has been recognized since the birth of the common law and is firmly Wedded in the law of the District of Columbia- in both its private and governmental forms. The contrary view of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in In re Grand Jurs) Subpoena L& es Tecum, 112 F. 3d 910 (8th Cir.); cert. denied, 117 S.

Ct. 2482 (1997) (“ Grand Jury Subpoena”), on which the OK rests its entire argument, does not control here and, in any event, is deeply flawed. But even if the special circumstances present here suggest the need to balance the v& es inherent in the privilege against the needs of the grand jury, the OIC has offered absolutely nothing to weigh in that balance,

The OK proffers only one argument in its attempt to pierce the executive privilege that has protected presidential communications since the dawn of the Republic- an argument that fmds no support in the case law. The OIC would have the Court fmd, based solely on its unsup

5 Private counsel for the President will raise as we11 his pasond anorncy- cticnt privkge to fmtect discussions withMr. LindseyontheocwionsinwhichheKNed~ aacoartuitfarcomrnuplicluianskrwMnthmrandthtir client.

2042

- lo- ported claim that the testimony it seeks relates to “‘ private” conduct, that the privilege simply does not apply. Moreover, it asks the Court to bypass the careful analysis of individual commu- nications mandated by the Court of Appeals in Sealed Care and require wholesale disclosure of all discussions with the President and his senior advisors. This argument flies in the face of the presumptive privilege that attaches to presidential communications- a presumption that the courts have made clear can be overcome only on the most stringent showing of need on a com- munication- by- communication basis.

For these reasons, this Court should deny the OIC’ s motions to compel.

L THE TESTIMONY THE OIC SEEKS TO COMPEL IS PROTECTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE’ S AlTORl’ fEY- CLIENT PRIVILEGE

The attorney- client privilege protecting Communications behveen a government agency and its attorneys is an established principle under the law of this Circuit. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit’ s contrary opinion, on which the OIC hangs the entire weight of its argu- ment, stands alone in holding the privilege inapplicable when invoked in grand jury proceedings.

See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F. 3d 910,913 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 2482 (1997) (“ Grand Jury Subpoena”). The Eighth Circuit’ s decision demonstrably conflicts with precedent binding in this Circuit, and it should not be followed here. -

k The Eighth Circuit’ s Deeply Flawed Decision Offers No Persuasive Reason to Depart from the Authorities Recogniziu~ the Governmental Attorney- Client Privilege

1. The Governmental Privilege iu General

It is hombook law that organizations have an attorney- client privilege against compelled disclosure of conversations between the organization’ s counsel and the organization’ s officials and employees. See, e. g., Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U. S. 383 (1981). Although Upjohn

arose in the context of the corporate attorney- client privilege, nothing in the Court’ s assessment of a organization’ s need for freedom to consult with attorneys in confidence was limited to the corporate context. Accepting the logical implications of Upjohn, courts in this Circuit routinely

2043

-ll- have recognized that the attorney- client privilege protects governmental organizations as well as

private ones. See Ta Analysts v. IRS, 117 F. 3d 607,618 (D. C. Cir. 1997); Mead Data Central v. United Stat- Lkp ‘ t of the Air Force, 566 F. 2d 242,252 (D. C. Cir. 1977). Evidentiary privileges such as the attorney- client privilege remain fully applicable in grand jury proceedings. See

SeaZed Case, 121 F. 3d at 756 (citing Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665,688 (1972) (recognizing applicabiity in grand jury proceedings of “the longstanding principle that ‘ the public . . . has a right to every man’ s evidence, ’ cxcep! for those persons protectzd by a constitutional, common-

low, or statutory priuikge[.]“) (emphasis added, citations omitted); 6 United States v. CaZandba,

414 U. S. 338,346 (1974) (grand jury “may not itself violate a valid privilege, whether estab- lished by the Constitution, statutes, or the common law.“) (citations omitted)). The applicability of the governmental attorney- client privilege has been specifically confirmed in federal grand jury proceedings. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 886 F. 2d 135 (6th Cir. 1989).

The Supreme Court has rewgnkl that the attorney- client privilege advances important public interests. By “enwurag[ ing] full and Frank communications between attorneys and their clients,” the privilege enables clients “to make full disclosure to their attorneys” without fear that the discussions will become public, and thereby “promote[ s the] public interests in the obser- vance of law and administration of justice.” Upjohn, 449 U. S. at 389 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This purpose cannot be served unless the client is Tree from the conse- quences or the apprehension of disclosure.” Id (internal quotations and citations omitted); see

also J# e v. Redmond, 116 S. Ct. 1923,1928 (1996) (“ the mere possibility of disclosure” of protected communications “may impede development of the confidential relationship” the privi-

6 The Court of Appeals for this Circuit has, similarly, r% ognized that the attorney- client privilege must be ac- corded its full sweep even in the face of the argument that it deprives the public of “every man’ s evidence”:

The attotney- client privilege is but one of several privileges that prevent patties themselves from

adducing particular evidence, and thus create an obstacle to fact finding due to the broad judgment that the value of introducing such evidence is outweighed by the harm inflicted upon other policies and values. . . . [S] uch [evidentiary] burdens are simply a neceswy consequence of society’ s at- tempt to balance the value of the complete admissibility of probative evidence with other compet- ing values, such as the protection of vital professional or associational relationships.

Rosm v. A’ LRB, 735 F2d 564,572 (DC. Cir. 1984) (Starr, J.).

2044

- 12-

lege exists to protect). These purposes apply with no less force in the present case and compel a very critical evaluation of the OIC’ s attempt to pierce the privilege.

In the governmental context, the attorney- client privilege advances other public interests as well. “[ BJy safeguard@ the free flow of information” within the government agency, the privilege fosters fairer and more accurate government decisionmaking. Murphy v. TVA, 571 F. Supp. 502,506 @. D. C. 1983); see also GrmrdJtay Subpwna, 112 F3d at 929- 32 (Kopf, J., dissenting).

An additional nuance arises here because the client whose confidences are at issue is the President. In this context, the presidential communications and attorney- client privileges are mutually selfkeinforcing. Both exist to guarantee that the F% esident receives necessary advice and input with the candor that can be secured only when advisors are free from apprehension about how third parties or the public may view them. When government attorneys or other advisors doubt the confidentiality of their communications, they will of necessity speak guard- edly, hedging their recommendations with a view toward preserving the natural human desire to be well thought of by others. Such caution extracts a heavy toll, for it prevents the President from receiving the candid assistance necessary to run the government effectively and thereby serve the national interest. Here, that interest is protected by not just one, but two privileges, one of Constitutional dimension and the other with common- law roots deeper than any other privi- lege. In this circumstance, fidelity to both these reinforcing lines of authority compels the most intensive and exacting scrutiny of the OK’ s attempt to pierce these privileges.

2. Flaws in the Eighth Circuit’ s Decision

In reaching the contrary result on which the OIC relies, the Eighth Circuit’ s decision- which is not binding on this Courtdommitted numerous analytical errors and misread the relevant authorities.

2045

- 13-

a. This Circuit has Long Recognized the Attorney- Client Privilege in the Governmentd Context

To begin with, the Eighth Circuit incorrectly framed the issue before it. The court acted asifitwasbeingaskedtoreco~ anewprivilege, andthusasifitmustovercomeaprtsump tion against protecting the documents that had been subpoenaed. See Grrmd Jwy Subpoenu, 112 F. 3d at 915. But the case before that court, like the instant case, presented no such issue at all. Far from being asked to create a privilege that was in any sense “new,” the court was simply called upon to apply the single best settled and oldest of all the privileges known to the common law, Upjohn, 449 U. S. at 389, to the facts before it. There was no occasion for the application of the presumption against the creation of a new privilege, and the court erred in acting as ifthere

was.

Second, the Eighth Circuit treated as a matter of first impression whether a governmental attorney- client privilege existed at all. See Grand Jury Subpoena, 112 F. 3d at 9 15 (“ We need not decide whether a governmental attorney- client privilege exists in other contexts, for it is enough to conclude that even if it does,” it is inapplicable). Even assuming urguendo that the

court’ s characterization of the question as an open issue in the Eighth Circuit was correct, it would not be relevant here. The governmental attorney- client privilege is a long- established fixture under the law in this Circuit and is in no sense an open question. See, e. g., Tax Anulysfs

v. IRS, 117 F. 3d 607,618 (DC. Cir. 1997) (“ In the governmental context, the ‘ client’ may be the agency and the attorney may be an agency lawyer,” although the Court ultimately finds the privilege inapplicable); Brinton v. Dep ‘ t of State, 636 F. 2d 600,603 (B. C. Cir. 1980) (recognizing governmental attorney- client privilege, although resting decision on deliberative process grounds instead); Mead Data Central v. United States Dep ‘ t of the Air Force, 566 F. 2d 242,252 (DC. Cir. 1977) (“ In order to ensure that a client receives the best possible- legal ad- vice, based on a full and frank discussion with his attorney, the attorney- client privilege assures him that confidential communications to bis attorney will not be disclosed without his consent. We see no reason why this same protection should not be extended to an agency’ s cornmunica-

2046

- 140 tions with its attorneys under FOIA’ J exemption five.“). Thus, acentral analytical basis for the Eighth Circuit’ s decision is not only absent here, but indeed contradicted by settled precedent binding on tbls Court7 The D. C. Bar’ s professional rules also expressly recognize the applica- biii of the attorney- client privilege in the governmental context See District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, I& 1.13 & cmt. 7 (the government lawyer “represents the agency acting through its duly authorkzd constituents.“), 1.6 & cmts. 33- 36 (recognizing ethical duty of government lawyers to preserve the client agency’ s confidences).

Third, the Eighth Circuit incorrectly assumed, without authority, that the application of the attorney- client priviIege turns on the specific circumstances at the time it is raised. Because it found no previous decision appIying the privilege in an identical factual context, the Eighth Circuit assumed it was writing on a blank slate. This freed the court, in its view, to engage in a

de novo assessment of the interests served by, and putative evidentiary costs of, the attomey- client privilege. But this mode of analysis is utterly foreign to the attorney- client privilege. A hallmark of absolute privileges such as the attorney- client privilege-- as distinct from qualified privileges such as the protection for attorney work products- is that they do not tum on post hoc

7 Othercourtsa8reewiththisone. See, e. g., Wil& v. CJ. R, 607F. Supp. 1013, lOlS( M. D. Ala. 1985)( itis “‘ wetl settled” that documents pmparcd by agency counsel “fall within the ambit of the attorney- client privikge”); Green v. IRS, 556 F. Supp. 79.85 (N. D. Ind. 1982) (attomey- client privilege n~ u~ ti~~ iy is applicable to the relationship between Government attorneys and administrative personnel”), 48; lr mem., 734 F2d 18 (7th Cir. 1984); Jupjrer Pointing Conrruerjmg Co. v. Uniruislatcr, 87 F. RD. 593,598 (E. D. Pa 1980) (explaining that “[ c] ourts generally have accepted that attomcy- ciient privilege applies in the govemmentai con-” so despite “apprehension at [the privilege’ s) pernicious potential in a govcmment top- heavy with lawyers. . . [tfhis concern does not just@ appliauion of a diff’ t ptivikge to govenunenta attamey- elient relatknl&*.“). caprtol cap. v. Dwrum, 86 F& D. 5 14,520 (D. Del. 1980) (“ the sttorney- clicnt privilege is applicable in tfrc factual context where a government agency is a ‘ client’ and agacy lawyers are Qttomeys.“‘ ). Hum v. Rhqy, 68 F. RD. 574.579 (E. D. Wash. 1975) ( “[ fjedeml courts have uniformly held that the attomcy- cknt privilege am arise with respect to attorneys representing a state-).

* As me treatise on evidence put it: In other mpects, however, the attorney- client priviiege provides more protection than the work product domine. While the privilege is absolute, the work product doctrine provides only a qua&- fkd immtmity which in the case of ordinary work product can be overcome by B showing of “substantial need” and ‘ Qnduc hardship” in obtaining the “substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.” . . . The work product doctrine opemtes primarily as a liiitatioo on pretrial dis- covery, whereas the attomey- ciient privilege applies more broadly at all stages of legal proceed- ings.

2 Cmlsrop~ nt B. MU & m C. KIRKPATRICK, F- t. Evmkn 9 204 (2d ed. 1994).

2047

&monstrations of need or balancing of interests at the time the privilege is asserted. A contrary rule effectively vitiates the entire purpose of absolute privileges such as the attorney- client privilege, which is intended to encourage communications that might not be made in its absence.

See Upjohn, 449 U. S. at 395; J- e, 116 S. Ct. at 1929 (“[ w] ithout a privilege, much of the desirable evidence to which litigants . . . seek access . . . is unlikely to come into being”). Al- lowing the attorney- client privilege to turn on aposz hoc (~ sscssrncnt of the particular circum- stances in which it is asser& d in litigation prevents the privilege from se& ng its key function: providing clients assurance in advance that they may speak kely without ftat of disciosure.

Other authorities confirm the Eighth Circuit’ s error in rejecting the applicability of the governmental attorney- client privilege. For one, the privilege has received express legislative recognition by Congress under Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U. S. C. 5 552( b)( S). This exemption allows governmental agencies to withhold from disclosure, in response to a FOIA request, any “inter- agency or intra- agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency[. f” Id. Congress’ s clear intent to enact a federal law of governmental attorney- client privilege (and protection for attorney work product) was noted by the Supreme Court in I? ’ v. Sears, Roe-

buck h Co., 421 U. S. 132, 154 (1975) (“[ tfhe Senate Report states that Exemption 5 ‘ would include the working papers of the agency attorney and documents which would come within the attorney- client privilege if applied to private parties’ “). See aZso Mead Data CentraZ, 566 F. 2d at 252; Grandhry Subpoena, 112 F. 3d at 930 (Kopf, J., dissenting).

The overwhelming weight of scholarly authority recognizes the existence and importance of the privilege in the governmental context. See, e. g., RESTATEMENT (? hIRD) OFlHEhW . t% IERNING LAWYERS 0 124 (Proposed Fii Draft No. 1, Mar. 29,1996) (“ the generally pre- vailing rule . . . [is that] governmental agencies and agents enjoy the same privilege’ as non- governmental counterparts.“); 2 CEIRISTQPHER B. MUELLER & LAIRD C. KWCPATRI~ K, FED- ERAL EVII) ENCE 0 191( 2d ed. 1994); see also GradJwy Subpoena, 112 F. 3d at 930 (Kopf, J., dissenting).

2048 - 16- what is more, the Supreme Court’ s Proposed Federal Rules of Evidence, which have re- peatedly been relied on in this Circuit and by the Supreme Court as accurate statements of the common law of privilege, 9 expressly recognized the applicability of the attorney- client privilege in the govemmental context. Proposed Rule 503, dealing with the attorney- client privilege, defined “client” to include a “public officer, . . . or other orgaui& on or entity, either public or private[.]” Proposed Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 503( a)( l), 56 F. RD. 183,235 (1972). The accompanying Advisory Committee’ s Note emphasized that “[ t] he definition of ‘ client’ includes governmental bodies.” Id R 503( a)( l) adv. comm. note, 56 F. RD. at 237. See gener-

ally Grand Jury Subpoena, 112 F. 3d at 926,928- 29 (Kopf, J., dissenting). b Congress Did Not Abrogate the Govcmmcntal

Attomcy- CIient Privilege in 28 USC. Q 53v)

In reaching its decision, the Eighth Circuit incorrectly relied on a relatively obscure pro- vision of law requiring executive branch employees to report to the Attorney General informa- tion relating to criminal acts committed by their colleagues. Citing 28 U. S. C. 0 535( b), lO the

9 Although Congress ultimately enacted Fed. R. Evid. 50 1, which calls upon the federal courts to develop a federal common law of privilege, instead of enacting the specific privileges in the form proposed by the Supreme Court, the Court’ s Proposed Rules on the subject of privilege have been widely recognized as accurate statements of the common law and are entitled to appropriate consideration. See, cg., Ja@ e v. Redmond, 116 S. Ct. 1923.1927 n. 7, 1928, 1930- 3 1 (relying on statement of psychotherapist- patient privilege in Proposed Rtiies); Lin& Thornton Lungworrhy Kohn & Fun Dyke, P. C. v. RZ, 5 F. 3d 1508,1514 (D. C. Cir. 1993) (relying, infer u/ i@ on Proposed Rules 503( a)( 3) and 503( b) to describe the comours of the attomey- ciknt privilege); Ciribunk N. A. v. Anhs, 666

F2d 1192,1195n. 6( 8thCir. 198i)(“ wrtmhavecontinued~ iodctotheproposedrules~ arfordcfining the federal common iaw of attorney- client privilege.“). “Most importantly. the pmposed mk covering the attorney- clknt privilege is still at thii point a generally nliiie statement of federal common law.” 2 STEPHEN A. !hLTZBURG irr AL., FEDERAL Ruses OF EVIDENCE MANUAL 589 (6th ed. 1994); see ULTO GnmdJvry Subpoena 112 F. 3d at 928- 29 (Kopf, J., dissenting).

lo This statute provides that: Any infomration, allegation. or complaint received in a deparanent or agency of the executive branch of the Government relating to violations of title 18 involving Government oflkers and em- ployees shall be expeditiously reported to the Attorney General by the head of the dqxutment or agency, bless-

(1) the responsibility to perform an investigation with respect thereto is specifically assigned othcnvise by another provision of law; or

(2) as to any department or agency of the Government, the Aaomey General directs othmise with respect to a specified class of information, allegation, or complaint.

28 U. S. C. $535( b).

2049

- 17- majority found it “significant” that government employees, uincludiig attorneys, arc under a

statutory duty to report tximhal wrongdoing by other employees to the Attorney General.”

Grand Jury Subpoenu, 112 F. 3d at 920. Neither the plain language of section 535( b) nor its legislative I& tory, however, evinces any intent to vitiate the attorneyclient privilege. The text of the provision does not mention the attorney- client privilege and does not, by its terms, com- mand the interpretation the Eighth Ciiuit adopted. Similarly, there is no evidence of Congres- sional intent to abrogate the most furnly entrenched common law privilege protecting communi- cations between attorneys and their clients. As the House Report on this provision makes clear, the objective of section 535( b) was simply to settle a jurisdictional battle between investigative agencies:

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to set out the necessary authority for the Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate al- leged irregularities on the part of Government officers and employees and to re- quire the reporting by the departments and agencies of the executive branch to the Attorney General of information coming to their attention concerning any alleged irregularities on the part of officers and employees of the Government.

H. R. Rep. No. 83- 2622, reprinted in 1954 U. S. C. C. A.. N. 3551. The absence of case law interpreting this statute’ s appli~ bili~ to gov~~ t attorneys only enhances the need for clarity in assessing legislative intent. A fundamental axiom of statu- tory construction is that, where the text of a law is ambiguous, one should not presume a legisla- tive intention to abrogate settled common- law principles. 2B SW t$ tXTUTORY CON- s~~ ucrto~ 5 50.01( 5th ed. 1992 & Cum. Supp. 1997). As the Supreme Court has instructed, “[ s] tatutes which invade the common law . . . are to be read with a presumption favoring the retention of long- established and familiar principles, except when a statutory putpose to the contrary is evident.” Isbrundtsen Co. v. Johnson, 343 US. 779,783 (1952). Congress acts within the framcwork of existing law, not within a vacuum. See, e. g., Miles v. Apex Mmine Corp., 498 U. S. 19,32 (1990) (“ We assume that Congress is aware of existing law when it passes legislation.“). Therefore, in the absence of -an indication that the legislature intends a

2050

- 18. statute to supplant common law, the courts should not give it that effect.” SUTHERL AND STATU- TORY cO? STRUCTION, WU.

Fidelity to these settled principles compels the conclusion that section 535( b) should not be read to undermine the well- established attorney- client privilege. As Judge Kopf s dissenting opinion in the Eighth Circuit noted, the Department of Justice, which section 535( b) charges to enforce the reporting provision, has always interpreted this provision to be consistent with the long- standing protection for confidential attorney- client communications. See Grand Jury Sub- poena, 112 F. 3d at 932 (Kopf, J., dissenting). On several occasions, the Justice Department’ s O& e of Legal Counsel has express& the opinion that the attorney- client privilege survives section 535( b). Id According to then- k& ant Attorney General Antonin Scalia, “[ g] iven the absence of any discussion of the subject in the legislative history [of 6 535( b)], it would in our view be inappropriate to infer a congressional purpose to breach the universally recognized and long- standing confidentiality of the attorney- client privilege.” Antonin Scalia, Assistant Attor- ney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Memorandum for the Deputy Attorney General re: Dis- closure of Confidential Information Received by U. S. Attorney in the Course of Representing a Federal Employee at 7 (Nov. 30,1976). Nearly a decade later, the Office of Legal Counsel reconfirmed this interpretation, stating that “the principal reason for our conclusion that the attorney- client privilege overrides 6 535( b) is that the confidentiality of communications be- tween client and lawyer is essential if Department attorneys are to be able to provide adequate legal representation.” Ralph W. Tarr, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Coun-

sel, Duty of Government Lawyers Upon Receipt of Incriminating information in the Course of an

Attorney- Client Relationship with Another Government Employee at 6 (March 29, 1985). The uniformity of the Office of Legal Counsel’ s position, which represents the only precedential authority on the specific application of section 535( b) to this situation, only strengthens the conclusion already reached by applying prevailing principles of statutory construction: this stat- ute clearly does not contravene the attorneyclient privilege. See generally Grand Jury Sub- poena, 112 F. 3d at 930- 32 (Kopf, J., dissenting).

2051

- 19- Because the Eighth Circuit’ s decision is inconsistent with precedent binding in this Cir- cuit, and out of step with the long- standing consensus of other authorities, this Court should not follow it.

B. The Commuuiutious rt Issue Here are Privileged 1. Bruce R Lindsey

Mr. Lindsey’ s conversations involved the President’ s attorney- client privilege in both his offrcial and unofficial capacities. First, as Deputy White House Counsel, Mr. Lindsey represents the Office of the President and, in that capacity, has had confidential conversations with the client or the client’ s representatives relating to the provision of legal advice. (See Lindsey Decl. w 9- 12). These conversations are directly covered by the White House’ s attorney- client privi- lege. Some of Mr. Lindsey’ s conversations related to providing legal advice on the questions whether the Office of the President should invoke its testimonial privileges, inchrdiig the attor- ney- client and presidential communications privileges. (See Lindsey Decl. Ill). The OIC also seeks to compel conversations Mr. Lindsey had relating to possible impeachment proceedii before the House Judiciary Committee. (M). These discussions, which related directly to Mr. Lindsey’ s gathering of information to provide legal advice to his client, are plainly covered by the White House’ s attorney- client privilege. (Id ; see also Ruff Decl. 7 22). Mr. Lindsey also had discussions with witnesses who testified before the grand jury, or their counsel, during the course of gathering information to use in advising the White House on matters of litigation stmt- egy. (See Lindsey Decl. 113). These interviews are also protected by the attorney- client privi- lege.

Second, Mr. Lindsey has stated in his Declaration that he has occasionally communicated with the President’ s private counsel while acting on behalf of the President in the President’ s individual capacity. (See Lindsey Decl. 112). To the extent this latter situation raises issues primarily within the President’ s individt& l attorney- client privilege, the White House will not address it in detail herein.

2052

-2o- 2. Nancy Herareich

As suggested in the White House’ s proposal to the OK of March 4,1998, the White House withdraws the assertion of privilege as to factual questions submitted to Ms. Hemreich, in& ding factual questions regarding communications with the President.

C This Court Should Deny the OIC’ s Motion Even if the Attorney-

Client Privilege is Qualified, Rathkr than Absolute, in the Governmental Contest

Even assum@ the Eighth Circuit majority was correct and a qualified attorney- client privilege, subject to a balancing of interests after the fack is appropriate in the governmental context, that fact alone would not justify the mjority’ s conclusion that the privilege automati- cally evaporated in the fact of a grand jury subpoena from the OIC. Rather, qualified privileges generally require the party opposing the privilege to make some showing of need to surmount the privilege’ s protection. See, e. g., Sealed Care, 121 F. 3d at 74% l6,753- 57 (discussing showing of need required to overcome qualified presidential, communications privilege). By requiring no demonstration at all by the OIC before ruling the privilege unavailable, the Eighth Circuit again made new law that is at odds with settled precedent in this Circuit.

To say that the OIC must make some showing to overcome the attorney- client privilege necessarily raises the question of what that showing should be. We submit that, at least, the same “focused demonstration of need,” showing that the evidence is “demonstrably critical to the responsible fulfillment” of the OIC’ s role, see ijia 8t 27, must be required.

This was substantially the position taken by the Department of Justice, speaking through the Solicitor General as amicus curiae in support of the petition for certiorari filed by the White House, seeking review of the Eighth Circuit’ s decision. See O& e of the Presidknt v. O& e of

Independent Cotursel, (U. S., No. 96- l 783), Brief Amicus Curiae For the United States, Acting

2053

-210 Through the Attorney General, Supporting Certiorari (“ DOJ Brief’ ).” Evaluating the attomey- client privilege in the unique context of an intra- branch dispute between the White House and the OIC, the Justice Department suggested that

the district court should, in ruling on the motion to compel, accommodate the compctinginterestsatstakeinamanncr simihu to the accommodation that takes place in an ordinary, non- independent- counsel context.

DOJ Brief at 14 (footnote omitted). DOJ argued that a “useful analogy.. . [could] be drawn to the resolution of asser& ions of executive privilege,” id at 15, and suggested that the test estab- lished in Nixon and its progeny would best accommodate the competing interests at stake. See

generally id at 1 I- 16.

D. Conversations Among Attorneys for the White House and Private Couusel for the President are Privileged from Disclosure Under the Common Interest Rule

The OIC contends that the governmental attorney- client privilege, even ifit exists, could not attach to conversations with the President’ s private counsel. Again, the OIC is wrong. Every conversation in which private counsel participated is protected fkom disclosure under the com- mon interest rule.

The Supreme Court’ s Proposed Rule 503( b)( 3) recognized that “[ t] he lawyer- client privilege applies to communications made by the client ‘ or his lawyer to a lawyer representing 8nother in a matter of common interest. ’ n 3 WEIN~‘ s FEDERAL EVIDENCE 9 503.13[ 2] (Joseph M. McLaughhn d, 2d ed. 1997) (quoting Proposed Rule 503( b)( 3), 56 F. RD. 183,236 (1972)). ** The common interest rule recognizes that

[i] n many cases it is necessary for clients to pool information in order to obtain ef- fective representation. So, to encourage information- pooling, the common inter-

* * The OK’ s suggestion that he may second- guess the offkial position of the United States Government on the scope of the attorney- client privilege, as aumciated by the Deparmmt of Justice, is in considerable tension with the

statute under which the OK operates. Tbe statute permits the OIC to deviate from the Dqmrbnent’ s view only when it is “riot possible” for him to comply. 28 U. S. C. 0 594( f).

I2 As aheady noted, the Suprane Court’ s Reposed Rules of Evidence represent highly persuasive statements of the common law of privilege the courts should apply under Fed. R Evid. 50 1. Set saqm note 9.

I I -..

2054

-22-

est rule treats all involved attorneys and clients as a single attorney- client unit, at least insofar as a common interest is pursued.

2 SEPHEN A. SALTZBURG ET AL., Fn> nut RULES OF EVIDENCE MANUAL 599 (6th ed. 1994) (footnotes omitted); accord In re Sealed Case, 29 F. 3d 715,719 (D. C. Cir. 1994) (“ The common interest privilege protects cornnumications between a lawyer and two or more clients regarding a matter of common interest.“). Besides pmserv@ the privilege for attorney- client communica- tions made among attorneys for clients with a common ina the privilege also allows the attorneys to share work product without waiver of the protection the work product rule provides.

See United States v. AT& T, 642 F. 2d 1285,1299- 1301 (DC. Cir. 1980). The common interest rule applies with equal force in the governmental context as outside. See id at 1300 (Yhe’ gov-

emment has the same entitlement as any other party to assistance from those sharing common interests, whatever their motives’ >.

in this case, attorneys representing the White House and the President’ s private counsel were pursuing a common interest in responding to the allegations made against a sitting Presi- dent involving his conduct in the White House. (See Lindsey Decl. fl12- 13; Ruff Decl. f 30). As discussed herein, the OIC’ s ~v~ tigatio~ ~~ 0~ nobly directed at the President’ s personal conduct, has had unavoidable effects on the functioning of the Presidency and the in- stitutions of government. The indisputable need for White House attorneys to confer with the President’ s private counsel on matters of common interest shields their discussions from com- pelled disclosure.

E. Certain of the Materials Sought are Protected from Disdiosure

Because they Constitute Attorney Wdrk Product

The OIC’ s Motion to Compel also intrudes upon matters protected from disclosure by the work product doctrine. See Hickman v. Tqlor, 329 US. 495 (1947). The attorney work- part mlc, like the attorney- client privilege, has received official Congressional recognition in the governmental context. See 5 USC. 0 552( b)( 5); NWZB v. Sears, Roebuck& Co., 421 U. S. 132, 154 ( 1975); FTC v. Grolier, hc., 462 U. S. 19 (1983). The Department of Justice has also rec-

2055

- 23 -

ognized the existence of the governmental attorney work product doctrine in circumstances that parallel the 010 Motions here. See DOJ Brief, supru, at 18- l 9.

Among the subjects about which the OIC seeks to compel testimony are attorneys’ rec- ollections of theii intewiews with W who testified before the grand jury. (See Lindsey Decl. q 13). Because the OIC has sought to compel gov emment attorneys to disclose the content of witness interviews, the higher standam of protection for attorney opinion work product ap- plies. See Opjohn, 449 U. S. at 401 (attorney opinion work product, as dktinct f& m “ordinary” work produc& is “entitled to special protection”).

EL THE OIC SEEKS TO COMPEL CO~~ CA~ ONS PROTECTED UNDER THE PRESIDEWIAL COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGE

The OIC has taken a simplistic and absolutist position in its motions to compel: it argues that the presidential communications privilege is inapplicable to any wmmunications that relate to the President’ s “private” conduct That contention is flatly wrong. Any conduct by the indi- vidual holding the Office of the President, whether it is characterized as private or offkial, can have substantial impact on a President’ s off& l duties. The White House has asserted executive privilege only over those wmrnunications that meet that test. For example, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683 (1974), held that the conversations at issue in that case- about a break- in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters, although certainly not about an official function of the President- were presumptively privileged. See also Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F. 2d 725 (D. C. Cii. 1974). Thus, the OIC is urging on this Court a position that the Supreme Court and the DC. Circuit have long ago rejected.

A. Legal Framework for Evaluating a Claim of Privilege for Presidential Communications

The case law establishes a clear Wework for evaluating a claim that the presidential wmmunications privilege protects a conversation or document from compelled disclosure. The

2056

-240

OIC’ s Motions do not even a& nowlcdge the existence of this framework. Accordingly, we will begin by laying out the key principles.

1. The Presumption of Privikge

“Prcsidcntial conversations arc ‘ presumptively privileged, ’ even from the limited intru- sion represented by in camera examinatiori of the conversations by a court.” Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F. 2d 725,730 (D. C. Cir. 1974) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F. 2d 700,717- l 8 (D. C. Cir. 1973), quoted with approvul in United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683,708 (1974)) (footnote omitted); see a& o In re Sealed Case, 121

F. 3d 729,744 (D- C. Cir. 1997). Grounded in ~~~ 0~ scpamtion of powers concerns, the presidential communications privilege is WJy applicable in grand jury proceedings and bars compelled disclosure of the privileged matter. &led Case, 121 F. 3d at 756. Because prcsidcn- tial communications arc presumed to be privileged until the privilege is overcome by an extraor- dinary showing, the OIC is wrong in claiming that the White House has any “burden” to carry. 13 Rather, the burden is squarely on the OIC to make the showing necessary to overcome the prc sumption of privilege.

As the Supreme Court has rccognizcd, this long- standing privileger4 ensures that the President receives “candid, objective, and even blunt or harsl? advice from the inner circle of aides on whom he must, of necessity, rely every day:

The expectation of a President to the confidentiality of his conversations and cor- respondence, like the claim of confidentiality of judicial deliberations, for exam- pie, has all the values to which we accord dcfem# x for the privacy of all citizns

‘ 3 See, e. g., OK’ s Brief in Suppart of Motion to Compel BIUOC R Lindsey to Testify (“ OX Lindsey Br.“) at 2 n. 4 (citing &ar& oidj Cabfe Co. v. FCC, 114 F3d 274,280 (D. C. Cir. 1997), a case that did not invoivc the presidcntiaI communications privilege). All three of the OIC’ s supporting briefs cite this same intlevant case.

I4 See, e. g., Se& d Cute, 12 I F. 3d at 739 n. 9 (first assertion of a prcsidaW communications privilege came

during the Washington Administration). VirtuaUy way Adminiion since Washington’ s has invoked the executive privilege in 0~: form or another. &e gene& lty MARIC. J. ROZELL, EXECUTNE PRIVILEGE 32- 48,83- M (1994) (summa& kg invocations of executive privilege by, in@ ufia RMdcats Gbrge Washington, John Adams. Thomas Jeffman, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Abr& m Lincoln. Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevek Hay S Trmrum, Dwight D. Eiiower, Jahn F. Kemnrty, Lyndcm 8. Johnson, GeraId R Ford, Jimmy Carter. Ronald Reagan, and George Bush).

2057

- 25 -

and, added to those values, is the ncccssity for protection of thepublic intcrcsr in candid, obje, and event blunf ot hmh opinions in Residenfki &c& ion-

molling A Frcsidcnt and those who assist him must be fiec to explore altcma- tivcs m the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way IIUUIY would bc unwilling to express except privately.

United States v. N& on, 418 US. at 708 (emphasis added). One cannot ovcrstatc the intolerable threat that an unduly eonstrictivc reading of the privilege poses to the Resident’ s abiity to get frank and candid advice from his advisors. In- deed, many years bcforc the Nixon Rrcsidcney rcndcred discussions of the privilege controver- sial, President Eiscnhowcr undcrseorcd the crucial role the privilege plays in promoting effective governanec, going so fiu as to remark that, if eonfldcntial presidential communications wcrc “subject to investigation by anybody,” it could ‘ Week the ~0~~~~~ 15 Scholarly authority confirms the privilege’ s salutary role in cneoumging candid advice to the Prcsidcnt:

The president’ s constitutional duties ncccssitate his being able to cunsult with ad- visers, without fear of public disclosure of their advice. If officers of the execu- tive hraneh believed that their eonfidcntial adviec could eventually be disclosed, the quality of that advice would suffer serious damage. Indeed, it would bc diffi- cult for advisers to bc completely honest and &ank in their discussions if their

every word might someday be diiloscd to partisan opponents or the public. MARK J. ROZELL, EXEC~~ WE PRIVILEGE 53- 54 (1994).

Affording appropriate deference to a co- equal branch of the government under separation of Rowers principles, rcvicwing courts always have rccognizcd that, when the presidential com- munieationa privilege has been invoked, a presumption of privilege attaehca. See sealed Cure,

15 Resident Eisenhower stnu? d:

But when it comes to the cooversations that take place between any responsible official and his . ad- . . . expressing personal opinions on the most confidential basis, those arc not subject to investigation by anybody; and if they 8t- c. will wreck the Government. Tlhcre is no buskcss that could be tun if there would be exposed every singie thought that an adviser might have. because in the process of rtscltmg an agmd posit& there are many, many conflicting opinions to be. bmught together. And if any commander is going to get the fk, unprejudiced opinions of his subordii he had better protect what they have to say to him on a confidential basis.

77~ fmidurr 0 News Cb+ ence of .h& 6, IPk, 1955 PUEMC PA- OF fiaz PREaDENIs 665,674, quo& in

Archibald Cox, Exemfive Privilege, 122 U. PA. L. REV. 1383.1386 (1974). The President continucck “it is exactly, 8s I see it, lie a lawyer and hi client or any other confhntial thing of that chanct~.” Id, 19% Put~~ c PAPERS 0~ TIE PRESIO~ at 674.

2058

-26- 121 F. 3d at 744 (“ If the President does so [invokes the privilege], the documents become pre- sumptively privileged.“); Senate Select Committee, 498 F. 2d at 730; accord United States v. Mxon, 418 US. at 713 (“ Upon receiving a claim of privilege from the Chief Executive, it be- came the further duty of the district court to treat the s& poem& d as presumptively priviIeged[. J”). This Court should reject the OIC’ s invitation to become the first court ever to adopt a contrary rule.

2. Comm~ nieations to Which the Privilege Applies

The ‘ presidential commtmications” privilege covers a significantly broader range of communications than its name suggests. In sealed Care, the fullest recent explication of the privilege, the Court of Appeals for this Circuit squarely rejected the notion that the privilege attaches only to communications directly to or from the President See generuZZy sealed Case,

121 F. 3d at 74653. Instead, the Court applied a more discerning analysis, which recognized the privilege’ s “root[ s] in the constitutional separation of powers principles and the President’ s unique constitutional role,” id at 745- a role the President cannot perform without the close cooperation of an inner circle of advisors and assistants. Thus, to effect the purposes of the privilege, the Court recognized that it must protect not only the President’ s own communica- tions, but also communications to and from the persons on whom the President directly relies for decisionmaking assistance:

[C] ommunications made by presidential advisers in the course of pmparing advice for the President come under the presidential communications privilege, even when these communications are not made directly to the President. Given the need to provide sufficient elbow room for advisers to obtain information from all knowledgeable sources, the privilege must apply both to communications which these advisers solicited and received from others as well as those they authored themselves. The privilege must also extend to communications authored or re- ceived in response to a solicitation by members of a presidential adviser’ s staff, since in many instances advisers must rely on their staffto investigate an issue and formulate the advice to be given to the President.

Id at 751- 52.

2059

-27-

The privilege also covers individuals outside the President’ s inner circle, and even out- side the White House, ifthose individuals relate “communications authored or solicited and received by members of an immediate White House adviser’ s a.]” Id at 752; see aiso id at 758 (although legal extem “did not exercise broad and significant responsibility,” all the extem’ s relevant wmmunication~ “were clearly created at the request of” those who did, and were there- fore privileged); id (documents for which no author was listed had plainly been solicited by individuals with key responsibility for advising the President, and were therefore privileged).

While scrupulously protecting the public interest in the effective operation of the highest levels of the Executive Branch, sealed Care fully recognized and accommodated the public interestinascer& ingthetruthingmndjuryproceedings. Th~ theOICiswrongtoassert (OIC Lindsey Br. at 5- 6) that the mere potential relevance of evidence is sufficient to overcome the protection of the privilege in a grand jury pmceed@. The grand jury is not, as Sealed Case

recognizd, fke to disregard established testimonial privileges. The presidential communica- -2 tions privilege in particular advances a substantial public interest on which the grand jury may

not i& inge: [wle are ever mindfid of the dangers involved in cloaking governmental opera- tions in secrecy and placing obstacles in the path of the grand jury in its investi- gatory mission. There is a powe@ l counterweight to these concerti, houever, namely the pubiic and constitutional interest in preserving the eflcaq and qua&@ of presidkntial &cisionmaking.

Sealed Case, 121 F. 3d at 762 (emphasis added).

3. The Showing Required to Overcome the Presumption

The presumptive privilege, once invoked by the President, is not easily overcome. “[ A] party seeking to overcome the presidential privilege seemingly must always provide a focused demonstration of needI.]” Sealed Case, 121 F. 3d at 746. “Efforts should first be made to deter- mine whether sufficient evidence can be obtained elsewhere, and the subpoena’ s proponent should be prepared to detail these efforts and explain why evidence covered by the presidential privilege is still needed.” Id at 755. The “need” inquiry Yum[ s], not on the natwe of the

2060 presidkntial conduct that the subpoenaed mate& l might IW& but, instead, on the nature and appropriateness of the function in the performance of which the material was sought, and the

degree to which the mataial was necessary to its fulfillment.” Senate select Committee, 498

F. 2d at 731 (emphasis added); accord&& d Case, 121 F3d at 746. That this is a high hurdle indeed is shown by &azze &Zect Committee’ s observation that the “showing must depend solely on whether the subpoenaed evidence is demonstrably critical to the responsible salient” of the function of the entity seeking to compel production. I6 Senate Select Committee, 498 F. 2d at

73 1, A mere showing of “an asserted power to investigate and inform,” ti at 732, does not suffice. The Court’ s holding that “the Select Committee has tiled to make the requisite show- ing,” id at 73 1, reinforces that the stand& of need requires a very strong substantive showing thatacourtmustscntth& withthegreaWtcare.

Moreover, the Court must assess the sufkiency of the showing of need without reference to the privileged communications themselves. SeaZed Case makes very plain the steps involved in evaluating an attempt to overcome the privilege. Once the presumption of privilege attaches, the party seeking the portion becomes obliged to make a ‘ Yocused demo~ tion of need.”

Sealed Case, 121 F. 3d at 746. Only after the party opposing the claim of privilege makes a suffkient showing does the President become obliged to cede control of the privileged materials. The “focused demonstration of need” does not itself require the President to turn over the infor- mation to the party seeking it, however, but only to submit it under seal to the district court for in camera review. Id at 759- 60. The district court reviews the items and cxttacts the specific relevant portions as to which the privilege has been overcome, and then those extracts and no other parts of the privileged communications may be provided to the party opposing the claim of privilege.

16 Although Soled Gzse, like the present case but unlike &mare Select Con& me, involved the Executive Btancb’ s opposition to compulsory judiciat ptuws, mtlm than a legislative inquiry (see sroitd Cuse, 12 1 F. 3d ~1 753). Se& d Case ttpemdly employed (and necusari ly doped) &mate S& a Commitree’ s cxphtion of the need

requirement, suggesting that, at least as to thii element, the standards for evaking any given assertion of the presidential communications privilege arc identical no matter which bmnch of govemment is seeking to ovemmte the privilege.

2061

S& d &se also makes clear that this Court must scnttk& communications individu- ally to d& ermine whether the OIC has met this standard. The blanket ruling the OIC seeks, declaring all the communications at issue here to be outside the scope of the privilege, is pre-

cisely what the Court of Appeals forbade in Sealed C& e. See 121 F. 3d at 740 (criticizing the

District Court for issuing “a blanket mling, with no individualized discussion of the docu- ments”); see also id (We court also failed to provide any explanation of its legal reasoning”).

~highstandardofneedisintendedtopreventpreciselythemisuseofthegrandjury process in which the OIC has engaged here. It effectuates the principle that “presidential com- munications should not be treated as just another source of information” t7 by requiring the OIC first to develop sufficient evidence from other sources to substantiate its showing of need, before intrudiig on the President’ s communications with his advisors:

Nor do we believe the Nimn4Sirica I@ standard imposts too heavy a burden on grand jury investigation. In practice, the primary effect of this standard will be to

require a grand jwy to &kky srrbpocnaing evidence covered by prtsiiienfial privifege until it has assured itself that the evidence sought from the President or his advisers is both important to its investigation and practically unavailable else-

where. As was tme in Sirica, a grand jury will often be able to specify its need for withheld evidence in reasonable detail based on information obtained fkom other sources.

Sealed Case, 121 F. 3d at 75657 (emphasis added); see also id. at 761 (“ it ishard to conclude that the OIC issued its subpoena to the White House as a last resort.**). By turning to privileged

presidential commmications as its first resort, the OIC has turned the NixorGiricaBeaZed Case

paradigm on its head and sparked a premature confrontation on an inadequate record.

B. The Conversations at Issue Here are Privileged

As shown below, application of the established analytical framework to the communica- tions at issue here shows unmistakably that the communications are privileged. In arguing the contrary, the OIC contends that this case involves allegations about the President that relate to private activity. This argument, however, fails both legally and factually. As a legal matter, the

I7 WedCure. 121 F3d at 755.

2062

-3o-

OIC’ s argument misreads the Supreme Court’ s decisions both in Nixon and in Cfinton v. Jones,

as well as authorities from the D. C. Circuit, involving the distinctions between official and per-

sonal conduct relevant to the assertion of privilege. And as a factual matter, the OIC ignores that, from the beginning, the Lewins@ matter has unavoidably involved the functioning of the President in his official capacities as head of gOVWtIment and head of state.

1. The Communications at Issue Invohwd Official Presidential Deeision8

Allegations about “private” conduct by a sitting President can and do have a substantial impact on his official duties and activities. The OIC’ s argument ignores the many factual re- spects in which the instant litigation unavoidably intersects with the President’ s performance of his constitutional duties.‘ *

Contrary to the OIC’ S assertions, not one of the witnesses who have testified before the grand jury, including the three whose testimony the OIC now seeks to compel, have ever in- voked a blanket assertion of privilege to refuse to answer “rury questions concerning conversa- tions about Monica Lewinsky that occurred among White House staff.” (OK Lindsey Br. 1, see

also OIC Hernreich Br. 2; t9 OIC Blumenthal Br. 2). Mr. Lindsey, for example, has appeared three times before the grand jury and has testified in great detail, to the extent of his personal knowledge, about discussions inside and outside the White House relating to the Lewinsky matter. (See Lindsey Decl. fl9, 14, 15, 16( a)-( i), 17). The White House has invoked the privi- lege only as to communications designed to aid the President in the execution of his official duties. (See id fi 17).

18 Even the President’ s political opponents have recognized the impact of the OK’ s investigation on the func- tioning of the Residency as an institution. See David Rogers, Len Sqs Clinton- Sun Sfun&~ Hwrs Government

crnd Urges Borh Sic& s ro Acr, WU ST. J.. Mar. 10,1998, at A24 (quoting Senate Majority Leader Trcnt Lott (R- Miss.) as saying the Lewinsky matter is “getting to be a disuacdon in Washington and affecting the president and perhaps even the Congnu, in doii the people’ s busincss[. r). See u& o id (“‘ I don’ t think it’ s good for the prcsi- dcncy. I don’ t think it’ s good for the counuy, ’ he [Lott] said in a later intcnkv.~). (See uiso Ruff Decl. 124).

I9 Consistent with the White House’ s proposal of March 4.1998, submit& d as pait of the White House’ s pcrkwm- ante of the constitutionally mandated accommodation process recognized by Seaied Cuse, the White How with- draws the assertion of executive privilege over factual matters, including communications with the President, on behalf of non- attorney advisors such as Ms. Hemreich.

2063 -31-

What the OIC apparently fails to understax4 or is unwilling to admit, is that this case has in fact had a demonstrable effect on the operations of the White House as an institution. Several examples will illustrate the profound impact the LeWinsky matter has had on the functioning of the Presidency. The White House offers these examples solely for illustrative purposes. Nothing in Nixon or Sealed Case suggests that the question whether a particular issue calls for direct involvement and decisionmaking by the President is amenable to judicial review. Similarly, the cases do not suggest that the President’ s detmninati on to seek advice on a particular subject, or his choice of sources of advice on which to rely, are open to question after the fact by the OIC. Thus, although the presidential communications privilege provides the prtsident with a “qualified” protection that a court may overcome on a su& iently strong showing of need by the opposing party, Sealed Care, 121 F. 3d at 745, the predicate issues- whether a given subject requires the President’ s attention, whether the President should seek advice on the matter, and from whom- are for the President and his advisors alone. The White House does not concede the contrary by discussing the following examples of presidential decisionmaking.

These examples make clear that the OIC’ s effort to eliminate all conversations relating to the Lewinsky matter from the protection of the presidential communications privilege is glar- ingly misdirected.

a. Discussions Relating to the President’ s State of tbe Union Address

The Constitution requi& s the President periodically to report to Congress on the State of the Uniop. U. S. Co~ sr. Art. II, $3, cl. 1. Advisors made certain of the communications that the OIC seeks here in the course of advising the President on the performance of that duty, (see Blumenthal Decl. m 5,13), and those communications are squarely covered by the presidential

communications privileges. C’ Sealed Cure, 121 F. 3d at 752 (communications presiunptively privileged because they “were generated in the course of advising the President in the exercise of . . . a quintessential and nondelegable Presidential power.“).

2064

- 32 -

The President addressed the nation on January 27,1998 arid did not discuss the Lewinsky matter. See Address Befbre a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union, 34

WEEKLY ~MPlLATION OF RESIDENTIAL &KNMNTS 129 (Jan. 27.1998). Leading up to the address, though, conversations took place within the White House about how the President should handle the matter. Senior White House advisors also advised the President how to re- spond to the many questions reporters asked him concerning how he would treat the allegations in the State of the Union speecha (See Lindsey Decl. Ill; RuffDecl. 123; Declaration of Sidney Blumenthal (“ Blumenthal Decl.“) fl5, 13- 15). Thus do allegations related to ostensibly tiprivaten conduct have a substantial impact on the President’ s constitutional duties. These dis- cussions occurred in the course of advising the President on his discharge of a core constitutional obligation, and are presumptively privileged from disclosure.

b Matters of Foreign Policy and Military Affairs

In the weeks since the allegations involving the President surfaced, it has become abun- dantly clear that the OIC’ s current investigation has consequences even for the nation’ s foreign policy and military affairs, and the President’ s roles as head of state and Commander- in- Chief- core Executive Branch functions which have long merited the greatest defmnce from the other branches of government. See U. S. CONST. Art. II, 5 2 cl. 1, 6 3 cl. 3. Reporters have questioned visiting foreign heads of state about the OK’ s i. nvestigation. 21 Other foreign government offi-

2° See, e.. g., Excerpt of a Telephone Inttrview With Morton Kotubuke md Ed Henry of Roll Cdl, 34 Wmuy

COMPILATION OF - bXMENTS 115 (Jan. 2 1.1998); interview Wirh Uara Liawn and Robert Siegel of

National Public Radio, 34 WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PREsIDENllAL DOCUMENTS 116, 117 (Jan. 21, 1998).

21 See The Presicknt ‘ s News Conjiie~ e With Prime Minister ‘ Blair, 34 WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL

DOCUMENS 213- 22 (Feb. 9.1998); sez ufro John M. Broder, Clinton Refvtes to Discuss fndepurdcnr Counsel f Request TIurr He Test& Bejii GrandJury, N. Y. TIMES, Mar. 12.1998, at A24 (rqnxte~ ask questions about the Lewinsky matter during the President’ s public apparance with United Nations Secretq General Kofi Annan, prompting Secrauy General Annan to complain, “I wish you would concentrate on my issues. 1 don’ t come every day.“).

The early days of the Lewinsky matter also coincided with official state visits by baaeli Rime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafht. The President, in one of his fvst public interviews after the OIC began probiig the Lewincky- related alleguions, mentioned the extraordinary steps he had endeavored to take to ensure that the burgeoning controversy not dktract him lkan the pmper conduct of the nation’ s foreign policy. See hwrvtew With Jim Wnr of tk PBS “News Hour”. 34 WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRSIDENTIAL Docu~~ m 104- 05, 10607,114 (Jan. 21, 1598).

2065

- 33 -

cials have expmsed their concern that the investigation must not be allowed to detract from the United States’ ongoing and crucial role as peawmakerz Some of the conversations over which the White House has invoked the presidential communications privilege involved the formula- tion of advice for the President as to the appropriate White House response when foreign offi- cials inquired about, or were questioned about, the Lewinsky matter. (See Blumenthal Decl. pB lo- 11, lE15).

What is more, the current investigation has unfolded during a turbulent period in the na- tion’ s international relations, when the President and his advisors have been formulating a re- sponse to continued violations by Iraq of United Nations Security Council resolutions on weap- ons inspection adopted in the wake of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Although the immediate threat of military conflict appears to have dimini& ed somewhat at this momen& certain conver- sations at issue here occurred at a time when military confrontation appear& highly likely and the President’ s need to concentrate on the nation’ s military and foreign affairs was at its peak. Deliberations within the White House about how to keep the controversy related to the Lewinsky matter from hampering the President’ s conduct of the nation’ s military and foreign policy formed a part of the discussions over which the White House has invoked the presidential wm- munications privilege. (See Ruff Decl. 7 27; Blumenthal Decl. 7 15). For the foregoing reasons, the conversations at issue here plainly fall under the presumptive privilege established in Nixon

and Sealed Case.

c. Discussions of Possibk Referral by the OIC to the House Judiciary Committee

As the discussion of the facts surrounding the expansion of the OIC’ s inquiry in mid- January 1998 makes clear, the immediate effect of the new allegations of possible obstruction of justice led commentators and reporters to discuss the issue of impeachment and, therefore,

p See, e. g., supro note 2 1; Alesandra Stalcy, American Puritanism or Zionist Plot? 77~ World Weighs In, N. Y.

TIMES, Jan. 24.1998, at A9 (discussing, inm d& the effect of the Lewinsky- related allegations on the Middle East

peace pxxas); Remark Prim to Discussions With Chairman Yawer Ar& t of the Pdkstinian Authority andan &change With Rrpwtm, 34 WEEKLY COMPlLATION OF -AL - 123,124 (Jan. 22.1998) (rcponers question the President about the Lewinsky matter at a press confmnce with Chaiman A& at).

2066

- 34 -

placed it on the discussion agenda of senior White House advisors.~ (See Lindsey Decl. Ill). The White House received many inquiries from the press on this possibility. (See Ruff Decl. 122). Indeed, the President himself has been questioned by reporters on the subject. 24 Senior advisors to the President, including attorneys in the White House Counsel’ s offke, have a duty to obtain factual infotmation relevant to the investigation to advise the President concerning this issue. (See RuffDecl. 1; 22).

Impeachment is the one remedy expressly provided in the Constitution (Art. II, 6 4) that

can be dkected against the President, and it is fatuous for the OIC to contend that discussions of the prospect between the President and his wre advisors could, in any sense, be considered “personal” or “unofficial.” In part because of the fotmal responsibilities of the Counsel to the President in the event of impeachment proceedings, “even the mere speculation of such pro- ceedings raises serious issues that a President and his advisors must address.” (Ruff Decl. 7 19). Because of the wnstkutional concerns directly implicated by an investigation that threatens possible impeachment proceedings against the President, conversations on this subject must be deemed presumptively privileged.

d Allocation of the President’ s Time Between Public Responsibilities and Defending Himself in the Jones

Litigation atid the Lewinsky Matter

The expansion of the OIC’ s jurisdiction in mid- January 1998 immediately returned to the forefkont of the White House’ s agenda an issue that had been liiering since the Supreme Court’ s decision in Clinron v. Jones the preceding summer. The Court’ s decision declining to stay the Jones proceedings during the President’ s term of office immediately raised the issue of

23 The possibility of pmceedii in the House Judiciary Committee had, of course. been discussed within the White House even before the Lewinsky- related allegations surfaced. See H. Res. 304,105th Con& 1st Sess. (NOV.

5, 1997). (See ah0 Ruff Decl. fl 19- 21).

24 See Excerpt of a Telephone 1ntenMv With Marton Ku& ake and Ed Hemy of Rdl Cdl, 34 WEEKLY COMPILA- TlONOFhESDENMl- 115 (Jan. 21, 1998).

2067

- 35 -

how the President should defend himself in the litigation without, in the Court’ s words, allowing the case to “engulf the Presidency.” Jones, 117 S. Ct. at 1648.

The Court’ s decision allowing the case to proceed necessarily required the President to devote part of Ks schedule to the conduct of his def-. Questions as to how the President allocates his time, however, are imbued with a public, official nature, for every moment the President must spend def- himself in private litigation is a moment in which he is unavail- able to execute the duties of the office to which he was elected. Thus, the question of how to minin& e the Jones litigation’ s inte& ence with the Presi& nt’ s performance of his official duties was an important subject of discussion among the President’ s senior advisors. (See Lind- sey Dccl. 18).

The U. S. Department of Justice’ s brief as umictrs curiae in Jones, for example, succinctly described the public significance of the issue:

As a practical matter, the countless issues of domestic and foreign policy that de- mand the President’ s attention fully occupy, and indeed outstrip, the capacity of the President to respond. . . . As a resl& the prtsidmcy’ s mostprecious com- modi@ is time, and one of the most vaing problem for the President and his staris how to divide that time among the dkpamte issues that c& for his a& tention.

Clinton v. Jones, 117 S. Ct. 1636 (1997), Brief for the United States as Am& s Curiae in Support of Petitioner at 1 &l 1 (emphasis added); accord Jones, 117 S. Ct. at 1646 (recognizing demands on a sitting President’ s schedule). Notably, presiding Judge Wright permitted the Counsel to the President to attend the Preside& s deposition in the Jones case, a recognition that the case has important consequences for the nation and for the institution of the Presidency, not merely for the individual who currently holds that office.

Many of the wmmunications the OK seeks to compel relate to the President’ s decisions about strategy regarding how to prevent the Jones litigation and the Lewinsky investigation from “engul~ ig] the Presidency.” (See Lindsey Decl. m 9- l 1). The demands of discovery and the forthcoming trial have required the President to, in some cases, delegate to subordinates within the White House the task of attending to scheduling matters not requiring the President’ s per-

2068

-360

sonal attention. Before making each of these decisions, the President gathered recommendations and advice from his aides on how best to meet the scheduling demands of the Jones litigation without detracting from the execution of the duties of his office.

t. Ongoing Strategy Discussions Relating to the OIC’ s Investigation

When an issue requiring a rapid presidential decision arises, the President’ s need for ad- vice and rewmmendations is wrrespondingly accelerated. To perform their advisory function in such a context, it is crucial that the President’ s advisors remain abreast of breaking developments as they occur, rather than “reinventing the wheel” every time the President solicits their opinions. Presidential advisors have an on- going duty to gather the facts nv to render sound advice on short notice when so requested by the President. To that end, discussions of strategic and policy matters are a staple of every White House advisor’ s daily routine. (See RuffDecl. fl29-

30).

The incursion of the OIC’ s investigation into the daily operations of the White House is no exception to this principle. Many of the conversations the OIC seeks to compel involved discussions among senior presidential advisors concerning how the White House should respond to the OK’ s investigation, what effect the investigation would have on presidential scheduling (including prearranged travel abroad by the President on diplomatic matters), what effect the investigation would have on the formulation and announcement of new policy initiatives, deal- ings with Congress, and the like. (See Lindsey Decl. 112; Ruff Decl. fl29- 30). Because these discussions formed an on- going part of the advisors’ function to counsel the President on deci- sions he must make, they are presumptively privileged.

2069

f Discussions as to Whether to Assert the Presidential Communications Privilege

Itrespective of whether the invocation of the privilege may be communicated to a Court through one of the President’ s intermediark~ the decision whether to claim the privilege is necessarily a matter that falls squarely within the execution of the President’ s official duties.

Some of the conversations the OIC seeks involved discussions among the President’ s closest advisors about whether the President should claim a privilege, or refrain fkom doing so. Such discussions have occur& in the White House virtually every day since the Lewinsky- related allegations surfaced. (See generally Lindsey Decl. 111; RtiDecl. g 2628). The need to balance the twin aims of appropriate disclosure with the institutional need to preserve candid and open communication among advisors presented questions of the most exacting subtlety. The inevitable risk that an invocation of the privilege, no matter how strongly justified under the law, would prompt unfavorable public commentary also factored into advisors’ candid, even fkac- tious, discussions of what advice to give the President. Because all these discussions occurred while advising the President in connection with a decision only he could make in his offtcial capacity, they are presumptively privileged from disclosure.

2. The OIC’ s Argument Misconstrues the Relevant Authorities

Besides being inconsistent with the facts, the OIC’ s argument that the presidential com- munications privilege is subject to an implicit exception for “personal” or “unofficial” presiden- tial conduct is at odds with precedent from both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for this cilqlit.

The Court of Appeals’ opinion in Senuze SeZect. Commitree holds squarely against the ar- gument the OIC makes here. In Senae Select Committee, an investigating arm of the Congress attempted to compel the President to produce “taped recordings of five conversations. . . between President Nixon and John Wesley Dean, III, discussing alleged criminal acts occurring

25 SeeSeaMCuse. 121 F3du7~ 5n. l6( the~ donotestrblirhwhethertheprivilegemustbec~ cdby the President pcrsonaUy).

2070

- 38 -

in connection with the Presidential election of 1972.’ n Senate Select Committee, 498 F. 2d at 727. These conversations related to acts far outside the boundaries of the President’ s official duties, namely, the ransacking of the DNC’ s Watergate offices. Under the OIC’ s theory here, these conversations would not have been presumptively privileged.

The D. C. Circuit held precisely to the contrary. Set id at 730. Moreover, the Court found the Senate Select Committee’ s showing of need for the tapes inadequate, and denied the Senate’ s motion to compel. Id at 731 (“ ure find that the Select Committee has failed to make the requisite showing” to overcome the presumption).

The OIC’ s argument is also at odds with the Supreme Court’ s decision in United Stures v.

Nixon. The presidential communications at issue in that case involved private conduct by other individuals, but nonetheless were held presumptively privileged by the Supreme Court. See

Nixon, 418 U. S. at 713- 14. Indeed, nothing in Nixon suggests that the conversations at issue were characterized by an overarching public or official purpose, as distinct fkom discussions pertaining to the potential individual liability of the President (who had, after all, been named an unindicted co- conspirator by the grand jury, and whose subordinates had already been convicted of Watergate- related crimes). ~6 Thus, the OIC’ s legal theory has been rejected by both the DC. Circuit and the Supreme Court. 27

The contents of the presidential conversations the Supreme Court held presumptively privileged in Nixon indicate that the OIC cannot circumvent the privilege merely by claiming that its sole interest is in the President’ s actions in his personal, rather than official, capacity. For

x President Nixon did not contend that any of the subpoenaed conversations revealed diplomatic or military secrets. See N& WI, 4 18 U. S. at 706,710. In holding that the conversations were, nevertheless, presumptively privileged (kf at W- 14). the Court obviously rejected any notion that the presidential communications privilege is limited to communications implicating foreign policy or national security. AccwdSecrlcdCuse, 121 F. 3d at 757- 58 (presidential communications privilege proton internal White House diiussions of investigatkm of Secretary of

Agriculture. which did not implicate military or diplomatic concerns). The OK’ s sugge& on that the privilege cannot come into play hue because no “national security or diplomatic secrets” are involved (OK Lindsey Br. at 4) ignores oil the relevant pruzdent.

27 The Court in Nhn ultimately held that, in the unique ckumstancesof that case, the Special Rxecumr had made a sufficient showing to sqport turning over the nrbpoenred mataiab far in cumeru review by the diict court. See Niron, 418 U. S. at 713- 14. It did so only asker finding the matekls presumptively privileged, however.

2071

-390 example, some of the conversations that the Supreme Court held ptesumptively privileged were three discussions hctwccn President Nixon and H. R. Haldcman on June 23,1972. See Statement Announcing Availabili@ of Additional Transcripts of Presiahtial Tape Recordings, 1974 PUB-

LJCPAPERsOFTHEpREgDENfs 621. These conversations involved President Nixon’s attempt to derail the FBI’s investigation of the Watergak break- in by falsely alleging a foreign connection over which the FBI had no authority. By contrast, the conversations over which the President has asserted the privilege here are plainly related tohis legitimate official functions.

Nor does Chton v. Jones erase the presumption of privilege that attaches to presidential communications under Nixon and Skaled Case. The OK suggests that the Supreme Court’s

. c- on of the Jones case as “unrelated to any of [the President’s] official duties,* 117 S. Ct. at 1640, forecloses any application of the presumptive privilege. The Court’s holding, how- ever, is in no way inconsistent with the presumptive privilege recognized in Nixon and SeaZed Case. To the contrary, the Court instructed that great deference was owed to the “unique posi- tion in the constitutional scheme” the President holds. 117 S. Ct. at 1646 (internal quotations omitted). Although CZinton v. Jones held that the Constitution did not mandate a stay of civil proceedings against a sitting President during his term of office, the Court never held or sug- gested that presidential communications relating to that litigation during the President’s term of office were entitled to any less protection than were presidential communications on other sub- jects. Indeed, Jones nowhere suggested that the interests the Court in Nixon recognized to un- derlie the rule of presumptive privilege- the President’s need to obtain candid and objective advice and to consider all altematives in formulating decisions (see Nixon, 418 U. S. at 708)-

2072 -400

carry any less force in the context of the public ramifications of civil litigation about personal matten.

C The OIC Has Made No Showing, Last of AU the Extraordinary Showing Required, to Overame the Privilege

As previously discussed, the case law rcquir~~ the OIC to make a %cuscd demonstration

of need- before presidential communications may even be tumed over to the Court for in cumera

review. See general& supru at 25- 27. But, in another example of its total dkegard of the gov- erning analytical hm~~ ork, tbc OIC explicitly concedes that it has made no such showing. (OIC Lindsey Br. at 8). Rather, the OIC asks instead that it be allowed to do so at some unspeci- fied future time. Wbether the OIC is allowed the second bite at the apple it has attempted to resexve for itself is a question for another day. For present purposes, the point is merely that nothing on the record now suggests that the OIC can make the showing the law requires. In these circumstances, the OIC plainly cannot overcome the presumptive privilege that attaches to the communications at issue here.

28 It is easy to conceive of other instances in which FVesidents’ “private” concerns have afkted the operation of the Resiicy as an itmituhon. The question fkquently arises, fop example, in -ion with Presidents’ h& b problems, such as President Reagan’ s cancer surgery in 1985 or Resident Bush’ s treatment for an itqular hearkat in 1991. Althoughtheheahhoftbeindivid~ holdingtheOtticeof~ Rtsidemisnodoubta” privatc” cancaa uthtOICusesthetmn,~ incidcntsrairtdaplethoraofijuteJ~ ingtherppropiategowrnmmolrrspoaK to presidential incapacity, the possibility of invoking the Twenty- Fifth knendment, and related matters- all of which would unmistakably be considered “official,” and therefore protec@ notwWmnding that they arose out of a President’ s private concerns.

2073

-41-

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the OIC’ s Motions to Compel should be denied. Of Counsel: Charles F. C. Ruff Counsel to the President THE WHITE HOUSE Washington, D. C. 20500 (202) 456- 1414

.d f/ ! : t’ .’

!/ id/

W. Neil Eggleston @. C. bkr No. 411957) Tiiothy K. Armstrong (D. C. Bar No. 444200) HOWREY & SIMON 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W. Washington, D. C. 20004 (202) 783- 0800

Attorneys for The White House Dated: March 17,1998

2074

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that copies of the fortgoing Memorandum of the White House in Opposition to OIc’ s Motions to Compel Bruce R. Lindsey and Sidney Blumenthal to Testify .Conceming Conversations Protected by the Attorney- Client, Presidential Communications, and Work Product Priviieges wete served by hand or Federal Express, this 17th day of March, 1998 upon each of the parties listed below:

Kenneth W. Starr, Esq. Independent Counsel Office of the Independent Counsel 100 I Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Suite 490 North Washington, DC 20004

Charles F. C. Ruff, Esq. Counsel to the President The White House Washington, D. C. 20500

William J. Murphy, Esq. Murphy & Shaffer 100 Light Street, 9” Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21202- 1019

Mr. William McDaniel McDaniel & Marsh 1 I8 West Mulberry Street Baltimore, Maryland 2 120 I

Gerard Treanor, Esq. Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti 1201 New York Avenue. N. W. Suite 1000 Washington, D. C. 20005- 39 I7

Independent Counsel Counsel to the President Counsel to Bruce R. Lindsey Counsel to Mr. Sidney Blumenthal Counsel to Ms. Nancy Hemreich

W. NEI& kESTON

2075

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN RE: SEALED CASE. 1 Misc. No. 98- 95 1 (UNLIERS-)

I, Charles F. C. Ru&, do hereby declare: I.

1. I am Counsel to the President of the United States. I have held this position since February 10,1997. Prior to that time, from 1995 to 1997, I served as Corporation Counsel to the District of Columbia. From 1982- 95, I was a partner at the Washington, D. C. law firm of Covington & Burling. During that time, from 1989- 90, I served as president of the District of Columbia Bar. I also served as United States Attorney for the District of Columbia from 1979- 82. From 1975- 77, I served as Watergate Special Prosecutor.

2. In my capacity as Counsel to the President, I provide legal advice to the President regarding a wide variety of matters relating to his constitutional, statutory, ceremonial, and other official duties and the effective functioning of the Executive Branch. At the President’ s direction, I review various matters that have legal implications and advise him on particular courses of conduct. Those matters include, among numerous others, the assertion of privileges in response to requests for materials and testimony, including executive privilege, attorney- client privilege, and attorney- work- product privilege.

3. The White House Counsel’ s Office, as a whole, provides confidential counsel to the President, in his official capacity, to the White House, as an institution, and to senior advisors, in

2076

Declaration of Charles F. C. Ruff Page 2

particular, about mat& k that afkct the White House’ s interests, including investigative matters. To this end, the Counsel’ s Office receives confidential communications from and provides advice to current and former White House personnel about matters of institutional concern. These individuals provide this tiormation to and solicit advice f& m our Office with the expectation and understanding that such communications will remain confidential.

II. . . . Jones ~&~ QQR

4. In May 1997, the Supreme Court held in Clinton v. Jones that the Constitution does not require a stay of private litigation involving the President until after his term. CZinton v. Jones,

117 S. Ct. 1636 (1997). Thus, the Jones litigation was permitted to proceed during the President’ s term, with the Court making particular note that the potential burdens that this litigation may place on the President need to be taken into account by the trial court This decision requires the President to balance two competing demands on his time: (1) his need to defend the Jones lawsuit and (2) the absolute requirement that he devote his full time and attention to performing his duties as President.

5. From my experience as a defense attorney in private practice, a civil lawsuit involving these kinds of allegations and monetary claims requires a substantial time commitment by a client, especially during the discovery phase of the litigation. I also found that most of my individual clients, in addition to fulfilling their obligations as a litigant, have a genuine and important interest in being actively involved in the ongoing litigation, including participating in strategy discussions and decisions. This level of commitment necessarily places a substantial burden on a client’ s schedule.

6. The President, as the Chief Executive of our Nation, has extraordinary demands placed on his time. His schedule cannot accommodate the many demands of his office, independent of his personal and family responsibilities. In most instances, the many competing obligations

2077

Declaration of Charles F. C. Ruff Page 3

facing the President require him to rely on his advisors to meet with certain people, attend meetings, gather information and advise him on particular matters.

7. Thus, the progress of the Jones litigation wncurrent with President’ s second term has placed additional obligations on the President’ s schedule that, under the law, he must Mill despite the current demands of his office. Consequently, the President must look to his advisors to assist him in determining how he can fulfill the requirements of the lawsuit while not abandoning his duty to the American people.

8. The lawsuit has also spawned issues and the need for decisions (e. g., discovery, the deposition of the President, and the possibility of a resolution of the litigation prior to trial) that affect the Presidency and the President’ s ability to perform his duties effectively. The President’ s advisors, who know the scope and weight of matters before the President at any given time, are best situated to advise the President as to how various aspects of the Jones litigation may affect the Presidency or official matters. Accordingly, presidential advisors need to know about and discuss those litigation- related issues or matters that may affect the office so that they can give the President informed advice as to how he should proceed.

9. The media’ s interest in the Jones litigation has generated inquiries in hundreds of official presidential press conferences and briefings by the President, his press secretary, and other White House staff, whether held here or in other countries. Indeed, the volume of Jones- related inquiries that the White House receives sometimes eclipses the inquiries generated by official White House policy matters. Therefore, presidential advisors need the ability to have informed, candid, and frank discussions about the Jones litigation to prepare the President for these inquiries.

2078

Declaration of Charles F. C. Ruff Page 4

. . . f the Of& e of w Coqwd&~‘ s JUR&& QB

10. On January 16,1998, at the request of the Attorney General, the Special Division wnfixred jurisdiction on the Office of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr (“ OIC’ ) to investigate whether “Monica Lewinsky or any other individual” snbomed perjury or committed other federal crimes. ’ The allegations surrounding the OIC’ s investigation involve the President during his tenure, the White House, and many White House employees.

11. Since that time, the OIC has served 13 subpomas for documents on the White House or current White House employees wntaining more than 30 separate requests relating to the Lewinsky investigation and calling for expedited production. The OIC has also served at least 25 current and former White House employees with subpoenas calling for their testimony before the grand jury. The OIC also has requested interviews from more than 30 current and former White House employees.

12. Every day since January 21,1998, the White House has received a flood of press inquiries related to the Lewinsky investigation, and the subject has been raised in virtually every White House press briefing and presidential press appearance.

IV. . . . . White House Coopag& on ma the OIC InvaQg&~~

13. Consistent with the practice of my predecessors, as Counsel to the President, I have endeavored to cooperate with the OIC by maintaining an open and constructive dialogue and by responding expeditiously to its requests. Indeed, the White House has responded in a timely fashion to the OIC’ s document subpoenas and has produced all responsive materials it has

’ Text of Reno ‘ s Petition for Starr, ASSOCIATED PRESS NEWSDAY. COM, Jan. 29, 1998.

2079

Declaration of Charles F. C. Ruff Page 5

located, usually by the designated production date. To accomplish this task, the Counsel’ s Office circulated a directive to the entire Executive Office of the President’ s staff and, where appropriate, performed several targeted searches for information.

14. Many current and former White House staffmembers, other than Mr. Lindsey and Mr. Blumenthal, have been subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury regarding their knowledge of facts pertaming to the relevant time period surrounding the Lewinsb investigation. Others have been asked to submit voluntarily to an interview. I understand that all of these individuals have cooperated with the OIC, and none has asserted privilege over any information that they possess. In particular, the following individuals have provided testimony about their knowledge of this matter: Betty Cutrie, Patsy Thomasson, Timothy Keating, Stephen Goodin, Q- is Engskov, George Stephanopoulos, Deborah Schiff, Marsha Scott, Leon Panetta, Evelyn Leiberman, Carolyn Huber, and Bayani Nelvis.

15. As explained more fully below, with respect to certain individuals subpoenaed to testify, I anticipated that their testimony might implicate confidential communications and information. In an effort to avoid any unnecessary delay in the investigation and needless confrontation, my staff notified the OIC that the issue might arise and discussed ways to reach a mutually agreeable accommodation prior to or following an individual’ s appearance.

16. It is my understanding that this and prior administrations, Republican and Democratic, have recognized that, with respect to matters that relate to the President’ s performance of his duties and the functions of the Executive Branch, presidential advisors, and their staff, must be able to inquire into matters in detail, obtain input from all others with significant expertise in the area, and perform detailed analyses of all possible alternatives before deciding what advice and

2080

Declaration of Charles F. C. Ruff Page 6

information to provide the President. In re Sealed C& se, 121 F. 3d 729,750 (D. C. Cir. 1997). The President has an important wnfidentiality interest in seeking and receiving advice - an interest that is wnstitutionally based “to the extent this interest relates to the effective discharge of a President’ s powers.” UnitedStates v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683,711 (1974).

17. Moreover, we treat executive privilege as extending to wmmtmications among advisors and their staff, even if not communicated directly to President, In re Sealed Case, 121 F. 3d at

75 l- 52, and to communications in their entirety, not just the deliberative or advice portions, including predecisional, final, and post- decisional materials. In re Sealed Case, 121 F. 3d at

745.

18. The Lewinsky investigation involves allegations regarding the President’ s conduct toward a federal government employee during his tenure in office. This matter is inextricably intertwined with the daily presidential agenda, and thus has a substantial impact on the President’ s ability to discharge his obligations. Accordingly, in the course of executing his duties, there have been discussions among advisors and the President involving the Lewinsky investigation, and these discussions have been held in confidence and treated as subject to privilege.

k . . . . . f Possible Pra bv the w Ce

19. Under Article II of the Constitution, Congress possesses the power to initiate proceedings against a sitting President that can ultimately result in his removal t? om office. Thus, even the mere speculation about such proceedings raises serious issues that a President and his advisors must address.

20. In November 1997, an impeachment resolution was introduced in the House of

Declaration of Charles F. C. Ruff 2081

Page 7 Representatives. The resolution did not contain specific allegations regarding the President. Rather, it broadly claimed that there was considerable evidence developed from various “credible sources* ’ that the President bad engaged in conduct designed to obstruct the legitimate Executive Branch functions. See H. Res. 304, lOStb Cong., 1st Sess. (Nov. 5,1997).

21. Only days after the Special Division expanded the scope of the OIC’ s investigation, members of the House Judiciary Committee renewed their public discussions about the possibility of initiating proceedings against the President in light of the allegations arising from the Lewinsky investigation.? Weeks later, the press continued to report that many people “would like to see [the President] impeached or forced to resign.*‘ 3 Congressman Robert Barr recently went so far as to state that “‘ the Republican leadership is beginning to lay the groundwork. . . [for] impeachment proceedings . . . .‘ M Thus, the Lewinslq investigation not only relates to and affects the Presidency -- it also threatens it.

22. Statements by members of Congress and related reports have generated numerous inquiries, some directed at the President, about the possibility of impeachment proceedings. ’

’ Bryant suggests Clinton should consider stepping aside, GANNETT NEWS SERVICE, Jan

27, 1998. ’ N. Gibbs, Twin Perils of Love & War, TIME, March 2, 1998, p- 36- 39; see Clinton Accused: Guide to Impeachment THE INDEPENDENT, Jan 23, 1998, p. 8; ‘ Smoking Gun ’ Could Trigger Bid to Boot Bubba, NEW YORK POST, Jan. 23, 1998, p. 9; Clinton is Becoming Increasingly Isolated As His Latest Crisis Deepens,‘ THE SCOTSMAN, Jan. 23, 1998, p. 15;

Excerpt of A Telephone Interview With Morton Kondrake and Ed Henry of Roll Call, 34 WEEKLY

COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS 115 (Jan. 2 1, 1998).

’ Bob Barr Discusse. s Impeachment Process for Bill Clinton, CNN BOTH SIDES WITH

JESSE JACKSON (Feb. 15, 1998).

5 JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT AND PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR OF GREAT BRITAIN, Feb. 6, 1998; PRESS! BRIEFMG BY MIKE MCCURRY, Jan. 26, 1998; PRESS BRIEFING BY MIKE MCCURRY, Jan. 23,1998; PRESS BRIEFING BY MIKE MCCURRY, Jan. 21,1998.

Declaration of Charles F. C. Ruff Page 8

Consequently, presidential advisors must gather information and formulate advice for the President about the Lewinsky investigation to address the myriad of issues and inquiries that the investigation raises in this context. In addition, the Counsel’ s Office must prepare to defend against any such proceeding.

B. 23. The President’ s State of the Union address occurred days after the press reported the expansion of the OK’ s jurisdiction and the allegations surrounding Ms. Lewinsky. The White House received numerous inquiries as to whether the President would address these allegations in his State of the Union address6 The President’ s advisors obviously were required to gather information, consider available options, and advise the President about how to handle this and related matters.

24. The President’ s ability to work with Congress to enact legislation is likewise affected by the Lewinsky investigation. Certain legislators have been described as “throwing up their hands at the prospect of doing any serious business,“ ’ thereby significantly affecting the President’ s domestic agenda. ’ Indeed, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott recently remarked that the Lewinsky investigation “is beginning to have an impact on the presidency, on the president and on his ability to deal with many very important issues for the future of our country - from Social

6 E. g., PRESS BRIEFING BY MIKE MCCURRY, Jan. 26,1998. ’ Clinton Under Fire, LOS ANGELES TIMES, Jan. 26, 1998, p. Al7; see also -The President Under Fire: The Public View, NEW YORK TIMES, Jan. 27, 1998, p. Al (“ most Americans fear that the scandal will interfere with his future ability to perform his job effectively”); Alleged Clinton Af/ air Boosts caiifor impeachment Probe, STATES NEWS SERVICE, Jan. 22, 1998.

’ See Lawmakers Return Amidst Scandal, AP ONLINE; Jan. 26, 1998.

2083

Declaration of Charles F. C. Ruff Page 9

Security to what’ s going on in Iraq to now what’ s going on in Kosovo.‘” Therefore, in discussing with the President his ability to achieve the Administration’ s domestic policy objectives, advisors must take into account the impact of issues arising out of the Lewinsky investigation on

his efforts and advise him accordingly.

25. Based upon information from others, I understand that the Lewimky investigation also affected the President’ s ability to address foreign policy matters. For example, during the recent crisis with Iraq, certain people speculated that the Lewinslq investigation might harm the President’ s ability to “influence” the public, thus rendering him incapable of garnering support for the U. S. position on this issue and ultimately negotiating a successful resolution with Traq.‘ O These same concerns were raised when the President addressed Middle East issues, including his recent meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Mr. A& at.” Therefore, the President’ s

advisors necessarily discussed the Lewinsky investigation and advised the President so that he could effectively execute his constitutional duties regarding foreign policy matters.

C. . . Discussions the Assertlon ofble Pn _ ‘ vileees

26. When an investigative body subpoenas the White House or one of its staff members for

9 Loft Urges Clinton to Give Details, A! 3XXXATED PRESS, March 9, 1998.

lo Crisis Develops Inside the White House, CNN LATE EDITION Wrr~ WOLF BLITZER

(Jan. 25, 1998); see also, Twin Perils of Love & War, TIME, March 2, 1998, p. 36- 39 ;

Republicans End Silence On Troubles Of President, THE NEW YORK TIMES, March 1, 1998,

sec. 1, p. 20, col. 1; It ‘ s Hard To Believe The Clintons, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, Jan. 29, 1998, p. 19;

Echoes of the past but a far cryfrom Watergate, FINANCIAL TIMES, Jan. 24,1998, p. 3; Scandal tests Clinton on Iraq cris& AGENCE FIUNCE PRESSE, Jan. 24, 1998.

I’ NJ lawmakers worry Clinton ‘ s woes could hurt host of issues, GANNETT NEWS . . SERVICE, Jan. 30, 1998; It’ s Hard To Believe The Clintons, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, Jan. 29, 1998,

p. 19 ; Letters to the Editor: Sex and the president through media eyes, THE SAN DIEGO UNION- TRIBUNE, Jan. 27, 1998, p. B- 7.

2084

Declaration of Charles F. C. Ruff Page 10

information, White House contidentiahty interests are often implicated. The Counsel’ s Office has always attempted to deal with these privilege issues in a careful and deliberate manuer.

27. tier ascertainin g that a subpoenaed individual possesses confidential information, the decision whether to assert privilege over such conmmnications or information is one that the White House approaches thoughtfully, deliberately, and seriously. First, we csrefully review the nature and substance of the communication to determine its confidential nature. Second, we evaluate whether the assertion of the privilege is legally sustainable and otherwise appropriate. Finally, we brief the President and advise him in making the ultimate decision. Thus, this process involves core presidential decisiomnaking.

28. Accordingly, presidential advisors have engaged in deliberations to determine whether it is necessary to advise the President to assert privilege over certain communications. These discussions are presumptively privileged.

D. . . . Se~ essionsinvolviag Presrdem Adwsors and Co unsel.

29. The President is unable personally to keep abreast of every matter that is handled by or

could possibly affect him or the Executive Branch. Accordingly, the President must rely on advisors to ensure the progress and development of these matters and, when appropriate, brief the President with information and advice that will permit him to make decisions and respond to inquiries. Often, issues arise unexpectedly, and thus’ advisors must always be prepared to assist the President on a moment’ s notice with the most recent, accurate and comprehensive information, and the full range of options relating to a particular decision.

30. The Lewinsky investigation is no exception to this process. As illustrated in the examples presented above, since first repotted, this investigation has affected the President’ s

2085

Declaration of Charles F. C. Ruff Page 11

ability to execute his constitutional obligations and has beam the primary subject of press inquiries. This investigation has also intruded on the work of the President and his immediate advisors and sta& and has raised issues involving privilege, witness availability and subpoena compliance. As a result, the President’ s advisors and counsel have held regular meetings to gather and exchange information, as well as to formulate recommendations, for the President.

VI.

31. On January 30, 1998, the OIC served on Bruce Lindsey, Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel, a subpoena calling for his appearance to testify on February 4,1998 before the grand jury-

32. In an effort to address, prior to Mr. Lindsey’ s appearance, the scope of the matters that the OIC sought to discuss with Mr. Lindsey and other senior advisors to the President and to address potential privileges that might be implicated, I contacted the OIC to ~discuss the matter. On February 3,1998, Special Counsel Lanny Breuer and I met with Kenneth Starr, Robert Bittman, Steve Collatan, and Jackie Bennett. I explained the nature of the privilege concerns that would arise from broad- ranging inquiries into staff discussions and communications with the President, and I asked OIC to describe with particularity the possible areas of inquiry. They declined to do so.

33. The OIC informed me that it had postponed indefinitely Mr. Lindsey’ s appearance, and therefore a discussion of their examination of Mr. Lindsey was premature. As a result, OUT

discussions about his testimony were curtailed, and instead we focused on the pending appearance of another presidential advisor, Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta.

2086

Declaration of Charles F- C. Ruff Page 12

34. On February 4,1998, ‘ k Starr sent me a letter indicating that they intended to inquire into privileged areas based upon their view that executive privilege was inapplicable to information relating to the Lewinky investigation. (2/ 4/ 98 Letter Corn Starr to RI,@ attached as Exhibit 1).

35. On February 5,1998, I responded to Mr. Starr’ s letter and stated that, under the principles of In re Sealed Case and other relevant authority, conversations among advisors were presumptively privileged. (2/ 5/ 98 Letter from RufT to Starr, attached as Exhibit 2).

36. 1 pointed out that the “2iiscussions among and between the Preside& s senior staff involve the very capacity of the President and his staff to govern- to pursue his legislative agenda, to ensure the continued leadership of [the] United States in the world community, and to maintain the confidence of the people who elected him- all of which lie at the heart of his role under Article II of the Constitution.” (Id. at 2). I concluded by indicating my willingness to explore all possible accommodations of our respective interests. (Id.).

37. On February 6, 1998, the OIC sent me a letter rejecting my offer and restating its position

regarding the communications about which it intended to inquire. In rejecting my offer, the OEC did not articulate any need for this information, as required by In re Sealed Case, but simply asserted that its desire “‘ to resolve this matter in a timely fashion” compelled disclosure. (2/ 6/ 98 Letter from Starr to Ruff at 1, attached as Exhibit 3).

38. Finally, on the issue of discussions between witnesses and White House counsel, the OIC stated that, under the Eighth Circuit decision in I. re Grand Jury Subpoena Duce. s Tecum, 112 F. 3d 9 10 (8th Cir. 1997), it intended to question White House personnel as to the substance of such communications, and that if a witness asserted the attorney- client privilege, the OIC intended to “take such further steps as are appropriate.” (Id. at 2).

Declaration, of Charles F. C. Ruff

2087

Page 13

39. As described in his declaration, filed in connection with the White House’ s opposition to the OIC’ s motions to compel, Mr. Lindsey testified before the grand jury on February 18 and 19, 1998, and on March 12,1998. (Declaration of Bruce R Lindsey (“ Lindsey Dec.“) 1 9). 12 Over the course of those three days of testimony, Mr. Lindsey willingly answered questions ahout his personal knowledge with respect to any allegations of a personal relationship between Ms. Lewinsky and the President, and any allegations of suborning perjury in connection with the

Jones litigation, as well as several questions ahout Mr. Lindsey’ s discussions with others that involved Ms. Lewinsky. (Lindsey Dec. fi U- 17).

40. Mr. Lindsey declined to answer other specific categories of questions relating to the

Jones litigation and the Lewinsky investigation on the grounds that they are subject to executive privilege, attorney- client privilege, attorney- work product privilege, and/ or the common interest doctrine. (Lindsey Dec. fl 10- 14).

41. The confidential communications that Mr. Lindsey declined to disclose to the grand jury are presumptively privileged. They occurred while performing his duties as Deputy Counsel to the President and as one of the principal advisors to the President, or as the President’ s personal attorney prior to the President taking office. (Lindsey Dec. fi 4- 6,8- 14,17). Mr. Lindsey had these discussions with the President, other White House attorneys, presidential advisors to the President, and/ or with the President’ s private attorneys. (Id.). The communications contain information and advice relating to the Jones litigation or Lewinsky investigation that Mr. Lindsey gathered or provided for the purpose of assisting the President in making decisions in connection with his official duties or to ensure that the allegations and inquiries surrounding these matters did not impair the President’ s discharge of his official duties. (Id. fl 10- 14).

‘ * Mr. Lindsey’ s entire declaration is incorporated by reference.

2088

Declaration of Charles F. C. Rti Page 14

42. On February 26,19! 38, Mr. Blumenthal testified before the grand jury. (Declaration of Sidney Blumenthal (‘ Fshrmenthal Dec.“) 116).” Mr. Bhzmenthal declined to answer certain questions on the grounds that they are subject to executive privilege. (Id.).

43. In his capacity as && ant to the President, Mr. Blumenthal participates in and is consulted on a wide variety of matters, including domestic policy issues, presidential speeches, (including the Stat e of the Union address), national security issues, and international freedom of the press issues. (Id. fl4- 7). Mr. Blumenthal also serves as the liaison for the President to the offke of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, a role that requires bim to interact with the Prime Minister and his advisors on a variety of subjects, including United States foreign policy matters.

(Id. fl8- 12). 44. To perform his duties, Mr. Blumenthal consults with other presidential advisors to gather information and fommlate advice to give to the President (Id. fl3, 14- 15, 17). In carrying out these duties, Mr. Blumenthal has had discussions with the President, First Lady, and other senior advisors regarding the allegations and inquiries surrounding the Lewinsky investigation. (Id.).

These discussions took place in the context of Mr. Blumenthal’ s assisting the President to perform his duties; in particular, the President’ s State of the Union address and the visit by the Prime Minister of Great Britain. (Id. ml 4- 15). Accordingly, these discussions are presumptively privileged.

” Mr. Blumenthal’ s entire declaration, filed in connection with the White House’ s opposition to the OIC’ s motions to compel, is incorporated by reference.

2089

Declaration of Charles F. C. Ruff Page 15

VII. . . . . Communlcagons mth #he 01s 1998 45. The White House sought to avoid needless confkontation by reaching a mutually agreeable accommodation that would permit the OIC access to the information that it purportedly needed to conduct its investigation while maintaining the legitimate confidentiality interests of the White House. On March 2,1998, W. Neil Eggleston, the attorney representing the Office of the President in connection with litigation arising out of the Lewinsky investigation, sent a letter to the OIC requesting that the White House be consulted about whether such an accommodation was reachable. (3/ 2/ 98 Letter from Eggleston to Starr, attached as Exhibit 4). Mr. Eggleston also described to the OIC the well- established accommodation process that the White House historically followed, citing the Espy litigation as an example. (Id. at 1). Finally, Mr. Eggleston offered to meet with the OIC to discuss the areas of inquiry that implicated privilege concerns and to consider any articulation of need that the OIC might make. (Id. at 2).

46. On that same day, the OIC replied to Mr. Eggleston’ s letter, reiterating its earlier position that executive privilege did not apply to information relating to the Lewinsky investigation. (3/ 2/ 98 Letter from Bittman to Eggleston, attached as Exhibit 5). The OIC also stated that the White House was using executive privilege as a dilatory tactic. (Id. at 20). Finally, the OIC took the view that the White House was in the better position “to identify the areas it wishe[ d] to withdraw the invocation of executive privilege,” and thus requested that the White House submit a proposal by noon on March 4, 1998. (Id.).

47. On March 4, 1998, Mr. Eggleston responded to the OK’ s letter. He began by underscoring the principle that, although the parties may disagree as to whether certain information is privileged, the accommodation process requires the parties to set aside any difference over the applicability of the privilege and focus on trying to reach an acceptable

2090

Declaration of Charles F. C. Ruff Page 16

agreement. (3/ 4/ 98 Letter from Eggieston to Starr, attached as Exhibit 6). Mr. Eggleston continued:

Your Office was unwilling to describe the subject matters about which you intended to question White House officials prior to their testimony. After several weeks of grand jury testimony by White House officials, we now have a sense of the areas that we believe are of interest to your investigation. It appears that, in addition to seeking facts about this matter, you are seeking ongoing advice given to the President by his senior advisors, including attorneys in the Counsel’ s Office, as well as the substance of these advisors’ s discussions as to how to address the Lewinsky investigation in a manner that enables the President to perform his constitutional, statutory, and other official duties.

(Id. at 1).

48. Mr. Eggleston then explained that the Office of the President was prepared to instruct White House witnesses along the following general lines:

(1) white House Adho= l% n hw- v= Q B : Advisors will be permitted to testify as to factual information regarding the Lewinsky investigation, including any such information imparted in conversations with the President. We will continue to assert executive privilege with respect to strategic deliberatio. ns and communications.

(2) White House A!& mev Advism: Attorneys in the Counsel’ s Office will assert attorney/ client privilege; attorney work product; and, where appropriate, executive privilege, with regard to wmmunications, including those with the President, related to their gathering of information, the providing of advice, and strategic deliberations and communications.

(Id. at 2).

49. Mr. Eggleston stated that he believed that this approach would accommodate the parties’ respective interests. (Id.). He also stressed that, because the White House did not know the specific questions the OIC intended to ask a particular witness, we would evaluate the application of these instructions in response to specific questions and were willing to discuss any

2091

Declaration of Charles F. C. Ruff Page 17

particular issue. (Id.). 50. Mr. Eggleston also rejected the OIC’ s suggestion that the White House’ s assertion of privilege was a delaying tactic, pointing out that during the six weeks of the investigation, numerous White House witnesses either m or were inhewed, and each had answered all legitimate questions. Moreover, the White House had attempted to address and resolve all privilege issues prior to the appearance or interview of a White House official. (Id.).

51. On March 6, 1998, the OK responded to Mr. Eggleston’ s letter, maintaining its position that executive privilege did not apply, and rejecting Mr. Eggleston’ s proposed approach. (3/ 6/ 98 Letter from Bittman to Eggleston, attached as Exhibit 7). On that same day, the OK filed its motions to compel.

VIII. . . . . . . Disclosure of these Communl& ons ~111 Debbte this and Future Pres idencia

52. The President’ s advisors have not merely assumed that the Lewinsky investigation is a matter that has substantially affected the Presidency. They have taken it upon themselves to evaluate carefully how, if at all, it relates to the President’ s discharge of his duties. Politicians (both Democratic and Republican), political analysts (both domestic and foreign), and the media have all pronounced that the investigation af% cts the President’ s ability to achieve his foreign policy objectives and domestic agenda, and even poses a real threat to his ability to remain in office. In response to these reports, advisors have acted to ensure that they completely understand the scope and ramifications of the Lewins@ investigation so that they can give well- informed advice to the President to enable him to fuifill his responsibilities to the American

people.

2092

Declaration of Charles F. C. Ruff

Page 18

53. Disclosure of these wmmmikations will have a chilling effect on these and future presidential advisors. When a matter like the Lewins& investigation affects the President’ s

ability to execute bis duties, his advisors camot sit idly by and hope that it will resolve itself with little impact on the President. The President relies on them to assess a particular issue and to help him make sound decisions. To be effective, these advisors need the ability to evaluate relevant infomation, explore novel approaches, engage in heated debate, and provide blunt, candid and even harsh, advice to the President. The President has a wnstitutionally based confidentiality interest in this process, and “‘ the critical role that confidentiality plays in [this process] cannot be gainsaid.” In re Sealed Case, 121 F. 3d at 750.

54. If advisors must perform these duties with the knowledge that they have no expectation of confidentiality, that at some point their deliberations and advice will be disclosed, and that they will be held publicly accountable for their recommendations, they will be disinclined to gather all of the relevant information about a matter and avoid giving novel and !iank advice to the President. They will fail in their duty to assist the President in dealing with matters that have an impact on his office and the Executive Branch. In turn, the President will be hindered in performing his duties because he will not receive tbe full benefit of his advisors’ shills. He also will have to waste much of his time performing the functions that intermediaries normally would -- and should -- handle.

55. To strip a President of the core assistance and- critical advice that are the lifeblood of his ability to execute his duties will inevitably result in the erosion of the effectiveness of the Office of the President. Such an outcome conflicts with basic constitutional principles and our country’ s notion of an effective Presidency and a well- balanced, democratic government.

2093

Declaration of Charles F. C. RufY Page 19

56. I have discussed with the President these areas of inquiry and the privileged nature of the information sought. The President has dire& d me to invoke formally the privileges applicable to these communications.

Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. $1746, I declare under penalty of pe& ry that the foregoing is true and correct.

Charles F. C. Ruff Counsel to the President-

2094

2095

Tab 1

2096

2097

Offtce of the Independent Counsel

IO01 Pentuyimnia Aveme. N. W Suite 490- North Washington. D. C. 20004 (202) 514- 8688 Far (202) 514- 8802

February 4,198 The Honorable Charles F. C. Ruff Counsel to the President The White House Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. RUE I write in response to your visit of yesterday con ceming the sensitive matter of Executive privilege. As you know, at the request of the Attorney General, the Special Division recently conferred jurisdiction on this Offtce to investigate whether “Monica Lewinsky or others” suborned perjury, obstructed justice, or committed other federal crimes. We understand from your discussion that certain witnesses employed by the White House may invoke Executive privilege in response to questions posed by the grand jury in its continuing investigation of that matter. After careful consideration of your comments, including consultation with our Ethics Counselor S- amuel Dash, we believe strongly that the grand jury is entitled to inquire into discussions of senior white House staff members, both among themselves and with the President, concerning the Monica Lewinsky matter.

As we understand your comments, there are two principal areas of testimony where the White House may invoke Executive privilege. The first includes discussions, to which the President was not a party, among what you have described as “senior staK” The discussions at issue occurred after the Lewinsky matter became public last month. You indicated that these discussions may have encompassed such topics as how to respond publicly to the news, what political strategies to adopt, and how to advise the President concerning these matters. We further understood you to say that the White House did not expect to assert Executive privilege with respect to whatever factual information, if any, &discussed among the staff

The second area involves communications between members of the White House staff and the President himself that took place after the public revelations concerning our new jurisdiction. We did not understand you to take a firm position on the question whether the President would assert Executive privilege with respect to his own communications with advisors on this subject.

As a threshold matter, we believe there is serious doubt whether communications of

2098

The Honorable Charles F. Ruff February 4, 1998 Page 2

senior staff and the President concerning the Lewinsky matter fall within the scope of Executive privilege. When the Supreme Court recognized a “presumptive privilege for Presidential communications,” United v. Nm, 418 U. S. 683,707 (1974), it explained that the privilege attached to communications in the exercise of the President’ s Article II powers. u at 705. The privilege is limited to communications “in performance of the President’ s responsibilities,” id, at 711, “of his office,” id at 713, and -made in the process of shaping . . policies and making decisions.” Id at 708 (quoted in Nixon of Geneml

Services, 433 U. S. 425,449 (1977)). The actions of the President and the White House in response to the Lewinsky matter do not, as we see it, carry out a constitutional duty of the President. Monica Lewinsky was a prospective witness in civil litigation in which the President is a private party. In more recent days, this Offlice has been charged by the Attorney General and the Special Division with responsibility to conduct a criminal investigation of “Ms. Lewinsky and others.” These matters concern the President in his personal capacity. They do not involve the President’ s execution of the laws. Accordingly, we doubt that presidential and senior staff communications on these matters are entitled to a presumptive Executive privilege.

In any event, assuming the presumptive applicability of an Executive privilege, we are confident that many communications among White House staff and/ or the President constitute important evidence in the grand jury’ s investigation that is not reasonably available elsewhere. &X in re Sea, 121 F. 3d 729,753 (DC. Cir. 1997). The President’ s own statements are of critical importance to the grand jury’ s investigation. His statements to advisors represent highly relevant information not available from any other source. Particularly given the President’ s refusal to make public statements concerning the Lewinsky matter, and his recent decision to decline our invitation to appear before the grand jury, there is no alternative source that even approaches a substitute for direct evidence of the President’ s statements.

Similarly, the statements of senior White House staff will in many instances he important to the grand jury’ s investigation. For example, just as factual information in the possession of presidential advisers may reveal the nature of the President’ s deliberations, m In re Sealed Case, 12 1 F. 3d at 750- 5 1, so too may the discovery of delibei- ations among the White House staff concerning strategy give the grand jury unique insight to the factual premises on which the President and his staff are operating. Where the grand jury’ s investigation focuses on not merely “an immediate White House advisor,” & at 755, but on conduct of the President himself, we believe the courts will recognize that evidence of senior staff communications will be “particularly useful” to the grand jury. u

If the President ultimately does assert Executive privilege with respect to any evidence sought by the grand jury, then we expect that the district court will be required to determine whether the President’ s claim of privilege should be upheld under the circumstances. We agree

2099

The Honorable Charles F. Ruff February 4,1998 Page 3

with your suggestion that a log of conversations among senior staff, including a list of participants and a specific, generic description of the subject matter, may facilitate the process of resolving any such disputes. If you are in a position to provide such a log in fairly short order, then we would consider whether the log is sufficient from our point of view to frame the issues properly for decision by the Court.

If you believe that further discussions of these matters would be helpful, we would be pkased to visit with you again at your convenience.

’ Kenneth W. Starr Independent Counsel

2100

2101

Tab 2

2102

2103

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

February 5,1998 BY FACSIm Kenneth W. Starr, Esq. Independent Counsel Suite 400 North 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D. C. 20004

Dear Mr. Starr: This is in response to your letter of February 4,1998. First, I want to inform you that within 45 minutes of its delivery, James Bennet of the New York Times called the White House Press Offtce to ask whether I had received a letter from you concerning executive privilege. Since there could have been only a few persons on your staff who were aware of the letter’ s delivery, I ask that you immediately request that the FBI, using agents not affrjiated with your office, investigate to determine who disclosed the existence of the letter and its substance (as well as, presumably, the fact and substance of our meeting) to the press. I and the three members of my staff who were aware of the letter before Bennet’ s call will be happy to be interviewed (under oath) in connection with any such investigation.

Let me move now to the substance of your letter. As you will not be surprised to learn, I disagree with your position on the applicability of executive privilege to discussions among senior White House staff and between senior staff and the President concerning the Lewinsky matter. In particular, I disagree with your contention that, under In re Sealed Case or any other authority, the grand jury would be permitted to inquire into the substaece of deliberations among the President’ s most senior advisors in order to determine on what factual predicate those deliberations were based. Such an argument would swallow up the entire premise of the court’ s decision. Indeed, your argument, if followed to its logical conclusion, would mean that the President would be barred from seeking the advice of those responsible for assisting him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities because every conversation would bc the subject of grand jury inquiq.

2104

Kenneth W. Starr, Esq. February 5,1998 rage 2

To the extent that you rely on the fact that the President’ s counsel has declined your invitation to appear before the grand jury, I find it curious that your office would issue an invitation to the President to appear on a date less than a week hence - when it is a matter of public knowledge that he is to begin a state visit by the Prime Minister of Great Britain and when, as you are also fully aware, the United States is confronting a major international crisis - and then argue that the President’ s declining of that invitation justifies intrusion into his discussions with his advisors. Nor can the President’ s decision not to comment on the Lewinsky matter - other than to deny that he had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky and that he ever asked her to lie - justify such an intrusion.

Let me also clarify three points I made in our meeting. First, discussions among and between the President’ s senior staff involve the very capacity of the President and his staff to govern - to pursue his legislative agenda, to ensure the continued leadership of he United States in the world community, and to maintain the confidence and support of the people who elected him - all of which lie at the heart of his role under Article II of the Constitution. Second, as to what position the President himself might take on the assertion of executive privilege as to his communications if he were to be questioned, I did not purport to take any position - %rm” or otherwise. And third, I indicated that, in deciding whether to assert privilege, we have historically sought to distinguish the substance of advisory and deliberative discussions from segregable facts, not avaitable elsewhere, that may be contained in otherwise privileged communications.

Finally, I remain willing to explore all avenues for resolving our disagreement, although I admit to being more than a little uncertain as to how to conduct discussions without reading about them simultaneously in the press. I am also uncertain about your office’ s current position with respect to the questioning of senior staff members before the grand jury. Although we had’ initially been informed that your office did not intend to inquire into the substance of any staff discussions or communications with the President, but rather only to identify the circumstances (date, attendees, general subject matter, etc.) of such discussions in order to establish an appropriate record, we have now been advised that you do intend to pursue such inquiries. We had also been informed that witnesses were not to be questioned concerning communications with White House counsel, but we now understand that you do not intend to follow that practice where there is more than one non- lawyer present - a rule that I must say seems to have no rational basis.

2105

Kenneth W. Starr, Esq. February 5,199s Page 3

If we can come to some preliminary agreement as to the protocol that will be followed in connection with Mr. Podesta’ s appearance and that of other senior staff, it may be that there remains some prospect for addressing both your interests and our very serious concerns. If you believe that further discussions would be fruitful, please call me.

Sincerely,

- //

Charles F. C. Ruff 4. L. Counset to the President

2106

Tab 3

2108

2109

02/. 06/ 9& FRI 18: OO FAX I3002

Offke of the Independent Counsel

1001 Penmytvania Aware. N. W: Suiae 49thNorth

w; rrrhhylon. AC 2oOw 002) 5116688 Fax @02) 5144802

February 6.1998 The Honorable Charles F. C. Ruff Counsel to the President

The White House Washington, DC. 20500

I write in response to your February 5 letter. Let me reitetite the scope of our inquiry: We do not intend to question senior staff about deliberative matters beyond the jurisdictional grant recently crafted by the Attorney General and the Special Division. We do not seek information about discussions that relate solcIy to the President’ s foreign policy or his legislative agenda. We do not seek information about military or diplomatic secrets. We do intend to ask about discussions concerning an alleged relationship betwetn Monica Lewinsky and the President, acting in his private capacity.

As to your contention that such discussions fall under Executive privilege, we must respectfully disagree. We believe that the President’ s relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, and tbe President’ s nsponsc to a private, civil lawsuit or a criminal investigation, fpIl outside the scope of his Arci& II duties. Executive privilege, as a threshold matter, thus appears to us inapplicable.

Even if the privilege did attach, we believe we would satisfy the test set forth in M m v. NirU; U1. The grand jury is ~vestig~ ng the conduct of Ms. Lewinsky and others with respect to a civil lawsuit against the President in hi private capacity. This Office was given responsibility over that investigation after the Attorney &ncral’ s representative, under exigent circumstances, made an extmordinary oral submission to the Special Division. The grand jury’ s need for information to resolve this matter in a timely fashion could hardly be more cornpelting,

In your letter, you suggest that our invitation to appear before the grand jury provided the President with insuffscient notice. We fully recognize that the Prrsidcnt, in the discharge of his constitutional duties, may have valid scheduling reasons for declining a first invitation to the grand jury. We simply noted the President’ s response as a partial explanation for why the grand jury needs evidence of his statements fi- om other sources.

Under the circumstances. we do not believe that Executive Privilege allows the withholding of important, relevant info~ ation that the grand jury needs to complete its inquiry. We cannot agree with you that when senior staff discuss how KO handle allegations of the President’ s private

2110

02/ 06/ 66 FRI 16: OO FAX r& o03 The Honorable Charles F. C. Ruff February 6,1998 rtage 2

misconduct, they am aiding the president in the pcrformancc of his constitutional dunes - which is the only basis for asserting Executive privilege. Your expansive view of the privilege, it scans to us, could equally -vet the communications at issue in N& n.

You cxptess uncertainty about our position with respect to questioning senior staff members before the grand jury. We wilI be specific: We intend to inquire into the substance of staff discussions and ~rnu~~ o~ with the President concaning Ms. LewinAy and related matters. If the witness asserts Executive privilcgc in the grand jury, we will limit our questioning to those matters necessary to establish an appropriate record for the district court (e. g., whether the communication was for the purpose of advising the Presi, dcnt, the official government matter to which the communication relates, date, attendees, etc.). If there is no assertion of privilege, then WC will proceed with questions.

You atso raise the issue of co~~ i~ tio~ bcrwe+ n wiblcsses and White House Counsel. We hereby notify you that in light of mre_ Q& poena Dm 112 F3d 910 (8th Cir. 1997), wxz intend to question w& eases as to the substance of such communications. If a witness asserts attorney- client privilege, we will take such further steps as arc appropriate-

Fin& y, you suggest that someone in this Offke disclosed details of our conversations and correspondence to the New . Ya . Qn several occasions in recent weeks, we have been fdsely accused of such disclosures. In this particular instance, reporters had been questioning the White House Press Secretary about Executive privilege since January 22; the Wall wumal had reported on January 29 that the White House was preparing to assert the privilege (indeed, this was our first notice of your plans); we took extensive steps to arrange for your confidential visit to our offices; subsequent media inform& on plainly came from the White House (e. g.. the Associated Press reported on February 5 that “individuals familiar with the letter” said that “Starfs letter left the White House convinced there was no more room for goodwill negotiating”); and the reporter who

asked you about our ktter covets the White House, not the O& c of the Indepencknt Counsel. Under the circumstances, we mspectf% lly suggest that your suspicions are misdirected.

If WC can provide further information that may help forestall or resolve any disputes, please let me know.

Yours sincenly, Independent Counsel

2111

Tab 4

2112

2113

HWREY 6 SIMON

March 2.1998 WA HAND Qf$ IVERY Kenneth W. Starr. Esq. Independent Counsel Office of the ~nde~ n~ nt Counsei I00 1 Pennsylvania Avenue. N. W. Suite 490 North Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mr. Starr. I represent the Office of the President of the United States in ~onncctiott .: if h :I~ I\ litigation impacting that Office arising out of your current Grand Jury investipat~ c~ r~-. I III\. representation extends to potential fitigation over the opplicobility and cxtcut ol~ iw~ \ I IL s q.

Before you initiate litigation. the White House requests that WC bc~ corlsultcd ;III~ 11.. whether an accomm~~ on is reachable between the President’ s iniercst in ~~) I~~~ i~~~ t~ i~ i~~~. ;uI* I whatever need the Grand Jury may have for the testimony.

Because these matters involve clashes between branches of govcmmcut. the usuirl practice has been for the rlspective parties to attempt to rcconcilc their diffcrcnccs unJ accommodate the needs of the other party to the extent possible.

That was certainly the course that we folIo) ved in the l& y litigation. WC rcieascd to rife Espy Independent Counsel documents for which the Independent Counsel had articulalc~ ti substantial showing of need. Indeed, the White House determined to rclcasc one 01’ thcsc privileged documents during the litigation itself. The White House only invoked privilege t. .,. I those documents, the release of which we believed would hindered the Presidcn(‘ s ability I( ’ discharge his duties.

Wdshtqton. DC Los Alwples

2114

IOWREY & SIMON We believe a similar attempt to accommodate the respcctivc u~ tcrcsl~ NOklllI I**

appropriate in this matter as well. We would be prepared to meet with you. rcvlcw 111~ ~~ O~ HI~ OI areas of witness questioning, and consider any need you may dcmanstr; ltc on why ;III~ ;I~ JIJIC ;dk

privileges should not be asserted.

L- c’ : Charles F. C. Ruth. Esq.

2115

Tab 5

2116

2117

Office of the Independent Cwnsel

1001 PennsyIvania A venue. N. W. Suite 490- North Washington. DC 20004 (202) 514- 8688 Fax (202) 51& 8802

March 2, 1998 W. Neil Eggleston, Esq. Howrey C Simon 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W. Washington, DC 20004- 2402

Dear Mr. Eggleston: We are in receipt here in Washington of your letter dated today to Judge Starr, who is currently in meetings in Little Rock. We have, however, communicated at length with him, and this letter reflects the evaluation and considered judgment of this Office. In brief, you have asked "whether an accommodation is reachable" between the White House and this Office as to the President's invocation of executive privilege, and you suggest a meeting to "reconcile" these differences.

As you are aware, this Office met with White House Counsel a month ago at his request in -- what we believed then to be -- a good- faith attempt to resolve any disputes over privilege without the need to resort to time- consuming litigation. At that meeting and in subsequent correspondence, White House Counsel expressed an unyielding view of the applicability of executive privilege in this setting. Then and since, we have set forth our view that White House Counsel's reading of executive privilege and its applicability to the Monica Lewinsky matter is, with all respect, entirely misplaced. As a threshold matter, the President's communications with regard to Ms. Lewinsky are purely private in nature and therefore fall outside the scope of executive privilege. Such communications were not made in the exercise of the President's Article II powers nor were. they made "in performance of the President's responsibilities." United States Nixqn 418 U. S. 683, 708, 713 (1974); see m In Sealed, 12; F. 3d 729, 752 (1997) (executive privilege "only applies to communications . . . on official government matters"). In addition, we find the instant invocation of executive privilege odd, given the reported statement of then- White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler that it was the White House's "practice" not to assert executive privilege in "investigations of personal wrongdoing by government officials."

2118

W. Neil Eggleston, Esq. March 2, 1998 Page two

Since our exchanges with White House Counsel, many White House employees have been questioned before the grand jury about Ms. Lewinsky. Several of these witnesses have invoked executive privilege at the direction of the White House. You propose we meet to *'review" the areas of questioning and demonstrate our need for the information in an effort to avoid litigation. With all respect, we fail to discern the purpose of such a meeting at this juncture. First, the White House has already begun to litigate these issues as evidenced by Chief Judge Johnson's ordering Bruce Lindsey to testify or invoke a privilege. Second, we have, as you know, already asked the specific questions and identified the "areas of witness questioning." Third, there is no need -- and indeed no requirement -- that we demonstrate why we need these communications, since executive privilege is, for the reasons already stated, simply inapplicable to the personal communications of the President at issue here.

That being said, we are willing to consider any good- faith attempt to resolve these issues promptly. We were in discussions with the White House several weeks ago, but the President subsequently chose to invoke executive privilege as to virtually every communication relating to Ms. Lewinsky. In this respect, we are constrained to make this point clear: this investigation has confronted numerous delaying tactics. Yet we have repeatedly stressed to the White House that the public interest demands a swift resolution of all matters involving Ms. Lewinsky. We believe, moreover, given this history, that the White House is in a better position to identify the areas it wishes to withdraw the invocation of executive privilege. We warmly welcome such a proposal so that we can move the grand jury's investigation forward. If you wish to submit a proposal, kindly do so in writing by noon, Wednesday, March 4, 1998.

Sincerely,

bwy$!$* I

Robert J. Bittman Deputy Independent Counsel

cc: Honorable Charles F. C. Ruff

2119

Tab 6

2121

HOWREY & SIMON ‘ March 4. 1998 VIA FACSIMILE and f1AND DELIVERY Kenneth W. Starr. Esq. independent Counsel Office of the Independent Counsel 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue. N. W. Suite 490 North Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mr. Starr: I received a letter from Deputy Counsel Robert J. Bittman in response to my March 2. 1998 letter outlining our wish to ensure that we had explored, prior to any litigation. till reasonable accommodations to avoid or limit litigation.

Mr. Bittman responded by restating your Office’ s view that executive privilege does III apply to any questioning of White House offtcials regarding the Lewinsky investigation- something upon which, as you know, we disagree. Indeed, the impetus for my letter was that t disagree on the law. Despite our legal disagreements. however, we are duty bound to attempt reach a mutually agreeable accommodation that provides the grand jury with the information il needs while preserving this and future Presidents’ legitimate interests in receiving candid and frank advice in confidence from their advisors.

Your Office was unwilling to describe the subject matters about which you intended 1 question White House officials prior to their testimony. After several weeks of grand jury testimony by White House officials, we now have a sense of the areas that we believe are 01 interest to your investigation. It appears that, in addition to seeking facts about this matter, ) are seeking ongoing advice given to the President by his senior advisors, including attorneys the Counsel’ s Office, as well as the substance of these advisors’ discussions as to how to a&: the Lewinsky investigation in a manner that enables the President to perform his constitution statutory and other official duties.

:Vashmglon, OC

. .

Los Angeles

HOWREY & SIMON

2122

Kenneth W. Starr. I sq. March 4. I L ~08

Piig, z In light of these areas of inquiry, we are prepared to discuss an approach that WC’ believe will accommodate our respective interests. To that end the Office of the President is prepared to instruct White House witnesses along the following general lines:

. White House Advisors (Non- Jawvets): Advisors will be permitted to testify as to factual information regarding the Lewinsky investigation. including any such information imparted in conversations with the President. We will continue to assert executive privilege with respect to strategic deliberations and communicauons.

l White House Attomev Advisors: Attorneys in the Counsel’ s Office will assert attorney/ client privilege; attorney work product; and. where appropriate. executive privilege. with regard to communications. including those with the President. related to their gathering of information. the providing of advice. and stmtegic deliberations and communications.

At this point. the instructions that we intend to provide to White House aJvt> ors and attorneys are necessarily general. since we do not know the questtons you intend to ahk. We 01 course will evaluate the application of these instructions to the advisors and attomcys 111 response to specific questions and would welcome an opportunity to meet and discuss any particular issues, as needed.

The accommodation we are proposing will permit the grand jury to complete 11s work in a timely fashion and will provide the factual information that it needs for this invesugatton. We do not believe, however, that you have demonstrated, or can demonstrate. a need for n~ lonnation about the strategic discussions of White House advisors about this matter.

Although you argue that the Lewinsky investigation is purely private. the intersectton 01. this matter with. for example, the State of the Union, an enumerated duty under Article Il. section 3 of the Constitution. and Prime Minister Blair’ s visit and their joint press conference make it abundantly clear that this investigation has implications for the President’ s performance of his official duties. These instances also illustrate the very obvious need for the President IO receive the candid and frank counsel of his advisors in confidence.

I also reject out- of- hand your suggestion that the assertion of privilege is a delaying t: tctic or that the White House has in any manner delayed- your investigation. While you have bee11 investigating this matter for merely six weeks, numerous White House witnesses have nppe: u- ed or been interviewed by your agents. None has refused to appear and each has answered all legitimate inquiries. Moreover, we have made every attempt to discuss and resolve potential privilege issues with you before the grand jury appearance of particular White House official i. As you surely are aware. the President’ s invocation of privilege to permit him and future Presidents to discharge their duties under Article II of the Constitution is a fundamental obligation. not a delaying tactic.

2123

HOWREY 61 SIMON Kenneth W. Starr. Esq. March 4. I Y’ %

Pup2 .i In sum. it is our mutual constitutional obligation to seek ;1 reasonable accommodation 01’ our interests. We are prepared to meet for that purpose at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours., Very truly yours. h /f& J /gig-~~ W. Neil Eggleston Attorney for the Office of the President Attorney fii the Office of the President

cc: The Honorable Charles F. C. Ruff Robert J. Bittman. Esq.

2124

2125

Tab 7

2126

2127

Offke of the Independent Counsel

1001 Penmyhwnio A vemto. N. W.

Suiie 490- North Woshingron. DC 20004

(202) S14- 8688

Fax (202) 514- 8802

March 6, 1998 W. Neil Eggleston, Esq. Howrey & Simon 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W. Washington, DC 20004- 2402

Dear Mr. Eggleston: This responds to your letter to this Office dated March 4, 1998.

As you know, since early February we have been in discussions with the White House regarding the applicability of executive privilege to the matters involving Monica Lewinsky. We have great respect for the Office of the President and the important duties and responsibilities of the President. In this case, we have not sought nor will we seek any information implicating state secrets or diplomatic relations. The matters involving Ms. Lewinsky, moreover, relate only to the President acting in his personal capacity, as a private citizen. If there are any communications relating to Ms. Lewinsky which legitimately jeopardize state secrets or diplomatic relations, please identify them and we will review our request.

As fully outlined in our correspondence to you and the White House, the matters regarding Ms. Lewinsky do not involve the President acting his official capacity. Consequently, executive privilege is inapplicable as a threshold and fundamental matter. Any communication pertaining to Ms. Lewinsky is thus not privileged -- no matter the title or position of the person involved in the communication. We therefore cannot agree with your suggestion to keep such highly probative, relevant information from the grand jury.

Sincerely, Robert J. Bittman Deputy Independent Counsel

cc: The Honorable Charles F. C. Ruff

2128

GRANDJURYMA’ ITER- FILEDUNDERSEAL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRKT COURT

FOR THE DISTRKT OF COLUMBIA

IN RE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS. ) Misc. Nos. 98- 095,98- 096 1 and 98- 097

1. Iamcompaenttotestify~ mpersonalknowledgeastothemanerSsetforthin this Declaration. I am Rling this De& ration in connection with the Motion to Compel recently filed by the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC).

2. I am an attorney admitted to practice law in Arkansas. From June 1976 until November 1978, and from November 198 1 until January 1993, I was an associate and later a partner at Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, a Little Rock, Arkansas law firm.

3. I have known President Bill Clinton for approximately 30 years, and over that period I have worked for and with him in a number of capacities. In 198 1 and 1982, President Clinton was affiliated with Wright, Lindsey & Jennings in an “of counsel” capacity. Prior to January 1993, Wright, Lindsey & Jennings alsO acted on several occasions as personal counsel to Governor Clinton, and as counsel to the 1992 Clinton campaign for the Presidency.

4. For example, during then Governor Clinton’ s 1990 campaign for m- election, Wright, Lindsey & Jennings acted as personal counsel to Governor Clinton in connection with a lawsuit filed by Larry Nichols, an Arkansas political activist. Mr. Nichols’ lawsuit, which was eventually dismissed, asserted that Governor Clinton should be required to reimburse the State of Arkansas for travel and entertainment expenses that the Governor allegedly had incurred on behalf

2129

of several women Some of those same allegations have “e in connection with discovery conducted by attorneys for the plaintiff in Jones v. Clinton.

5. In addition, during Governor Clinton’ s 1992 campaign for the presidency, allegations arose concerning Governor Clinton’ s relationships with various women including Gennifer Flowers. These allegations also have been the subject of inquiry during the discovery process in Jones v. Chton.

6. Since President Clinton’ s inauguration in January 1993, I have served as an Assistant to the President, and first as Senior Advisor and later as Deputy Counsel to the President In both those capacities, I have been one of the President’ s principal advisors on the full range of issues and decisions relating to the President’ s duties and the efktie functioning of the Executive Branch. I have broad responsibility for gathering and providing information and forming advice to give to the President on many matters, and I travel with the President for that purpose. To fommlate appropriate advice for the President, I typically gather information and advice from White House staff, other federal employees, and private presidential advisors.

7. The White House Counsel’ s 05ce provides confidentiaI counsel to the President in his official capacity, to the White House as an institution, and to senior advisors about legal matters that affect the White House’ s interests, including investigative matters. To this end, the Counsel’ s 05ce, in which I serve as Deputy, receives confidential communications i+ om individuals about matters of institutional concern. White House personnel provide this information to the Counsel’ s 05ce with the expectation and understanding that it will remain confidential.

8. In light of the United States Supreme Court decision that the Jones v. Clinton

litigation could proceed during the President’ s term in 05ce, the President had to develop a method

2130

of communicating with and assisting his private counsel that would minimin distractions from his official duties, which consume his efforts and attention well beyond the limits of a normal working day. Because of my role as the President’ s longtime cotdidential advisor and attorney, I often have served as a conduit or intermediary for communications between the President and his private lawyers. Typically, when the President’ s private lawyers need information in connection with the

Jones lawsuit, they telephone me with questions for the President I present questions to the President at opportune times, and later relay the President’ s answers back to private counsel. I have been able to do this on occasions when the President’ s official functions and duties are least disrupted by the demands of defending the Jones lawsuit. The President knows I serve as an intermediary between him and his lawyers, and he intends that our communications remain private and confidential. In accordance with the President’ s wishes, I have maintained the confidentiality of these communications.

9. During my two days of grand jury testimony on February 18 and 19,1998, and more recently on March 12, 1998, I was asked a number of questions about my private communications with the President, with the President’ s private counsel in Jones v. Clinron, with

the President’ s private counsel in the OIC investigation and with other senior advisors to the President. Those questions concerned both the Jones v. Ciinton litigation in general and the effect of the recent controversy regarding the President’ s alleged relationship with Monica Lewinsky on the President’ s and the White House’ s performance of. their official responsibilities. ‘ .

10. With respect to communications that I had with the President or his private attorneys concerning Jones v. Clinton, I declined to answer on the ground of attorney- client privilege or the common interest doctrine where an answer would disclose confidential comrnuni~ ati~ n~

2131

between or among the Presider& his private attorneys and myself, when I was as acting as Deputy Counsel, or when I served as a con5lential intermediary as described above.

11.1alsodeclinedto answer questions concerning the Jones v. Clinfon litigation, and

the allegations regat& g Ms. Lewinsky, to the extent that I was asked to reveal discussions that I had with the President, other senior advisors to the FVcsident within the White House, or personal advisors to the President about decisions that the President needed to make in connection with his 05cial duties. For sample, such discussions focused on issues sutrounding the propriety and the wisdom, from an institutional perspective, of the President’ s seeking a disposition of the Jones v. Chton titigation short of trial; whether the President should refm to the allegations surrounding Ms. Lewinslq during his State of the Union address, and whet& r the President should invoke executive privilege in connection with these pmcee& gs. Other discussions involved advice to the President as to how best to ensure that the allegations concerning Ms. Lewinsky and their political and media ramifications would not impair the President’ s handling of his official duties. Such senior staff discussions included, for example, how the President should respond to the demands of the media and members of Congress for further information about the Lewinsky allegations, and how the President and White House should address the prospects for referral of the Lewinsky matter to the House of Representatives for a’ possible inquiry concerning impeachment.

12. The OIC also has inquired about my discussions with the President’ s private attorneys and other attorneys in the White House Counsel’ s Office regarding aspects of the grand jury investigation in this matter. In these discussions, I was acting as Deputy Counsel to the President and representing him in his official capacity, and I shared privileged information with other white House attorneys and the private attorneys representing the President in his personal capacity.

2132

I declined to answer questions about these discussions because to do so would require me to reveal confidential umtmmications that I believe to be protected from disclosure by executive privilege, attorney- client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and the common interest docnine.

13. In addition, during my grand jury testimony, the OIC asked several questions about dismssions between the White House Counsel’ s Oflice and other grand jury witnesses or their counsel. Those discussions were for the purpose of providing legal and other advice to the witnesses and to the President in connection with the ongoing grand jury investigation and potential Congressional proceedings and, therefore, I believe they were pmteued from disclosure by executive privilege, attorney- client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and the common interest doctrine.

14. In the OIC’ s Brief in Support of Motion to Compel Bruce R Lindsey to Testify, at page 1, the OIC reports that I stated during my grand jury testimony that I was “not willing to answer w questions concerning conversations about Monica Lewinsky that occurred among White House staff” I do not recall this precise question being asked of me, nor that I answered such a question with a blanket invocation of privilege. In any event, it was my intent to decline to answer such questions that occurred among White House staff, only to the extent that such conversations involved the gathering of information and the formulation of advice to assist the President in the performance of his official responsibilities. Moreover, as I recall my testimony on February 19, I declined the OIC’ s invitation to invoke a privilege with respect to every conversation that I had had concerning the Jones v. Clinton litigation, whether or not other attorneys were present.

15. During the first two days of my grand jury testimony, the OIC’ s representatives failed to ask me about a number of questions concerning Ms. Lewinsky as to which I was prepared

2133

to testify. But even during those first two days I answered several questions about my discussions

With Others that inV0lVed MS. Lewinsky. I also testSed that I had no knowledge concerning the origins of a document identified as YaIking points” given to Linda Tripp by Monica Lewinsky.

16. After the pending Motion to Compel my testimony was filed, the OIC requested me to appear before the grand jury investigating the Lewimky allegations for a third time. I appear4 for approximately 2.5 hours on h4arch 12,199s. During that session, I was asked, for the first time, whether 1 had ever met or spoken with Ms. Lem. I testified that I had not. I also testified in some detail about the following matters:

a Two telephone conversations, the first of which was initiated by Linda Tripp, in which Ms. Tripp told me about a story that a Newsweek mporter was then preparing regarding an alleged encounter between the President and Kathleen Willey;

b. The fact that I took no actions relating to Monica Lewinsky immediately following President Clinton’ s deposition in the Jones litigation;

c.. My lack of knowledge about certain communications between Vernon Jordan and Betty Currie regarding Monica Lewinsky;

d. My lack of knowledge con ceming dmfts of an aft%& prepared by Ms. Lewinsky in the Jones litigation;

e. My lack of knowledge concerning efforts by individuals at the White House to page Monica Lewinsky during the period January 18- 19,199s;

f. My brief discussions with Vernon Jordan about Monica Lewinsky, his

efforts to help her obtain a position in private industry, the fact that she had been described in an

2134

Internet report authored or distributed by Matthew Drudge, and my delivery of a copy of the so- calkd Drudge Report to Mr. Jordan on January 19,199s;

g. My knowledge of certain efforts by a Newsweek reporter to contact Betty Cunie about packages or envelopes that had been delivered to Ms. Ctmie by Monica Lewinsky;

h. My lack of knowledge of any efforts undgtaLcnbyNathanLandowto speak to Kathleen Wtiey about her role as a witness in the Jones litigations and

i. My lack of knowledge concerning any role performed by Terry Lenzner or Jack Palladino in the Jones litigation.

17. The questions that I have declined to answer based on the invocation of privilege all involved my confidential discussions with the President, with other White House attorneys, with senior advisors to the President, and with the President’ s private attorneys about the Jones litigation, the current OIC investigation, or the White House’ s efforts to respond to the political and media controversy engendered by the Jones litigation and the OIC’ s investigation.

18. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. B 28 U. S. C. $1748.

Executed on March x, 1998.

2135 03,‘ IWRS PO: 53 k’ U 737 253 5232 RIR-~.+~~‘ IuN COHC[ ERGE &go03 buy1 BY: 2- 16- m : 7: lWkl ; liouREY ‘ Im+ 7Et7 233 3232: a 316

TN RB ORAND JURY PROCEEDINGS. ) A& c. Noa YS- YS. 98- 8 aad 98- 097 1

DECUiUllON OF SlDNIjy B- AL

Sidney Blumwtlul. under penalty nf pjury. hereby daziaua as follows: 1. IameompeaatoteuifyfrompersonalknowLedge~ tothemattexsset lbrttt in lhe Declanitiun. 1 am fiiiing this Declaxntioa in oomwetion with thcMotion to Cotopel recently flied by the Office of the Independent Connael (“ OIC”).

2. 1 am urn Aaalstant to the P& dert~ of the Unid Stntca of America. My of& e is in the Weat Wing of the White House.

3. ImanedthispositionAngust II, 1997. Priortothtittime, Iwasa working journalist and was not employed by the Whio House. My job duties require me to consult with other White Hoore advisora and with private pcesihtial adhots to gather informution and advice so that I CM pq& y advise the Rwidcnt

4. As a pan of my job, 1 pruticipate in the following policy issues in the white Hoastx giobal warming, “fast tsack” t& a authority, tohuxx issues, hadth cans m economic issues. Social Security. UhXXttion. &me. welfare, urban centers, the w Initiative, environmental issues. sod the District of Cdumbir

5. Aa put of my job, I am also reqxmxiblc for writing major prcsidentiai spccehcs. FIT example, 1 wu heavily involved in writing the State of the Union Addftxs given by the Prosidcnt JYNXUY 27.1998. Under Art& lc II, ~~~ rinn 3 of the Constitution. the PasidUtL hrs the duty to provide the CongrrJs with “intormation of tie State of the Union.” Ibe eontenl

2136

0~/ 16/ 9.3 20: 53 F. U 717 213 3232 RllZ- CARLTON CONCIERW xn! 01. Y- 16- 6U : 7: 16f% : MMIEY FIMON~ Qoo4

787 259 3232; 3 4/ 6 afthar uddmss ir an inqortaur, pnddontial dccii on which the PlesidrM’ r advlxorspmvidc input.

6. I am involved in nAnsal aacurify policy 06 it relates to Knin Ant& y

China, Basniq Gmnany. the North AUadic Tmary Orgaakntiaa~ (NAF), tk Oq@ zntion of Amorican Staea (OM), lmq, T- 9 hmcl, Afr& the UnitedNulja( Y1, thehadminar Tmaty. Ireland. aadN- kdand.

7. Ialkepthu+ IwflimH- amoi8laIlfrocdamoftbt- issueri intcmationntiy.

8. Lamrlwthtliaitonfarthe~~ bthcofficeaS’ tht~~~ rof omnr Britain. In that do. I cornrrmnie# c mgddy with Puma Minismr Tony Blair diitly. his Chief of Staff Jomthan Pow& DhcUs 0lYo1icy David Milibard Off& Spokcamnn AMuir Csmpkll, Minister WiUmut porrfolio Peter Mmdakon, and wrhm other aides, mini and ncmbors of the British Cmvcrnmcnt.

Y. 1 have bad subeamtial iuvolvemcnt in the kxuip teladom between the United Statra and C& WC Witin. I -l& y brief tbc Rcsidenr on rrmCICrs concerning Circut Britain. T participated in the Fmt Lady’ s vi& to Insland. N& m IJ& IxI. and England in October and November of’ 1997. I also pardc+ ted with the FW lvdy in rtrS Northun lralurwi pcacc proass. ThyL proass included talks with British Mnistcr MO Mow lum. 1460 z& led the United Staxs dekgation at @icy discussions held with tho Prime AMinislrr of Grew Britin and various ministers al chequars l%~ 8mber I. 15397.

10. I participated in the visit by ttrC Prime Mini. sEr af Orcat Britain to the U& cd State in early Febnrary 1998. One of the core funaiare of tbc Prcridcnt involves foreign

policy, including meeting with Heads of Sate of fatign countries. The internal discussions iis well as the manner in which those mssrinlJv WB portrayed am importti LO United SWS for& n policy.

11. 1 WM itsp006ibk for ol5cial staamcms aade by the Presidcnf for joint

;Ippearanca~ or ths Ptidcnt and tit Ptimc Minister, u joint preys confcrtncc, iU1 informal lunch.

2137

* 03/ 18/ B8 20: 53 FAX 785 253 3252 RITZ- CARLTOS CONCIERGC:

s13yf LI7: S- 16- 88 : f: lm : HlmREY 9lldoFcI LOU5

787 2s s2s2: F i3/ 6

ajointndiovdJrswonItrq, anaffidPl~) iorPsdiaau, sndaBkrir~ auued~~ batcdby thlllhitalstub35andunitcdKingdam MllbWUdOfSOfOiTiCiddClt~ ltllSO- UlO

Unitd Stares dclqgauian a joint policy di scnss& sthatwercbcldduringtbcviaiLThc co& in& on of thcac events, including joint peas ca& cvendcR, is irnpoRant to the international mlntiolaRbelw4lon - *

12. Irmcxrrrrnt) yinvol~ hsrrmging~ ReRichnt’ rbri2, tsthsG% msctinginBlrminghgn.~ Mdhirrwu~ vULIiwI~ rlun, ulluFrrhictrmertlw uccurinhlay I! NtL k. l~ tD~ nip. Ipm~ ponsiblefarruuntirrptingpoIicy.~ stalema planning v. andplamjnganddktiugtbeUniuxiSclluctddegationin policydi~ witkChs~~ Md~ 8ministcrPat~ Uca. Inaddilioa, Iam planning the United Sm ddegation in moatlngs with British miniilas UnJ sador nick to the Prime Mlnislcr Of OICM &itAiIL

13. Inovrying~ thesedutia. laminalmosrdailycMeaftwiththcPreRident

and other s& or admbdstmtion offkials. la the course of cunying out my official dutiu. I have dkusr; ed with tho Pmskkm~, the F’ kst Ldy. and other scaior administration otlicids catAn maucrs and allegations pertaining to the investigation b& g amducrcd by the Indqxndent Caunrol. The Pi Lady fimctioun as a s& or advisor to tbc Prcaidcn~ and it w~ lp in tluU capacity that I had discusqionrr with her abom the lndcpcndcnt Counncl’ a invostigatirm. The discussions wilh lk Rauiricnl, Lhc Fii Lady, and wirh otfier senior advl~ or~ w the Prkklt -labhA ma Lu advise the Rekknl and his advisors concerning dw, eflbct of k investigation on his official dutial. including Ixnv be% lo frame his public It& anmT& his legislatlvc agenda. and his dealings with fareign counti ialight Uttha~ inve~@~& on. For ax; mrple. &use discoAons cnrbkd mu to advise drc Pruideat sad his &visors with respect to the cootcut of & State of the IJnkm acIdens and with respect to ~( F( IS m& ions and other ~peets of the visit of Prime Minktcr Blair.

14. Contidantidity is aiMa1 LC) my abilily to provide open, frael, and candid tivicc 111 all lime% not only to Ihe Prcskknt, but LO olhcr Ronior rulvison~ us well. Based ou my axpcrionce in the White House. I b& xc that tic ability of advisors co the President tn PrOvidC

2138

~wls/ oe 20: 54 FAX 787 253 2222 RlYlT- CARLTOS CONCIER= saw By: a- 36- 88 ; 7: ifm ; HoIlREy w&! v- Qooti

767 233 3232: z 61 6

2140

2141

'zation "L5/ 98 WASHPOST A02 3/ 25/ 98 Wash. Post A02 1998 WL 2475125

Found Document Rank 1 of 1 Database WP

Wednesday, March 25, 1998 A Section Clinton Finds There's No Escape; In Africa, President Sidesteps Executive

Privilege Questions John F. Harris Washington Post Staff Writer

Yes, President Clinton acknowledged today, he had heard something about a controversy involving executive privilege back in the United States.

And no, he had nothing to say about it. Seven time zones away from Washington, the uproar about .nton's decision to invoke privilege -- sparking a legal fight over .y'- at testimony a grand jury will hear from top White House aides --

caught up with the president in a photo session with Yoweri Museveni, the president of Uganda.

Clinton, who has yet to acknowledge publicly even that he is asserting executive privilege, was pressed by reporters to e- xplain why he is trying to block testimony. His voice curt and his expression cold, the president responded as though he were a bystander in the controversy, rather than its central character.

"All I know is, I saw an article about it in the paper today," said Clinton, referring to the packet of news clippings faxed each morning to him when he is on the road. "I haven't discussed that with the lawyers. I don't know. You should ask someone who knows."

Specifically, Clinton was responding to a question about why White House lawyers have invoked executive privilege for conversations between first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and aide Sidney Blumenthal. But he took the same tone on every other question relating to independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's investigation into the Monica S. Lewinsky controversy.

P, ven as the president was sidestepping the issue in Africa, his k- yers back in Washington returned to federal court for a second day b& arguments with Starr's attorneys about the privilege dispute.

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

2142

3/ 25/ 98 WASHPOST A02 "ring a go- minute, closed- door hearing before Chief U. S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, attorneys continued their discussion about whether executive privilege or attorney- client privilege should prevent Starr from asking certain questions of Blumenthal, White House deputy counsel Bruce R. Lindseyand possibly others.

On another floor of the courthouse, the grand jury looking into the Lewinsky matter had a slow day, with no witnesses known to have appeared. On Wednesday, however, one of the key witnesses is scheduled to return, according to a source familiar with the matter. Marcia K. Lewis, Lewinsky's mother, appeared for two days last month before suffering what associates called severe emotional distress that caused a halt to her testimony. Lewis and Lewinsky share an apartment at the Watergate and are close confidantes.

In Little Rock, another grand jury that has looked into Whitewater for four years is set to expire in May and Starr said yesterday that he may not convene a replacement. Talking with reporters outside his Arkansas office, Starr said the cooperation of former governor Jim Guy Tucker under a recent plea agreement may speed the conclusion of the probe there.

"This investigation could conclude quickly if all persons who re relevant and material information would come forward and -operate with the grand jury," Starr said. .

As a general proposition, White House aides often cringe when asked about domestic uproars while overseas -- an anxiety they are feeling even more acutely on Clinton's six- nation, ll- day African tour. It is Clinton's first foreign trip since the Lewinsky - controversy broke two months ago, and the president seemed to be forcibly restraining his temper during a brief session with reporters at the State House Lodge here in the Ugandan capital.

A reporter asked why people should not conclude that Clinton's assertion of privilege was "an effort to hide something from them."

"Look, that's a question that's being asked and answered back home by the people who are responsible to do t, hat," Clinton responded. _, "I don't believe I should be discussing that here."

But as White House press secretary Michael McCurry acknowledged, it's actually a question that is being asked but not answered back home. The White House contends that because Judge Johnson has placed the legal proceeding under seal, Clinton and his lawyers cannot say anything about it -- nor offer a public justification for why he may b- provoking a constitutional showdown over the scope of his

sidential powers. Other legal specialists, however, have said such o- situation would not preclude the president from acknowledging

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

2143

3/ 25/ 98 WASHPOST A02 - alicly that he is asserting the privilege.

Political advisers in and out of the White House have been uncomfortable about Clinton's use of privilege to shield his aides because of the inevitable comparisons with Richard M. Nixon, who lost his battle during Watergate to assert executive privilege, leading to the disclosure of secret White House tapes and, in the end, to his resignation.

Earlier this month, McCurry said at his daily briefing that if Clinton did assert privilege, "I think the president would want the American people . . . to understand why he would make such an assertion."

Should Clinton be prepared to make such an explanation, it could come on Friday in South Africa. In the only full news conference of his trip, Clinton and South African President Nelson Mandela will face reporters in Cape Town.

Clinton aides said they have dreaded the potential spectacle of Clinton fielding -- or ducking -- questions about his legal controversies and alleged sexual misconduct standing beside one of the veldts most respected leaders. But one adviser said the Clinton team

+; concluded that such a scene, if it comes, will not hurt Clinton at -. d me -- since viewers might resent reporters for asking questions they consider impertinent.

Clinton scoffed at a suggestion that, with Washington so hostile, he would rather be in Africa. "I've looked forward to this [trip] for years," he said testily. "And I think most Americans want me to do the job I was elected to do."

Staff writers Lena H. Sun, Susan Schmidt and Peter Baker contributed to this report from Washington.

TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH IN THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE CAPTION: The president's lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, waves to his driver after leaving the federal courthouse.

---- INDEX REFERENCES ---- KEY WORDS: NATIONAL STORY ORIGIN: KAMPALA, UGANDA, MARCH 24 F-- TION: FINAL rlJrd Count: 947

Copr. 0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works

2144

2 1458

2146

oflice of the IndependeElt counsel

JlWJ Pem Awmte, N. W. SMe 49o- Ivarl WmhiIIglon, Dc2an. w

002) S J4- 8688 Fca (202) SJcb802

April 17, 1998 Eric H. Holder, Jr., Esq. Deputy Attorney General U. S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest Room 4111 Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Holder: I write to express my profound concerns with respect to the deposition of Secret Service Officer Robert Almasy, which took place on April 16, 1998, in our offices. What occurred was, in brief, regrettable and grossly unprofessional. The effect of what happened yesterday was to hinder and impede this investigation.

As you know, we have for some. time now been negotiating with the Department and the Secret Service over the -testimony of Secret Service personnel. Since the beginning of this investigation, we have received -- and continue to receive -- numerous and credible reports that Secret Service officers and agents have evidence relevant to this investigation. .In an effort to accommodate the concerns of the Department and the

Secret Service, we have generally been questioning Secret Service personnel in a deposition format in our offices, subject to standard grand jury procedures such as the absence of defense counsel, Rule 6( e) secrecy, and so forth. Yesterday's episode involved unprofessional conduct that was utterly beyond the pale.

Officer Almasy's deposition, which we were unable to finish on April 16, minutes. consumed a total of six hours and twenty

Of that time, on the record. two hours and fifteen minutes was spent

The remainder -- four hours and five minutes -- was used for consultations between Officer Almasy, the Department of Justice attorney, and the Secret Service attorneys who were present outside the deposition room. In a number of -instances, Officer Almasy halted the deposition to consult with his

2148

Eric n. Holder, Jr. April 17,. 1998 Page 2

attorneys for periods of thirty minutes and longer. Virtually every question that was asked of Officer Almasy caused him to leave the deposition room and engage in such consultations. This was the single most disruptive appearance by any witness in any phase of our investigation. ._

As I mentioned previously, we have been conducting these depositions with the understanding that the Secret- Service employees being questioned are to be treated as grand jury witnesses. According to the Department of Justice's Federal . Grand Jurv Practice M& . a grand jury witness's consultations

with his attorneys nshould'not be allowed to interfere unduly with the grand jury proceedings and may be appropriately regulated. . . . Although the parameters of the witness's right to consult with counsel outside the grand jury room are unclear, prosecutors and courts generally permit the witness consultation of reasonable length and frequency." The w goes on to state that

[ulnreasonable consultations should not be permitted to obstruct orderly questioning of the witness. A witness who insists upon leaving the grand jury room frequently to consult with an attorney at length may be taken to the court for an order directing the witness to discontinue such a practice and, if necessary, to establish ground rules for such consultations.

with Officer Almasy's lengthy and repeated consultations his attorneys were flatly inconsistent with the- Department's -. policies.

Furthermore, I am even more concerned that, by all appearances, the Secret Service and Department of Justice attorneys that attended Officer Almasy's deposition may have attempted to use it as a discovery device with regard to our investigation. This and other practices we observed in connection with Officer Almasy's deposition are what we would expect to see of criminal defense attorneys who wish to conceal relevant evidence or otherwise stonewall a grand jury investigation. They are most emphatically ELQT what we expected of career attorneys employed by the Department of Justice.

Let me be frank: We have bent over backwards to accommodate the Secret Service's concerns in our questioning of its personnel. We have conducted many weeks of negotiations. We

have refrained from calling active duty Secret Service personnel before the grand jury. faith. But yesterday, Each of these actions was taken in good

at the same time that you were publicly emphasizing in your press briefing that the Department of Justice

2149

Eric H. Holder, Jr. April 17, 1998 Page 3

is not "impeding the investigation," obtaining important evidence. we were being blocked from

What happened yesterday was, in my view, an effort

sworn officials of the Executive Branch to hinder this by investigation. After careful consideration, we have regretfully concluded that it will henceforth be necessary for us to compel the testimony of Secret Service personnel before the grand jury. I ask that you take appropriate steps to ensure that our investigation is not impeded further.

Sincerely, ie M. Bennett, Jr. Deputy Independent Counsel

cc: Gary G. Grindler, Esq. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Division

2150

2151

Tab 45

2152

2153 An Open Letter to Kenneth Starr

By William H. Qimbuqij

hrppcnad, md titb

-Irbrppencd Conpnahdoru, hkSUXdAS8ltlUlt

dpuralbudislc- gad for chcrblmd coatitu~ twuh you muy have IUC- lzlldidiae 8- d rchdanrkln

bctwcca two con-:. renting 8dlJlt8. In do& so, of count. y&‘ w also mind

the lives of smtll

people, imciulag Moalca and her fiolil& whilccosdagdaaaepchthou-

doCdolhinlqplbmm~ thflfalck, km the 8bwcr CuriaI out

byyouro% iuL’

kidatnghfrhfywhmco~

hnodchewon~ lm8geof! nvyuah &CddlOfdlSpd& CbyproQcdine

2155

Tab 46

2156

2157 UNDERSEAL

SCEEDl. ILED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON JUNE 29,199t

INTEE uNlTED~ couRroF-

PORTHEDISlTtICI- OFCOLUMRIACXRcuIT NodMO6O,% 3062,% 3072

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHEDISTRICTOFCOLUMB~

MISC. NO. 98- 95 (lW$) ROBERT S Bmmn CABLS. RAIJII hlrramus. EnlNGEB AMYSABBIN KATHAIUNE s. SEXTON SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE

MEAGHERdr FulMLLP 1440 NEW YOBKAVENUE., N. W. ~A! SIiINcToN, D. c. Moo5 (202) 371- 7ooo

DAVIDEKENDAU NIWLEK. SELICMAN RIYAEAKANJI MAxsTaB WJLLuMsa CONNOLLY 72! 5 l2= SIBEET, N. W. WASEIN~ D. C 20005 ml--

Cmmscl for Appellant Wh J. Clinton

B. Raliqp Under Review

On May 4,1998, the United States District Court for the Dishict of Columbia (Johnson, CJ.) ordered Bruce R Lindsey, a Deputy White House Counsel, to testify befan a grand jury conccming mat& s protected, &cr al&, by the Presidust’ s attorney- client privilege andthcworkproductdoctxine. l’ hcrulhgisatpagc152ofthcJointAppa& x Thcopinionis not yet qxxtcd in F& ml Supplement but is available, in dacted form, on Westlaw. w Grand Jurv ProcttdjIIOS, Misc. Nos. 98- 095,98- 096, and 98- 097,1998 WL 271539 (D. D. C. May 27,1998).

OnMay26,1998, affcrtheOffictofthtPrrsidcatfiledamatianfor reconsideration in pars the district court issued a scaled memorandum order denying reconsideration but modifying foomote 20 of its May 4 opinion. That second ruling is at page 2 10 of the Joint Appendix. It has not bazn published.

The uxmdamd May 4 opinion, the May 26 memorandum order, and the issues prescntcdinttlisbriefallrcmaillundcrscal.

2159

C. R& tedcmes Coundarenotawanofmyrelatedahss.

2160

TABLE OF CONTENTS

mmCAl” E AS TCI PARTIES, RULINGS AND RELATED CASES.. ................................... i A. Paltiesand Amici ..................................... ..” ............................................................ i B. RulingsUnderRcvicw ............................................................................................. i c. Rclatdczases .......................................................................................................... ii TABLE OF AUT’ HO- .......................................................................................................... V

JURISDICTION 1 . ..- ........................................................................................................................ ISSUES PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..“.~..~.................................................... 1 STATUTES AND RULES ............................. ..“.................-- ...................................................... 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................................................................... 2 . lbe” whitewata” In~ on .. .. I ....................................................................... 3

B. The Jones Civil Suit ............................................................................................... 4 C. BIUCC Limhy’ s Role ................................. ..- ......................................................... 6 D. The Expansion of the OIC’ s Jurisdiction in Januaq 1998 ..................................... 7 E. Mr. Lindsey’ s Grand Jury Testimony ..................................................................... 8

F. The District court’ s opinion .................................................................................. 9

lSJMh4ARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................................................................... 10 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 11 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW .............................................................................................. 12

II. COMMUNICA’ TlONS BETWEEN PRESIDENTCLINTONANDHIS LEGAL COUNSEL ENJOY THE ABSOLUTE PROTEC’ IION OF m AlTORNEY- cLIENTPRMLEGE .................... ..” ........................................................ 12

III. COMMUNICAT’ IONS AMONG MR LINDSEY, THE PRESIDENT, AND/ OR THE PRESIDENT’ S PERSONAL COUNSEL ARE PRIVILEGED ANDCONFID~ .................................................................................................... 15

A. Communications Facilitating the Provision of Pasonal Legal Advice to President Clinton ................................................................ .............................. 15

1. The Privilege Extends to Agents Who Facilitate the F’ rwision of Legal Advice ......................................................................................... 16

2. lkePnsidcntIsNotRcquircdtobaablishNcccssityand, in AnyEvcnt, theUscofMr. LindscyWasNccewy ................................. 18

3. ThatMr. LindscyServcdInh4oreThanaMi.& kalCapacity DocsNotDisqualifyHimasaPrivilegcdAgcnt ... ................................... 22

B. Communications Related to Mr. Lindsey’ s Former Rqrcscntation ................... .24 C. communications in the “common lntcrest~ ......................................................... 25

2161

1. The Ccmmon Interest Doctrine Is a Well- Established c4nnpat of the Attomcy- Cliult Rivilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2. CommuaicatiaasBctwecnPcrsonaldWhiteHouscCormsol kbaivilegedUndathcCommoaIntaestRuie . . . . . . . . . . .. I........................ 29

Iv. COMMUNICATIONS WITH PERSONAL COUNSEL ARE PROTECTED BY THE WORK- PRODUCT DOCTRINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*.................................................. 36

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . ..*.................................................................................................................. 39

. - IV -

2162

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES* FEDERALcAsEs ofNewY . w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 m 150 F. R. D. 465 (S. D. N. Y. 1993) m +. Ham 408 U. S. 665 (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

v. u CaqL, 65 F. RD. 26 (D. Md. 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Castle v. -0 W man. &g,, 744 F. 2d 1464 (1 lth Cir. 1984) .............................................. 37

. cbgn v. citv of u 162 F& D. 344 (N. D. Ill. 1995) .- ....................................................... 27 . Cbacv.~ 24U. S.( 11 Wheat) 280( 1826) .... .. U ......................................................... 14 + . Q@ on v. Jon- - U. S. - 117 S. Ct. 1636 (1997) ...................................... 4 15,16,20,22 ,

. onbnental Oil Co. v. United Stargg 330 F2d 347 (9th Cit. 1964) ............................................ .28

ES enhertz v. Gwznog, 766 F2d 770 (3d Cir. 1985) .................................................................... .29 F. T. C. v. Texaco, 555 F. 2d 862 (DC. Cit. 1977) ......................................................................... 12 * FTC v. TRW, 628 F. 2d 207,212 (D. C. Cir. 1980) ........ .._ ......................................................... 17 Fisher v. United SW 425 U. S. 391 (1976) ............................................................................... 13 In n &and Jury, 106 F. R. D. 255 (D. N. H. 1985) ........................................................................ 36

. IQh 867 F. 2d 539 (9th Cir. 1989) ............................................ 36 . InreGrandJuwPmwe& gptDuffk~ 473 F. 2d 840 (8th Cir. 1973) ......................................... 36 . In Re Grand Jurv Roceedm~ s Under Seal ,947 F. 2d 1188 (4th Cir. 1991) ................................ 24

Jn re Grand Jurv Submew, 112 F. 3d 910 (8th Cir. 1997) .......................................................... 30 r& g~ 685 F. Supp. 49 (S. D. N. Y. 1988) ............................. 36 H& es v. Liggctt Grow. & 975 F2d 81( 3d Cir. 1992) .......................................................... .26 s, 329 U. S. 495 (1947) .................................................................................... 36 Hi, 885 F. Supp. 4 (D. D. C. 1995) ..................................................... 36

l Authorities on which we chiefly rely are marked with astekks. D. C. Cir. R 28( a)( 2).

2163

. . . . . . ..***....*................*..*.*...*..............*****.***-**..-*...**. 27,36 . . ..**..*..*.****...~.**.*..*.*..***.*,****..**....******...*.*..-*.*..*...****...- 13.14

913 F. 2d !544 (8th Cir. 1990) .~.***..*......*~~~“.*..*~*.~..*....~***.,.*........*.“**.*..**.**....**.... 26,27 160 B. R. 262 (DC Bank ct, 1993). ................................. 38

5 F3d 1508 (DC. Cir. 1993) .*“..............*..*~..........*...........”....................“...* ............... 17,18 406 F. Snpp. 381 (S. D. N. Y. 1974) * .**...*..*...........~...**........*...*..*..*.*.....**....*.*.~.**. 28,29,31

104 F. RD. 442 (E& Pa 1984) .*..***....,.****.*................. 23 Natta v. Zktq, 418 F. 2d 633 (? tb Ci. 1% 9) ,......*....**...***......*......*.*”*...........*.“~.*..*~.*...*.........““.*.~ 27 SCM Corn Xe 70 F. RJJ. 508 @. Corm), alcal -

534+; 2d 1031( 2d Cir. 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*..**..*..........................................*.~.*................*. .28 106 F& D. 187 (NJ). El. 1985) ..*..*.........*.~...........*........*...*...*.*...............*..*.................*. 28

107 F3d 46 (B. C. Cir. 1997) . . ..*.....*..*.*...**...**..*.*.~....”~**.*~.**.*.***.~....***”.....‘* 36 In Re Scaled Catg, 29 F. 3d 715 (D. C. Ck. 1994) . . . . . . ..**..........***................*......*.*....*.......*.....*..*.. 26 In rc Se& xl Case, 676 F. 2d 793 (D. C. Cir. 1982) t*.*............*....~.“~..“.*..,...**..~....*”*...............*. 36,38 In re Sunrise Sec. Lit& 130 F. R. D. 560 (ED. Pa 1989) ..*........ r......**.......*.*....**....*.....**...*..*..... 37

* United States v. AT& T, 642 F. 2d 1285 @XC. Cir. 1980) . . . ..“..*.*.**..**...*...* .26,27,31,33,3?, 38 ,85 F3d 664 (DC. Cir. 1996) *........*...........*.**..........*........*........ 12

88 F. 3d 1369 (4th Cir. 1996) . . ..*...... t.~................“...*...*........*.........*~. .29

760 F. 2d 292 (Temp. Emqmcy Ct. of Ap. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . u- 38 322 F. 2d 460 (9th Cir. 1963) *.*.,****.,.*..,..........*.....*.*...‘.*...**..*.*....*..**.... 23

2164 . lJnrted v. IQ& 2% F. 2d 918 (2d Cir. 1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*.......................................... 17,23 .-

Sm v. MIT, 129 F3d 68l( lst Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 . Sgrmes v. h4&&, 595 F. 2d 1321( 7tb Cir. 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.29 States v. Moscapy, 927 F. 2d 742 (3d Cir. 1991) . . ..“......................-............................... 27 States v. Nb 418 U. S. 683 (1974) . . . .. U.*......~. W-..........“........................................... 32

. tuted States v. Nobia 422 U. S. 225 (1975) .... ..“. UI.........................” ...................................... 37 States v. Rc&,& ows&, 59 F. 3d 1291 (D. C. Cir. 1995) .“.“...” ....................................... 21 States v. N 892 F2d 237 (2d Cit. 1989) “U...........” .................................. 26,27 States .Zo&, 809FZd1411( 9thCir. 1987), afi’ dinpartmothergrouadsandvacated in park other grounds, 491 U. S. 554 (1989) ................................................................ 28

l uhohn co. v. United Seatts, 449 U. S. 383 (1981) .......... .. I.” ............................ 12,13,14,26,35 Wiinbisinm v. Watson, 628 F. 2d 133 (D. C. Cir. 1980) .............................................................. 20

-CASES Alexander v. Thc_ E . E, . Civ. No. 96- 2123 (D& C.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

28 U. S. C. 4 1291 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~... 1 28 U. S. C. $1331 ............................................................................................................................. 1 18 U. S. C. 5 323 1 ............................................................................................................................. 1 42 U. S. C. $5 1983,1985 ................................................................................................................. 4 Ethics in Government Act, 28 U. S. C. 6 591, a a ....................................................................... 2

28 U. S. C. 0 594( a) ............................................................................................................ 32 28 U. S. C. 6 595( c) ............................................................................................................ 33 28 U. S. C. 5 597( b) ............................................................................................................ 32 lndcpmdcnt Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994,108 Stat. 735 ................................................ 3

2165 MIscEI. umous

66 U. S. L. W. 3778 (U. S. June 9,1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~ 10 141 Gong. I& c. 1898 (Daily ed) (Dec. 20,1995) . . . . . . . . . . . .. IN.................................................... 31 ABA Model Rule 1.6, cmt 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..“...........~.................................... 24 Department of Justice Final Rule, 39 Fed. Reg. 5321 (Feb. 4,1994) . . ..“....................................... 3 Fed. R. Civ. Evid. 501 . . . . . .. W....................................................~................................................... 14

. 0 ftbe § 45( 2) ................................................ 24,28,29,36 . . R-- muid) of- Law hw& rs 6 118 ......................................................... 13

lofthe58LswversH3) ............................................................ 24 . Restatement of the Law Goem 6 120 ...................................................................... 23

Restatement of the La . w( SwermmLawv~~ 126 ................................................................ 28,29 Restatement of the Law Govw Lawa 4 136 . . . . . . . . . . . .. U....................................................... 37

. . . . . Richard E. Neustadt, mtial Power and the Modem Prcs~ de@ mg&~ . @om Roosevelt to Reuan 130 (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

supremccourtstandard503 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,24 . Salt& erg et al., Federal Rules of Evrdcnce Manual 599 (6th ed 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

The Washinmon Post (Feb. 14,1998) . . . . . . . . . ..*................................................................................ 7 Washinmon Times (March 26,1998) . . . . . . . . . ..*............................................................................... 33 Wigmore, Evidence 6 23 17 (McNaughton rev. 1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,19 Weinstein a A., Weins& n’ s Federal Evidence 5 503 (2d ed. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,19 McCormick on Evidence 0 91( 4’ ed. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*...................................... 19

. . . -vlll-

2166 INTHE

UTUITED STATES COURT OF APPEAIS FORTHEDISTRICI’ OFCOLUMBIAC! IRCUIT

Nos. 98- 3060,~ 3062,~ 3072 INREZSEALEDCASE ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MISC. NO. 98- 95 (NW) BRIEF FOR APPELLANT WILLIAM J. CLINTON

JURISDICI’ ION Jurisdiction in the district court was proper under 28 U. S. C. 8 1331 and 18 U. S. C. $3231. ~illiamJ. CIintonfiledanoticcofappealfromtbt~~ co~‘ sMay4,1998~ on May 13,1998. Jurisdiction in this Court is proper under 28 U. S. C. 0 1291.

ISSUES PREmNTED 1. Whether the district court erred in ding that President Clinton’ s conversations with Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey were not privileged when Mr. Lindsey was being used to facilitate the provision of legal advice to the President by personal counsel.

2. Whetherthedistrictwurterredinfidingtoreqnizthattheattorney- client privilege and work product doctrine encompassed confidential communications among

2167

Fbsident Ciintor4 Mr. Lindsey, and the President’ s personal counsel related to Mr. Lindsey’ s jxcviouspasoxral~ onofRcsidczltclinton.

3. WktkrthedistrictcourtcmdinholdingtbtthePrcsidmtinhis personal~~ the~ ceoftbtPhsidaaQ~ havtasYCOmmOIllegal, factualor strategic ixrtums that are legally cog& able under the attomey- ciient privilege’ s common

interest rule. STM’ UTESANDRUIZS Federal Rule of Evidence 501, Supreme Court Standard 503, and relevant sections of the Ethics in Government Act, 28 U. S. C. 0 591, a spp., me rcpmbcd in the Addendum.

STATEMEYT OFTEE CASE This case emerges fkom the confluence ofthe loIlg4uming “whitewata” . investigation with the Paula Jones civil suit. It presents vital issues involving the ability of the President to be defended in such matters with no less effkctiveuess than auy other citizn. Because such investigations and litigation may well recur in f& n- e mans, it is important that a President’ s personal attorneys and White House co1~~ 1 be able to consult fkely to assure that both the private and public interests of the President are adequately protected

provide, effective legal sewices.

2168 A. The -teP Investlg8tion

In the Presidential campaign of 1992, the unprofitable joint invcstmc$ of then- GovanorandMrs. CIinton, alongwithJamesabdSusanMcDougal, ina1978~ real estatcvcnturcknown8stheWhhw8& rDevclopment~ bccameamattcrofsome

-aquidasavingsmdloancxxqmy, Madison~ S8vings& LoanAssociatian, which wastakcnovcrbyfcdcmlregulatarsinl989. In1992, thcRaolurionTxustcolnpany( RTC) begananinwstiggtianofMadisonGuaraaty, randintbcfauaf1993, newspapa axticlcs were publishcdsuggestingthatthcRTChad& cdfedcral promamminLittleRocktoinvestigate varioustransa& ousinvolvingtheS& L. Rax@ zhgthatthcymightbewitncsstsinlcgal

. ~, incarlyNovember, 1993, thcPrtsidcntandMrs. Clintonntainedthtlawfirmof Williams & Connolly to rqresent them with respect to the Madison Guaranty investigation. That same month, the Department of Justice assumed rcqxmsiiility for tbis probe.

On January 20,1994, however, the Attomcy General appointed Robcxt B. Fiske, Jr., as independent couusel with jurisdiction to investigate matters arising out of the Pmsidad or Mrs. Clinton’ s relationships with Madison Guaranty, the whitewater Development Compauy, and/ or Capital Management Services. Department of Justice Final Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. 5321 (Feb. 4,1994). On August 5,1994, after enactment of the hdepe& nt Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994,108 Stat. 735, Kenneth W. Starr was appointed by the Special Division to replace Mr. Fiske and was granted jurisdiction similar to that of Mr. Fiske. During the four aud one half years of investigation by Messrs. Fiske and Starr, President and Mrs. Clinton have, with the assistance of personal counsel, testified under oath on numerous ocaGoIIs, personally produced more than 90,000 pages of documents, answrrtd intemgatories, and provided infixmhon iuformally .

-3-

2169

B. The Jonm Civil Suit

On May 6,1994, Paula Jones filed suit in the United States District Court for the . Eastem District of Arkansas alleging d& imatiot& emotional distms& and violations of 42 U. S. C. 86 1983,1985. The P& dent e Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, to represmthimindefenseofthisaetion. Forthenexttbmeyeam, theputtieswnduetedlitigation primariiyovathekgal~ of~ the~ wuldgo~ lPainsrasittingPresident. On May27,1997,~ Suprrmecolptbrejdthatitw~~ aadthtcasewas~ tothtdistrict cant Clinton v. Jm - U. S. - 117 S. Ct 1636 (1997): CaaJpreharsive discovery began inthefallof1997.

Thcbreadth8ndpaceOfthelitigationis- fromthesheersizcofthe district court docket, which reflects 332 entries after jurisdiction was returned to the district court.” Even that number does not fully reflect the demands of the litigation, however. In the 16 weeks between October 1,1997 and January 31,1998, plaimiffJones conducted 35 depositions, the defendants conducted 27 depositions, and approximately 90 motions were litigatedinthtdistrictw~ inArkansassswellasw~ inVirginia, Michi~ califarniaand the District of Columbia 3n this short time period, plaintBpropounded 23 intarogatories, 72 requests for admissions, and 77 document requests to the President. PlaintBalso obtained leave to file an Amended Complaint, which the President answer& The district wurt held weekly hearings via conference call throughout this period to hear argument and resolve disputes.

As in any extremely active and aggressively litigated civil case, it was necessq for the President’ s counsel regularly to update and consuIt their client wnceming substantive and ~~ gicdecisionsthathadtobemnrlrwithrtspccttoavarietyofmattcrs, suchaswhat

II Much of the material on the docket remains under seal. The publicly available docket reflects the total number of items docketed.

2170

dcpsitions to take, potential areas of questioning and other prqrations for depositions, and unfounded allegations. dant’ s conduct while President, in& ding matten of signikant in& rest to the White House and the Residency as an institution. For example, plaintSsought

l to obtain medical FtcoTds generaW by White House physicians;

l to depose members of the Secret Scrvict charged with protecting the Resident

and the White House;

l todeposecertainmanbersofthePnsicknt’ sstaff; and

l to conduct discovery intO the President’ s alleged conduct with respect to two former White House employees, ii& ding Monica Lewinsky.

Plaintiffs document requests to the Praident also rqukd cxmsultion with the White House BS to wbethtr ihe rccmis sought were official White House records or the personal records ofthe President. Additionally, piainWtwice issued subpoenas duces ttctam to the White House (one was withdrawn, the other quashed).

onhisstafftabehisagcntandtofacilitffttcommtmicationswithhispasonalcounscl. Mr. Lindsey served in this capacity. J. A. 4445, lS. He was ideally suited for &is liaison roie because he was a White House lawyer, a long- time trusted advisor, and a pemomd &xxi of the Resident who could be relied upon to maintain the confidentiality ofally such di! zll& ons. Mr. Lindsey traveled on almost every trip the President took and had prompt access to the President whereverhewas. Hewastheref~ inapositiontocommunicatewi& thePrqidcntconcaning the Jones litigation at times least dismptive to the President’ s official duties. J. A. 4445,78.

Moreover, prior to joining the White House sta& Mr. Lindsey was in private practice in Little Rock, and he and his law firm had served as Govemor Clinton’ s puxmal attorneys and as counsel to the Ciinton presidential campaign in 1992. J. A. 4344, w5. When plaintiffs attorneys in the Jones case sought to tisit allegations that had smfbced while Mr. Lindsey was Governor Clinton’ s personal attorney, President Clinton’ s private counsel consulted Mr. Lindsey about the prior rqrcscntation.

Because discovery issues trenched upon mattc~~ of legal significauce to the White House, the President’ s private counsel found it ntctssary toconsuhf+ omtimetotimewithWhite

-6-

2172

Housccomsc~ aboutsuch~ Mr. Liiparticipatcdinthesccodtationsinhis roleas Deputy White House Co- l. As an incident of this worIc as a White House lawyef rrprrsentingtheprrsidentinhisoffi~ capecity, hcnecessarilyconfaredwiththe~ dmt’ s pcrsonalcormsel~ wesedealingwitbthc~ cascrmdtbcu~~ winvestigationabout mattersofcolmnon intemttoboth. JA4647,? 12. Thcscconvcrsationswcreintendedto ranaincoafi~ andocc\ artdwithinthc~ OfMr.~ ’ S~~ ionOf~ White House. J. A. 4%%, ‘ IlO.

D. The Expansion of the OK% J- n in hm8xy 1998

Justtwodayspriartothepresidmt’ sdcpositianin~ zor# scast, tbeofficeof the Independent Counsel (‘ UC”) covertly sought on an exped& d basis to expand its jurisdiction to investigate %vhethcr Monica Lcwimky or others subomed pajury, obstrwtd justice, intimidated witnesses, or othe violated federal law.. . in dealing with witnesses, potential witnesses, attorneys, or others concern@ the civil case w v. w” Order, Div. No. 94- l (Jan. 16,1998) (Div. for Purpose of Appointing independent counsels) (D. C. Cir.). The cm’ s request was granted by a sealed order of the Special Division on January 16,1998, the day before the President’ s deposition. && On the evening of January 16, according to news reports, the OK’ s main wopadng WitllessWithrtspecttoMS. L& IE@, Ms. LitldaRipp, met with counsel for Ms. Jones. y At the President’ s deposition the following day, Ms. Jones’ counsel asked the President 95 questions regarding Ms. Lewinsky? ’

u a, m, Baker, “Linda Tripp Briefed Jones Team on Tapes,” ne Was& g& n Pm (Feb. 14, 1998).

3 Discovery in the Jones matter closed on January 3 1,1998. Protiptly thcrea& r, President Clinton filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted. Ms. Jones’ appeal is pending.

2173

Em Mr. Liudsey’ r Gmnd Jury Testimony

Mr.~ tcstificdbefon~ OIC’ s~ jrnyonFebnuay 18and 19andon Mar& 12,1998. J& 45, v. He aaswcmd numerous questionsf& ingtotheJon& itigation and Ms. Lewinslry. JA 47- 49, fil5- 16. He was also asked, however, “a number of questions about~]~~ cammMicatioaswiEhtheprtsidmswithtbcprtsideat’ SprivatcWunstlin lpnesv. c~ withtbe~~ s~~~ lintbeoIc~~ aodwith~ scniortuhhorstotbePnsidest” JA. 4539. Counsclforappcllantsarcnotprivytothcprccise

fourteen categories of information it sought from Mr. Lindsey. Because of Rule 6( e) conccms, &c court simply m these catcgolies as illcluding but not limited to the following:

“Linds$ s conversations with the Prcaidcnt regardingtheJon~ litigation; hisconvcrsationswiththePxcaidcnt regarding Monica Lewinsky and the grand jury’ s invcstigati~ his wmmunications with White House advkrs, including White HouscCounsclmembers, abouttheJoatslit@ ionamdtheMonica Lcwin& ymAncr, theidcntitiesofgrandjurywitncsscswhohave bcenintuvicwedbytheWhiteHouseafkrthcir~ and the substance of those intckews; his communications with Steven Goodin, aWhiteHousccmploycccallcdtotcstiQbcfixcthe~ jury; whether Lindsey heard dkng the weekend of January 24- 25, 1998, thatBettyCamiewascoopcrating with the OIC; wmmunications regarding the President’ s knowledge of whether Betty Cunie called Vcmon Jordan to help Monica L& n& y find a job inNew Y& and communications with Peter McGrath, aNcw Hampshire lawyer representing a client with information about the Lewinsky matter. n

J. A. 198- l 99 (footnott omitted). Mr. Lindsey declined, on attorney- client privilege and attomcy work product

grounds, to answer questions concerning confidential communications with the President’ s

41 The district wurt denied Mr. Lindsey’ s motion fix a copy of the transcript but d& ted the OIC to make the tmnscripts available to the court. J. A. 147.

2174

F. ThcDistrictCoart'sOpinion

OnMarch6, theOICmovedtowmpclanswus totkqucstionsMr.~ had dedincdto answcr,~~ onthehadnOfthtPnsidart’ SpeRonrrlattorneyclicntpriviltgC andtheworkproductprotcctions. BoththePreaidwtandthcOfEiceofthePrcsidentIiled oppositions,. and the district wurt heard eon March 24,1998. JA. 86. Rxsuant to a subsequent wurt order, the OIC made an in camera s& mission on April 24,1998, wnceming its need for the testimony. JA. 149.

OnMay4,1998, thedistrictwurtissuedascaledopinion, rejcctingthe President’ s privilege claims. The wurt did not question that personal wunsel cpjoyed a privileged relationship with the President in both the Jones case and the Lcwkky investigatim

intermediary to facilitate the provision of legal advice. But it was “not persuaded that the use of an intermediary was newssary” in the instant case. J. A, 169.”

With respect to the President’ s assertion of privilege based upon the wmmon interest Ixnveen the President pcrsonaiiy and his oflice, the district court rccognizcd that “[ tpe

9 The district wurt did not address the President’ s separate wntcntion that part of the legal assistance Mr. Lindsey furnished to private wunsel arose out of Mr. Lindsey’ s experience as personal wunsel to then- Governor Clinton.

2175

President and the White House wrtainly share some concerns ia a broad sense,” but held that “in tums of the. Paula Jones civil suit and the grand juty investigation, they do not + a ‘ common intc& inthclcgaIsckoftheplxasc.” J. A. 175. Thiswasao, thewurtconcluded, because %eWhiteHouseumnotbeimplicatcdinanycrimMorcivilaction.” JA. 176. Thewurt

have opposing interests.” J. A. 177. Finally, thedistrictwurtxulcdthatanypemonalwork@ uctprotcctionwas waivedwhcnmatcriaootherwisewvaedbythatdoctrincwassharedwithMr.~ y, sinct ‘ 4heWhiteHouseandPresidentCiintoninhispersonalcapecityQnotfacetheOICasan ‘ opposingparty’ anddonotshareawmmon& crestinthematter.” JA. 179.

The President in his pcrwnal wpacity filed a timely notice of appeal. J. A. 206.@ SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The decision below improperly denies President Clinton, in his pcrxmal capacity, the protections of the attorney- client privilege aud the work product doctke available to all other litigants. The decision inwnzctly interpmts or fails to rccognk four indqndent but overlapping reakns why the wmmunications at issue. here are privileged. First, the dis& t wurt erred in holding that President Clinton’ s attorney- client privilege was breached by his use of Deputy White House Counsel Lindsey to fhcilitate the provision of legal advice to him by personal counsel. Sewn& the district court ened in fkiling to recognize that Mr. Lindsey’ s g& r

6l On May 28,1998, the OIC filed a petition for certiorari bcfon judgment, which the Supreme Court denied on June 4,1998. 66 U. S. L. W. 3778 (U. S. June 9,1998).

-lO-

2176

pasonai rcpresentatian of Resident Clinton made privileged wmmunications among Mr. ~,~~~ andpresidmtclinton’ scrarenxpasoaalwrmselrtlatiqgtothe eariicr~ on. Third, thcdistrictwurtcrredinboidingthattheResidcntandthcoflGcc ofthePn? sidult& nothavcarlywmmon le@ fLhulorsU8WgicintcrMsthatarewgni2able undcrth: wmmonintcr& rule. Finally, thedistrictw~ eaedinboldio% thatitsdecision~ PresidentClinton~ the~ ceofthe~~ couldnotrbareaconrmonintaestnecessraity mcaritthat~ counscl’ swnfidaltialsharingofworkproductwithMr. Lindseywaivedthat priviiege.

ARGUMENT

Itis~ d~ lethatRcsi& lt~ likcevuyothcrcitiaen,

enjoys the right to puxmai legal wunsel. The diskt court decision does not puxport to question this right, but it nonetheless directly cballcnges tbc President’ s ability to receive appropriate and fully informed legal advice.

If the ruling below stands, the president’ s personal and official wunscl caImot communicateinwnCknce. Asaresul~ thePresidentuumotobtain~ his~ personalwm4 legal advice informtd by the possible ramifications of that advice far his official duties. Nor may the President danmine for himselfhow to seek and obtain wnfidential icgal advice without undue intrusion on his wnstitutional obligations under Article II. The district wurt has sewnd- guessed, and disallowed, his chosen course.

One key guiding principle emerges from a review of the law goveming attomey- client privilege: the need to be flexible in defking the workings of the privilege to achieve the paramount goal of assming that individuals are able to obtain fully inkmed and fkctually well- founded legal- advice. The doctrines at issue here - the absolute nature of the privilege, the permissible use of intcrmedities, and the protection of communications in the wmmon intmest

-Ii-

2177

-reflect the Wlats’ longstrrnding effort to find practical soluZions to enwurage 8nd facilitate the r@ Ytofauchadvice. ThCdistrktwurtdccisionfliesdircctlyiathefhceofthese$ ore

adviccandiImeadthrows insurmountableobstaclcsinthepathoftbatcffort. Itdoessobasedon L STANDMU) OFREVIEW

TbisappealaddrWcsumcltioILsofiawbytbedisbiawurtwnmningthc attomcylciicntpriviicgcandtbeworkproductdocbint. Conclu! 4ionsoflawllMu& ctto~ ggjg review. United States v. Abdul- saboor. 85 F3d 664,667 (D. C. Cir. 1996). Where the districtwurtmadefactuai~ dcpcndulton, andrciatedto, 8n UToIlwus legal understanding, review also is & w. & F. T. C v. Texaco, 555 F. 2d 862,876 n. 29 (DC. Cir. 1977). II. COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PRESIDENTCLINTONANDHISLEGAL

COUNSEL ENJOY THE ABSOLUTE PROTECTION OF TEE A? TORNEY- CLIENTPRMLEGE

It has long been set& d that the societal benefits of an absolute attomey4iult privilege outweigh any intrusion that the privilege .may have on the fkthdhg process. Recognizing the value of certainty that derives from the gwantee of confidentiality, once courts determine that a communication is made in wnfidence for the puxpose of obtain@ or providing legal advice, they do not consider the need for particular hfkmation, or the context of the request.

The privilege “is the oldest of the privileges for co& htial wmmunications known to the common law.” hioh Co. v. United Sa 449 U. S. 383,389 (1981) (citation omitted). its purpose is “to encourage fhll and hnk wmmunication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration

- 120

2178

ofjustice.” && It “exists to protect not only the giving of proftssional advice to those who can actanit~ plsothegivingofinformationto~ lawyertomablthimtogivc~~~ and infomcd advice.” Ip at 390.”

T& mot& l privileges lik the attomcy~ licnt privilege are just& d “by a public ascarainingthe~“ rlllffetv.~ 518U. S. 1,9( 1996)( quotationsominad). Asthe suphme court has obsawd,“[ tple priviiege ~tb8tSOldlCgddViCCOradvocacy servespubliccndsandthatsuchadvicear~~ depcndsupanthe~‘ sbeingfully infbrmed by the client.” &j~&, 449 U. S. a! 389. && Q &@ v. BladrbuHJ. 128 U. S. 464, 470 (1888). Thus, aithough the attomcy- ciic! nt privilege may somctimcs have the effect of withholding relevant information fkm the factfinder, the privilege is just& d by larger public benefits - the greater law compliance and fairer judicial prowed@ result& &om the ‘ sound legal advice [and] advocacy” the privilege promotes. ubiohe. 449 U. S. at 389.

Moreover, any loss to the factfkda engendered by the privilege is more apparent than real. Because the privilege only protects wmmuniwtions “which might not have been made absent the privilege,” Fisher v. United States, 425 U. S. 391,403 (1976), the factfiader loses access only to a wmmunication that may never have been made without the assurance of confidentiality. “Without a privilege, much of the desirable evidence to which litigants . . . seek access . . . is unlikely to wme into being. This unspoken ‘ evidence* will therefore serve no

lf The elements required to establish the existence of the attorney- client privilege are: (1) a communicatioxq (2) made between privileged persons; (3) in wnfidwcc; (4) for the . of obu+ ing or providing legal assistance for the client ment m

Go ~Lawv~~~ ll8( ProposedFinalDmftNo. l, JH6)( tcntatively lily 1996)(” lofthe. Relevant sections of the Restatement of the Law Govern& Lawvetq are inch& d in the attached Addendum.

- 13-

2179

~~- seeldngfimctionthanifitbadb# nspokeaandprivileged.” Jaffq, 518U. S. at 12; ~& QyQ@/& 449U. S. at395. ,

Once the priviicgc has been held applicable, it is absolute and cannot be overcome byashowingofa pxvwmr* sor- snecd. Asthesupremecourtcxpiainedixl~ thtvnyeffectivmessoftheastonveyclimt~ vilegedepmdsuponitsabsalutc~ becausc “[ a) n~ catainprivile& oronewhichplaporbrtobe~ nbut~ inwidelyvarying appiialtionsbytbcw~ isIittiebcttcrthannopriviiegem8ii.” 449us. at393. Thecourt aPa; ncmp~ thissamtpaintina~~ contartin~ eJtplainingthat”[ m) akiagthe promkof[ atherapWs] co& d& alitycontingcnt... would cvkuate the c& ctivcncss of the privilege.“” 518 U. S. at 17. Acwrdiqly, the attorq- client privilege remains absolute imspwtive of the nature of the legal issues or forum involved. It applies with equal force in criminalandcivilsatings,~~ FedRCiv. Evid. SOiadvisoryw~~~ (“ pri~ egesshallcostinuctobedevelapedbythew~ oftheUnitedS~~ almifonn standard applicable !2& i, ll avil and w cases? (emphasis added), and it is well settled tbat the privilege remainsabsolutecvcninthegxandjuryscUing. AhhoughtbeSuprcmcCo\ at’ s decision in Branzbuuz v. Haves, 408 U. S. 665,688 (1972), often is cited as support for the right of the grand jury to “every man’ s evidence,” in that same sentaze the Court went out of its way tocxccptprivilc~ evidcnce, statinginfulithat~~ inagrandjrPysetting” thepublichasa

. . right to every man’ s evidence, cxceot for those oersons orotected bv a wnst~ tuttQ law. or statutory urivile~.” (emphasis added).

al The absolute nature of the attomey4Aicnt privilege has btcn recoghd by more than 170 years of Supreme Court opinions. &, m, Cbirac v. Reinickq, 24 U. S. (ii Wheat.) 280,294 (1826); Cormccticut Mut. Liu. Co. v. Scbirefet 94 U. S. 457,458 (1876).

-14-

2180

m. COMMUNICATIONS AMONG IVIRa LINDSEY, THE PRESIDENT, AND/ OR TEE PRESJDENT’ S PERSONAL COUNSEL ARE PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL

emdbyfailingtogive& cttothcseprotectionshcre.

k Commtmicatious FmiIitating the Provision of Personal Leg4 Advice to President Clinton

In rejecting the President’ s claim of a tempomy immmity fkoi civil iitigation during his tcm in office, the Supreme Coutt predicted that the Jones v. Clinton suit, ifpropdy managed by the wurts below, would be “highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of [the President’ s ] time.” Jones, 117 S. Ct. at 1648. To this end, however, the Court stress& that courts below should display a keen sensitivity to the burden on the President of having to defend the Jones litigation while discharging the duties of his O& e:

Althoughwehavenjcctcdtheargumcntthatthepotcntialburdcns on the President violate~ sepmation of powers principles, those burdcnsamppropriatemattcrsfortheDistcictCourttocvaluatein . itsmanagementofthecase. Theh&& mcctthatIsowedtoth~

Of& x of tie Chief Executivq, the@ not justi@@ a rule of - 150

2181 eatogoricd immunity, mould infona conduct of

a 117S. Ct. atl650- 51 (enqkisadded). . useof8n8gcnttofecilitrrtehisreccigtofpersonallegalrdvi#. Thcdistrictwmnachedthis

nsuhbyt~~@ theIpgffeauti0n0aitshtad: thcamthnitaitkmamsavaihbletothc

Presidenttodefencltheiitigmiorlby conming the scope of the 8ttomcy- ciiti privilege as it applies to agents more restrictively than this Court 8ud eourk gmcrally have done in litigation involving parties other than the President. This cramped &uptet& on of the privilege as it

applies to agents co- legal error.

1. The Privikgc Extends to Agents Who Fditste tbe Pmvision of Legal

Ati=

~CIintonv. Jon~ wasrrmandad, thctrialcourt~ abriskdiscovcryand motions schedule. The President concluded that without some assistance, he could not properly attend to his official duties while simultaneously at& r& g to his defense in the M litigation- Accordingly, the President asked Bruce Lindsey to serve as his agent to assist him at times in marshalling information for, and seckng advice f& n, private counsel. J. A. 45- 46, plO. For the many reasons set forth above, Mr. Lindsey was ideal for this responsibiity. & pp. 4- 7, a

In dacmhing to use Mr. Lindsey as a privileged agent, the President acted in conformity with well- established law in this Circuit and elsewhere. Where a client utilizes an intermediary to develop and present information to his counsel, or to assist counsel otherwk in the formulation and presentation of legal advice to the clien& the protections of the a# onrey- client privilege apply to communications involving the &en& the agent, and eoursel.

2182 ThedistrictcorrrtrecogniEedthattheprrsidcnthaddcsignattdMr. Lindscyashis agentforpuqxmsofsuringlcgaladviceiathe~ litigation However, itaxqtedthat “[ tpmt D. C. Cii has nwa @icitly da& M w& her a client’ s agent, such as Lii, cau claimtheuttomey4entpriviiege.” J.& L 168. Tbatisfhtlyiruxrmct Ontwosepam octcXSionsillrewnt~ tbiscolxtllasstatedthatwhcreanag~ isusedto- the

In Liade. & V~. C. . v. Resole Trust counsel, the attomcycliult privilege prlYW! s those commticati~ nafwjthsEanding the absenccofageneral insurerfiprivilege:

certainly,~ tllCiUSlXCdWfIlmUlliCatCSWitllthCinslnaforthC expresspqoseofse& ingkgaladviccwithrespecttoaconcrcte clailqorfbrthepurposeofaidiDgml~- mvidedwh prqariqaspecifickgalcasc, thelawwouldexahformovcr substance ifit went to deny application of the attomey- ciient privilege.

5F. 3dat 1515. The” criticalf& or” indetakhgtheeGtaxceofthepri& geiswhether communications with the agent are made “in coIlfidulce for the purpose of obtahing legal advice from the lawyer” for the client. 5 F. 3d at 15 14 (quoting j? T’ C v. TRW, 628 F. 2d 207,212 (D. C. Cir. 1980) (emphasis omitted)).

InTRW, thisCo~ likewisedcclsradthattheuseOf~ agartinfscil~ the provision of advice from mmey to client fhlls within the protections of the attorney- client privilege. The Court noted that “[ a] line of appellate cases begin& g with Judge Frhdly’ s ‘ opinion for the court in United States v. Kovel, 2% F. 2d 918 (2d Cir. I%]), has recognized that the attorney- client privilege can attach to repor& of third parties made at the request of the

obtaindhmtheclicnt.” 628FAiat212. ThisCourtsucssedthstitbelicvedsu+” holdbgstc privilege, ggg am and (b)( l) and (4), and the eviduxc treatises have given fbll recognition to it as well. &g s 8 W- ore, Evidence 5 2317 at 618 (McNaugbtonrcv. 1961) (“[ a] wmmunicfltion * . .by~ yfonnofagencycmployedarsetinmotionbytheclierrtiswithintht privilege) (“ Wigmore”); Jack B. We&& n a a., W& stein’ s Federal Evidmcc Q 503.15[ 33 (2d ed. 1997) (privilege applies to communications involving ‘ hon- clicnt [who] Mhcrs the in& rest of efftctve rrpnscntation”) (“ W& stein~.

dispute that Mr. Lindscyb role was to B the provision of legal adviw tothe Resident through the wmmunicaticm of information to the President’ s pr& te wuusel and the wmmunication in Mum of counsel’ s questions and advice to the President. The district wurt’ s failure to hold accordingly was legal error.

2. Tbc President Is Not Required to Establish Necessity and, in Any Event, tbe Use of Mr. Lindsey Was Necessary

The district wurt offered several other reasons for denying the protections of the attorney- client privilege to the -dent in wnnectionwithhisuseofMr. Lindseyin

9t While this Standard was not enacted by Congress, this Court has looked to it for guidance. &g, s Linde, 5 F. 3d at 1514.

2184 wmmunicatingwithprivatcwunscl. TIIeEustofthcscwasthatthewurtwas% otpersuded thattheuseof~. Lindscy] wasncccs= y.” J. A. 169. Insuperimposingancccssip ~ontheuscofagcnt& thedistrictwurtagaincommittedlegalerror.

This~ hrrsnnnrhefdtbattheprivilegc~~~ inagencysinrationsonly when% ussary.” Tothccolrtrary, thisCourtquitcplainlybasavoidcdadoptionofsucha rcqukme In u fbr aiample, it was sufkicnt to warrant 8pplication’ of the priviiege that theclientandwunsclilltdedthatthe commlmicationsbcamfi~ andthatthcy- theclient’ srecciptoflcgaladvice. lnd& itwasirrclcvanttotilc~ aualysiswhctherornot the insured wuld have communi& dira% ly with wuxtscL Similariy, in= W, this Court nowherestatedthatwmmunicationsbchvcwanagu& couascl and client are privileged only where the use of the agent is a nwcssity.

The cvidcnct treatises have also rejected neccssityasa~ uisitetoapplication oftheprivilege, focusinginsttadashasthis~~ onwfieChertbeuscofanagent~ the provision of legal advice. Thus, Weinstein w& es that w aueshon should n . ot be whether the third berson is necessary, but whether he or she is helpful to the intucs& of the lawyer- client relationship.‘ * W& stein Q 503.15[ 3] (emphasis added). Wigmore states quite plainly that “a communication. . . hy gnv form of anency employed or set in motion by the client is within the privilege.” Wigmore 0 2317 (emphasis in original). And McCormick declares that it should not matter whether the use of an agent “was in the particular instance reasonably newssary to the matter in hand.” McCormick on Evidence 0 91 at 335 (4* cd. 1992).

An examination of the “necessity” for an agent’ s use would embroil the courts in second- guessing the dctcrminations of attomey and client that the ut% zation of an agent would better help the client secure proper legal advice. This is second- guessing that the warts are

2185 paorlyequippedtahandlc, as& nplyillustratedbythiscase. Asnotedabove,~ p. 4,$!!! lx& whenthe~ casewas ~to~ districtwratinl997, ahccticperiodof~ v~ ensm& involving ntKucmusdqxMition& motion& andplcadingsofailkinds, includjng numcrous~ csandadmissionsfeqllcsts InthefaccoftbisintensivtlitigatiOn, the Prrsidcntdaamiacdthrrt, witho\ rttbtassistan# ofanagad, htdmalywuldnot~ tohis defmsewhilefulfillinghisofficialduties. JA44- 45,18. Thlathiswasthecaseishardly su@ sing. Asoneof~ mostrespectedscholarsofthcmodanprrsidcncyhas~ official dcadlineswe[ the~~ s] pasonslagends,... dlain[ ing] hisulugyandcrowd~ hlg] his time regardless of all else.* I”/ hxk& bascdonnumerousautho& i~ thcSuprcmeCourt acwpted the premise that the pnsident “owupies a unique office with powers and responsibilities so vast and important that the public ti dcmauds he devote his undivided timeandattcntiontohispublicduties.” CIiatoa. 117S. ct. at 1646.

The district wurt’ s s@ tcmwtthatitwas~ foragovemmen tlawyertcl serve as the President’ s agent because this meant the use of “White House staff for personal matters,” J. A. 172, rcfiects a fkndamental misunderstanding of the Supreme Couct’ s explicitly expressed concerns. Mr. Lindsey’ s efforts made it possible for the President to transact his

The Suplrcmt Court admonished that the lower courts must official business more cfkientiy. give “the utmost deface to Presidential zesponsibilities,” a 117 S. Ct. at 1652; indeed, there are fimdamental @on- of- powers limitations on the ability of a wurt to supervk how the Executive and Legislative branches organ& themselves to discharge their wnstitutional responsibilities, w mer v. Watson, 628 F. 2d 133,140 & 141 x1.30 (DC Cir. 1980) (“[ t] he judiciary is not to act as a management overseer of the Executive Branch”) ; a also

1w Richard E. Neustadt, &Power

2186 mm 59 F3d 1291,1307- l 1 (D- C. Cir. 1995) (holding that sqarati- f- pourers wnccrns render questions whcthu cknlgrhonal employees are pcdimhg plcrmM% le “official work- as opposed to impamki% le -peWnal senke” non- justiciable unless CongrcS has supplied Clear rule Of &cisiOn).

speakdirectlytothepnsidtntwhenhcwastravellingwithhim, arha~ Mr.~ calltht President ot. her~&. J. A. 170. The district wurt questioned why counsel wuld not call the President directly illsted of Mr. Lindsey. It wmpletely ignoral wuusel’ s point that Mr. Lindseyusuallytravclswiththepresidenfaadh~ isbcst~~ toraistissueswjthhim atatimethatisleastinlrusiveonothcrmatters. ItalsooverlookedthefbcttbatevcnwhcnMr. Lindsey is not travelling with the Resident, he still is in fkqucnt wntact with him on a variety of mattcrsandisfarbcaapositionedthanw~ ltoraiseissucswitfitheprrsidcntattimesleast likely to disrupt the President’ s official duties.

In the second statement, counsel for the President in the OIC investigation stated

that they had not yet found it necessary touseh4r. Lindseyto- theirwmmunications withthePresidentinthatnewmatter. ThedisBictwurtdeclaraithatthis% ctsbonglysuggcsts . . . that Lindsey was not ‘ reasonably necessary’ as the President’ s agent for communication with

Leader& b from Roosevelt to kan 130 (1990).

2187 respect to the &gs easeP JA 170- 71. In doing so, the district wurt wmpletely ignored the sewndhalfofw~ l’ sstatun~ thatithadnotbecn necessarytorclyonMr. Li+ eyasan agent in the OIC matter ‘ %aausc we haven’ t had the immedky of the civil litigation.” J. A. 133. Thedistrictwurtsimplyf& dtodistingtlishbaw# nthe~ ofthetwomattcrs.

lJhimdy, the most troubIing aspect of the district court’ s determination that Mr. Endscywasnota% ccsaq” agentisitsm& c& ngoftk~ da& iti Farti” giving ‘ ~utmost~~‘ “ll7S. ct. atl65~ tothepresiQrt’ sdedsian~ beshoulduscanagcnt

used as a ‘ %ue intermcdia&$ [someone] whose function is simply to ensure that messages &om aciicnttohisorhcranorncy~ rtctivedandM~” J. A. 171. Thisholdingalsowas legal emr.

On numerous occasions, wurts have held that the privilege can apply in situations where an agent, far from just passing information back and forth between counsel and client, has enhanced the value of those wmmunications. In TRW. for example, the district court had held that the privilege could not apply to a study of the client’ s credit qorting systan that had heen prrparedbyathirdparcywnsultant, onthc~~ thatonly” ministaialagcnts” whodoaot engage in the “independent compilation and analysis” of information can be brought within the

2188 ambit of the privilege. 628 F. 2d at 212. This Court a& med the rcsul& but expressly not for the reasonsuti~ bythedis’ xictwm &). Rathcr, theCourtshitcdtbatthcprivilegewould aaachtotbcagcnt’ srepartifithadbecnprrpared~ theptlrposcofo~~ advicc~ wunsd. IQLu! 212- 13. lhattbcagcnthadplainlydcmemontiumz& yinfbnWion~ mthe clientdidnotaEecttka& ysis.

Ahostofotha# narshavcheldthcpriviltgeappiicabletorgmtswttohavr addedvaluetoattomcy- clicntwmmunications. &, rs,~ v. Judso~, 322F2d460, 462- 63 (9 Cir. 1% 3); m v. Ha- Svsyyp~, 104 F. R. D. 442,445 (E. DSa 1984). P~ nowrathasmadcthepointmacmphati~~ didJudgtFricndlyin

“[ w] e cannot regard the privilege as confin& to ‘ menial or mix&& l’ [agents].” 2% Kovel: F. 2d at 92 1. He provided several examples of agency situations in which the privilege might apply, including Were [an] attorney, ignorant of [a] foreign language [spoken by his client], sends the client to a non- lawyer proficient in i& with imtmctions to intcmiew the client on the

(emphasis added). In holding to the wntrary, the district wurt cited mt of the Jaw Govemine Lawvm 5 120, cmt (f). But those very examples confirm that a privileged agent rxtn do more than serve as a conduit for information. Thus, the -tdescribesasprivilegal agents parents who accompany their 1 &year- old to a meeting with the child’ s lawyer, and the “Acwun& nt [who] accompan( ies] Client to a wnsuhation with Lawyer so that Accountant can explain the nature of Client’ s legal matter to Lawyer.” Ip. Jn these situations, the agents are clearly doing more than passing messages between wunsel and client - they are enhancing the

2189 quality of the wmmunication between the two. These examples aiso make clear the district court’ s uror in concluding that the privilege dots not attach to meetings at which the President, privatewunselandMr. Lindscywcreallprcsmt &J. A. 167n. 7. MrLindseywasnotlimited inhisFolt~ Sttotheministaia) taskofrelaying~~ butcouldpropaSyassistthc FwIidcntbyplwidingadditicmalinsightandinfbrmation~ suchdiswssions. && h

. Jurv~ UndcrS& 947 F2d 1188,119O (4* Cir. 1991). R Commualeatloas Related to Mr. Liadaey’ s Former Representation

Priorto1993, Mr. Lindscy~~ -cihIton’ spusonaiw~ lon anumbcrofoccasions. Hedealtinthatcapa& ywithissucstbatthePresident’ sprescntpemonal wunsel also have had to address. J. A. 43- 44, m- 5; J. A 171. The district court noted that “Lindscywaswnsultingwith[ pasonalwunsel] ngrtrdinglitigationsrrategyanddescribinghis past representation of Resident Clinton,” J. A. 171, but it overlooked entirely the point that w~~~ betwccnprwcntandpriorwunstlastosuchissutsfallsquarelywithinthcattorney- client privilege.

Three paints are ind@ nm& le. First, attomey- clknt co& dencesrcmain privileged aftertheterminau on of a mpresentation. Supreme Court Standard 503( c) (former attorney can

invoke the privilege); J& statement of the J, aw Govemimr Lawvcm 8 45( 2) (forma lawyer must continue to protect the client’ s wnfidences); ABA Model Rule 1.6, cmt 22 (“[ tJhe duty of wnfidentiality wntinues after the client- lawyer relatioriship has temkakd). Second., wnsistent with the privilege, prior wunsel can -indeed must - communicate wnfidcnccs to subsequent counsel to facilitate the ongoing repmsentation of the client &statemcnt of the La . WGOW

Lawvers 5 45, cmt (b) (“[ t] he lawyer must make the client’ s . . . papers available to the client or the client’ s new lawyer”); 4 58 (2>( 3) (same). ‘ Ibird, information acquired by wunsel

2190 suhseqmt to a xepmwmion relating to the subject muter of the repmention remains wnMential. ~~ lll~ cM( c)(“ confidentirrlcliaainformationcwsistsofiafonnation relatingtothatcliez& aquiraibyalawyer... inthewurSeoforasaEsllltofxqmsentingthe client . . . ~~~... aAatherrgrrscntllsianiscanfidcntia~ Jolongasitisnot genedyknownandrcl8testothe~ on.“).

lheapplifzdionoftheseprincipleshercisstrsighdarwar& whercMr. Lind! 4ey has wmmunicated confidences arising out of his rcpmmxMon of thcn& mmor Clinton to the Presidcnt’ sprwentwunse~ those confSmmhavenotlostthcirprivilcgedstxtus. Bythesarne tokcn,~ prrsmtwtmstlhavecommrmicatedinfomratiolltoMr. Lindseynlatingtohis prior qresentation of the Governor, “for example, in the fom of Smnation on Axqucnt developments,” &, those wmmunications are also privileged. The district wurt wmmitkd legal error in holding that h4r. Lindsey’ s testimony about such matters wuld be wmpelkd befm the grand jury.”

C. Communic8tioas in the YCommon Inter&~

Thcw~ klowheldthat” PrrsidentClintoninhispasoaal~ docsnot share a legal ‘ common interest’ with the White House such that communications between White House attorneys and the President’ s personal attorneys fall within the w- client privilege.” J. A. 178. More generally, the district court held that a ‘ %& al government agency cannot &arc a ‘ common interest’ with a private individual against the .United States, here rqxesented by the OX.” J. A. 175. The wurt based these holdings on the grounds that (1) “the White House cannot be implicated in any ckninal or civil action and thus does not share F% esident~ Clinton’ s

111 Lawyers who enter government service are not exempt f& m the duty to ensure an orderly transition in the reprexntation of their former clientq and no authority suggests that they breach the privilege or violate their public obligations in doii so.

2191 legal interests, JA. 176; and (2) that President Clinton and the White House necesarily have

aTorbothintheselMemen& oftk commonhItuulrulelIndhIitsnfusaltorecogniacits

applieabiihue.

1. The COEUWIII Iatcrat Doctriac Is 8 WdI- Estabbhed Component of the Attomey- cknt Prhaege

‘ Ibecorrrmonima# rtnJeislm~~~~ oftbcattorncyclientprivilegethatis unif~ yacwptedtmdeadaned, psaticufarlyinthisCii ~jnReSealed~ 29F3d 715,719@. C. Cir. 1994). W Itenablescounsclforciientswhosh8reawmmon intuestro exchangeprivilcgcdw~~ cations~ rmorocyworkpnoductinardatoldequatelyprrpaPta defcnst without waiving either privilege.” m 975 F2d 81,94 (3d Cir. 1992). The rationale behind this doctk is the same as the attomey- client privilege itself- that the shming of information between wunsel for clients with a common btercst will “encowe full and &mk wmmunications between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and admi& mGon of justice.” .

As noted by one court, “[ t] he need to protect the ke flow of UDiohn, 449 U. S. at 389. information from client to attorney 1ogicaIly exists whenever multiple clients share a wmmon interest about a legal matter.” United States v. Sch- 892 F2d 237,243 (2d Cir. 1989) (citation omitted).‘”

131

i& s& John Woa, 913 F. 2d 544,555: 5v;, (8th Cir. 1990); United States v. AT& T, 642 F. 2d 1285, 13oo- 01 (D- C. Cir. 1980) (application of wmmon interest privilege in work product context); Supreme Court Proposed Rule 503( b)( 3).

See also 2 Stephen A. Salt& erg et al., j% deral Rules of Evidence Manual 599 (6th ed. 1994) (“ Saltzberg”).

2192

.The dacthe ~vus 8n array of wmmunicazions, including mong wmsel for cfi~ withcommonintaests, betwccntwosetsofcIialtsandthciriawyers, and~~ an iadividualher~ wunsel, aodanattameyfaradiffaentpartywithaw~ onintcrtsSas longrustbepurpoaeoftk comnnmi~ onistoobrainlegal8dviceinthecomulonintmst. rnrlrrA** e=- i== communic8! ionsbetweenadefen& ntclientandaco-

dCfddS~‘“ d adionsbetwemclicnIsjointlyrepsaWibyasingle8ltomey,* 5’ wmmuniw& ions between in- house wunsel for a corpomiond oukide wunsd? wmmunicationshetwwn~ andpri~ cntiti~* wandcommunicatiansbctwccntwo go- entities’” -agaiqaslongasa common~ ispsvsuedandthe wmmunicationsareforthepurposeofpvidingeffectiwlegaladvi#. sincetheplivilege belongs to both clients, it may be invoked by either and cannot be waived milamlly.‘”

Two additional obmvations demonsbate th& galemrinthedjstIictwurt’ s deter& u& on that President Clinton “does not share a legal ‘ commoniatacst’ withthewhite House.” First, courts generously wnstrue the kinds of overla@ q wncum that cons& u@ a

& Schwinuncr, 892 F. 2d at 244; United States v. McParti& 595 F2d 1321,1337 @’ cir. 1979).

& United States v. Mommy, 927 F. 2d 742,753 (3d Cir. 1991). See. e. pt, Natta v. Zle& 418 F. 2d 633,637 p Cir. 1969) (wllecting cases); Burfinnton lndus. v. Exxon Corn, 65 F. R. D. 26,36 (D. h& L 1974) (collecting cases).

&e, ES., United States AT& T, 642 F. 2d at ljOO- 01 (common intmst rule applied tci documents shared betw& the government and MCI).

. Set- 162 F& D. 344,345- 46 (ND. Ill. 1995) (draft affidavits of an FBI agzt held to be privileged under a joint defense agreement between the FBI and the City of Chicago, despite fact that the FBI was not pmty to the suit).

J&&&&&, 913 F. 2d at 556; Iptcrfaith Hous Delaware. Inc. v. Town 841 F. Supp: l393,14OO- Q2 (D. Del. 1994). *

2193 ywmmon interestw The shared interest may mke many forms and may be Yegal, factual, or strategic in cbnrauu.“ lO/ Of@ acommon~ cxistswhcretwoormorecli~ facethe same~ orartiwohndin~ oameiwesti~~ includingbothgrandjlpyardl

. . ~~~~ 211bPb~~~~ thC-, LIS101y: aSthmisaIcgal, factual or smtegic overlap. Nor must the client be actively involved in litigation or even facing . ~cxpome; witnusuinthesuneinvestigatianshueawmmon hitucs4 as do clients

who engage in a joint &brt to avoid litigation, even ifthe litigation is not immbnt or probable.=

Thedistrictwurt’ ssccondururwasitsfailureto~ th8tcvenclimtswith intcrMs~ are~ tgmaallycongwntmaystillbavcsufficientcommaninta+ sttopamit confidential information sharing? Thewlnts8ndothuauthoritiesrrpeatadlyhavemadethis

201 Restatement of the Law Govm Lawve~ Q 126, cmt t; S& Q w Amof 106 F. R. D. 187,191.92 (N. D. Ill. 1985) ;& intif& in separate litigation found to ha ve sufiicicnt mutuality of fbctual and/ or legal interest to invoke common interest privilege).

211 See Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F. 2d 347,349& l (9th Cir. 1964) (comma interest privilege applied to wrparations which cx& nged witness interviews of their respective employees who had testified before a grand juy); j% tter of Gmnd lurv Se, 406 F. Supp. 381,389- 92 (S. D. N. Y. 1974)( wmmon interest privilege applied to clients f& zing SEC invcstig8tion).

231 a, u, SCM Corn.. v. Xerox Core ., 70 F. R. D. 508,513 @. Corm.) (The privilege

need not be limited to legal wnsultations . . . in litigation situations . . . . Corporations should be enwuragaI to seek legal advice in planning tkir afkirs to avoid litigation as well as in pursuing it.“), amxsl dismissed, 534 F. 2d 1031( 2d Cii. 1976); united States M, 809 F. 2d 1411,1417 (9th Cir. 1987) (common btcrcst found among those m:* in “sorting out the mpective affairs of the Church and Mr. Hubbard” even though some ofthepasonspnscnthadnotbeensucdaaddidnotfaceany~~ liability),~ I& 491 U. S. 554 (1989). in art er

Thedistrictwurtmisappliedtwofactuallydistinctcasesto~ itsvicwtbatthat could be no legally wgniable common interest between President Clinton and the Ofiicc of the President. The court in United States v. MIT’ , 129 F. 3d 681 (ILL Cir. 1997), enforced an IRS summons for documents that MIT previously had shared with the

SharplY, does nOt mcBIl that cO22Imunications on matters of common inkrest axe non. qrhileged.” jointddnsemaybemadcby ttcmmha~ bcdfcllowsdounotinitsclfnegatethe existence or viability of tbe joint defense.” Jn re Grape htrv Sm Duct Tecum Dated Nov. 16.1974 406 F. Supp. 381,392 (SDNY. 1974). T&: privilege nmainsiSkbK% aSlangaSthCE isasharedlegal, factualor~ cimerrstatthetimeofthe~~~~~

2 Communlatlons Betweeu Personal and WhikEowe Counsel Are Privileged Under the Common Merest Rule

lnmlingth8ttheResidentandthePresjdencydanotsbareacommoninta+ st, as a matter of law, the district want overlooked the significaut wngmcna ofin& Kstsbetweenthe

DefensecontractAuditAgtncy, dcspitcMIT’ sargrrment~~ wcrcpmttcted\ mder the common interest dochne, because the only “common inter&” the wurt wuld find was the highly %lxtmct* intuut in We proper perhmance of ms- dehse wnhacts and the proper auditing and payment of MIT’ s bills.” 129 F3d at 686. This comes no. ~~ near~ multitudcofintcrtstsshartdbyPrrsidemCliatonandtheWhitcHousein connection with the swirl of civil litigations and cangressianaldgraadjrpy investigationswithwhichtheybotharesoentwined. Thcdccisionin~ St8tes Aramony, 88 F. 3d 1369 (4” Cir. 1996) is totally inapposite, since m had 2

z accuscdofdcfraudingthtparrywithwhichheassertcdacommoninta# Stheir relationship was plainly adversarial.

241 See alsq Eiscnbenz v. m 766 F. 2d 770,787- 88 (3d Cir. 1985) (“ Communications to an attorney to establish a common defense stmtegy arc privileged even though the attorney rqresents another ciient with some adverse &rests.“) (wllccting cases); McPartlig, 595 F. 2dat 1336- 37 (common interest privilege does not rap& c complete compatibility of interests).

29 &g. eg, Proposed Supreme Court Rule 503( b), adGsory commits notes (common interest rule applies ‘ %hre diffkrent lawyers represwt clients who have m &rests in commonn) (emphasis added).

neseobsuvationsInaysecmelcmentuy, buttheywueentirciyigeortdbythe districtwurt. Inavcryrealaindsignificantway, ttreobjectivesofWilliamJ. Clinton, thcpason, and his Administration (the Clinton White House) are one and the same. The latter would not exist without the former and without the fomra’ s electoral success. Inuumerable decisions that he makes affect him both officially and pemonaUy.

~the” wmmonality” atiss\ acherrismarcsignificantthanintheusual LLwmmon interest- cases discussed above invow tm, sejtar& clients. In this prowed& of course, Fksident Clinton and William J. Clinton, the person, are one and the same. 7his one individualhasseparatcroles, andscparatesetsofwunstltoadvisthimineachrole, andinthis respect resembles a wxporatc officer who may in a grand jury investigation be advised by

26/ 271

ThewmmoninterestanalysisoftheEighthCircuitin~ reGrandJurvSubboma, ll2 F. 3d 910 (srn Cir. 1997), on which the district wurt relied, is not applicable here given the unique wnstitutional status of the President.

Whilethedistrictw~ stattdthatrtYeOlCislaotinvcstigating~ WhittHouse,... [and] [t] he White House is not involved in any adversakl prow&@,” JA. 202, the OIC hasinfacti~ manysubpocnestothcWhiteHoust, bothfordocuwntsand testimony, and has examined before the grand jury many Administration officials, sometimes several times.

2196 puscmalmattus. lnsuch ~awmmoninterestprivilegeisrewgniztd, toallow

respccttobotllpusonalandofficialinterrsts, thcPruidultisthe- dccisianmaku. (Ill thisxcspectheismoreakntikneclientwithtwo~ ofwunseL~ Nomnttnhowdispsmk

responsible. The district wult’ s wmlnent that “[ a] Wenal govemmalt agencycannotsharea

OIC,” J. A. 175, is thuzfm both mistaken and a considerable ovcrsiinpli& ation. First, of plwrvhg the attameyelient privilege far cor& erences ktwemtheirrespc& vewunsel. & u.. AT& T, 642 F2d 1285. Second, however, the commm miss&& s the issue. The OIC

2v See. e. g, -of Jurv Su$ l6.1974,406 F. Supp. 381 (wmmunications between wunsel for wrporation and wrpomte officer’ s personal wunsel covered by wmmon interest rule).

291 Professor Gwf% y Hazard has observed in a letter to White House Counsel John M. Quinn, that:

“One way to analyze the situation is simply to say that the ‘ F? esident’ has two sets oflawyers, engagedinwnferringwitheachother. Onthatbasisthereisno question that the privilege is effkctive. Many legal wnsul& ons for a client involve the presence of more than one lawyer.

Anotherwaytoanalyztthcsiarationistow~~ thatthe‘ prrsident’ hastwo legalcapacitics, tbatis, thecapacitytxoffi~ o- inhisofficeaspnsidcnt- and thecapacityasanindividual. ‘ Thewnceptthatasingleindividualcanhavetwo distinct legal capacities or identities has existed in law for centuries. . . .”

141 tong. Rec. 18,948 (Daily cd.) (Dec. 20.1995).

2197 rcpwems only the pmscamd interuts of the Wnitad States” in this case, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. 5 594( a). The Ethics in Govemmcnt Actsp& hllyaaI& ohstbe~ entof Justiccto~ thcbroadaimerestsoftbeUnitedSEateswithrrspcctto” issuesoflaw” by filing a brief amicus curiae in any pmmding in which the OIC is involved 28 U- S- C. 0 597( b). Finally, the htwests of tk “united States” may be sufliciaxtly divqent within the Executive Branchastomakejusticiableadisputabetwaeaahaidcntandaspacialpmcmtor. SeeUnited states v. Nix- 418 U. S. 683,697 (1974). In this case, the Dapammt of Justice, the Clinton ~House, andtheOlCeachinasi~~~~ a~ oftheWnitedS~” aadtheyhavcsratlyformd~ lvcsgllgppogigg~~~ fbcsc~~~ chtheyhavc advocated sisnificantly diiTerent views on various lagal quastim.

Thedistrictwuttalsosuppomditsholdingthatthuewasnowmmoninmest” in the legal sense of the phrase,” J. A. 175, bcnvacn the Resident personally and officiaIly with the observation that “[ i) n the situation at hand, the White House cannot be implicated in any uiminal or civil action and thus does not share President Clinton’ s legal &em&,” J. A. 176. But that is demonstrably false. The White House is, from time to time, swd ci~ IIy.~ Moruwcr, the impeachment and removal of a President obviously has a camstmphic e& t on that President’ s

“White House," subjecting the individuals working there to tamhation and the Admhhthon’ s policy initiatives to extinction. An& in this very case the President is fkcing investigation by a prosecutor chaknging him simultaneously iu his personal and official cap& ties. Under the governing statute, the independent wunsel is mandated to investigate wnduct both in the traditional role of a prosecutqr and, also, as an agent of the House of Rcprrsentative. to report

‘ 301 See. e.&, complaint in Alexander v. ‘ The Executive Office of the President. et &, Civ. No. 96- 2123 @D. C.), alleging that the Ehcutive Office of the President acquired FBI

2198 “any SUM and cruiiile infommion . . . that may canstitute &umds for an imJ3eachment.” 28 U. S. C. 0 595( c). The Olc’ s imestigation, therefore, necessarily “irnpkates” bqth the presidentptrsanaltytrdtheclintonprrsidmcyas~ comrarytotbedistrictwrat’ sassation.

Tbewurtbelowalsaappuauitosuggutthatthewmman interutcasesrequire asimik& yoflcgaljeopardy, butthataLsoisnotthecase. WhcnthisCourtrewgnkdin~ T&~ thattheJusticeDcprahnmt’ kndMCIsharcdacommon intuestinacivilau& ustcasefm puposesofpoolingattomeyworkprodk& tdidnotdosohccausctbetwotlltiticsEacedsimil8r perils. ltratherrew~ thatthcworkproduct~ wuldcoverboththego~ agency and the private telccomm unicationscorporraianbccauseinconductingthecivillitigation, they had a wmmm object& in su# xssfully prosecuting their mpective actions against AT& T. As the Court ohserved there, “[ t] hc Government has the s8me entitlement as any otherparty to assistance fkom those sharing wmmon interests, whateva their mot& es.” AT& T, 642 F. 2d at 1300. SincttherrcanbtnoqucstioathatbothtbtOlC, byvirtueofitssbrtutarydutjts, andthc House of Representatives, by virtue of its wnstitutional duties and its public statement.~,~” are adversetothisFresidentin~ yfCSPCCtSrcquiringw~~ lcgalaad~~ cnsponses, therr should be no doubt as to its applicability here.

Thedistxictwurtalsogavean uroneoussignificancetatbefactthatthcremayat times be tension between the interests of the President personally and thost of his Adminishation, ruling that the doctrine did not apply +precisely because the President as an individual has interests that conflict with the interests of the Of& x of the President.” JA. 176. But as indkated above, for the common interest protection to apply, there need not be a perfect

file summaries in violation of the Privacy Act.

311 See. e. g, “House Funds Path to Impeachment,” Washington Times (March 26,1998).

2199 identity of interest but only a commonality of some interests. The ruling also ignores the very rationale for the doctrine. It is because Resident Clinton perso& ly m out with., signifkant wmaraninterrstswithhisawnAdminisaationthattherrisanetd, andajustificatioa, forthc twoscts0fwunseltownfc. r. Thef+ ankdisu& onsandironingoutofdiff- inawaythat willkst~ withiatbtbormdsofthcbw, boththe~ rrdoflticialobjtctivesofthc Pruidultiscxactlywhatthecommonintuutiaduignedtoprotect Indcc& itisplainlkmlthis COIPf’ sdtciSionintheAT&~~~ thc~ ofJsticeandMCIhedmanydiffmnt goalsandstrstegies, butprotectianof~~ discprsionsof~ attorneysaboutlcgal issuesinthtlawsuitsenablcdbotherrtitiestocondudthcircaseswithasmuchhapmonyand synergy as possible toward the achievement oftbegoalstlleyshucd. Thecaseisevenstmnger here, precisely because the President must himseIfw& ont and resolve any competing k& rests of the kind on which the district court focused.

Finally, the wurt totally dismked the wmpelling practical need of personal counsel to confer wnfidentiaUy with White House wunscl onmyriad topics to assure that sound and faczually based legal advice is given to the President pasonally and inhisrole as Chief Executive. Thevcrymattcrstbatpcrsonalw~ lmustattcndtowithrrspecttotheJonescivil suit and the Whitewater grand jury investigation are also &ssible g& t f6r the OlC and impeachment inquiries, which obviously affect William J. Clinton in bath his official and personal capacities. Neither set of counsel can provide fully informed legal advice unless they are able to confkr candidly on a host of legal, ktual and strategic matters, such as wnsidering the appropriateness of assert@ various deferws, o& ctions, and privileges, analyzing tactical decisions that may have significant long- term ramifications, dealing with leaks from the OlC, assigning responsibility for document searches and production to assure a wmprchensive

2200 subpoena ruponae is made, understanding how requests for official information - such as White Housemedicalrewrds- shouldbe& ress& dealingrespoGblyand accmately W# I public aadprrss~~ m~~~ l~~~ diffamtw~ ldonottalsc

. ~arlminforlnedlegalpo9itions, assraingthattbecliultfulfillshiswnstitutiod dutieswhileawarcofthcirimpactontipanumalhrcsts, andthclistgoason. Absentthe abili~ to confer, private wunsal cannot assure they are fully apphcd of the official implitions

ItistmdeniablethatbothtbePrrsidentpasoaallyandhisWhitcHouschave~ numerous and wmplicated legal demands as a result of tlx a suit and the OlC’ s investigation. It is only by %nwurag[ ingJ full and hnk wmmunication between attomcys” for the President personally and for the White House that the “broada public Wrests in the observance of law and ariminishation of justice” can effectively be promoted. w 449 U. S. at 389.3y

32 As the Brief for the White House demo-, the attomey- clknt privilege applies to confidential communications between government attomcysandtheirgovemm ent clients in the same absolute manner in which it applies to communicatkms between private counsel and their clients. Ifthis Court were to wnclude, however, that as a general matter the privilege that applies to government atmmeys may be qualified rather than absolute, this should not dilute the absolute nature of the privileged wmmon interest comrnunieations with personal wunsel, whose privilege indisputably is and must remain absolute to effectuate its underiying purpose.

The absolute personal privilege must trump a hypothetical qualified privilege in the common interest wntext in order to be wnsistent with the common interest rule’ s unanimity recphment for waiver. An iz~ tegral component of the common interest rule is that the privilege cannot be waived without the consent of all parties to the wnfidential communication. & p. 27 and n. 19, w The unanimity requhunent is necessary to guamfee the cpnfidcl; tiality that makes the attomey- client privilege work. &, s Jntcrfa@ h How De awarc. Inc. v. The Town of Gwnxtown, 841 F. Supp. 1393,1400-

PrcsidcntClintonandthcWhitcHousedosbare“ common irltuw&~ as# toutpnviousfyin “Ibtworkpnxhxtdoctrineisaniejwubt8ourccofimmunityfrom 255,257 (1D. N. H. 1985). It covers “not only ccmfi- communications bctwen the a# arrrey anticipation of litigation.” b rc Scaled Casq, 107 F3d 46, Sl (D. C. Cir. 1997). &pcDcxallv Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U. S. 495,510- 11 (1947). However, litigation need only be contrmblatedatthetimetheworkispaformedfartbtdoctrinetoappiy,~~ Creek Corn., 885 F. Supp. 4,7 (DJ). C. 1995X and the term ‘ Iitigation” is dcfmcd broadly to encompass any advm prow incMing iegislativc, administrative and other federal investigations, and grand jury proceedings, as well as civil litigatiox~~

01 (D. Del. 1994). To treat the gov cmmcnt attomcy- clicnt @ilcge as qualified in the common interest c~ ntcxt would undcmxb the guarantee of confidcnMity just as would allowing one party’ s waiver to govern the privilege for all others.

331 . Sss~~ ln~~ dJ~ ProcetdydOS~ 867 F. 2d 539 (9th Cir. 1989) (gmnd jury imstigation); Jn n scaled cass, 676 F. 2d 793 (DC. Cir. 1982) (SEC aad IRS . investigations); b n Gq@ Jury l’ roce 473 F. 2d 840,846 (8’ Cir. 1973) (“ policies supporting protection of an attorney’ s work product . . . are even moxe stf~ ngly applicable in crimbal proocedings”); ;tD rc w SUM Ducts Tecygb 685 F. Supp. 49 (S. D. N. Y. 1988) (grand jury investigation); =& Q mt of the Law

-360

2202

doct& e~ applicswithe@ lfor# toworkprolrtuctthatisshwdamot@ aaorgyshav& a CommoIl irntcm& including govaamaos andprivatcsaorneya.‘ y

Thiscollrt- workproduawaivainthc~ case. Thtqucstionwas WhCthCrMCIhadW& Cdi@~ workplQdUCtriglntrto documcmthathadbecnprrFurred byMCIduringthecourscofitspmscwtionofacivilantkustsuitagah@ AT& Tandtkn shancdwiththegovenrmtntina~~ tcastbnoughtbyfhego~ against AT& T. AT& T then sought those documents from the govcmmuu. ThCCOUCtIWiCWCdthCC8SClaWd

notedthatthemanmodaa~~~ hOlddaat” dcspitt~ l~~ l~ ofthe documents to persons not on the same side of the litigation, the privilege zcmakd intact” 642 F. 2dat 1298. ThcCoratexplainedthrdWltworkproductpniviltsedocsnot~ topmtecta confidential relationship, but rather to promote the adversary system by s& gumkg tk fiuits of anattomey’ sbialpreparations~ mthediscovery~ ofthe~” kat1299. Thus, while “[ t] he existence of common interests between tmn& o~ and tmnsfke is Flcvant to

Govemine L, awvq 0 136 Bt cmt h (anticipation df litigation iochxdcs “a m SItcb asagrandjuzy... or an investigative legiskive hearing?.

341 351

TheSupremeCourtinEiobltSrrcogSnizedthotthworkproductdoctrinesgpliestothe “files of the prosaxlti~~ even though the government plainly does not risk sanction or imprisonment in a criminal cast. 422 U. S. at 238 & x1.12. .

&g, m, AT& T, 642 F. 2d at 1300; Castle v. -0 Wwon. &, 744 F. 2d 1464, 1466- 67 (1 lth Cir. 1984) ; fare Se Sec.- 130 F& D. 560,583 (E. D. Pa 1989).

-370

2203

deciding whether the disclosure is consktutt with the nature of the work product privilege,” the

oppolmk.” IbiQr( cmphasisaddd). w

TbedistriacoultuTcdinconcl~ onthecommon ht# CEStiSSUCdOllCthat

clear, theabsenfxofacommon iaercstisnutsuf6cicnttoeoDcludedrastbencbasbemawaivu. hasv0lunt8rilydiscl~ thc~~~ insucha mamrathatitislikelytobercvcaledtohis

of the protection of the rule.” Bpwne of New Ypdr Citv. Inc. v. &Q& SC m 150 F. R. D. 465, 479 (S. D. N. Y. 1993).

36/ See a&,~ J. n n w 676 F. 2d 793,809 (D. C. Cir. 1982) (% eca~~ it looks to the vitalityof~ eardvtrsarygystanrathrr~~ lyseekingtoprrsmreeonfidmtiality, the work product privilege is not aut0matic. aliy w& cd by any disclose to a third party”);

292,295 (‘ Temp. Emcxgwy Ct. of Ap. 1985) common- iashaiagtkfruitoftrial ~~~ o~‘ ~~ a~~~~ withaguamnteof confidcntiaiity, does not nmssmily wshtutc a waiver of the work product privilege”) (quoting AT& T); J, atin Invmt Cm. v. Dra#&, 160 B. R. 262,264 (DE. Bank. Ct. 1993).

-. 38 -

2204

communications.” J. A. M- 45,18. The district court’ s failure to cx& nmndkguidcdbythis CONCLUSION

Nicole IL seligman ! ~& awi

wILLmMs& CONNOLLY

725 lp Street, N. W. Washhgm, D. C. 20005 (202) 434moo

lQ,& iTT ,5’ , &&&/ fd4R) Robuts.& - t carls. Rauh

Mitchell S. Ettinger Amysabcin Kssbari# sQcton

SKADDEN, AM’ S, SLATE M& amER & FLOM, LLP 1440 New York Avenue, N. W. Washingtan, D. C. 20005 (202) 371- 7ooo

Counsel for Appellant Ww, J. Clinton

2205

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I EEREBY CERTIFY that I have this 15* day of June, 1998, caus$ true and wrrectcopicsofthcforegoingBRIEFFoRApP ELLANTWIUJAMJ. CLINTONmbt

KmneolW* W,~ lndependeot-

o- fflccoftbeIndq# dapnCo~ 1001 Pumsylvania Avcnw, N. W. ’ Suite 490, North W& hgton, D. C. 20004 (202) 514- 8688

W. NciXggleston, Esquire Howrey & Simon 1299 Pcxmsylvauia Avuhue, N- W. Wshhgum, D. C. 20004

DouglasN. Lctta; Esqllin

U. S. Dqamutt of Justice 601 D Strec& N. W. Room 9106 Wah@ ton, D. C. 20530

CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT p= mTO -m R- 2st-

Accord& g to the law firm’ s word pxw& ingsy~ theprrcediagbriefdasnot contain more than lz500 words, inc1uding footnotts and citations.

DA%%) E. KENDALL / I

2206