Monica Lewinsky Documents

RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (ALL- IN-: 1 MAIL)
. CREATOR: Stacey L. Rubin ( RUBIN_S ) . (WHO)

. .
CREATION 11:05:39.81
-SUBJECT: Tra,vel Office
TO: Annette E. Johnson
READ: 22-.FEB-1996 11:05:55,23
(): Timothy J . Keating
READ:22-FEB-1996 11:46:06.18
TO: Paul R. carey
READ: NOT READ
.(
.(
JOHNSON AE
) (WHO)
KEATING T
j (WHO) .
cAREY
p ) {WHO)
' TO: Tracey E. Thornton .
( THORNTON_T
(WHO)
. .READ: 12:43:42. 5l
TO: c. Chow
READ:22-FEB-1996 1i:05:42.65
TO: M: Jolley . . .
.. READ 11:07 :04.55
. (\ _,... . . . . . . . . . .
T(?: Alphonse Maldon
READ :NOT READ
(WHO)
. -
JOLLEY J
(WHO)
MALDON A (WHO)
z
f3'Sq
\1.::1
. \I)
'\"'

TO:_ Janet Murgiiia
_11:05:55.23
Autofor'ward to: Annette E. Jo
TO:
. READ: 22- FEB- i 9 9 6 15 : 3 7 : 4 7 .17
. . . .
Tb: Ann M.- Catt.'all.ni
READ: 11:11:09.06
TO:Ira Fishman
: . , . . . . . .
READ: 22-:FEB-:-1996 18:43:49.07
. .
. TO: T. _
. READ: 22 -FEB-1996 11:4 6:27.60
. .
. .
TO: F. Walker
READ:22-FEB-l996 1i:10:05.11
TO: Lucia A. Wyman.
READ:22-FEB-1996 12:09:17.89
TO: Nick B. Kirkhorn
READ: 22-FEB_:l996 11:10:16.46
TO: Ananias.Blocker
READ:22-FEB-'1996 11:23:15.87
TO: Peter Jacoby
READ:22-FEB-1996 11:51:20.37
" .. ,, .. __ ..... " ....... ,... ..... ,... ,... __ ,..._,. """"' ,,,
_( TATED) (WHO).
CATTALINI A (WHO)
. (
FISHM'AN_I
(wHO)
..
( HEIMBACH_J
) (WHO)
( WALKER c )
.(WHO)
WYMAN L
(WHO).
KIRKHORN N ) (WHO)
BLOCKER A ) (WHO)
JACOBY P ) (WHO)
1 I A. -- _ _ A A r' ..., /"1 1'\l"':'f\.1\\.
READ:22-FEB-1996 11:05:39.63
TO: Monica s. Lewinsky
READ : 2 2- FEB- 19 9 6 11 : 18 : 2 6 .6 9
TO.: JQhn Hilley
READ:22-FEB-1996 15:51:24.26
TO: . Susan Brophy
READ:NOTREAD
TO: Elisa M. Millsap
REAJ;l : 2 2- FEB- 19 9 6 11 :19 : 30 . 8 7
.. ,. . .
TO: Jaines s .. Rubin .
. 11:09:51.13
TEXT:
LEWINSKY_M ) (WHO)
HILLEY J
(WHO)
BROPHY S ) Autoforward to: Stacey L. Rubi
MILLSAP E . (WHO)
RUBIN J (WHO)
All. White House staff should have received a subpoena from the
<:;o'unsels office for .all files relating to the travel Our
.office .has been asked to review .all files ASAP (even if you
weren it here 'during the investigation -- old files may exist) .
Please. contact me .by. COB today upon reviewing. your files. Thanks.
,
II""---" "'-- ..... ,.... ,....,....,... ...... I lo I
COPY
1 ,1 ,,.-, 1,1.. 1" I 1. 1/j.,
/
.RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (ALL-IN-1 MAIL)
. CREATOR:. Michael D. Deich ( DEICH_M ) (OPD)
CREATION DATE/TIME :28-FEB-1996 18:2.0:01.85
SUBJECT: RE: specter letter
TO: Monica S. Lewinsky
.READ:.28-FEB-1996 18:41:50.27
LEWINSKY M
.. j
(WHO)
. . \. t>
.
TEXT:
It turns out that about 4 days ago the DOT issued an order to show-casue why the
.new US-Rome route should not beawarded to USAir operatingout of
. In the normal course of events I DOT would issue a final order in 2-3weeks 0
r reread the letter. Specter does not complain abm.it DOT; he says he
1
s writing
simply to get extra juice Philadelphia
1
s request. specter may. be
of the law in area, but it may appear improper for the President to . ..
. expresss any judgment on. this issue, I still think its best just to forward the
letter t<;:> DOT. . As an alternative, you might consider. holding any reply
. until DOT makes its final ruling 0 Then, barring a surprise I the POTUS can
.. COJ}gratuiate Specter 0 Alternately I he can commiserate 0 Let me know 0
COPY
//1,..,"'""'t'l __ . .-1-J..I .... ....., .... 'lA. .. :-0TTT\T T\A.r"f"\TT 1 . '1- . 1/A ... --AAr"
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
001. email
002. email
003. email
004. email
005. email
006. email
007. email
008. email
009. email
010. email
COLLECTION:
. SUBJECT!fiTLE
Monica S Lewinsky to Monica S Lewinsky at 11:00:19.81. Subject:
Appt. request- Hilley, rosemary and others. [partial] (1 page)
Appt. request- o'neil, kathleen. [partial] (1 page)
Mail Link Monitor to Monica S Lewinsky at 11:05:32.05. Subject:
Confirmation: Appt. request- Hilley, John L. [partial] (1 page)
Confirmation: Appt. request - Li, Gordon [partial] (1 page)
Confirmation: Appt. request for Lewinsky, Monica.S [partial] (1 page)
**Urgent** appt. request- ragsdale, robert. [partial] (1 page)
Monica S. Lewinsky to Kathleen M. Hennessy at 15:55:34.02.
Subject: Photo Request. (1 page)
Monica S Lewinsky to Monica S at 15:12:52.68. Subject:
Appt. request- Lewinsky, Michael. [partial] (1 page)
Confrimation Appt. request - for Lewinsky, Monica S [partial] (1
page)
Stacey L. Rubin to Monica S Lewinsky at 13:19:24.88. Subject:
thanks. [partial] (1 page)
Clinton Presidential Records
Automated Records Management System [Email]
WHO ([Lewinsky])
ONBox Number: 500000
FOLDER TITLE:
[03/22/1996 - 03/29/1996]
RESTRICTION CODES
DATE
03/23/1996
03/23/1996
03/23/1996
03/23/1996
03/23/1996
03/25/1996
03/26/1996
03/26/1996
03/26/1996
03/27/1996
Presidential Records Act- )44 U.S.C. 2204(a)J Freedom of Information Act- )5 U.S.C. 552(b))
RESTRICTION
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6), b(7)(C), b(7)(E),
b(7)(F)
P6/b(6), b(7)(C), b(7)(E),
b(7)(F)
P6/b(6), b(7)(C), b(7)(E),
b(7)(F)
P6/b(6)
P5
\3 '-{ \
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6), b(7)(C), b(7)(E),
b(7)(F)
P6/b(6)
2006-0319-F
ab664
PI National Security Classified Information [(a)(l) of the PRAJ
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRAJ
PJ Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(J) of the PRAJ
b(l) National security classified information [(b)(l) of the FOIA[
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIAi
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA)
PS Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(S) of the PRAJ
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRAJ
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
2201(3).
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
b(J) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(J) of the FOIAJ
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information [(b)(4) of the FOIAJ
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIAJ
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIAJ
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financ'ial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIAJ
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIAJ
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL. (ALL-IN-:l MAIL)
CREATOR: Monica S. Lewinsky (" LEWINSKY_ M )
CREATION DATE/TIME:26-MAR-:-l996 lS:55:34.02
SUBJECT: PHOTO REQUEST
TO: Kathleen M. Hennessy
READ:26-MAR-l996 l6:22:44.02
(WHO)
HENNESSY K ) .(WHO)
,: ,:..._
-.2
.,
). .
';;l>
' \
~ ..
/
TEJ<;T:.
This is an official request .to hang the picture Of President Clinton signing the
Telecomm biil in our office, 102 EW--Legislative Affairs. Thank you. Monica
Lewinsky
\; .. \._
,....-:-I
:;:: \
j; I
~ ~
/
.. ...COPY . ...
"1 .1J 111,..,1""\ f"\0 1"1""'f."'A-OA01""11/An'-LC'1/ _____ 1_.L.l-.-"'-T:'---:1 J,. __ ,_: ___ nTTnT T'toA.r'T"TT_/_1 7 __ 1/A-:--Af\r
., 1!'-\r\ /1"'\f\.f"\(\ -------------------------
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
001. email
002. email
003. email
004. email
005. email
006. email
007. email
008. email
009. email
010. email
011. email
COLLECTION:
SUBJECTffiTLE
Laura Capps to [list] at 14:51:24.49. Subject: 2111N. (2 pages)
Patsy L. Thomasson to Jodie R. Torkelson at 12:05:07.75. Subject:
RE: Monica Lewinsky and Jocelyn Jolley. (1 page)
Mail Link Monitor to Kim B. Widdess at 17:19:21.74. Subject:
Confirmation: Appt. Request for POTUS. [partial] (3 pages)
Lori L Anderson to Kim B Widdess at 09:17:50.33. Subject: Monica
Lewinsky. [partial] (1 page)
Mail Link Monitor to Kim B. Widdess at 17:37:34.27. Subject:
Confirmation: Appt. Request for POTUS. [partial] (3 pages)
Tracy A Bobowick to Tracy A Bobowick at 15:47:07.42. Subject:
Appt. request- Iewinsky, monica. [partial] (1 page)
Mail Link Monitor to Tracy A Bobowick at 13:49:34.75. Subject:
Confirmation: Appt. request for Bobowick, Tracy B [partial] (1 page)
Mail Link Monitor to Tracy A Bobowick at 15:50:24.70. Subject:
Confirmation: Appt. request for Bobowick, Tracy B [partial] (1 page)
Mail Link Monitor to Kim B Widdess at 13:43:32.26. Subject:
Confirmation: Appt. request for POTUS. [partial] (3 pages)
Mail Link Monitor to Kim B Widdess at 13:35:19.54. Subject:
Confirmation: Appt. request for POTUS. [partial] (3 pages)
Mail Link Monitor to Betty Currie at 13:00:37.44. Subject:"
Confirmation: Appt. request for Currie, Betty W. [partial] (1 page)
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[04/03/1996- 02/26/1997]
RESTRICTION CODES
DATE
04/0911996
04/09/1996
06/18/1996
06/18/1996
06/18/1996
08/28/1996
08/29/1996
08/2911996
12/17/1996
12117/1996
12/3011996
Presidential Records Act- )44 U.S.C. 2204(a)) Freedom of Information Act- )5 U.S.C. 552(b))
RESTRICTION
P6/b(6)
P5
P6/b(6), b(7)(C), b(7)(E),
b(7)(F)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6), b(7)(C), b(7)(E),
b(7)(F)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6), b(7)(C), b(7)(E),
b(7)(F)
P6/b(6), b(7)(C), b(7)(E),
b(7)(F)
P6/b(6), b(7)(C), b(7)(E),
b(7)(F)
P6/b(6), b(7)(C), b(7)(F)
P6/b(6), b(7)(C), b(7)(E),
b(7)(F)
2006-0319-F
ab666
PI National Security Classified Information [(a)(l) of the PRA)
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA)
PJ Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(J) of the PRA)
b(l) National security classified information [(b)(l) of the FOIA)
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA)
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(S) of the PRA)
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA)
of gift.
2201(3).
b(J) Release would violate a Federal statute ((b)(J) of the FOIA)
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA)
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA)
purposes ((b)(7) of the FOIA)
financial institutions ((b)(8) of the FOIA)
b(9) would disclose geological or geophysical information
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA)
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL MAIL)
CREATOR: Patsy L. Thomasson ( THOMASSON_P ) (WHO)
CREATION DATE/TIME: 9-APR-1996 12:05:07.75
SUBJECT: RE: Monica Lewinsky and Jocelyn Jolley
TO: Jodie R. Torkelson
TORKELSON J
(wHO)
READ:. 9-APR-1996 12: 07:23.69 .
CC:. Bob j. Nash
NASH B ) (WHO)
READ: 9-APR-1996 20:35:25.98
TEXT:
.Bob and I have been working with Tim on placing.these two people.
We are working closely with DOD to make this happen forMonica. We have
riot finalized the deal but are workingtoward that end.
Monica is coming in to see me today pursuant to Tim Is request of me.
Our direction is to make sure she has a job in an Agency. We are working toward
that end.
. :f)atsy
'2 /') '2 /') f\(\0
'(
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO. SUBJECTrriTLE
AND TYPE
012. email Betty Currie to Betty Currie at 17:12:58.84. Subject: Apt. request-
Lewinsky, Monica. (partial) (1 page)
013. email Betty Currie to Betty Curry at 21:19:34.04. Subject: **Urgent** Appt.
request- Lewinsky, Monica. (partial) (1 page)
014. email Marsha Scott to Records Management at 10:26:26.00. Subject:
Official USSS WAVES Request - Records Management Document.
(partial) (1 page)
016. email Mail Link Monitor to Betty Currie at 18:00:40.13. Subject: .
Confirmation: Appt. Request for Currie, Betty W. (partial) (1 page)
018. email Betty W. Currie to Records Management at 17:53:45.00. Subject:
Official USSS W A YES Request - Records Management Document.
(partial) (1 page)
019. email Rochester M. Johnson to Lanny J. Davis at 14:32:56.00. Subject: 1/20
msgs. --Page 3. (partial) (1 page)
020. email Rochester M. Johnson to Lanny J. Davis at 18:56:43.00. Subject: 1/21,
new mesg., page 8. (2 pages)
021. email Rochester M. Johnson to Lanny J. Davis at 12:24:21.00. Subject: 1/21
msgs. --Page 2. (2 pages)
COLLECTION:
Glinton Presidential Records
WHO ([Lewinsky])
OA/Box Number: 500000
FOLDER TITLE:
[02/28/1997- 01/27/1998]
DATE
07/03/1997
07/14/1997
07/1611997
07/24/1997
07/2411997
08/16/1997
1111311997
0112011998
01/2111998
01/21/1998
RESTRICTION
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6), b(7)(C), b(7)(E),
b(7)(F)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P5, P6/b(6)
\'3Y 3
P5, P6/b(6)
3 4 ~
P5, P6/b(6)
16t..t"S
2006-0319-F
ab889
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)l
PI National Security Classified Information [(a)(l) of the PRAl
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRAl
PJ Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRAl
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRAl
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(S) of the PRA[
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRAl
of gift.
2201(3).
Freedom of Information Act- [5 U.S.C. 552(b)l
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIAl
b(J) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(J) of the FOIA[
information [(b)(4) ofthe FOIA[
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIAl
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIAl
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIAl
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIAl
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO. SUBJECTffiTLE DATE RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
022. email briggs@pangea. Stanford.edu to Mark C. Rainey at I6:56:08.00. OI/22/1998 P6/b(6)
Subject: public dick. (1 page)
023. email Mara Hoffert to Lanny J. Davis at II :32:06.18. Subject: Page 3, new 01126/1998
.P6/b(6)
mes 1/26. (partial) (1 page)
024. email Elizabeth A. Borod to Ruby Shamir at I5:28:36.00. Subject: For Ann. 01/26/1998 P6/b(6)
(partial) (1 page)
025. email DavidS. Beaubaire to Wendy Arends at II :2I :38.00. Subject: 01/27/1998 P5 'sL.t(Q'
pathetic. (1 page)
026. email Peter D. Greenberger to Liz.Rome at 12:25:59.00. Subject: Hang in 01/27/1998 P6/b(6)
there. (partial) (1 page)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential ,Records
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[02/28/1997- OI/27/I998]
2006-0319-F
ab889
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- 144 U.S.C. 2204(a)l
PI National Security Classified Information l(a)(l) of the PRA)
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office l(a)(2) of the PRA)
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute l(a)(3) of the PRAI
financial information l(a)(4) of the PRAI
and his advisors, or between such advisors la)(S) of the PRAI
personal privacy l(a)(6) of the PRAI
of gift.
2201(3).
Freedom oflnformation Act- 15 U.S.C. 552(b))
b(l) National securityclassified information l(b)(l) of the FOIAJ
an agency l(b)(2) of the FOIA)
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute l(b)(3) of the FOIAJ
information l(b)(4) of the FOIAJ
personal privacy l(b)(6) of the FOIA)
purposes l(b )(7) of the FO lA I
financial institutions l(b)(8) of the FOIAJ
concerning wells l(b)(9) of the FOIA)
RECORD TYPE:. PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Rochester M. Johnson ( CN=Rochester M. Johnson/OlJ=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO J
. . . .
CREATION DATE/TIME: 20-JAN-1998 14:32:56.00
SUBJECT: 1/20 msgs. -- PAGE 3
TO:. Lanny J. Davis CN=Lanny J. Davis/OlJ=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO J )
READ: ONKNOWN
TEXT:
#14, 1/20, 12:09pm
Don Van Natta

Getting close to final day; Wo'\].ld like to try to schedule limch
(preferably today) for sometime in the next 2 weeks.
Also want to discuss w/ you the Chung story from Friday night.
#15, 1/20, 1.2:35pm
Schmidt

Call me
#16, 1/20, 12:35
ches
jeez?!
Talked to Rabbi Weinblatt. 1/22 at7:30 is good for him
{can also do.it on Wednesday, 1/28}.
#i7, 1/20, 12:35
Ches
Talked to Sue -- she's really pushing for WAVES info on Monica
Lewinsky.
COPY
)
'\ ..
-.:--
.)
u} ..., .. ... .&.
"'>
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL {NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Rochester M. Johnson ( CN=Rochester M. Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ) )
CREATION DATE/TIME:21-JAN-l99B 18:56:43.00
SUBJECT: l/ 21, new mesg. , page 8
TO: Lanny J. Davis ( CN=Lanny J. Davis/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ.: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
. #53, 1/21, 5:55
Sue Schmitt
1.!$1Jfftlfjl
. Re: call he back about everything ... I did tell her no comment and
she said she had spoken to. you.
#54,_ 1/21, 5:45 and again at 6pm
Chris Vlasto
WJil:SUiii*Bl
Re: you know. previous mes.
#55, 1/21, 6:13
Tpm 'Squitieri
US1>.. :roday
703--558-SH2
Re: records on Monica Lewinsey ... says you normaily speak tO
him ... although I told him Ii.o comment.
1/21, 6:13 .

Re: please have lanny or adam call him. Chess paged you on it .
. #57, 1/21, 6:.17
John King
CNN
638-5234
Re: 2 second question, but important. About Bob Bennett. Please
call him.
#58, 1/21, 6:29
Warren Stroble

Re: Follow up on earlier conversation
#59, 1/21, 6:33
Bruce DePuyt
Channel B news
703-819-2807
Re: Call him back please. In regards to the new business today.
I did tell him no comment, but he requesteda call back.
COPY
//
/
./ ...... 1s Email System

#60, 1/21, 6:33
Tom Galvin
Re: did not leave a phone # because he said he would page you.
#61, 1/21, 6:35
Rich Goodstein

Re: outside speaker ... please let him know if we're
pes/neg/neutral on him speaking on radio. t.v.?
#62, 1/21, 6:25
Angie Cannon
Night Rider
383-6016
Re: Subpoena of Pres.
#63, 1/21, 6:45
Jodi Enda
Night Rider
383-6051
Re: Ken Starr subpoena
Page2 of2
"lARMS Email System

Page 1 ot l
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL) .
CREATOR: Rochester M. Johnson ( M. Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME:21-JAN-199B 12:24:21.00
SuBJECT: 1/21 'msgs. -- PAGE 2
TO: Lanny J. Davis ( CN=Lanny J. Davis/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
#11, 1/21, 11:25am
Viveka Novak

WPost story; Monica Lewinsky in general; Lewinsky WAVES
#12, 1/21, 11:2Sam
Robert Kenny

In New York; He and Foster are going to the Maury Yeston event at
the Yale Club about the Titanic
#13, 121, 11:33am
Warren Strobel

call;' Wants to talk to you NOT about the facts of. Lewinsky
matter but about the political impact/importance
#14, 1/21, 11:50am
Mike Frisbee
862-9221
Call ASAP -- re "back in business one last time"
#15, 1/21, 11:50am
Stuart Pope
[you have the number]
You'll know
#16, 1/21, :i2:00pm
.I promised him you would call upon your return from lunch.
#17, 1/21, 11:55am
Ches
\.,, __
Spoke to Kirkland. Says Justice is now hunkered down and
references the portion of IC Statute saying it comment on anything without
permission from panel; Scuttlebut.is that if allegations are true, it was
a serious "breakdown in judgement" on behalf of POTUS and if not, this may
be what breaks Starr's back.
COPY
...... _

Would like some background on whether or not the WH thinks it
should have at least been notified of these allegations/been allowed to
Page 2 of2
give its side before everything went to the panel for expansion. J'
#18, 1/21, 12:00pm
Lanny Breuer
Come by when you get back.
#19, 1/21, 12:02pm
Peter Baker

Returning your call
#20, 1/21, 12:02pm
Bob Ranken

Linda Tripp
#21, 1/21, 12:05pm
Bill Press
Returriing your call; Please call or page.
#22, 1/21, 12:10pn
Ches
McCUrry called to check in. Said not to bother you at lunch.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR:. David S. Beaubaire ( CN=David S. Beaubaire/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 27-JAN-1998 .11:21:38.00
SUBJECT: pathetic
TO: Wendy Arends
B-EAD :UNKNOWN
TEXT:
USERNAME : AP
CN=Wendy Arends/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] ) .
HEADLINE: KILL ADVISORY-Clinton Intern
NEWSWIRE: AP: AP Leased Line
KEYWORDS : AP APNP
D ~ t e 01/27/98 Time: b1:i5
KILL ADVISORY-Clinton Intern
. '.,).
News Directors: The Clinton-Intern story about a Secret ser\rice
agent who reportedly witnessed a tryst between President Clinton
and Monica Lewinsky has been killed. ''The Dallas Morning News''
has withdrawn its story, on which the A-P story was based.
A kill is mandatory.
Make certain the story is not aired. It moved as a separate
(V0177) at 22:04 p.m. and was included in the separate (V0266) that
moved at 23:38 p.m.
A sub will be filed shortly.
AP Broadcast News Center
APNP-01-27-98 0124EST
COPY
, __
---- ---
/
RECORD TYPE.: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
'
CREATOR:. Mark D. Neschis ( CN=Mark D. Neschis/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
CREATIOl\I DATE/TIME:29-JAN-199B 16:49:38.p0
SUBJECT: Newshour
TO: Paul E. Begala ( CN=Paul E. Begala/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOwN
.TEXT:
Ben. Veniste segment was bumped because they said there wasn't enough news
today to justify doing a Starr/Lewinsky immunity segment.
They are instead doing a Washington Post reporter on t h ~ days events
COPY
. ~ ~ ~ .
RECORJ? TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Michael Waldman ( CN=Mlchael Waldman/OU=WHO/O=EOP WHO ] )
CREATIO:t:J DATE/TIME: 6-FEB-1998 09:13:42.00
SUBJECT: Greetings
_TO: Joseph P. Lockhart
READ: UNKNOWN
CN=Joseph P: Lockhart/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO
TEXT:
JOE-- this was sent to me.by.an intern who worked inspeechwriting last
summer. She was asked by the Op-Ed editor of the Oregonian to write an
account of her WH internship. She sent it to me, in the note below. I
don't know whether we should get involved . . . whether it helps us, hurts
us, or whatever ... my sense is. to say that she
1
s a private citizen and
. can write what she' wants.. (It is. actually very flattering & positive re
the White House.) I sent her a response saying that I was glad she had.
, such a positive. experience, appreciated her showing it to me, but would
check with others.
---------,----.,--------- Forwarded by Michael Waldman/WHO/EOP on 02/06/98
09:11AM---------------------------
-hleigh @ gladstone.uoregcin.edu
.02/04/98 06:34:00 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Michael Waldman
cc:
Subject: Greetings
Mic;hael --
First, let me congratulate you on your new baby and on the State
of the Union-- it was. an excellent. speech! I am actually interrupting
you for a specific reason. The editorial editor of the Oregonian asked me
to write .a piece bn the White House intern program. My father is the op-ed
editor, and all three Of.U:s agreed that this would be a good opportunity
to both debunk some myths and say some positive things about a program
that I was very impressed with.
Knowning and your view on us talking to the press thl.s
summer, I told them that I wanted to give you the opportunity to look at
the article before it rUns if you so desired. I doubt you'll find
anything controversial about it -- I th1nk it's really quite flattering.
Nevertheless, I still consider myself "part of .the team" (I'm talking with
Laura about coming back this summer while I search for the elusive paid
job in Washington) so I wanted to play it safe.
You don't need to read this if you don't feel it's necessary. If
for some reason you do have a problem, please email me. I hope everything
is well at the office and with your family!
Thank you -- Heather
P.S. Tenative headline: White House intern, and proud of it!
By Heather Leigh Davis
Among the many rumors circling the White House these days are a
lot of myths abOut White House interns. I was an intern in the White
House speechwriting department this summer. I did not know Monica
COPY
Lewinsky, and really could care less about her. What I regret is that
this incident has a negative light on what is really a remarkabie
program and a motivated, ambitious group of students. .
... Working at the White House is more than just.an opportunity to
walk the same halls as national leaders. It is about more .than being a
political insider for three months. A White House internship is long
hours with no pay in a very intense environment. It is work -- work that
I and my fellow internstook very seriously.
It is a competitive program requiring a resume, two letters of
recommendation, a writing sample and an essay in addition to the basic
application. Contrary to popular myth, there is no form to list your
parents' donations to the Democratic National Committee.
I --
-2
' ..
Of course, some interns come from wealthy backgrounds, some have
families that are. long-time Democratic supporters, many are students at
prestigious universities. But most interns are more like me: hard-working
students with a long-standing interest in politics who got there on merit.
All interns attend an all-day orientation session. In this
session the basic ground rules are covered. The protocol is strict.
Interns are specifically instructed on how to dress, where they can and
cannot go, and most importantly the appropriate behavior when the
"principals" are p.resent. .
The White House is the. only place where the president is not a
celebrity. Interns are reminded that they are not to ''hang out" in halls
'they expect the.president to walk through or outside.rooms where he may be
meeting. They are absolutely not to ask for autographs. In short,
interns aree:icpected to act as any other staff merilber would.
Most interns .work in the Old Executive Office Building next door
to the White Hous'e: A few interns work in offices in West Wing I and
some who db not.ntay be grant=d a blue pass. A blue pass allows the.hoider
access to all non-residential areas :of the White House.
Consequently, most interns see the president only a handful of
times. He poses for a group picture with each intern session where he
thanks the interns for their hard work. Some interns may get to meet the
president personally, as I d{d when I accompanied a speechwrit.er to a
v{deotaping for an eyent the president could not attend in person .. Most
of the former.interns I spoke with agreed that we could not imagine an
intern having as much access to the president as Monica Lewsinky claims to
have had,
I ran errands to the West Wingfrequently, occassionally even to
the Oval Office .. Only on one or two occassions did I see the president,
and when I' went.to the Oval Office I certainly did not deliver documents
directly to him.
It is a joke among Washington intern circles that working at the
White House is exciting at first, and then its like working at the Post
Office. Naturally, as interns in many fields will attest, a considerable
portion of your work day is spent at the copy machine, the fax machine, or.
on the phone. If you work in speechwriting as I did, you get to know the
library pretty well, too.
However, your experience at the White House is really what you
make it. Some interns arrive at 9 a.m., go to lunch at noon, and head out
to see the sights at 5 p.m. I was there at 8 a.m., took lunch in the
cafeteria when I could get it' (Washington is too hot in the summer .to go
outside .anyway), and left when the rest of the office staff left, usually
around 8 p.m.
It was not unusual for our office to pull late nights working on
drafts of speeches. I knew it was going to be a late night when the
speechwriters would come back from a briefing with their Chinese food
orders ready. Some may groan to think of spending 15 hours at work, but
it was those nights that were the most exciting. In our office we knew
that the good- stuff happened aftcp b . p y
''--
---------.
.....
On one particularly long night, I sat in on a brainstorming
session for the President's commencement address at UC San Diego that
launched his race initiative. It was the sort of meetng I had read about
in Peggy Noonan's accounts of her years in the administration, but
to actually experience it was unforgettable. I left that night just in
time to catch the last train horne, not exhausted, but elated.
In return for my efforts I was entrusted with important tasks. I
was given' the opportunity to write some, edit, and research. I took pride
infinished speeches, and listened intently to every word the President
said. I worked with staff. members from many different offices on a
regular basis, arid was respected by those people as. if I .were a regular
employee. I occassionally had to handle minor crises single-handedly, but,
of course, those are the good stories. .
The White House staff, including the President, realize that
day-to-day operations wouldbe considerably more difficult if it were not
for the interns .. At the intern photo session this summer the president
told the story of how the interns kept the.place running when the
government was shut down and all non-essential employees were fuloughed.
. The program runs a speaker series for the interns with featured
speakers this summer inch.iding the director of. the Peace Corps and Defense
William Cohen. They organize tours of various monuments and
when possible arrange for interns to attend White House events. This .
summer I was privileged to attend the signing of the historic balanced
;budget agreement. All interns are invited to view the Fourth of July
fireworks over The Mall from the. South Lawh -.,. the be'st seats in town!
All this, despite the fact that most of us would do it without the
perks. And we_would definitely_do it aga:in.
Cokie Roberts reported a poll this weekend that said of
Americans would not want their 2l-year-old daughter to intern in the
Clintori White House if the opportunity. That's good news for those
Of -US who wouldhave to compete with their daughters, but unfortunate for
them. A White House internsh:Lp is the creme de la creme of political
internships, and it can be described as nothing less than the opportunity
of a lifetime.
==================== ATTACHMENT 1 ====================
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
RFC-822-headers:
Received: from conversion.pmdf.eop.gov by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.0-4 #6879)
id <01IT6XOJJDCWOOOWGC@PMDF. EOP. GOV> for waldman_mal. eop. gov; Wed,
04 i998 18:35:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from storm.eop.gov (storm.eop.gov)
by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.0-4 #6879) id <01IT6XOGNOPS007TCW@PMDF.EOP.GOV> for
Wed, 04 Feb 1998 18:35:l9 -0500 (EST)
Received: from gladstone.uoregon.edu ([128.223.l42.14])
by STORM.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.l-7 #6879)
with ESMTP id <0liT6WZW13RS001ESCSTORM.EOP.GOV> for waldrnan_m@al.eop.gov;
Wed, 04 Feb 1998 18:34:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (hleigh@localhost)
by gladstone.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA05453 for
<waldman_rn@al.eop.gov>; Wed, 04 Feb 1998 15:34:49 -0800 (PST)
END ATTACHMENT l ==================
COPY
"<- .::: : C c: iV .
/-:''
,
j
!--
' ' /
................... -.- ------- -,1 --------
CREATOR: Mark D. Neschis ( CN=Mark D. [ WHO ]
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-FEB-1998 15:56:33.00
SUBJECT: questions
TO: Michelle Crisci ( CN=Michelle Crisci/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [.WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Potential Newshour Questions
Margaret Warner, Interviewer
1. President. Clinton said today that he could not legally respond to some
of the questions posed at him today .... , legal analysts say there are no
laws that prevent him from talking publicly about the Lewinsky
matter ... how do you respond to this?
2. Do you think David Kendall case will go anywhere with the Attorney
General?
3. Are you directly accusing Starr of leaking?
4. The.press says they have to rely on these leaks because of stonewalling
from the White House ... what do you make of this?
. . .
5. The President didn't seem to want to comment on Mrs. Clinton's
aliegations of a right wing conspiracy ... who do you think is part of this?
6. Has the media been irresponsible?
7. Did the President's secretary retrieve anything from Monica Lewinsky?
8. Aren't both sides guilty of leaking here?
9. How do you respond to people who wonder why Monica Lewinsky was
cleared into the White House by Betty Currie 37 times?
10. What 'about those who say the President lied to the public when he
said he never had an affair with Gennifer Flowers?
11. Ken Starr says he is doing everything by the book .... do you have any
examples of where this has been breached?
12. Has the President's attorneys been in discussions with Mr. Ginsberg?
13. Did the President have a conversation about his deposition with Betty
Currie the day after the gave his Paula Jones deposition?
14. Will the President at any time be willing to publicly answer all
these allegations?
COPY
-- -. -- -------- - ,/ - ----
CREATOR: Ruby Shamir ( CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME:17-FEB-1998 09:08:05.00
SUBJECT: ABC: GMA, 2/17/98
TO: Sidney Blumenthal ( CN=Sidney Blumenthal/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Ann F. Lewis ( CN=Arui. F. Lewis/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
this looks quite good
---------------------- Forwarded by Ruby shamir/WHO/EOP on 02/17/98 09:07
AM ---------------------------
Dag Vega
02/17/98 08:54:37 AM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
. cc:
Subject:ABC: GMA, 2/17/98
ABC Good Morning America
Aired on FEBRUARY 17, 1998
Interview with MIKE LEIBIG, ATTORNEY FOR LEWIS_FOX
MCREE: For the first time, a member of the Secret Service will testify
before the grand jury investigating President Clinton's relationship with
former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Today retired Secret Service
officer Lew:ls Fox is expected to teil the panel about a day in the fall of
1995, a day when he says he ushered Lewinsky into the Oval Office.
Joining us now from Washington, Lewis Fox's attorney, Mike Leibig. He
is also the general counsel for the uniformed division of the Secret
Service Officers Association.
Good morning, Mr. Leibig.
LEIBIG: Good morning.
MCREE: What did your client see that day?
LEIB.IG: Well, you have to unders.tand what he saw.was more than. a year
past between the time he recalled what he saw and what he saw. But
basically when he was on duty near the Oval Office, he was given a message
that someone would be delivering some papers, A short time after that,
Monica Lewinsky, who he knew because she had worked in the White House
before and he was familiar with, arrived, and he directed her and ushered
her into the OvalOffice. He didn't actually go into the Oval Office
himself. He saw the president in the office and saw Ms. Lewinsky there.
And then from 20 to 40 minutes later she left. That's what he said.
MCREE: Now he can't guarantee the two were alone, but that was his best
assessment?
LEIBIG . I don't know. I w o u l ~ o PVS best assessment.
1[.i;:..:.\ ...
' <'
. -. J v). ',
/_..;)
I< ~
.........
------
\
(' \
0: \
:;;::
>r
~ /
\I
_ ............ - ......
He didn't anyone else at the time. He did not think anybody else was
there. But he could not see most of the Oval Office, and he couldn't see ..,. ,-.,;,_:,\Dt/v /
1
::
1
..
all the entrances and exits. He was not in charge of access to the Oval , --- --
.,/-c.'\ .( \
Office. /_'>. (' \
MCREE: So iri the last few days, as we've heard people saying that now i. )' 0 C..-\
he can't guarantee they were alone, he's really just being extracautious i'.i L
because he can't swear so what happened -- that other people may or may \I'L J '
not have left the room through other doors? ,,,) l '
LEIBIG: Right. I don't know if you could say he's being extracautious. '
I mean, he has to give sworn testimony 1 and he Is very conscientious to ",
make sure it's true.
It's kind of like the experience
to the dentist on the same day, but
Packers to get there.
(LAUGHTER)
of going to be on jury duty and going
you have to pass through the Green Bay
MCREE: Now, did he see her leave or did he not?
LEIBIG: Actually he doesn't recall. He doesn't think that he saw her
leave. He doesn't recall exactly you have to understand, again, there
was nothing unusual about this at all until more than
a year later when all the controversy arose.
So he doesn't remember actually seeing her leave, but he's fairly
certain of the timeframe.
MCREE: Because the first story was he left his post but doesn't
remember'usheringher out before he left his post.
LEIBIG: That's not inaccurate.
MCREE: It might have happened?
LEIBIG: To say it was a post -- he wasn't posted at the door. It was
just his-- his obligation was in the general area.
MCREE: I see.
LEIBIG: But, yes, that's possible--that he didn't actually.see her
leave, but he's certain that she left at about the time ...
MCREE: Now, there is another report that another Secret Service officer
has been subpoenaed. Do you happen to know if that is someone who relieved
him in his service that day in that general area of the White House?
LEIBIG: Actually, to my knowledge, I don't think that's true. It may be
that there was initially a plan to subpoena someone else. But to my
knowledge, no one else has been sUbpoenaed. And part of the arrangement,
as I understand it, between independent counsel and the Justice
Department is that as of now there is no plan for any other uniformed
division or pla{n-clothed officer to appear; Now that's my-- that's to
the best of my knowledge.
MCREE: Will testimony from -officers actually jeopardize the security of
the president? . . . .
LEIBIG: Absolutely. It's very -- for three reasons really. One is tliat
simply asking questions about the situation almost immediately approaches
questions about what the security arrangements at the White House are. And
neither Mr. Fox nor I think any other agent or uniformed division.member
would answer such questions. And I think that Mr. Starr has agreed that
they wouldn't ask such questions. .
'The second problem is that there's a need for co'nfidence between the
protectees and the people being protected. And the third problem is that
really the officers' purpose, their whole purpose and training, is to
remain in the background and pay attention to security issues but not
really-get involved or pay attention to much else. And all of those things
are put into question by this, and it's a difficult problem.
MCREE: All right. Mr. Leibig, thank you for being with us this morning.
Mike Leibig, Lewis Fox's attorney.
LEIBIG: Thank you.
END
COPY
---
tr
Message Sent
To:
ABE_RN __ A_T_H_Y __ P __ @_._A_l __ @ __ C_D __ @ __
ANDERSON L @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
Brenda M. Anders/WHO/EOP
BERNAL D @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
BLICKSTEIN J @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
COHEN SA @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
CRISCI M @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
EDWARDS A @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
EMANUEL R @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
ENGSKOV K @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
FINNEY K @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
GAINES J @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
GIBBONS J @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
GOLDBERG JS@ Al @CD@ LNGTWY
GREEN J @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
GUNIA D @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
HILLIARD B @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
HOLSTEIN E @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
HORWITZ R @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
KUKIS H @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
LEWIS PF @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY .
LI G @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
MARSHA T @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
MASON_J @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
MORAN Kl @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
.. MUSCATINE_ A @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
NAPLAN S @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
ODONNELL T @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
ROBINSON C @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
SCHAEFER V @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
SCHWARTZ L @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
SILVERMAN J @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
SPERLING G @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
STOTT_D @ Al @ CD @ .
TABERSKI D @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
TERZAN V @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
TOIV B @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
WALDMAN M @ Al @ CD @ LNGTWY
gamble-bennett @ dol.gov @ inet
Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP .
Jonathan Murchirison/WHO/EOP
Joseph P. Lockhart/WHO/EOP
Jake Siewert/OPD/EOP
Jordan Tamagni/WHO/EOP
Beverly J. Barnes/WHO/EOP
. Brian D. Smith/WHO/EOP
Elizabeth R. Newman/WHO/EOP
Julia M. Payne/WHO/EOP
Julianne B. Corbett/WHO/EOP
Jeffrey M. Smith/OSTP/EOP
June Shih/WHO/EOP
Lowell A. Weiss/WHO/EOP
Estela Mendoza/WHO/EOP
Jonathan A. Kaplari/OPD/EOP
Jonathan Orszag/OPD/EOP
COPY
"'
Thurgood Marshall Jr/WHO/EOP
Kara Gerhardt/WHO/EOP
Elisabeth Steele/WHO/EOP
Jennifer Ferguson/OMB/EOP
Mark D. Neschis/WHO/EOP
S. Parker/WHO/EOP
Matthew Fraidin/OVP @ OVP
David K.
Ruby Shamir/WHO/EOP
Nanda Chitre/WHO/EOP
Amy W. Tobe/WHO/EOP
Lawrence J; Haas/OMB/EOP
David S. Beaubaire/WHO/EOP
Lisa J. Levin/WHO/EOP
Peter A. Weissman/OPD/EOP
William A. Halter/OMB/EOP
Eli G. Attie/OVP @ OVP
Patricia M. Ewing/OVP @ OVP.
Sara M. Latham/WHO/EOP .
Melissa M. Murray/WHO/EOP
COPY
CREATOR: Michelle Crisci ( CN=Michelle Crisci/OU=WHO/O=EOP [WHO].)
. .
CREAriON DATE/TIME:27-FEB-1998 18:09:34.00
SUBJECT: questions
TO: Paul E. Begala ( CN=Paul E. Begala/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ]
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
just fyi if you want them
---------------------- Forwarded by Michelle Crisci/WHO/EOP on 02/27/98
05:50 PM ---------------------------
Mark D. Neschis
02/27/98 05:03:35 PM
Record Type:
Record
To: Michelle Crisci/WHO/EOP
cc:
Subject:questions
POTENTIAL QUESTIONS:
l. Do you deny that the White House ever has spread rumors about the
personal lives of Starr's prosecutors?
2. Mr., Clinton's polls seem to suggest that while many approve of his
job, they have questions concerning his character ... are you worried about
this?
3. One poll implied that a majority of Americans wouldn't want their kids
to grow up and be someone like President Clinton ... how do you respond to
this?
4. Doesn't the White House look bad on the Terry Lenzer issue?(After.
denying hiring a private investigator, the White House later said this
investigator wasn't looking into the private lives of these investigators)
5. When does the President plan on addressing these issues in front of the
American people? Do these high polls suggest he may never?
6. Should Ken Starr resign?
7. Five news agencies filed a motion in Federal District Court seeking to
make public arguments between the White House and the office of
Independent Counsel over the use of executive privelege ... should this be
open?
)
8. Many constitutional attorneys say its a stretch for the .White House to
claim executive privelege in this case ... what is your position?
9. You have said in ):he past that the President will cooperate in the
investigtion .. if the White House is spreading negative stories about
starr's prosecutors ..... is t h i s ~ ~ ~ ~
/\
11,'?
\
/
/ _; ;,,:::;..:; l G E. i\! i.>
10. Aren't your attacks on Starr an attempt just to change the subject
away from the gravity of hte charge's?

11. Recept polls suggest that a strong majority of folks surveyed feel . ) \,\.,\\.
that the President should not be impeached if he is found guilty of \ =-
charges .... what are your thoughts? '\17... C, . j; /
12. George Stephanopoulos has said in the past that the White House will
used "scorched earth" tactics if this case goes to the Hill .. what are
your thoughts?
13. If Ken Starr asks a White House official did . the President tell you
about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, how is that covered by
executive privelege?
14. Isn't is true that privatly you want Ken s.tarr not to step down,
because you would have no credible attack?
15. Aren't these fights over executive privelege and the Secret Service
agents just an attempt to prolong this trial?
16. There is a report that the President's attorneys were trying to
settle the Paula Jones case three weeks ago, right after the Lewinsky
story broke ... what do you know about this?
17. Vernon Jordan is scheduled to testify reports suggest
that he is trying to distance and insulate himself from the White
House.:.what are your thoughts?
COPY
7 \/
/
..
: ..
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO. SUBJECTffiTLE
AND TYPE
001. email Eleanor S. Parker to Paul Begala at 16:11:53.00. Subject: [none] (1
page)
002. email Dawn L. Smalls to Alex. wagner at 16:55:49.00. Subject: Re: how are
you?!! (1 page)
003. email !racy Pakulniewicz to Nicole Maffeo at 14:26:14.00. Subject: Re: I
made the Globe. (2 pages)
004. email Jeff.Osterroth@cerge.cuni.cz to Estela Mendoza at 12:47:02.00.
Subject: back in Prague. (2 pages)
005. email Michelle Crisci to Rahm I. Emanuel and Paul E. Begala at
20:12:12.00. Subject: q&a. (3 pages)
006. email Michelle Crisci to Michael Waldman at 13:29:29.00. Subject: updated
political q&a. (4 pages)
007. email Amy W. Tobe to Jennifer M. Palmieri and Stephanie S. Street at
10:06:33.00. Subject: Pox on CBS' house! I particularly love the lead-
in!! (1 page)
008. email Joseph P. Lockhart to Anthony J. Blinken, Lanny A. Breuer,
Crowley_P, Charles F. Ruff, and John Podesta at 11:25:07.00.
Subject: [none] (2 pages)
009. email Kenneth M. Urben to Ruby Shamir at 16:49:23.00. Subject: call. (I
page)
010. email Sidney Blumenthal to edepstein at 10:09:26.00. Subject: Re: Tripp.
page)
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[03118/1998 - 08/06/1998]
RESTRICTION CODES
(1
DATE
03/27/1998
04/02/1998
04/09/1998
04117/1998
04/29/1998
04/30/1998
05/06/1998
05/2711998
06/04/1998
07/06/1998
Presidential Records Act- (44 U.S.C. 2204(a)] Freedom of Information Act- (5 U.S.C. 552(b))
RESTRICTION
P5, P6/b(6}

P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P5
P5
P5
P5
P5
P5

'' s-<-t

o(;
13'5 +
2006-0319-F
ab893
PI National Security Classified Information ((a)(l) of the PRA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office ((a)(2) of the PRA]
PJ Release would violate a Federal statute ((a)(J) of the PRA]
b(l) National security classified information ((b)(l) of the FOIA]
an agency ((b)(2) of the FOIA]
financial information ((a)(4) of the PRA)
and his advisors, or between such advisors (a)(S) of the PRA]
personal privacy ((a)(6) of the PRA]
of gift.
2201(3).
b(J) Release would violate a Federal statute ((b)(J) of the FOIA]
information ((b)(4) of the FOIA]
personal privacy ((b)(6) of the FOIA]
purposes ((b)(7) of the FOIA]
financial institutions ((b)(8) of the FOIA]
concerning wells ((b)(9) of the FOIA]
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
011. email
012. email
013. email
014. email
Clinton Library
SUBJECTffiTLE
Sidney Blumenthal to Dacor at 11:16:48.00. Subject: Re: Greetings.
(1 page)
Sidney Blumenthal to Ed at '11 :21 :51.00. Subject: Re: re[2]: Trip. (1
page)
Philip C. Droege to cwhalen at 08:59:49.00. Subject: Re: Katie. (1
page)
Jon Peterman to Sarah R. Rozensky at 12:16:47.00. Subject: Re: So
how was your weekend? (1 page)
DATE
07/06/1998
07/06/1998
07/14/1998
07/15/1998
RESTRICTION
P5
P5
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
015. email Erin L. Brinkman to MBinLAGUNA at 12:56:37.00. Subject: Re: 07/20/1998 P5, P6/b(6) ,I Cc 0
016. email
017. email
018. email
019. email
020. email
News from home. (1 page)
Shanna P. Singh to Jim Miller at 19:59:07.00. Subject: Re: What a
long day. (1 page)
alison@jackson.house.gov to Caroline Washburn at 14:22:01.00.
Subject: Reply. (partial) (1 page)
alis<;m@jackson.house.gov to Caroline Washburn at 12:46:19.00.
Subject: Reply. (1 page)
Glenn Davis to Arkadi M. Gerney at 13:05:01.00. Subject: Re: Not
bad. (1 page)
Darby E. Scott to EABMc at 16:16:15.00. Subject: Re: Hey! (partial)
(1 page)
07/27/1998 P6/b(6)
07/28/1998 P6/b(6)
07/28/1998 P6/b(6)
07/29/1998 P6/b(6)
07/29/1998 P6/b(6)
021. email Sidney Blumenthal to Nina _Planck at 09:18:54.00. Subject: Re: hi. (1
page)
07/29/1998 P5 I SG:. l
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[03/18/1998 - 08/06/1998]
2006-0319-F
ab893
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- )44 U.S.C. 2204(a)J
PI National Security Classified Information J(a)(l) of the PRAJ
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office i(a)(2) of the. PRAJ
PJ Release would violate a Federal statute J(a)(J) of the PRAJ
financial information J(a)(4) of the PRAJ
and his advisors, or between such advisors Ja)(S) of the PRAJ
personal privacy J(a)(6) of the PRAJ
of gift.
2201(3).
Freedom of Information Act- IS U.S.C. 552(b)J
b(l) National security classified information J(b)(l) of the FOIAI
an agency J(b)(2) of the FOIAJ
b(J) Release would violate a Federal statute J(b)(J) of the FOIAJ
information J(b)(4) of the FOIAJ
personal privacy J(b)(6) of the FOIAJ
purposes ((b)(7) of the FOIAJ
financial institutions J(b)(8) of the FOIAJ
concerning wells ((b)(9) of the FOIA)
ARMS Email System Page 1 of I
CREATOR: Eleanor S. Parker ( CN=Eleanor S. Parker/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ]
CREATION DATE/TIME:27-MAR-199B 16:11:53.00
SUBJECT:
. . .
TO: PAUL (Pager) #BEGALA ( PAUL (Pager) #BEGALA [ UNKNOWN 1 )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
pls call Angie Cannon l\#61tBW65BI re: HRC & Lewinsky
COPY
f\..K.!Vl>::l Cllli:ill >:::1 y :SLI;;lll -
0
- - -
CREATOR: Michelle Crisci ( CN=Michelle Crisci/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
cREATION 20:12:12.00
SUBJECT: q&a
TO: Rahm I. Emanuel CN=Rahm I. Emanuel/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Paul E. Begala CN=Paul E. Begala/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Political Questions
Q: In recent days, Speaker Gingrich has made several very critical
comments about you and your Administration. He has said,"This is not
about sex, this is about law breaking," he has called your Administration
D&morally bankruptDB and suggested that you are engaged in a cover-up.
IsnD,t that even worthy of a response?
A: I must say I am more troUbled by the SpeakerD,s comments defending
cigarette ads that target kids than his comments attacking me. But I
canD.,t control what others say and do. I have D&learned some lessons the
hard wayOB, too, and one of them is that there will always be some, for
political reasons or whatever other reasons, who will criticize. My job
is, to the greatest extent I can, to rise above that
criticism and spend my time doing the work the American people hired me to
do.
Q: But the Speaker says he will mention your investigations in
every speech he gives as Speaker, and your press secretary says your
Administration canD,t work with the Speaker until he comes to his senses.
How are you going to get any work done with him?
A: I am committed to working in good faith with Members of Congress from
both parties. I know the calendar says this is an election year. But I
also want it to be a productive year. ID,m pleased that an overwhelming,
bipartisan majority of the Senate is coming together to support expanding
NATO for a new century. ID,m pleased to see that a bipartisan coalition
of House Members _.:. including nine Republicans -- have agreed to
co-'sponsor Congressman John DingellO, s health care bill of rights. We are
working with Members of both parties to adopt a uniform national standard
to crack down on drunk driving, and ID, m pleased that tough tobacco
legislation has passed the Senate Commerce Committee by a 19 to 1 vote.
We are making progress on a whole host of fronts, and I intend to do
everything within my power to continue that progress. There will be time
enough for politics later in the year.
Q: There has been talk that Ken Starr, is going to file a scathing
report on alleged high crimes and misdemeanors with the House of
Representatives. Some have already speculated that Speaker Gingrich wants
to see you impeached, and maybe even the Vice President as well. Do you
have faith the House can deal fairly with the allegations against you?
COPY
ARMS Email System .L a
0
,;, .<. U.L_J
A: That is exactly the kind of hypothetical question that I will
not waste one minute of my time on.
' ?);:. :3! D E1\.;

'j ,. ('\
Q: Since this is an election year, do you plan to campaign for
Democrats? What issues and themes should they run on?
. ::.; Ci I
c 7J
\I
'0 '") ]' /

that we are buiiding a record to be proud of -- from balancing' the budget ' \
1
to investing in education to saving Social Security. I also think ' /
Democrats will have a strong record to run on. As to whether I will
personally campaign for Democrats: thereO,s always the question of whether
it helps at all for the President to fly into someoneO,s district. But
I0,11 be proud to campaign for my party if we determine it would be
helpful to do so.
Q: Your former chief strategist, Dick Morris, has written some
rather remarkable things about you recently not the least of which is
an accusation that you and your campaign aides used private investigators
. as a O&secret police08 to spy on and intimidate your political adversaries
and women who have been linked to you. How do you respond?
A: Wild accusations like that are not true, IO, ve known Mr. Morris
.for a long time, and heD, s been through enough pain in his life. IO,m not
going to add to it.
Q: Mr .. President I Susan McDougal has recently completed 18 months
in prison for contempt, and is facing another potentially long stretch.
There are rumors your friend Webb Hubbell, and perhaps his wife, will be
indicted again soon. Your wife has been compelled to testify five times
under oath, and is rumored to be a target of the federal grand jury. And
just yesterday a federal judge ruled that Monica Lewinsky may face
indictment if she refuses to testify about her relationship to you. When
you look at the human toll these investigations of you are taking on other
people, how does that make you feel?
A: I donD,t like it, and I donD,t think the American people like it. It
hurts innocent people, it scares good people away from public service, and
it hurts the country. That is why I think the American people have spoken.
out so strongly against this ki.nd of practice. There is no doubt the
politics of personal destruction exacts a hig_h. toll -- and it is both a
tragedy and a travesty when good people are caught up in the seemingly
endless cycle of attacks.
Q: But you could end all of this if you would just speak out --
follow the advice of Leon Panetta and George Stephanopoulos and O&come
clean.Os
A: I have spoken out and I have addressed these issues truthfully. But I
cannot control what others do or say. I am determined to spend my time
working on issues that affect the lives of the American people, rather
then spend a lot of time focused on other matters.
Miscellaneous
'
COPY
. ARMS Email System
Q: Should insurance companies be required to cover Viagra?
A: Most policies today cover prescription drugs that are viewed to be
O&medically necessary.08 It is my understanding that Viagra is generally
prescribed as medically necessary, and so would be covered in those
cases. As a general matter, there should be very careful deliberation
before the government moves to make that determination for any given drug.
- Q: But wouldnO, t it be unfair to cover Viagra, in light of the
fact that many policies do not now cover birth control pills?
A: The decision to require coverage for any particular drug should be
carefully considered. The question is whether the denial of coverage
creates problems of real access to needed medications. Before we proceed
in this area we should make sure that the need justifies governmental
intervention.
COPY
rage: " u1 j
ARMS Email System r 1 u.1
CREATOR: Michelle Crisci ( CN=Michelle Crisci/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME:30-APR-1998 13:29:29.00
SUBJECT: updated political q&a
TO: Michael Waldman ( CN=Michael Waldman/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] .)
READ : UNKJ:i!OWN
TEXT:
---------------------- Forwarded by Michelle Crisci/WHO/EOP on 04/30/98
. 0 1-: 0 6 PM - - - - - - - - .:_ - '- - - - - - - - - - - - -' c. - - -
Paul E. Begala
04/30/98 09:23:50 AM
Record Type: Record
To: Michelle Crisci/WHO/EOP, Rahm I. Emanuel/WHO/EOP, Cheryl D.
Mills/WHO/EOP
cc:
Subject:updated political
Political Questions
Updated 9:15 am
Q: In recent days, Speaker Gingrich has made several veiy critical
commentsabout you and your Administration. He has said "This is not
about sex, this is about law breaking," he has called your Administration
O&morally bankrupt08 arid suggested that you are engaged in a cover-up.
IsnO,t that even worthy of a response?
A: I must say I am more troubled by the SpeakerO,s comments defending
cigarette ads that target kids than his comments attacking me. But I
canO,t control what others say and do. I have O&learned some lessons the
hard way08, .too, and one of them is that there will always be some, for
political reasons or whatever other reasons, who will criticize. My job
as President is, to _the greatest extent I can, to above that
criticism and spend my time doing the work the American people hired me to
do.
Q: But the Speaker says be .will mention your investigations in
every speech he gives as Speaker, and your press secretary says your
Administration canO,t work with the Speaker until he comes to his senses.
How are you going to get any work done with him?
A: I am committed to working in good faith with Members of Congress from
both parties. I know the calendar says this is an election year. But I
also want it to be a productive year. IO, m pleased that an overwhelming,
bipartisan majority of the Senate is coming together to support-expanding
NATO for a new century. IO,m pleased to see that a bipartisan coalition.
of House Members -- including nine Republicans -- have agreed to
co-sponsor Congressman John of rights. We are
...
ARMS Email System rage Lor<+
\ .
working with Members of both parties to adopt a uniform national standard

..'.-._.,::,''.(
We are making progress on a whole host of fronts, and I intend to do . .
everything within my power to continue that progress. There will be ..
enough for politics later in the year. ;r __J . -
:, .. , <-; !''
Q: There has been talk that Ken Starr is going to file a scathing
report on alleged high crimes and misdemeanors with the House of
Representatives. Some have already speculated that Speaker Gingrich wants
to see you impeached, and maybe even the Vice President as well. Do you
have faith the House can deal fairly with the allegations against you?
A:. That is exactly the kind of hypothetical question that I will
not waste.one.minute of my time on.
Q: Since this is an election year, do you plan to campaign for
Democrats? Do you think your party can recapture the Congress? What
issues. and themes should they run on?
A: Before we begin running campaigns, I think both parties should
make sure they have something to run o:ri. I will say on behalf of my party
that we are building a record to be proud of -- from balancing the budget
to investing in education to saving Social.Security. I also think
Democrats will have a strong record to run on. As to whether I will
personally campaign for Democrats: thereO,s always the question of whether
it helps at all for the President to fly into someoneO,s district. But
IO,ll be proud to campaign for my party if we determine it would be
helpful to do so.
\,
Q: Sen. Bob Kerrey, in today's Boston Globe, calls the,Democratic National
Committee "a wholly-owned subsidiary of the White House," saying "it's not
even an arm'" of .the White House, "it's. two arms, two legs and the whole
body, all the moving parts." He also criticized the DNC's paying $3250 a
month for "a psychologist for sorting out the Vice President's shop." How
do you respond?
A: Our party has made great progress in the last few years -- generating
more grassroots support and enthusiasm than we have seen in a long time.
I believe the Democratic Party today is both more united and more in the
mainstream than the. other party. There will always be a healthy,
tension in the party, butI am working with Sen. Kerrey, who is running
.the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, as well as those running the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, to do all we can to have a
united and successful party going into the elections. But the most
important thing we can do for the party is to continue to bu.ild on our
record of achievement and accomplishment.
Q: Your former chief strategist, Dick Morris, has written some
rather remarkable things about you recently -- not the least of which is
an accusation that you and your campaign aides used private investigators
as.a O&secret police08 to spy on and intimidate your political adversaries
and women who have been linked to you. How do you respond?
A:
for a
Wild accusations like that are not true. IO,ve known Mr.
long time, and heO,s been his life.
Morris
ID,m not
\"'
.:;:./
.-f' /

. ;-'
...
ARMS Email System .Page j or 4
going to add to it.
--':."lo
..
j
... , .. _
Q: Mr. President, Susan McDougal has recently completed 18 months
.in prison for contempt, and is facing another potentially long stretch.
There are rumors your friend Webb Hubbell, and perhaps his wife, will be
indicted again soon. Your wife has been compelled to testify five times
under oath, and is rumored to be a target of the federal grand jury. And
just yesterday a federal judge ruled that Monica Lewinsky may face
indictment if she refuses to testify. about her relationship-to you. When
you look at the human toll these investigations of you are taking on other
people, how does that make you feel?
A: I donO,t like it, and I donD,t think the American people like it. It
hurts innocent people, it scares good people away from public service, and
. it hurts the country. That is why .I think the American people have spoken
out so strongly against this kind of practice. There is no doubt the
politics of personal dest;n.iction exacts a high toll -- and it is both a
tragedy and a travesty when good people are caught up in the seemingly
endless cycle of attacks.
Q: But you could end all of this if you would just speak out --
follow the advice of Leon Panetta and George Stephanopoulos and D&come
clean.DB After all, you did promise ;'more rather than less, sooner rather
. than later." And now we are on Day 100 of this scandal and you still have
refused to answer our questions. ;
'(' ; ~ '2. ~ : (.._; c-:; 1; /;.,.,,
I .
A: I have spoken outand I have addressed these issues truthfully. But I
cannot control what others do or say: I am determined to spend my time
working on issues that affect the lives of the American people, rather
then spend a.lot of time focused on other matters.
Miscellaneous
Q: Should insurance companies be required to cover Viagra?
A: Most policies today cover prescription drugs that are viewed to be
D&medically necessary.DB It is my understanding that Viagra is generally
prescribed as medically necessary, and so would be covered in those
cases. As a general matter, there should be very careful deliberation
before the government moves to make that determination for any given drug .
. Q: But wouldnD,t it be unfair to cover Viagra, in ight of the
fact that many policies do not now cover birth control pills?
A: The decision to require coverage for any particular drug should be
carefully considered. The question is.whether the denial of coverage
creates problems of real access to needed medications. Before we proceed
in this area we should make sure that the need justifies governmental
intervention.
COPY
..
'!.ARMS Email System
cop.y
,...-:
// ,'
. )
' ......
':
Page 4 cit 4
ARMS Email System
[oc;'t]
Page 1 of 1
CREATOR: Amy W. Tobe ( CN=Amy W. Tobe/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-MAY-1998 10:06:33.00
SUBJECT: Pox on CBS' house! I particularly love the lead-in!!
TO: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Stephanie S. Streett ( CN=Stephanie S. Streett/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Q It's so wonderful when a mother's. love is
translated to her son, and you to the country. Thank you for sharing
her.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Q In life and now, after. Thank you, Mr. Clinton.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
~
Q If you will forgive me and permit me now, one
further question. There's been a development in the Monica Lewinsky
obstruction of justice claim. The judge has denied your claim of
executive privilege. Do you feel like this is going to alter your
case a great deal, or how does it affect you?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, today I really don't think I
should discuss it, but -- I just don't think this is the right forum.
And surely there will be other opportunities for people to say
whatever they have to say about that.
Q My apologies.
THE PRESIDENT: It's okay.
Q It's that journalist thing and breaking that.
Sorry.
END
7:20 P.M. EDT
M
COPY
.... ARMS Email System
CREATOR: Joseph P. Lockhart ( CN=Joseph P. Lockhart/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME:27-MAY-1998 11:25:07.00
.SUBJECT:
TO: Antony J. Blinken ( CN=Antony J. Blinken/OU=NSC/O=EOP @ EOP [ NSC ] )
READ : UNKN'OWN
TO: Lanny A. Breuer ( CN=Lanny A. Breuer/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO l )
READ : UNKN'OWN
TO: CROWLEY P
READ : UNKN'OWN
CROWLEY P @ Ai @ CD @ VAXGTWY [ UNKN'OWN ] ) (NSC)
TO: Charles F. Ruff ( CN=Charles F. Ruff/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ : UNKN'OWN
TO: John Podesta
READ : UNKN'OWN
TEXT:
CN=John Podesta/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
Jeff Gerth called this morning with a series of follow up questions on the
documents ~ released last Friday. He and John Broder are looking for
answers by. tomorrow. We need to decide how and who will be answering
these questions.
I. The waivers are granted in part as incentive for the Chinese for
non-pr_oliferad .. on. We are looking for specifics ... what we're we hoping
for with this waiver? What did we get? We've been trying to get the
Chiriese to join the Missisle control technology regime -- is this part of
that effort?
The Bush waivers contrast with the Clinton waivers. The information
justifying the waivers sent to the Hill seem to get less and less 'specific
in nature. Are they .less specific and has the Clinton Administration
moved away from the specific non:..proliferatiori elements seen in the Bush
Waivers?
II. We have articulated that it is unfair to penalize Loral before there
has been an indictment. Doesn't the waiver process .presume not granting a
liscence? We further argue that it has been the policy of.past
administration's to deny a waiver short of indcitment. Doesnit Section 38
of the Arms Export Administration Act say an indictment or reasonable
cause that a violation of the statute had occurred. Don't the documents
reveal that at the very least Mr. Lowell felt that there was reasonable
cause that a violation has occurred? Further aren't there examples in
previous administrations of waivers being denied --i.e. Dutch company
Delft?
III. On the issue of competitiveness, can you explain with more detail
why it helps.U.S. companies to be competitive by granting waivers? Was
the only issue here the penalties incurred by Loral? Some argue, that
doing business with the. Chinese is ~ money loser -- the winners are those
who lose in the bidding process. Daimler Benz won a contract in 1993 and
now says they can't make money because the Chinese want too much
technology. Is this really about competitiveness?
COPY
ragt: 1 u1 L.
/
... ARMS Email System
IV. Bernard Schwartz says there was a delay on Loral's waiver was in part
due to a distraction at the White House.' Was this related to the Monica
Lewinsky investigation?
v. We've reported that the Defense Dept. concluded that Loral had shared
information that harmed the national security of the United States. Why
was none of this info available in the decision memo. to the President?
. .
Shouldn't the President been made aware of DOD's findings?
VI. Why were there two tracks of Justice between the White House and
Justice. Mr. Litt says Ruff never explicitly asked for Justice's view on
the waiver. Someone was also talking to Mark Richard. Who .was that and
why? And why did RU:ff only seem to get involved near the end of the
process?
COPY
ri:lgt: L. u1 L.
'
('. \
./ '
c::: \
:;c:
>I
:.:: I
\j
AKM:S .t.mall :::>ystem
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Kenneth M. Urben ( CN=Kenneth M. Urben/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ]
CREATION DATE/TIME: 4-JUN-1998 16:49:23.00
. SUBJECT: call
TO: Ruby Shamir ( CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Freitag V. Freitag on Monday June, 9. About a kid suing his mother. He was
convinced by some right.wing person to sue his mom. Thought it would help
with the Lewinsky case.
Her name was Pat and wouldn't leave her last name. She sai.d she "is calling
from Capital Hill at 488-9280. She sounded like a nut, but I here's the
message nonetheless.
COPY
.?
: .... -
ARMS tmall system J. u.sv .L V.L .L
CREATOR: Sidney Blumenthal ( CN=Sidney Blumenthal/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JUL-1998 10:09:26.00
SUBJECT: Re: Tripp
TO: Ed <edepstein
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Ed <edepstein @ .worldnet.att.net> [ UNKNOWN ] )
Tripp was .a witness at the Senate Whitewater hearings, offering testimony
on Vince Foster, testimony of little if nil value. It was through that
experience that she had her first contacts with Starr. She knows nothing
about Whitewater. With the Hubbell ruling and the release of Susan
-MacDougal--and, most importantly, the disbandment of the Whitewater grand
.jury in Little Rock--Whitewater is closed. The end result: no indictment
of Hillary; no indictment of the President. And what remains is the
investigation by Michael Shaheen, the new special counsel, into the
tampering of David Hale, the only "witness" against the.President, by
agents of Scaife operating with the possible cooperation of Starr's
office. In other words, Whitewater has concluded . ..ri.th an investigation
into Starr's irivestigatiori. Tripp is in fact nota witness to anything.
All she has is hearsay. But she.is the recipient, according to her account
and Starr's, of t.he talking points, which have been touted by Newsweek
(Isiko.ff, a coconspirator) as the proof of Lewinsky's of
. perjury. But what if Tripp initiated the talking points and they went back
and forth between computers? Tripp would be a liar, a worthless witness
and open to prosecution herself for lying to FBI inves.tigators.
COPY
---.-
/
AKlV!;) crnau ~ y s l v l l l
CREATOR: Sidney Blumenthal ( CN=Sidney Blumenthal/OU=WHO/O=EOP
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JUL-1998 11:16:48.00
SuBJECT: Re: Greetings
TO: Dacor ( Dacor@ aol.com
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
UNKNOWN ] )
WHO ] )
.:f--
z
I'm sure Starr wishes he had quit when he said he was going to quit: Do
you want to do a story about Lucianne Goldberg? She was sued about ten
years ago by Kitty Kelley for stealing a lot of money from her. Lucianne
was her agent and made off with more than $20,000. It went to trial and
Lucianne lost and was forced to pay back all the stolen lucre. Do you want
Kitty's phone number? I think she'd talk on background. Also, Luciann'e
other clients, besides Linday Tripp, included Mark Fuhrman arid Gary
Aldrich. She was trying to sell a Vince Foster conspiracy book by Fuhrman.
Question: Did Lucianne arrange for Tripp to speak with Fuhrman about
setting up.her taping apparatus or other matters? Tripp and Aldrich had a
prior relationship. Did he assis.t her. in ariy way? More: Lucianne was on
Larry King iast week andsaid that Tripp's tape recorder was voice
activated. Who else, besides Lewinsky, was taped by Tripp and what
happened to those tapes?
COPY
ARMS Email System .rage 1 or 1
CREATOR: Sidney Blumenthal ( CN=Sidney Blumenthal/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ]
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JUL-1998 11:21:51.00.
SUBJECT: Re: re[2]: Tripp
TO: Ed UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
But ~ h t if the FBI has also established that the talking points are not
only. in Lewinsky's computer but also Tripp is? . . .
Newsweek, this week, finally acknowledges that Tripp got her lawyer, James
Moody, .through Jones I lawyers- -namely r George Conway r who brought the tape
to Newsweek and who, in my view, is the source for leaking it to Drudge
after Newsweek wouldn't run with it in deference to Starr.
Starr's role in the talking points may well to be encourage Tripp to hand.
them over to provide a point of coercion over Lewinsky. Ironically, the
talking points do not suborn perjury. They can be read as encourag{ng
Tripp to tell the truth about Willey. Only if you believe Willey's account
(Tripp herself is a doubter) is the talking points document about perjury.
COPY
..
ARMS Eriiail S stem
. . . y
RECORD TYPE :t' PRESIDENTIAL
(NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Erin L. Brinkman ( CN=Erin L. Brinkman/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
. CREATION DATE/TIME:20-JUL-1998 12:56:37.00
SUBJECT: Re: News from home.
TO: MBinLAGUNA ( MBinLAGUNA @ aol. com [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Hey Mamula,
I It' s so weird., I'm watching CNN right now and they're talking
about Betty testifying, and whether she knows what went on, if anything.
Poor Betty .. if anything .did happen, she definitely didn't know about it.
About the ngifts" that she accepted for the president from Lewinsky:
Betty's job (.one of the many) is to collect all the gifts .the president
receives and then give them to.her intern (me now) for cataloguing and
sending to Rm. 457 of the OEOB. She's such a sweetheart, and they're
making her testify again next week. Ken Starr is such a bastard ...
. Hope work is going well,
--Erin Louise:-)
--.)""
' .. ....
rr ..
COPY
Page 1 ofl
_ ..

/ __-,
,:: .....
)
)
I
ARMS Email System 1 u1 1
CREATION DATE/TIME:29-JUL-1998 09:18:54.00
_'.-:-.
'J

. .,.
SUBJECT: Re: hi
TO: Nina Planck
READ: UNKNOWN
Nina Planck @ timeinc. com @ INET @ LNGTWY [ UNKNOWN ] )
TEXT:
Day Two and it's not bad at all. On the contrary, it turns out Tripp
prodded Lewinsky into writing the talking points.
COPY
_o#_....

Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO. SUBJECT!fiTLE DATE RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. email Julianne B. Corbett to Lori L. Anderson at 10:40:21.00. Subject: Re: 08/07/1998 P6/b(6)
But of course! (7 pages)
002. email James Thomas to Key C. German at 10:28:49.00. Subject: Excerpts 08/10/1998 P6/b(6)
from Christina. (1 page)
003. email Julianne B. Corbett to Jwatts and kstamme at 17:49:52. Subject: Silk 08/11/1998 P6/b(6)
Stalkings? (4 pages)
004. email Robert Lowe to Neal Sharma at 16:01:03.00. Subject: Re: your mail. 08/1711998 P6/b(6)
(1 page)
005. email Lindsey. Tonia to comments at 20:03:00.00. Subject: Bravo, President 08/2011998 P6/b(6)
Clinton!!! (partial) (1 page)
006. email Barbara Tucker to Mindy E. Myers at 14: 19:50.00. Subject: 08/21/1998 P5
Statement. ( 1 page)
007. email jimg@nothinbut.net to Key C. German at 17:53:31.00. Subject: Re: 09/01/1998 P6/b(6)
info. (1 page)
008. email Matthew W. Pitcher to dakota700, kelaher, and mike at 08:46:01.00. 09/04/1998 P6/b(6)
Subject: more ramblings. (1 page)
009. email jeremy@greenbergresearch.com to Steven J. Naplan at 17:02:42.00. 09/04/1998 P6/b(6)
Subject: Re: do you remember. .. ? (3 pages)
010. email mike to Matthew W. Pitcher at 09:06:38.00. Subject: Fw: more 09/04/1998 P6/b(6)
displays of idiocy ... (2 pages)
011. email jscatchell@thehartford.com to OLCOTT at 14:29:00,00. Subject: Re: 09/05/1998 P6/b(6)
address. (2 pages)
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[08/07/1998 - 09/22/1998]
2006-0319-F
ab894
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
PI National Security Classified Information [(a)(l) of the PRAI
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRAI
P3 Release would a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRAI
financial information l(a)(4) of the PRAI
PS Release would disclose confidential advice betWeen the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(S) of the PRAI
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
of gift.
2201(3).
Freedom of Information Act- [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
b(l) National security classified information [(b)(l) of the FOIAI
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIAI
information l(b)(4) of the FOIAI
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIAI
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIAI
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIAI
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIAI
I II : I . I I : r I I
-'
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
OI2. email
Clinton Library
SUBJECTffiTLE
Maureen T. Shea to Nancy V. Hemreich at 12:54:09.00. Subject:
[invite] (I page)
DATE
09/08/I998
RESTRICTION
P6/b(6)
OI3. email Maria E. Soto to Mickey Ibarra at 2I :55:09.00. Subject: Re: IGA
Outreach. (2 pages)
09/08/I998 P5
ts<b'S
OI4. email
OI5. email
Daniel S. Holt to mercy meier at 08:35:57.00. Subject: Re: (F:.vd)
Lewinsky (fwd). (I page)
Kyle Baker to Matthew W. Pitcher at 09:58:30.00. Subject: Re:
Request. (2 pages)
09/09/I998 P6/b(6)
09/IO/I998 P6/b(6)
OI6. email Maureen T. Shea to Jay Litner at 18:23:06.00. Subject: Re: Rebuttal
Documents. (4 pages)
09/II/I998 P5
\'3 ~ - /
017. email Emor L. Mayfield to Alan Salazar et al. at I7:06: I 0.00. Subject:
[none) (2 pages)
09/I2/I998 P5
\'SL6\
OI8. email Christine A. Stanek to Minyon Moore at I8:2I :47.00. subject: Attack
media irreponsibility. (I page)
09/I4/I998 P5
\3 ~ ( b
OI9. email
020. email
021. email
022. email
COLLECTION:
Douglas R. Matties to Virginia Appuzo, Michael D. Malone, Ashley
L. Raines; Antoinette D. Marchette, Brooks E. Scoville and Kelli R.
McClure at I6:56:2I.OO. Subject: Pretty Good. (2 pages)
Tindresa@us:oracle.com to rmelley at 13:39:00.00. Subject: Re: Sure
we do. (3 pages)
Wiker F. Base to bsmith at I5:23: I7.00. Subject: ebony_& ivory. (2
pages)
D. WYNNE@conservation.org to [list] at I9: 13: I5.00. Subject: Re:
Linda Tripp Look-A-Like Contest Update. (4 pages)
Clinton Presidential Recor.ds
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[08/07/I998- 09/22/I998]
RESTRICTION CODES
09/I6/I998
09116/I998
09/I8/I998
09/I8/I998
Presidential Records Act -144 U.S.C. 2204(a)J Freedom of Information Act- JS U.S.C. 552(b))
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
2006-0319-F
ab894
PI National Security Classified Information J(a)(l) of the PRAI
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office )(a)(2) ofthe PRA)
PJ Release would violate a Federal statute l(a)(J) of the PRAJ
b(l) National security classified information J(b)(l) of the FOIAJ
financial information J(a)(4) of the PRA)
and his advisors, or between such advisors Ja)(S) of the PRAJ
personal privacy J(a)(6) or the PRAJ
or gift.
2201(3).
an agency J(b)(2) of the FOIA)
b(J) Release would violate a Federal statute J(b)(J) of the FOIAI
information J(bX4) of the FOIAJ
personal privacy J(b)(6) of the FOJA)
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for Jaw enforcement
purposes J(b)(7) of the FOIA)
financial institutions J(b)(8) of the FOIAI
concerning wells )(b)(9) of the FOIAI
I I II ' I I I I I I I
Clinton Library
AND TYPE
023. email Kevin Medwedeffto [list] at 19:14:17.00. Subject: Linda Tripp Look- 09/1811998 P6/b(6)
A-Like Contest Update. (3 pages)
024. email Maureen T. Shea to womnelca@elca .org et al. at 13:53:40.00. 09/21/1998 P5
'3co ":t-
Subject: Talking Points. (2 pages)
025. email Michael V. Terrell to Heather M. Riley at 10:48:54.00. Subject: 09/2111998 P5 Is e:, t
Kamen press guidance (1 page)
026. email John A. Koskinen to matt at 11:57:57.00. Subject: One More Answer. 09/2111998 . P6/b(6)
(partial) ( 1 page)
027. email DMILES@carramerica.com to Timothy W. Emrich at 16:27:37.00. 09/21/1998 P6/b(6)
Subject: heres another one. (1 page)
028. email Eschnurer@aol.com to Aniy A. Hickox at 10:11:18.00. Subject: 09/2211998 P6/b(6)
Democratic strategy. (3 pages)
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[08/0711998 - 09/2211998)
2006-0319-F
ab894
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- 144 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
PI National Security Classified Information [(a)(l) of the PRAJ
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRAJ
financial information ((a)(4) of the PRAJ
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(S) of the PRA]
of gift.
2201(3).
Freedom of Information Act- IS U.S.C. SS2(b)]
b(l) National security classified information l(b)(l) of the FOIA]
an agency l(b)(2) of the FOIAl
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute l(b)(3) of the FOIA]
information l(b)(4) of the FOIA]
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA[
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
ARMS Emall system .1. u.sv VL ...
CREATOR: "Tucker, Barbara"
{ "TUcker, Barbara"
[ UNKNOWN ]
CREATION DATE/TIME:21-AUG-1998 14:19:50.00
SUBJECT: Statement
TO: Mindy E. Myers { CN=Mindy E. Myers/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Ellen's statement.
>
>''I am deeply disappointed in the President's admission last evening, and
>terribly saddened for his family. The President was wrong to mislead the
>American people about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
>
> If the Independent Counsel sUbmits a report to Congress, I hope
that he does
>SO in an expeditious manner .. As a member.of the House, I will in effect
sit
>as a potential grand juror in the House of Representatives. It is my job
as
>a member of congress to make a sober examination of the facts presented in
>the potential Independent Counsel's report to Congress.
>
> As we face the possibility of an imminent constitutional crisis,
we should
>resist engaging .in ceaseless speculation and partisan political
rhetoric. I
>believe I must represent my constituents through this process with
civility
>and responsibility.
>
> I believe the American people want to move-beyond this
unfortunate episode
>and have their elected officials in Washington focus on doing our jobs for'
>OUr constituents and the nation," Tauscher stated.
>
COPY
~ . ..:.--
-- \
~ ~ \
;::
;_;
-,-
,,.
,.
I
I
I
' ... ARMS Email System
CREATOR: Maria E. Soto ( CN=Maria E. Soto/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-SEP-1998 21:55:09.00
SUBJECT: Re: IGA Outreach
TO: Mickey Ibarra ( CN=Mickey Ibarra/OU=WHO/O=EOP @.EOP [WHO] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Mickey you sent the below e-mail to Elisabeth Stein not Larry Stein. She
is not iist so I don't know what office she works at. I called the
operator but she doesn't have her listed either. Thanks!
Mickey Ibarra
09/07/98 01:20:24 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc: Jessica L. Gibson/WHO/EOP, Maria E. Soto/WHO/EOP, Fred DuVal/WHO/EOP,
Lynn G. Cutler/WHO/EOP
Subject:IGA outreach
I spoke to Gov. Glendening, Mayor Kurt Schmoke, and PG County Executive
Wayne Curry yesterday. The Governor expli:1.iried why. he felt he needed to
distance himself from the President. I delivered our message (it does not
help any of us to pile on) . I also let him know that Schmoke and Curry are
furious with him for his actions on this and any hope of getting those two
on board with his race were lost at least until after the primary Sept.
15. He said he would call the President this week to explain.
Both Schmoke and Curry remain fully supportive of the President, .would
like tohost an event with him, agreed to call both Mulkulski and
Sarbanes. I heard a lot of."I told you so" from both. Neither expect him
to win in November.
Turning to Texas; today I spoke to Mayor Watson of Austin. He agreed last
week to my request to contact Doggett. They spoke at length today. Doggett
expects the Dem Caucus to express lots of different views this week.
Doggett has great concern that while he is safe for reelection, this issue
could cause great harm to the Dem Party candidates in November unless the
Congress addresses the matter before it adjourns. He wants Starr to
include all of the matters he was charged with investigating in his
report, not just the Lewinsky matter. Doggett intends to chose his words
carefully and to stear a middle course. He thinks Dingel has it right. I
will share an article from Austin quoting Doggett that the Mayor is faxing
me. Doggett says he is not hearing a lot about it in his district.
Message Sent
T o ~ ~ ~
Elisabeth M. Stein/WHO/EOP
COPY
~ A R M S Email System
Tracey E. Thornton/WHO/EOP
Janet Murguia/WHO/EOP
Charles M. Brain/WHO/EOP
Craig T. Smith/WHO/EOP
COPY
t'age Lot L
-.,
....____ ~
RECORD TYPE= .PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Maureen T. Shea ( CN=Maureen T. Shea/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME:11-SEP-1998 18:23:06.00
SUBJECT: Re: Rebuttal Documents
TO: JAY LINTNER <lintnerj ( JAY .LINTNER <lintnerj @ ucc.org> [ UNKNOWN ]
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
We are all hopeful that this morning's remarks will begin an important
healing process for all of us - thank you for your kind thoughts.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Summary of Key Points of the President's Case in Anticipation of the Starr
Report
1. The President has acknowledged a serious mistake 0) an inappropriate
relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He has taken responsibility for his
actions, and he has apologized to the country, to his friends, leaders of
his party, the' cabinet and most importantly, his family.
1. This private mistake does not amount to an impeachable action. A
relationship outside oneD,s marriage is wrong 0) and the President admits
that. It is not a high crime or misdemeanor. The Constitution
specifically states that Congress shall impeach only for O&treason,
or other high crimes and misdemeanors.D8 These words in the
Constitution were chosen with great care, and after extensive
deliberations .
. 2. "High crimes and misdemeanors" had a fixed meaning tothe Framers of
our Constitution 0) it meant wrongs committed against our system .of
government. The impeachment clause was designed to protect our country
against a President who was using his official powers against the nation,
against the American people, against our society. It was never designed
to allow a political body to force a President from office for a very
personal mistake.
3. Remember D) this report is based entirely on allegations obtained by
grand jury 0) reams and reams allegations and purported O&evidence08
that would never be admitted in court, that never seen by the
President or his lawyers, and that was not subject to cross-examination or
any other traditional safeguards to ensure its credibility.
4. Grand juries are not designed to search for truth. They do not and a
not intended to ensure credibility, reliability, or simple fairness. They
only exist to accuse. Yet this is the process that the Independent
Counsel has chosen to provide the "evidence" to write his report.
5. The law defines perjury very clearly. Perjury requires proof that a
individual knowingly made a false statement while under oath. Answers to
questions that are literally true are not perjury. Even if an answer
doesnD,t directly answer the question asked, it is not perjury if it is
true 01 no accused has an obligaC tOpP yer. Answers to
..
fundamentally ambiguous questions also can never be perjury. 'And nobody
can be convicted of perjury based on only one other personD,s testimony.
6. The President did not commit perjury. Most of the illegal
suggesting his testimony was,, perjurious falsely describe his testimony.
First of all, the President never testified in theJones deposition that
he was not alone with Ms. Lewinsky. The President never testified that
his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky was the same as with any other intern.
To the contrary, he admitted .exchanging gifts with her, knowing about her
job search, receiving cards and notes from her, and knowing other details
of her personal life that made it plain he had a special relationship with
her.
7. The President has admitted he had an improper sexual relationship wi
Ms. Lewinsky. In a civil deposition, he gave narrow answers to ambiguous
questions. As a inatter of law, those answers could not give rise to a
criminal charge of perjury. In the face of the President's admission of
his relationship, the disclosure of lurid and salacious allegations can
only be intended to humiliate the President and force him from office.
. 8. There was no obstruction of justice. We believe Betty Currie testifi
that Ms. Lewinsky asked her to hold the gifts and that the President never
talked to her about the gifts. The President admitted giving and
receiving gifts from Ms. Lewinsky whm he was asked about it. The
President never asked Ms. Lewinsky to get rid of the gifts and he never
asked Ms. Currie to get them. We believe that Ms. CurrieD,s testimony
supports the PresidentD,s.
9. The President never tried to get Ms. Lewinsky a job after she left t
White House in order to influence her testimony in the Paula Jones case.
The President knew Ms. Lewinsky was unhappy in her Pentagon job after she
left the White House and did ask the White. House personnel office to treat
her fairly in her job search. He never instructed anyone to hire her, or
even indicated that he very much wanted i.t to happen. Ms. Lewinsky was
never offered a job at the White House after she left 0) and it's pretty
apparent that if the President had ordered it, she would.have been.
10. The President did not facilitate Ms. LewinskyD,s interview -with Bill
Richardson, or her discussions with Vernon Jordan. Betty Currie asked
John Podesta if he could help her with her New York job search which led
to an interview with Bill Richardson, and Ms. Currie also put her in touch
with her longtime friend, Mr. Jordan. Mr. Jordan has made it clear that
this is the case, and, as a private individual, he is free to offer job
advice wherever he sees fit.
11. There was no witness tampering. Betty Currie was not supposed to be
witness in the Paula Jones case. If she was not called or going to be
called, it was impossible for any conversations the President had with her
to be witness tampering. The President testified that he did not in any
way attempt to influenceher recollection.
12. There is no D&talking pointsDB smoking gun. Numerous i l l g ~ l leaks
painted the mysterious talking points as the proof that the President or
his staff attempted to suborn the perjury of Monica Lewinsky or Linda
Tripp. The OIC's spokesman said that the "talking points" were the "key"
to Starr even being granted authority to investigate the President's
private life. Yet in the end, Ms. Lewinsky has apparently admitted the
talking points were written by her alone [or with Ms. Tripp's assistance],
and the President was not asked one .single question about them in his
grand jury appearance.
COPY
..
13. Invocation of privileges was not an abuse of power. The President .s
lawful assertion of privil. eges in a c. ourt of law was only made on the / ./ ::;,iUt::::iV '.'
. (' ... .....- /&; ...
advice of his Counsel, and was in significant measure validated by the
1
.:
1
? \.,.... \
courts. The legal claims were advanced sparingly and as a resort . , l,
after all attempts at compromise by the White House Counsel Is office were .. :;
rejected to protect the core constitutional and institutional interes.ts of [17 ;p
this and future presidencies. \.. ":'
' \.
14. Neither the President nor the White House played a role in
Service's lawful efforts to prevent agents from testifying to preserve its
protective function. The President never asked, directed or participated
in any decision regarding the protective function privilege. Neither did
any White House official. The Treasury and Justice Departments
'independently decided to respond to the historically unprecedented
subpoenas of Secret Service personnel and to pursue the privilege to
ensure the protection of this and future presidents.
the Secre
"-.
....... _____ .
15. The President did not abuse his power by permitting White House staf
to comment on the investigation. The President has acknowledged
misleading his family, staff and the country about the nature of his
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, and he has apologized and asked for
forgiveness. However, this personal failing does not constitute a
criminal abuse of power. Ifallowing aides to repeat misleading
statements is a crime, .then any number of public officials are guilty of
misusing their office for as long as they fail to admit wrong doing in
response to any allegation about their activities.
16. The actions of White House attorneys were completely lawful. The
White House Counsel attorneys provided the President and White House
officials with informed, candid advice on issues raised during this
investigation that affected the President's official duti'es. This was
especially necessary given the fact that impeachment proceedings against
the President were a possible result of the OIC's investigation from Day
One. In fact, throughout the investigation, the OIC relied on the White
House Counsel's office for assistance in gathering information and
arranging interviews and grand jury appearances. The Counsel's office's
actions weFe well known to the OIC throGghout the investigation and no
objection was ever voiced.
This means that the ore report is left with nothing but the details of a
private sexual relationship, told in graphic details with the intent to
embarrass. Given the flimsy and unsubstantiated basis for the
accusations, there is a'complete lack of any credible evidence to initiate
an impeachment inquiry concerning the President. And the principal
purpose of this .investigation, and the OICO,s report, is to embarrass the
President and titillate the public by producing a document that is little
more than an unreliable, one-sided account of sexual behavior.
Where's Whitewater? The OIC's allegations reportedly include no
suggestion of wrongdoing by the President in any of the areas which Mr.
Starr spend four years investigating: Whitewater, the FBI files and the
White House travel office. What began as an inquiry into a 24 year old
land deal in Arkansas has ended as an inquest into brief, improper
personal encounters between the President and Monica Lewinsky. Despite
the exhaustive nature of the OIC's investigation into the Whitewater, FBI
files and travel office matters, and a constant .stream of suggestions of
misconduct in the media over a period of years; to this day the ore has
never exonerated the President i:::)
-:'
. ". - _.
{\RMS
.,:.;: .. ,.
:
Page 4 of4
t ARMS Email System
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: John Katz ( John Katz @ 624-5857 @ FAX [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
'TEXT:
CONCLUSION.
Ith(iS come down to this.
After four years, . scores of FBI agents, hundreds of subpoenas,
thousands of documents, and tens of millions of dollars. After hiring
lawyers, accountants, IRS agents, outside consultants, law professors,
personal counsel, ethics advisers, and a professional public relations
expert. After impaneling grand juries and leasing office space in three
jurisdictions, and investigating virtually every aspect of the
Presideni:O;s business, financial, political, official and, ultimately,
personal life, the Office of Independent Counsel has presented t6 the
House a Referral that no prosecutor would present to any jury.
The President has admitted he had an improper relationship with
Ms. Lewinsky. He.has apologized. The wrongfulness of that relationship
is not in dispute. And yet that relationship is the relentless focus of
virtually every page of the OICO, s Referral. .
In 445 pages, the Referral mentions Whitewater, the failed land
deal which originated its investigation, twice. It never once mentions
other issues it has been investigating for years matters concerning the
firing of employees of the White House travel office and the controversy
surrounding the FBI files. By contrast, the issue of sex is mentioned
more than 500 times, in the most graphic, salacious and gratuitous manner.
The Office of Independent Counsel is asking the House of
Representatives to undertake its most solemn and consequential process
short of declaring war; to remove a duly, freely and fairly elected
President of the United States because he had -- as he has admitted -- an
improper, illicit relationship outside of his marriage. Having such a
relationship is wrong: Trying to keep such a relationship private, while
understandable/ is wrong. But such acts do not even approach the
Constitutional test of impeachment -.- O&Treason/ Bribery/ or. other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors.08
The founders were wise to set such a high standard/ and were wise
to vest this awesome authority in the hands of the most democratic and
accountable branch of our Government, and not in the hands of
unaccountable prosecutors.
,_
. --.---
We have sought in this Initial Response to begin the process of rebutting
the .OIC0
1
S charges against the President -- charges legal experts have
said would not even be brought against Cl. private citizen. The President
did not commit perjury .. He did not obstruct justice. He did not tamper
with witnesses. And he did not abuse the power of the office .of the
Presidency.
COPY
~ R S Email System.
CREATOR: Emory L. Mayfield ( CN=Emory L. Mayfield/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
SUBJECT:
TO: Alan Salazar ( Alan Salazar @ 1-303/866-2003 @ FAX [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Katie Whelan ( Katie Whelan @ 479-5156 @ FAX [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Rich Sigel ( Rich Sigel @ 1-603/271-5686 @ FAX [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Kevin Goldsmith ( Kevin Goldsmith@ 1-502-564-2517 @FAX [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jan Shinpoch. ( Jan Shinpoch@ 624-3682 @ FAX [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Tom Litjen ( Tom Litjen @ 624-7714 @ FAX [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth Pyke ( Elizabeth Pyke @ 783-3061 @ FAX [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Joe Blanco ( Joe Blanco @ 808/586-0006 @ FAX [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan Jones ( Jonathan Jones @ 624-5495 @ FAX [ UNKNOwN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Kirsten Deshler ( Kirsten peshler @ 632-1288 @ FAX [ UNKNOwN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Fred DuVal ( Fred DuVal @ 456-2889 @ FAX [ WHO ]
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Julie Peterson
READ: UNKNOWN
Julie Peterson @ 1-802/828-3339 @ FAX UNKNOWN ] )
TO: Tina Coria
. READ: UNKNOWN
Tina Coria @ 1-404/656-7901 @ FAX [ UNKNOWN ] )
TO: Nicole Lamboley ( Nicole Lamboley @ 1-702-687-4486 @ FAX
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Debby Bryant
READ: UNKNOWN
Debby Bryant @ 624-5836 @ FAX [ UNKNOWN ]
UNKNOWN ] )
TO: Susan Harris
READ: UNKNOWN
Susan Harris @ 624-5855 @ FAX [ UNKNOWN ] )
TO: Jeff Viohl ( Jeff Viohl @ 624-1475 @ FAX
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Charlie Salem ( Charlie
UNKNOWN ] )
l )
' ARMS Email System
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: John Katz ( John Katz. 624-5857 @ FAX [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
CONCLUSION
It has come down to this.
After four years, scores of FBI agents, hundreds of subpoenas,
thousands of documents, and tens of millions of dollars. After hiring
lawyers, accountants, IRS agents, outside consultants, law professors,
personal counsel, ethics advisers, and a professional public relations
expert. After impaneling grand juries and leasing office space in three
jurisdictions, and investigating virtually every aspect of the
PresidentO, s business, financial, political, official and, ultimately,.
personal life, the Office of Independent Counsel has presented to the
House a Referral that no prosecutor would present to any jury.
The President has admitted he had an improper relationship with
Ms. Lewinsky. He has apologized. The wrongfulness of that relationship
is not in dispute. And yet that relationship is the relentless focus of
virtually eyery page of the OICO,s Referral.
In 445 pages, the Referral mentions Whitewater, the failed land
deal which originated its investigation, twice. It never once mentions
other issues it has been investigating for years -- matters concerning the
firing of employees of the White House travel office and the controversy
surrounding the FBI files. By contrast, the issue of sex is mentioned
more than 500 times, in the most graphic, salacious and gratuitous manner.
The Office of Independent Counsel is asking the House of
Representatives to undertake its most solemn and consequential process
short of declaring war; to remove a duly, freely and fairly elected
President of the United States because he had -- as he has admitted -- an
improper, illicit relationship outside of his marriage. Having such a
relationship is wrong. Trying to keep such a relationship private, while
understandable, is wrong. But such acts do not even approach the
Constitutional test of impeachment -- D&Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors.D8
The founders were wise to set such a high standard, and were.wise
to vest this awesome authority in the hands of the most democratic and
accountable branch of our Government, and not in the hands of
unaccountable prosecutors.
We have sought in this Initial Response to begin the process of rebutting
. the OICD,s charges against the President -- charges legal experts have
said would not even be brought against a private citizen. The President
did not commit-perjury. He did not obstruct justice. He did not tamper
with witnesses. And he did not abuse the power of the office of the
Presidency.
COPY
CREATOR: Christine A. Stanek ( CN=Christine A. Stanek/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ]
SUBJECT: Attack media irresponsibility
TO: Minyan Moore ( CN=Minyon Moore/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
This suggestion is from one of my Irish American labor leaders who is very
active in the Democratic Party. you might be interested in
reading. You may know Joe Jamison - I am not sure.
---------------------- Forwarded by Christine A. Stanek/WHO/EOP on
09/14/98 06:20 PM _____ :_ __________________ .:. __
MEJJAM @ aol.com
09;i4/98 05:18:14 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Christine A. Stanek/wHO/EOP
CC:
Subject: Attack media irresponsibility
Dear Chrisitine,
Thanks for alerting me to Ann .Lewis conference call. I joined it.
A thought:
Savvy media managers ( I am not one) should weigh in, of course, but I
Iive in
a lower middle class ethnically rncixed neighborhood in Queens, NYC. What I
hear
from my more-thoughtful neighbors is how irresponsible tpe media are and
that
they, above all, seem to be driving the Lewinsky business. People say the
media have their own selfish motives. Owned by Republicans, driven by

24 hr. news cycle, sex sells, internet competition, etc
There is anger at media. People say "the damn media"
People are noticing media e1ites are frustrated, seemingly, enraged that
average American people dont care muc}t -- witness stable Clinton approval
ratings -- and ordinary folk think sex is private and they want the
country to
move on. But media keep upping the ante. OJ and Lady Di media weariness
syndrome has set in.
A political opportunity for the Administration exists, I think. Attacking
.the
media woul.d, probably, be a bad idea from the White House, but , surely, an
appropriate group to attack _media irresponsibility can be found?
Feel free to forward this to Ann L. if it makes sense.
In friendship,
Joe Jamison
COPY
L' ;::_-IV
r. )'
t .. \KM:S bmail :system
SUBJECT: Talking Points
TO: womnelcaelca.org ( womnelca@elca.org [-UNKNOWN] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: ktonerigc.apc.org ( ktoner@igc.apc.org [ UNKNOWN l )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Sdalycatholiccharitiesusa.org ( Sdalycatholiccharitiesusa.org [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ :UNKNOWN
TO: deniser@igc.apc.org (. deniser@igc.apc.org [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO,,: l:lntnerj @ucc. org ( lintnerj ucc. org [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO.: flof-lomcaol. com ( floflomc@aol. com [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: uNKNOWN
TO: 74617.760@compuserve.com ( 74617.760@compuserve.coin [UNKNOWN] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: LLLader@aol; coin ( LLLader@aol. com [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: CHRIS.HOBGOOD@ ecunet.org ( CHRIS.HOBGOOD ecunet.org [ UNKNOWN] )
. READ: UNKNOWN
TO: HerbWEAO@aol.com ( HerbWEAO@aol.com [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ :UNKNOWN
TO: ( mhunt@hers.com [ UNKNOWN] )
. READ :UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Because you asked for the earlier executive summary regarding the Starr
investigation, I thought you would be interested in these talking points
as well:
Talking Points
Release of the PresidentO,s Grand Jury Deposition and Other Materials
September 21, 1998
DO What the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have done is
unfair and driven purely by partisanship. In vote after vote, the
Republicans voted alopg party lines to release salacious and unnecessary
details. There was no effort to be bi-partisan.
DO The Republican Committee members abdicated their
obligation to consider the information and determine the legal standards
that apply, including the most significant standard: what constitutes an
impeachable offense under the Constitution;
COPY
....
' .:-\.l'U.Ylu .I..JHlQ.H
- -o- - ---
DO Instead, what we have now is verdict first, and
deliberation second --if at all.
with
....:
DO The tape released today shows the President making a painful
acknowledgment: admitting to an inappropriate intimate relationship
Ms. Lewinsky. This is not a pleasant thing to have to admit --or to
watch.
!,' (
DO In acknowledging the relationship, the President drew
the line at going into explicit detail. He answered the questions
relevant to a criminal inquiry, but he declined to discuss specific
encounters in a graphic and gratuitous way.
.00 Before the PresidentO,s testimony, Ken Starr and his
... '::,
.)
\
knew the President was not going to provide sexually explicit
testimony: the PresidentO,s attorney informed the Independent Counsel
that the President would answer all questions reiated to the
investigation, but he would not be graphic. Nevertheless, the Independent
Counsel tried, question after question; for hour after hour, to force the
President to do what he already knew he would not do.
DO te.tD,s understand why there is even a tape to talk about: The
American public is going through this process today because an Independent
Counsel and partisan members of Congress want to embarrass and humiliate
the President by releasing salacious details of allegations of personal
wrongdoing.
DO The grand jury process is 'supposed to be secret for a reason:
DO because it is a one-sided presentation of untested
allegations and inherently unfair because the target has no right to
respond or opportunity to defend himself and
DO to.protect the privacy of everyone involved.
This principle of fundamental fairness was violated and.that is why most
Americans opposed releasing this Grand Jury tape.
DO The creation of this tape, its release by Congressional
Republicans, and the garbage-dump of other documents proves that rather
than a neutral search for the truth, this effOrt is nothing more than a
c.rusade to obliterate the proper Constitutional process, overturn a
na.tional election, embarrass and harass the President, and drive him from.
office.
DO Fair-minded Americans are repulsed by these tactics and reject
them.
DO The question before the House is not whether the President has
done something wrong. He has admitted that he has. The question is,
whether this constitutes an impeachable offense that warrants taking the
most .powerful step under the Constitution short of declaring war. The
clear answer from history, the law, the Constitution and constitutional
scholars, and from the American people today is no.
COPY
------
/
ARMS .Ema11 :::>ystem
CREATOR: Michael V. Terrell ( CN=Michael V. Terrell/OU=CEQ/O=EOP [ CEQ ] )
SUBJECT: Kamen. press guidance
TO: Heather M. Riley ( CN=Heather M. Riley/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Elliot J. Diringer ( CN=Elliot J. Diringer/OU=CEQ/O=EOP @ EOP [ CEQ ] )''>
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
---------------------- Forwarded by Michael v. Terrell/CEQ/EOP on 09/21/98
10:48 AM ~ ~ ~ ~
Michael v. Terrell
09/21/98 10:15:56 AM
Record Type: Record
To: . Nanda. chitre/WHO/EOP, Julia M. Payne/WHO/EOP
cc:
Subject:Kamen press guidance
Following.are q and a's for Al Kamen's report that Katie is leaving.
Elliot is out of the office today, so if you have any questions please
call me at 6-5141.
Q. Is it true that Katie McGinty is leaving the White House?
A. In nearly six years with the Administration, Ms. McGinty has achieved
many of her goals. For the past several months, she has been considering .
what she will do next. There have been no final decisions.
Q. We hear that George Frampton has been chosen to replace Ms. McGinty .
. Is
that true?
A. As I said, there have been no final decisions. Ms. McGinty is still
very much engaged in the day-to-day business of this Administration. Any
statement ona replacement would be premature.
Q. Is she planning to leave because of the Lewinsky scandal?
A. Ms. McGinty has been considering her options for many months now. The
Lewinsky matter has had no bearing at all on her plans for the future,
which, as I've said, are not yet final.
COPY
~ . . . . . . . . . . _ __ _
Clinton Library
AND TYPE
OOla. email Jennifer M. Palmieri to Edward F. Hughes at 12:39:09.00. Subject:
Re: 09/22 Letter from Ruff and Kendall to the Hill. (3 pages)
OOlb. email Draft letter to Henry J Hyde and John Conyers from Charles F.C. Ruff
attachment and David E. Kendall. (3 pages)
002. email [Redacted] to Janet Abrams and Mary Culnan at 12:22:52.00. Subject:
Re: FW: Sorry to have missed you. [Central Intelligence Agency Act
of 1949] (4 pages)
003. email Betty W. Currie to Cheryl D. Mills at 10:02:48.00. Subject: This is fair
& common decency? (2 pages)
004. email Janet B. Abrams to [redacted] at 12:30:34.00. Subject: RE: FW: Sorry
to have missed you. (partial) [Central Intelligence Agency Act of
1949] (4 pages)
005. email Jake and Amy Caire to Skye S. Philbrick at 19:09:43.00. Subject: Re:
(2 pages)
006. email Michelle Crisci to Paul E. Begalaat 12:08:34.00. Subject: satire roast.
(4 pages)
007. email Amy W. Tobe to Peter Kadzik at 10:50:23.00. Subject: Brief update.
(2 pages)
008. email Jordan Tamagni to MMADOW.BROOKLAW at 18:19:33.00.
Subject: re: Re: Re: Pardon? (1 page)
009. email PaulK. Engskov to Erin Brinkman at 08:09:00.00. Subject: Re: long
time no talk! (1 page)
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[09/23/1998 - 11/09/1998]
RESTRICTION CODES
DATE
09/23/1998
n.d.
11/23/1998
09/23/1998
09/23/1998
19:09:43:00
09/25/1998
09/28/1998
09/30/1998
10/02/1998
Presidential Records Act- 144 U.S.C. 2204(a)l Freedom of Information Act- 15 U.S.C. 552(b))
RESTRICTION
P5 l ~ C . t
P5 l s G.?
P3/b(3), P6/b(6)
P5
l':S:J.-0
P3/b(3), P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
2006-0319-F
ab895
PI National Security Classified Information [(a)(l) of the PRA(
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute l(a)(3) of the PRA)
b(l) National security classified information l(b)(l) of the FOIA)
an agency [(b )(2) of the FOIA)
financial information l(a)(4) of the PRA(
and his advisors, or between such advisors la)(S) of the PRA)
personal privacy l(a)(6) of the PRA)
of gift.
2201(3).
RR. -Document will be reviewed upon request.
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute ((b)(3) of the FOIA(
information l(b)(4) of the FOIA)
personal privacy l(b)(6) of the FOIA(
purposes ((b)(7) of the FOIA(
financial institutions l(b)(S) of the FOIA(
concerning wells l(b)(9) of the FOIA(
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
010. email
011. email
012. email
013. email
Clinton Library
SUBJECTrriTLE DATE
SallyAnn Yodi to Jared Powell at 17:13:24.00. Subject: Re: hello. (2 10/06/1998
pages)
Laura K. Demo to Erika. Peterson at 15:17:32.00. Subject: Re: Re 10/07/1998
[2]: (3 pages)
Jonathan E. Smith to amiranda at 08:45:49.00. Subject: Re: it's about 10/07/1998
time. (1 page)
Ruby Shamir to Robert Kaplan at 08:02:36.00. Subject: Re: Ruby! (2 10/08/1998
pages)
RESTRICTION
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
0 1 4 ~ email Lori L. Anderson to Mark D. Neschis and Jennifer M. Palmieri at 10/08/1998 P5 t1 - ~
10:37:03.00. Subject: Keith 01berman. (3 pages)
015. email Drew Plant to Colin Mathews at 19:16:18.00. Subject: Article for 10/12/1998 P6/b(6)
SoVo? (1 page)
016: email Jhanson@hopsut.com to [list] at 12:44:11.00. Subject: Re: (no 10/13/1998 P6/b(6)
subject) (3 pages)
017. email Sidney Blumenthal to Dacor at 09:33:46.00. Subject: Re: Re: --gate 10/14/1998 P5 I ~ "::1- 3
(1 page)
018. email Guy Smith to Guy Smith at 17:01:15.00. Subject: Re: Polls. (1 page) 10/20/1998 P6/b(6)
019: email Craig Hughes to peterokeefe at 11 :31 :28.00. Subject: Re: Greetings 10/20/1998 P6/b(6)
from London. (partial) (2 pages)
020. email Guy Smith to Abigail Smith at 16:51 :36.00. Subject: Yo Abby. (1 10/24/1998 P6/b(6)
page)
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[09/23/1998 - 11109/1998]
2006-0319-F
ab895
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- )44 U.S.C. 2204(a))
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office ((a)(2) of the PRA)
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA)
of gift.
2201(3).
Freedom of Information Act- [5 U.S.C. 552(b))
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOlA)
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA)
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA)
b(S) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA)
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOlA)
CREATOR: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
'
SUBJECT: Re: 09/22 Letter from Ruff and Kendall to the Hill
' -
TO: Edward F. Hughes ( CN=Edward F. Hughes/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
thanks.
Edward F. Hughes
09/23/98 12:14:35 PM
.Record rype:
'Record
To: Jennifer M. Palmieri/WHO/EOP
cc: .
Subject:09/22 Letter from Ruff and Kendall to the Hill
-
1,\ :i
.u
I recieved yesterday's letter as it appears attached and al.so .in the Word
Perfect format in the bottom left icon. It can be accessed by hitting .
ilaunch".
---------------------- Forwarded by Edward F. Hugli.es/WHO/EOP on 09/23/98
. 12.:13 J;>M ----------------------:----;..
Nottirb @ Prodigy.Net
09/23/98 i2:04:60 PM
Record Type : Record
To: Edward F. Hughes
cc: c
Subject: 09/22 Letter from Ruff and. Kendall to the Hill
September 22, 1998
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde
Chairman, House Judiciary Comm:i.ttee
2110 Rayburn Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
House Judiciary Committee
Washington, D.C. 20515
r.
COPY
C;Ltvi>
' .
~
~ \ 1 2
'
... :j
1,/
(" \ .
,.-,I
CL \
::r:
;:: J
\ I
.'/
/
/
Gentlemen:
When we met earlier this month, you kindly offered to accept from us any
submissions we wished to make that would bear on the Committee's
preliminary review of the Independent Counsel's Referral. We write today
to bring to the Committee's attention a critical flaw in the Referral --
a flaw that.we believe calls into the fairness of the entire
process U!lderlying the Referral andshould lead the Members, at the very
least, to question the factual premise on which it rests and the legal
conclusions it draws.
As we indicated to you on September 11 and September 14, we feared, even
before reading the Independent Counsel's Referral, that it would be a
_one-sided and linfair manipulation of the evidence and the law.
Yesterday's release of Ms. Lewinsky's testimony made clear that our fears
were, if anything, understated.
It is plain now from the 3200 page appendices to the Starr Referral that
the Office of Independent Coi.msel (OIC) has significantly distorted the
testimony of Ms. Lewinsky, quoting it when it suited the_ OIC's purposes
and downplaying it or ignoring- it when it. did not. The OIC ignored all
reasonable stand(l..rds of fairness in preparing and drafting its Referral.
The Referral is strong in its silence about evidence that supports the
. President.
Ms. Lewinsky consistently has maintained that neither the President nor
anyone acting on his behaif ever urged her to lie, _about anything_ Aware
that this would be. her testimony, the ore did not ask her any questions
that might elicit this exculpatory testimony in the grand jury and ended
its interrogation of her without'clarifying this key point. the OIC
prosecutor announced "We don't have further questions,;; it was left to a
grand juror to ask Ms. Lewinsky if she wished to add to, amplify, or clar
ify her previous testimony, whereupon Ms. Lewinsky stated:
"I would. I think because_ of the public nature of how this investigation
has been and what the charges aired [sic], that I would just like to say
that no one ever asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my
silence."
App. 1161 (B/20/98 Lewinsky testimony).
As this plainly indicates, Ms. Lewinsky also testified that the efforts
of Vernon Jordan to find her a job were not part of any scheme to obstruct
justice or buy her testimony.
The decision by Mr. Starr to specifically exclude Ms. Lewinsky's
exculpatory statements and eXpress denials raises grave questions about
the fundamental fairness of the Starr Referral. The OIC chose to print
over iso pages of gratuitous and graphic sexual detail but could not find
space for a single sentence quoting Ms. Lewinsky's sworn testimony which
directly undermines the central obstruction-of-justice allegations in the
Referral, and, for that matter, the very basis of the Lewinsky
investigation.
We have not yet had a chance to analyze properly the 3200 pages released
yesterday by the Committee, but we think the OIC's failure to give a fair
presentation of Ms. Lewinsky's testimony is indicative of the one-sided
COPY
. .
/'">:;.:2.:3 \ 0 i::i\j .. _..
:',_':::,

/
nature of the Referral, a document whose true goal was to embarrass the
President and inflame the public. We hope that you and the other
distinguished Members of your Committee will proceed with due caution and
appropriate fairness as you move forward to review the materials the OIC
prosecut"ors have
We look forward to making additional submissions to the Committee as its
review -- and ours -- proceed.
Sincerely,
Charles F.C. Ruff
Couns'el to the President
The White House
Washington; D.C. 20502
I
David E. Kendall
Williams & Connolly
725 12th Street
washington, D.C. 20005
==================== ATTACHMENT 1 ====================
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0. 0 0
TEXT:
Unable to convert ARMS_EXT: [ATTACH.D72]MAIL48713656P.226 to ASCII,
The following is a HEX DUMP:
FF575043EF010000010A009100000000FBFF05003200A9010000070008000000420000000F0056
0000004AOOOOOOOC005AOOOOOOA00000000300AFOOOOOOFA000000436F7572696572003C08FFFF
89003F001800780078002C0101000000013E46F4017800FE1536105807000000041140C900B960
. .. .
3712FB01580240FEFEFEFEFEFEFEFFFEFFFFFFFEFFFFFEFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

000048504C41345341442E50525300DB017800141EOC178COA000000041140C90087CF01000100
F000140108015C01F0462261895802408AD00606000100060006DOD203A0000001C80058023001
31000000000000000000C305C38DC405C4000000000000000000000000002020202020C305C38D
C405C40000000000000000B004B004000000000000000000000000000000000001900158023801
31000000000000000000C305C3C30EC38DC40EC42FC405C4000000000000C305C3C30EC38DC40E
C42FC405C4000000000000B004B00400000000000000000000000000000000A00003D2FBFF0500
320000000000090002000000DB010000060010000000DD010000080002000000ED010000000000
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOAEF500337C007800000001000000000000000000DOOBF7009033D82701000000
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
9033D82701085374616E6461726400000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000009033D8270200426F6E64000029000000000000000000
COPY
./
June 2011
The Honorable Henry J. . Hyde
Chairman, House Judiciary Committee
2110 Rayburn Office Bldg .
. D.C. 205i5
Ranking Minority Member
House Judiciary Committee
Washington, D.C. 2051.5
Ge;:ntlemen:
When we met earlier this month, you kindly offered to accept
from us any submissions we wished to make that would bear on the
Committee's prelirninary review of the Independent Counsel's ..
Referral. We write today to bring to the Committee's attention
a critical flaw in the Referral -- a flaw that we believe calls into
question the fairness of the entire process underlying the Referral
and should lead the Members, at the very least, to question the factual
premise on which it rests and the legal conclusions it draws.
As we indicated to you on September 11 and September 14, we
feared, even before reading the Independent Counsel's Referral, that
it would be a one-sided and unfair manipulation of the evidence and
the law. YeE:;terday Is release of Ms. Lewinsky Is testimony made clear
that our fears were, if anything, understated.
It. is plain now from. the 3200 page appendices to the Starr
Referral that the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) has
significantly distorted the testimony of .Ms. Lewinsky, quoting it
when it suited the OIC's purposes and downplaying it or ignoring
it when it did not. The .ore ignored all reasonable standards of
fairness in preparing and drafting its Referral. The Referral is
strong in its silence about evidence that supports the President.
Automated Records Management Systerr
Hex-Dump Conversion
COPY
The.Honorable Henry J. Hyde
June 21, 2011
Page 2
.z
,\ :J
L;
.--
Ms. Lewinsky consistently has maintained that neither the
President nor anyone acting on his behalf ever urged her to lie,
about anything. Aware that this would be her testimony, the OIC.
did not ask her any questions that might elicit this exculpatory
. testimony in the grand jury arid ended its interrogation of her without
clarifying this key point.- After the OIC prosecutor announced "We
don't have further questiOns
1
" it was left to a grand juror to ask
Ms. Lewinsky if she wished to add to, .amplify, or clarify her previous
testimony, whereupon Ms. Lewi:p.sky stated:
"I would. I think because of the public nature of how this
investigation has been and what the charges aired [sic] ,
that. I would just like to say that.no one ever asked me
to lie and I was never promised a job for my silence. II
App. 1161 (8/20/98 Lewinsky testimony).
As thisplainly indicates/ Ms. Lewinsky also testified that
the efforts of Vernon Jordan to find her a job were not part of any
scheme to obstruct justice or buy her testimony.'
The decision by Mr _ Starr to specifically exclude Ms. Lewinsky's
exculpatory statements and express denials raises grave questions
. about the fundamental fairness of the Starr Referral. The ore chose
to print over .150 pages of gratuitous and graphic sexual detail but
.could .not find space for a single sentence quoting Ms. Lewinsky's
sworntestimony which directly undermines the central
obstruction.:.of-justice allegations in the Referral, and, for that
matter, the very basis of the Lewinsky investigation.
. .
We have not yet had a chance to analyze prOperly the 3200 pages
released yesterday by the Committee, but we think the OIC's failure
to give a fair presentation of Ms. Lewinsky's testimony is indicative
of the one-sided :q.ature of the Referral, a document whose true goal
was to embarrass the President and inflame the public. We hope that
you and the other distinguished Members of your Committee will proceed
with due caution and appropriate fairness as you move forward to
review the materials the. OIC prosecutors have submitted.
Automated Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
COPY
,--
',-
Ci
J.i
-,..
;; !
\. i
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde
June 21, 2011
Page.3
\ G E
C\ '
/ \Q 7.'
\0
.: :J '\J1...
We look forward to making additional submissions to the.,_ /
Committee as its review -- and ours -- proceed.
Sincerely,
Charles F.C. Ruff
Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington; D.C. 20502
David E. Kendall
Williams & Connolly
725 12th Street
D:c. 20005
Automated Records Management Systerr
Hex-Dump Conversion
COPY
ARMS Email System
CREATOR: Betty W. Currie ( CN=Betty W. [ WHO ] )
SUBJECT: This is fair & common decency?
TO: Cheryl D. Mills ( CN=Cheryl D. Mills/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
FYI
------'---------------- Forwarded by Betty W. Currie/WHO/EOP on 09/23/98
10:02 .AM -------------:--------------
Jock Gill <j gill @ penfield-gill. com>
09/22/98 08:32:57 PM .
Record. Type: Record
To: Jock Gill <jg{ll @
cc:
Subject: This is fair &.common decency?
It now appears that, buried in the 3000 plus pages of appendices
to the Starr Referral, are to be found nuggets which are _very_
favorable to the President, but which Mr. Starr elected to omit.
Omissions which serve to distort the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky
and contradict Mr. Starr. For example:
At the end of her testimony, a grand juror, not Mr. Starr,
asked Ms. Lewinsky if she had anything further to add, to which
she replied:
"I would. I think because of the public nature of how this
investigation has been and what the charges aired [sic], that I
would just like to say that no one ever asked me to lie and I
was never promised a job for my silence"
App. 1161 (8/20/98 Lewinsky testimony)
Now I ask you, does this show an appreciation for the best sense
of American fairness, common sense and common decency? I think
not. What are we .to make of Mr. Starr's motives for this
glaring omission both of the key question but also of the
answer?
For more on this, and other examples of testimony contradicting
Mr. Starr's position which he somehow neglected to put into his
report, please see David E. Rosepbaum's article in .the 9/22/98
.NY Times: A View That Starr's Report Doesn't Have All the Facts.
Regards,
Jock
COPY
rae,v J. uJ. ,t.,
. '
..
. ..
Jock Gill
Penfield Gill, Inc.
Boston, MA

<http://www.penfield-gill.com>
Page 26f2
.L J....I.'-L ..... ...., ...................... _ ........ -.)-- .,. ___ _
CREATOR: Lori L. Anderson ( CN=Lori L. [ WHO ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-0CT-1998 10:37:03 . .00
SUBJECT: Keith Olbermann
TO: MarkD. Neschis ( CN=Mark D. Nesch:ls/OU=WHO/O=EOP@ EOP [WHO] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ]
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Please take a look at the following draft letter to Keith Olberman. I
think we may want to make it a bit warmer.
Your thoughts?
---------------------- Forwarded by Lori L. Anderson/WHO/EOP on 10/08/98
10:35 AM
R. Scott Michaud 10/07/98 04:35:27 PM
Record TYPe: Recorq
To: Lori L.
CC:
Subject:Keith Olbe:nnaim
Keith Olbermann has written to POTUS apologizing for
"whatever part I may have played in perpetuating this ceaseless coverage
(of the Lewinsky story) .... I'll be heading back to my previous career in
sports as quickly as possible .... "
It seems he may be going back to sports coverage (See the attached article
below) because of this. Here is our generic text for support letters to
the President. Could you take a look at it and let me know if it is
sufficient or should we be saying more (or less) to him? I've set this up
for the President to see, so.let me know ASAP. Thanks!
Dear Keith:
Thanks so much for your kind message. I've been touched by the many
expressions of.encouragement and support I have received from friends
across the country.
I'm grateful you got in touch with me, and I send you my very best wishes.
Sincerely, POTUS
E! ONLINE article:
Another Olbermann Career Implosion?
COPY
.1,1 .
-------.--- -
\
/\
\
C::.!
i
-c ,'
'-
I
ARMS tmall ::>ystem
by Daniel Frankel
October 2, 1998, 2:40 p.m. PT
File this l.mder "There you go again."
Baritoned MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann, who's
probably dynamited every bridge he's ever crossed,
appears to be setting the career charges again.
One year after joining the cable news network,
OlbermariD wants out, the Washington Post reports,
citing unnamed sources.
Apparently, the e x ~ S P N SportsCenter lead anchor
is .unhappy with MSNBC' s .incessant coverage of the
Clinton sex scandal and is talking to NBC News
President Andrew Lack about getting out of his
three-year contract early.
The 39-year-old Olbermann, who hosts MSNBC's The
Big Show with Keith oibermann and White House in
Crisis, recently described the latter program as.
The .White House Isn't in Crisis but We'll Keep
Calling It That Because .There's a Graphic .. And in
June, while giving a speech at Cornell University,
he let it be known,
11
I'm having the dry heaves in
the bathroom because my moral sensor is going off
but I can't even hear it, I'm so seduced by these
Tatings."
But Lack is reportedly unfazed by Olbermann's
crisis cie conscience. According to the Post
sources, he's angry because, when he asked
Olbermann last year if he was ready to make the
jump from sports to news--and all the moral
dilemmas that go with that--Olbermarin responded
with an enthusiastic "yes."
And Lack might sabotage future career
opportunities for his disgruntled charge. The boss
is reportedly considering enforcing a "no-compete"
clause in Olbermann' s contract that would keep his
snarky wit off the air for two years.
11
Andy is
freezing him out right now, " an unnamed exec said.
Of course, Olbermann has never been the model
employee. He feuded openly with ESPN management
before bolting from his contract a bit early in
June of last year. He's also had a string.of
sports anchor jobs on local TV. stations that have
ended acrimoniously.
Describing his stormy sports-guy tenure on KCBS in
Los Angeles, and how it related to his ESPN
departure, L.A. Times sportswriter Larry Stewart
said last year, "He was always angry about
something [when in Los Angeles] . The question is
not why Olbermann got into trouble with ESPN
management, but what took him so long? He may
never be c 0 p y
ARMS Email System
Any pending exit from MSNBC appears to be on hold
for now as Pat O'Brien has taken over hosting
chores on White House in Crises while Olbermann
assists NBC's coverage of the Major League-

Copyright . 1998 E! Online. All rights reserved.
COPY

I!.-... '
)
. ;-- 1\ -
Z 1\'V
:i -\'. -..:..'1-. f \. . .
\i.)
'" "
. ...___
------:"
\
(CI
/-!
/.
\!
ARMS Email System .rage 1 or 1
CREATION DATE/TIME:14-0CT-1998 09:33:46.00
SUBJECT: Re: Re: --gate
TO: Dacor ( Dacor @ aol.com [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
1. On Jan. 18, Kristol, on ABC This Week, cited the Drudge Report as
breaking the Lewinsky story. On Jan. 22, in a story by Howard Kurtz,
Kristol said that he learned about the story before the Drudge Report was
posted from another source. Richard Porter used to work with Kristoi, when
Porter did oppo for Quayle and Kristol was Quayle's chief of staff.
Kristolwas also a founder of the Federalist Society and is part of the
network that includes Porter, George Conway and e ~ o m e Marcus. In other
words, Kristol is linked to the plotters. I'll send another batch of clips ..
COPY
\ .-------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
&;I ..'
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
001. email
002. email
003. email
004. email
005. email
006. email
Clinton Library
SUBJECTrriTLE DATE
Jeremy Lassiter to spittman at 10:13:16.00. Subject: Re: elections. (1 11/1211998
page)
Tyler_ White@abraham.senate.gov to Neal Sharma, Frank Vettese, and 11/1711998
David P. Seitz at 09:52:49.00. Subject: Re: I am listening to Tripp
Tapes. (2 pages)
Colin Mathews to Scott Ryll at 17:55:37.00. Subject: Re: OK, Let's 1111811998
Chat. (1 page)
Kevin S. Moran to Kevin Moran at 2_1 :46:35.00. Subject: [none] (1 11118/1998
page)
Rebecca Epstein to Jeffrey A. Shesol at 14:39:13.00. Subject: Caller 11/19/1998
go ahead- Reply. (1 page)
Pastor Steven Lockard to Lynn A. Crable at 12:24:28.00. Subject: Hey 11/23/1998
There! (I page)
RESTRICTION
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
007. email Jonathan Orszag to JCCarville and Lowell A. Weiss at 12:28:47.00. 11124/1998 P5 \ 'S +Lf
Subject: 'partisan prosecutor.' (1 page)
008. email Elizabeth C. Jones to john p halljr. at 15:11:19.00. Subject: Re: Hey 1112511998 P6/b(6)
Girl. (2 pages)
009. email Susan Estrich to Ann F. Lewis at 02:29:42.00. Subject: Re: jane 12/02/1998 P5, P6/b(6)
I 'S 1--1)
harman. (3 pages)
010. email Laura Emmett to Kristen Panerali at 15:38:57.00. Subject: Re: hi. (3 12/07/1998 P6/b(6)
pages)
I
011. email Aubrey McCutcheon to Beverly J. Barnes at 09:06:32.00. Subject: Re: 12/08/1998 P6/b(6)
China Schedule. (1 page)
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky]) ,
FOLDER TITLE:
[11/10/1998- 01/15/1999]
2006-0319-F
ab896
RESTRICTION CODES
Pl National Security Classified Information l(a)(l) of the PRAI
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office l(a)(2) of the PRAI
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute ((a)(3) of the PRAI
financial information ((a)(4) of the PRAI
and his advisors, or between such advisors (a)(S) of the PRAI
of gift.
2201(3).
Freedom of Information Act- 15 U.S. C. 552(b)l
b(l) National security classified information l(b)(l) of the FOIAI
an agency ((b)(2) of the FOIAI
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute l(b)(3) of the FOIAI
-information l(b)(4) of the FOIAI
personal privacy ((b)(6) of the FOIAI
purposes l(b)(7) of the FOIAI
financial institutions ((b)(S) of the FOIAI
concerning wells l(b)(9) of the FOIAI
.-----------------------------------------------
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
Clinton Library
SUBJECTffiTLE DATE RESTRICTION
012. email Susan Estrich to Ann F. Lewis at 15:05:07.00. Subject: post-rant and 12/08/1998 P5
l
rave. (2 pages)
013. email Susanna B. McGuire to Marrty at 06:25:44.00. Subject: Re: [none] (I 12/0911998 P6/b(6)
page)
014. email Snolet@doc.gov to Janice H. Vranich at 12:37:24.00. Subject: re: 12/09/1998 P6/b(6)
Were your ears burning???? (I page)
015. email DavidS. Beaubaire to Lisa J. Levin at II :02:55.00. Subject: [none] 12/1411998 P6/b(6)
(partial) (2 pages)
016. email Maureen T. Shea to Jimwall65 at 16:22:06.00. Subject: Information. 12/1811998 P5
!'51-+-
(3 pages)
OI7. email Jonathan M. Young to Cheryl M. Carter and Barbara D. Wooley at I2118/1998 P5 l3"1-g
15:41:I9.00. Subject: we the people. (2 pages)
OI8. email Robert C. Houser to Ami Lynch at 08:02:36.00. Subject: [none] (I 12/1811998 P5
1380
page)
OI9. email Susanna B. McGuire to Chris Dana at 06:28:38.00. Subject: Re: hi. (2 I2/2I/1998 P6/b(6)
pages)
020. email Jack Gillis to Jonathan E. Smith at I2:05: I2.00. Subject: Stupid I2/22/1998 P6/b(6)
Punditocracy (email to Kinsley). (3 pages)
02I. email Elle Rustique-Forrester to VirginiaN. Rustique at I5:34:55.00. OI/04/1999 P6/b(6)
Subject: Re: Stein Rec- what do you think? (2 pages)
022. email Mark D. Wallace to Mary Morrison at I2:24:05.00. Subject: Happy OI/04/I999 P6/b(6)
New Year! (3 pages)
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[Il/1011998- Ol/I511999]
2006-0319-F
ab896
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- [44 U.S.C. 2204(a))
PJ Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(J) of the PRA)
of gift.
2201(3).
RR. Document will be reviewed request.
Freedom of Information Act- [5 U.S. C. 552(b))
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA[
b(J) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(J) of the FOIA)
information [(b)(4) of the FOIAI
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA)
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIAI
r-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-" Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
AND TYPE
023. email owner-ecolint-online-list@nmr.varian.com to Sara M. Latham@eop at 01/13/1999 P6/b(6)
18:07:55.00. Subject: Re: EOL Discussions. (2 pages)
024. email Sidney Blumenthal to Jonathan E. Smith at I 0:49:37.00. Subject: 01/14/1999 P5
l ~ g; (
memo. (I page)
025. email Michelle Peterson to Tracy Pakulniewicz at 19:20:25.00. Subject: 01/14/1999 P5
I 'S ~ d
[none] (2 pages)
026. email Jared Powell to Monica.Patel at 16:04:23.00. Subject: Re: New home 0111511999 P6/b(6)
address and phone number. (I page)
027. email Melissa M. Murray to Bruce R. Lindsey at 16:34:30.00. Subject: 01115/1999 P5
)S 8 3
Impeachment Trial Transcript #3, January 15,1999. (15 pages)
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[I 1/10/1998- 01/1511999]
2006-0319-F
ab896
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)l
PI National Security Classified Information [(a)(l) of the PRA[
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
PJ Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
of gift.
2201(3).
Freedom oflnformation Act- [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
b(l) National security classified information [(b)(l) of the FOIA]
b(J) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(J) of the FOIA]
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
.t-U\..!Vl0 .Cl11i:11l 0JC>Lvlll
CREATOR: Jonathan Orszag ( Orszag /OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD ] . )
CREATION DATE/TIME :24-NOV-1998 12:28:47.00
SUBJECT: 'partisan persecutor'
TO: JCCARVILLE ( JCCARVILLE @ aol. com@INETLNGTWY [ UNKNOWN ] . )
READ :UNKNOWN
TO: Lowell A. Weiss
READ: UNKNOWN
CN=Lowell A. Weiss/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
TEXT:.
Question?: From what you know about the way Ken Starr conducted his
investigation into
, the Clinton-Lewinsky matter, do you think Starr acted more like a
prosecutor or a persecutor?
Prosecutor 39%
Persecutor 53%
(from CNN poll released today)
COPY
- u
. ..
ARMS Email System
-
...
CREATOR: Susan Estrich Susan Estrich UNKNOWN ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 2-DEC-1998 02:29:42.00
SUBJECT: Re : jane harman
TO: AnnF. Lewis
READ: UNKNOWN
CN=Ann F. Lewis/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ) )
Susan Estrich
Wake me when it Is over. Can it" really be that the House of
Representatives, without hearing from a single witness other than the
Independent Counsel whose own ethics adviser resigned in protest, is
really about to impeach the President? So_says Tom DeLay, their chief
vote counter. Are Republicans so beholden to the Clinton-haters of the
Republican right that they would violate.the rules of fundamental fairness
and open a new line of assault on the President at the same time they are
pledging to be dqne with the whole business in less than a month, holidays
included? Of course, even the President's staunchest opponents don't
expect the Senate to convict him of anything. So why play fair, when it's
all just a show? If this is entertainment, count me out. I'd rather
watch real clowns.
The House RepUblicans claim to care more about the rUle of law
than politics, but their own actions prove otherwise. The decision to
hear from only one witness on the Monica Lewinsky matter was dictated by
politics, not principle. No prosecutor would try to make a case of
perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power by resting on his own
COPY
Page 1 of3
\ oe:iv
f_:_'l.
fUUVli) .Cllii:lll y::; lvUl
opening statement; you would have to hear from Ms. Lewinsky herself, as
well as Linda Tripp,. Betty Currie, Vernon Jordan, and the Secret Service ..
Each of these witnesses would have to be subjected to thorough
. cr.oss-examination, something that doesn't happen in a grand jury room.
The President's lawyers would be entitled to ask as many questions as they
wanted, and to call whatever witnesses they wanted in his defense. There
would be days and days of testimony about sex and cigars and audiotapes,
which is what the American people, .to the .great consternation of the
Republicans, have concluded that this case is really about. In the wake
of the November elections, even the most partisan Republicans understood
that they would be punished politically if they presided over what would
rightly be termed a media circus. So .they settled for a one-day show
hearing instead, and patted themselves on the back for their fairness in
allowing the President's lawyer an extra hour to cross-examine Judge
Starr, instead of the thirty minutes he had initially been granted.
If the Republicans thought that Judge Starr's performance would
change the public view towards .impeachment, they were much mistaken.
Judged as a show, it didn't sell. Most people didn't watch; local
stations that carried even the opening of the hearing found themselves
deluged with angry calls from .those who prefer better entertainment. The
most shocking aspect of the hearing was the brazeness of Judge Starr
himself, in admitting that his prosecutors had detained Ms. Lewinsky for
seven.hours while denying her request to consult an attorney and
threatening her with twenty-seven years in prison. So much for Miranda
arid the rule of law. The next day, Sam Dash, until then Judge Starr's
shield against attacks on his own ethics, resigned in protest because
Starr had refused to follow his advice and report his findings objectively
to Congress, instead combining the functions of investigator, judge and
jury. Car thieves get treated better in our system than either Ms.
Lewinsky or the President. .
Now the Republicans, desperate for a second act, are investigating
Janet Reno: You'd think they'd learn .. Democrats think the Attorney
General has been too lenient in seeking indpendent counsels and
Republicans think she has been too strict, convincing most Americans that,
right or wrong, she calls them as she sees them. In seeking to amend
Starr's indictment of the President to include campaign finance activities
that have already been investigated by two other Congressional committees,
the Republicans are not only changing the rules. in the ninth inning, but
picking a target even more invulnerable to attack. -- especially by them --
than the President. The announcement that the Republicans would seek the
sworn testimony.of the Louis Freehand Charles LaBella, the FBI director
and prosecutor whose advice Reno rejected in declining to seek an
independent counsel, shifts the focus not only from Monica to money, but
from Clinton to Reno. Another independent counsel? No thank you. More
hearings on campaign finance from the party that rejects all reform? Even
John McCain couldn't pull it off. Janet Reno vs. the House Republicans?
Is this a contest? We've all seen this movie at least once, and it wasn't
very good the first time. The sequel is sure to fall flat.
On Monday, the House Republicans went to the United States Supreme
Court to argue that the founders could not possibly have intended that the
census be conducted with the aid of modern and proven sampling techniques;
the founders also did not contemplate the telephone, which is no reason it
should be excluded from the fourth amendment. But the founders certainly
did think about the impeachment process, and they intended that it be a
grave and momentous occasion in the life of the Republic .. Judge Starr's
one-night stand, followed by the Republicans. latest effort to change the
subject but still deliver on a ceoapny anything but. The
- . l..J.
. 1-UUVl" Dill all "j :S Lvlll
President will survive, but the Constitution is being cheapened in the
process. The only good news is that most Americans have stopped paying
attention.
xoxoxo
COPY
J. a
0
v J VJ. J
t
(_
-' _ .;._!UV!.::l Cllli::I.U .::l y::; LClU
CREATOR: Susan Estrich Susan Estrich UNKNOWN ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-DEC-1998 15:05:07.00
SUBJECT: post-rant and rave
TO: Ann F. Lewis ( CN=Ann F. Lewis/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
so I wrote.
Susan Estrich
Try_ explaining this one to the kids. The President of the
United States is about to be impeached, after which he will stand trial
in the Senate. The tide has turned against the President not because
of the much-discussed question of what constitutes a"high crime or
misdemeanor," but because of his legalistic denials of criminal
wrongdoing. He _is being impeached for arrogance. Of course, he won't_
be removed from office for it; we knowthat going in. Indeed, it is
what allows him to be impeached-in the first instance. The President
is being smaltzed for the crime of bad lawyering.
Donald Smaltz is the independent counsel who spent 4 years and
$17 million investigating Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy for accepting
gifts that would have been legal had he still been in Congress.
Rebuffed for'his aggressiveness by both the AttOrney General and the
three-judge court that appointed him, Mr.' Smaltz reacted to Espy's
acquittal on 30 counts by finding a value in the destruction of a
reputation that even an indictment that results in acquittal can bring.
"The actual indictment of a public official may in fact be_as great a
deterrent as a conviction of that official," Mr. Smaltz argued,
stressing that even though there was no evidence that Espy did favors
in return for football tickets, "the appearance of impropriety can be
as damning as bribery is to public confidence," with the result that
even an unsuccessful prosecution serves the "end of justice."
Remeber Ray Donovan, the Secretary of Labor who, upon his
acquittal, asked where he could get his reputation back. The answer is
that you do not get your reputation back; criminal trials are not
symbolic events. That is why it is a fundamental tenet of
prosecutorial ethics that you do not indict someone for the sake of
indicting him. If he cannot be convicted, he should not be indicted.
It is not enough that the prosecutor be convinced of guilt, but that he
be convinced that a jury could be persuaded.
Many of those who will vote for impeachment in the House of
Representatives do not believe t ~ t the President will be removed from
office, or-that he should. They are not persuaded, or persuadable, on
the ultimate question. They are voting to impeach the President not
because of what he did, but because of how he has defended himself, or
been defended by his lawyers.
What has changed in the last few days, NBC's Brian Williams
asked network bureau chief Tim Russert on Monday night, to tilt the scales
in favor of impeachment? Russertcxpoip y
- -o - -- -
' l..K.lVl;) DlllCill u Y:Sli;;lll
widely shared in Washington, was that it was the perceived arrogance of
the President's answers to the 81 questions submitted to him by Judiciary
chairman Henry Hyde. Republican moderate Chris Shays offered a similar (.\
justification to ABC News: "When the President pretty much stiffed the ,, . ) \1\ \
congress, then I think a number have said, No, I may vote for z:
now." John Linder, the Georgia Republican who is chairman of the Nationa:J.=i IX
Republican Campaign Committee, was even more explicit: "He is laughing in \.f'l, "I
the face of the people on the Judiciary Committee. It's the same kind of
arrogance that brought President Nixon down."
What brought President Nixon down was not arrogance, but abuse of
the power of the Presidency. Arrogance is-not an impeachable offense.
There is no question that the legalistic defense of the. President
was the wrong approach in a political forum; that the President'S
_defenders should have been more concerned with offering an olive branch to
Republicans in Congress whose votes they needed than with the possible
impact of any admissions on a District of Columbia criminal jury whose
support would be far easier to win. Indeed, there is no question that
someone on the President's team should have investigated further before
allowing him to testify under oath about Monica Lewinsky in the first
instance. If Edward Williams were still alive, my friend Barbara
Howar points out, he would have checked with Betty Currie before he let
the President go into that depositionin the first instance. Butwho ever
heard of impeaching a President for the misjudgments of his lawyers? '
In the end, thestrongest argument against a vote of impeachment
is not the historical case being offered by yet another panel of law
professors, or even the damage which will surely be done to the
President's reputation by the action of the House, but the litany of
issues that the Senate will not deal with whileit is engaged in the show
trial of the President. Instead of health care, Social Security, and
education, we will have to endure months more of Monica. Our kids deserve
better. That's the part_ I can't explain.
xoxox
COPY
'""ARMS Email System
CREATION DATE/TIME:18-DEC-1998 H:22:06.00
SUBJECT: Information
TO: Jimwall65 ( Jimwall65 @ aoL com @ inet [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ:UNKN"OWN
TEXT:
:tve added you to my "impeachment" list. Wonderful to see you and to meet
your wife.
---------------------- Forwarded by Maureen T. Shea)WHO/EOP on 12/18/98
04:14 PM ---------------------------
Maureen T. Shea
12/18/98 03:59:48 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom.of this message
cc:
Subject:Information
Following the impeachment vote in the House, we anticipate Republicans
stepping up their cails for the President's resignation. We have
therefore prepared the following talking points, which we hope you will
find helpful for your own discussions, speeches, and/or letters to the
editor.
WE THE PEOPLE
SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT/DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION
President Clinton was elected by the people in 1992 and.1996 and received
our support again in the of 1998. Our voices are the votes that
should count.
Impeachment is about us, the people, and our choices. We chose this
President with our votes. President Clinton has led our country for six
years and _we are proud of the results: a stronger economy, more access to
education, lower crime rates, family friendly policies, peace in Northern
Ireland, an expanded NATO, a strengthened peace process in the Middle
East. We reaffirmed our choice in 1996 and.again in 1998 and no single
party should overturn our will, the will of the people.
A Partisan Impeachment is an assault on the Constitution. Every step of
this impeachment has been driven by partisanship.
Every procedure, every vote, down to holding the debate on a day it could
give comfort to'Saddam Hussein, has been driven by a partisan Republican
majority ignoring the facts, the law and the constitution in pursuit of
their goal of driving the President from office.
While they claimed it was not let the

AKM:S hmau :::;ysrem
Members vote their conscience; blocking even a vote on a censure
alternative .
. When they failed to find any charges in all of the matters they
investigated for $40 million and five years, they proceeded anyway on
nothing but Monica Lewinsky, and on accusations that do not meet the
standards of high crimes or even the standard of any criminal prosecution.
A lame duck Congress, rebuked by the people in the mid-term elections of '
1998, and without their backing, simply drove ahead with impeachment and
voted it on party lines .
. That is an assault on democracy and the Constitution and it cannot be
l l o ~ e d to succeed,
Progress, not Partisanship is the answer. ItD,s up to the Senate now.
People of conscience should stop this assault on the people. A partisan
majority in Congress has driven this process. They should stop their
partisanship now for the good of the countr. The Senate must find a
bipartisan compromise/solution that truly expresses the .will of the
American people, respects the Constitution and enables this nation to move
forward.
WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD TO MEET THE CHALLENGES OF THE 21ST CENTURY WITH
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON. WE ELECTED HIM, WE RE-ELECTED HIM AND WE'WANT HIM
TO GO ON DOING HIS JOB.
December 18, 1998
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Q. ShouldnD,t the President just resign and spare the country ahy more
trauma?
A. The President was elected twice. He has the confidence of an
overwhelming majority of the American people. Confidence in the
partisanship of the Republicans continues to decline. It is not the
President who should resign. To the contrary, the President should stand
up to this partisan railroad. To resign now would weaken the Presidency,
weaken the Constitution, and permit one political party to unilaterally
overturn the peopleD,s election and drive the President from office. It is
these extremists trying to thwart the wil.l of the people who should resign.
Q. But, the peopleD,s representatives have spoken. It seems that President
Clinton should resign as President Nixon did?
A. To resign would be offensive to the Constitution. It would allow a
narrow, .partisan majority in a lame-duck Congress to force the removal of
the President of another party. The majority in Congress is out of
control, out of touch with the Constitution, out of touch with the law,
and clearly out of touch with the people they represent. Impeachment is
such an extreme step that it should be used, as the framers intended,
only when there.is widespread consensus ... and consensus does not exist. It
is mean-spirited partisanship that drives this railroad.
COPY
---------
AKlVl;::> bmau ;sysrem
Q. Now that the House has approved articles of impeachment, what will
happen now?
A. The articles will be delivered to the Senate. The Senate can decide to
end the situation. with a vote of censure, as it did with President Andrew
Jackson, or it can proceed to a trial. LetO,s hope that a bi-partisan
compromise that is fair and reasonable can be found.
Q. If a Senate trial will hurt. the American people, wou1d the country not
be saved from this with resignation?
A. Resigning when 70 percent of the American people approve of the job he
is doing; and when 63 percent cif the people disapprove of the Republicans
actions; directly conflicts with the.will of the people. It is these
extremist RepUblicans who are hurting the country. Such one-sided
partisanship is wrong and damaging and .to succumb t6 it will ir:reparably
harm the country.
Q. IsnD,t it too late for. a solution short of a trial?
A. The Senate can respond to the expressed will of the people. Americans
have made it clear they want a compromise that ends the ent.ire episode
now. The Senate should immediately vote censure. so the government and the
country can move on. ThatO,s the best solution. Meanwhile, the President
should go on doing the job he was elected--and re-elected--to do.
Message Sent
T o ~ ~ ~
mhunt.@ hers.com@ inet
lintnerj @ ucc.org @ inet
HerbWEAO aol.c6m @ inet
deniser @ igc.apc.org @ inet
CHRIS.HOBGOOD @ ecunet.org@ inet
Sdaly@ catholiccharitiesusa;org @ inet
LLLader ,aol.com@ inet
74617.760@ compuserve.com@ inet
floflomc @ aol.com @ inet
womnelca @ elca.org @ inet
kathy @ fcnl. org @ inet
joe @ fcnl.org @ inet
dblair @ comp.uark.edu @ inet
BJCPA@ erols.com @ inet
COPY
fiR.lV.lo.J .LJlilau ..:> y .:>L\.-.lH
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL}
CREATOR: Jonathan M. Young ( CN=Jonathan M. Young/OU=WHO/O=EOP [.WHO].}
CREATION 15:41:19.00
SUBJECT: . we the people
TO: Cheryl M. Carter ( CN=Cheryl M. Carter/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] }
READ :UNKNOWN
-
TO: Barbara D. Woolley ( CN=Barbara D. Woolley/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] }
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
. I went ahead and typed this out. .Could you review it for accuracy: I
don't want to send it out with any mistakes. Thanks.
. .

WE THE PEOPLE
SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT/DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION
. .
President Clinton was elected by the people in 1992 and 1996 and received
our support again in the elections of 1998. Our voices are the votes that
shou1d.courit.
Impeachment is about us, the people, and our choices. We chose this
President with our votes. President Clinton has led our couritry for six
years and we are proud of the results: a stronger economy, more access to
education, lower crime rates, family-friendly policies, peace in Northern
Ireland, an expanded NATO, a strengthened peace process in the Middle
East. We reaffirmed our choice in 1996 and again in 1998, and no single
party should overturn our will--the will of the people.
A Partisan Impeachment is an assault on the Constitution. Every step of
this impeachment has been driven by partisanship.
Every procedure, every vote, down to holding the debate on a day it could
give comfort to Saddam Hussein, has been driven by a partisan Republican
majority igno'ring the facts, the law, and the. Constitution in pursuit of
their goal of driving the President from office.
While they claimed it was a vote of conscience, they would not let the
Members vote their conscience, blocking even a vote on a censure
alternative.
When they failed to find any charges in all of the matters they
investigated for $40 million and five years, they proceeded anyway (on
nothing but Monica Lewinsky) on accusations that do not meet the standards
of high crimes or even the standard of any criminal prosecution.
(A lame duck Congress, rebuked by the people in the mid-term elections of
1998, and without their backing, simply drove ahead with impeachment and
voted it on party lines.}
That is an assault on democracy and the Constitution and it cannot be
allowed to succeed:
Progress, not Partisanship, is
the Senate now.
,,
:::-"
.. : i
., ..
'
\I
.t"\.1\..lVlu LllHlll 0 J O)l'-'lH
People of conscience should stop this assault on the people. .A partisan
majority in Congress has driven this process. They should stop their
partisanship now for the good of the country. The Senate must find
bipartisan compromise/solution that truly expresses the will of the
American people, respects the Constitution, and enables this nation
a
to
move forward.
WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD TO MEET THE CHALLENGES OF THE 21ST CENTURY WITH
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON. WE ELECTED HIM, WE RE-ELECTED HIM, AND WE WANT
HIM TO GO ON DOING HIS JOB.
COPY
'
. . /
"
. :-
1 \ ~
'
: ~ ..i
I(_')
~
/
CREATOR: Robert C. Houser ( CN=Robert C. Houser/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME:18-DEC-1998 08:02:36.00
SUBJECT:
TO: Ami M: Lynch
READ :UNKNOWN
TEXT:
CN=Ami M. Lynch/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO
Thanks for the coffee, boy do I need it today.
Have you heard anything from our Deputy?
can you relay to the volunteers to code more liberally when it comes to
support mail.
As long as it is not disrespectful and they don't use foul ianguage,
writers can speak of the Lewinsky matter and talk about Ken Starr and
receive a P-001.
bh
COPY
/
/
CREATOR: Sidney Blumenthal ( CN=Sidney Blumenthal/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO
CREATION DATE/TIME:14-JAN-1999 10:49:37.00
SUBJECT : memo
TO: Jonathan E. Smith ( CN=Jonathan E. Smith/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Memorandum
To:
Greg Craig, Charles Ruff, David Kendall
From:
Sidney Blumenthal
Subject:"The Plot"
Unsurprisingly, a search reveals that the articles from January-February
1998 culled by the Republicans to make their case that there was a "plot
to discredit Monica Lewinsky" are highly selective, tendentious and
distorting. Not one of the articles they chose as proof is directly
sourced, But a fuller search shows that her former lover, Andrew Bleiier,
at a nationally televised press conference on Jahuary 27, 1998, the night
of the state of the Union, described her in terms.that the Republican
managers have attributed to the White House. Articles published at this
time show that her acquaintances among the interns and junior staff
described her to reporters as a "stalker." Finally, Lewinsky's attorney
publicly called her a stalker and said that he was using the term in a
positive sense. In conclusion, there is no evidence whatsoever that the
White House was. directing or involved in any campaign against her. The
evidence, however, does prove that the description of her as a "stalker, "
"a blutch" and "obsessed" was commonly used by the media, her former
lover, her friends, and her attorney.
COPY
AKJVl;s .t.mau ;system
CREATOR: Michelle Peterson ( CN=Michelle [ WHO
CREATION DATE/TIME:l4-JAN-1999 19:20:25.00
SUBJECT:
TO: Tracy Pakulniewicz ( -CN=Tracy Pakulniewicz/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
I expect Sensenbrenner is referring to a question in here where he
referred to both the deposition and the grand .jury and chuck answered with
respect to the deposition. Chuck's answer is clearly directed to Jones
deposition. He later makes this clea-r in his specific answer to the grand
-j 1,1ry question. It shows Serisenbrenner is playing games.
REP. SENSENBRENNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Ruff. And thank you for a
very eloquent statement. I will not get into the business that there were
no fact witnesses provided here, because you're obviously the president's.
-up_hitter. But I do thirik that we've got to cut through the academic
discourse and the legal hair-splitting_that's gone on in order to make an
essential determination on whether the president' has committed an
impeachable offense. And let me say, for my own part, that I believe at
least perjury before a grand jury is an impeachable-- offense, whether the
perjury has been committed by the president or whether it has:been
committed by a federal judge. I think that that issue was decided nine
years ago in the Walter Nixon impeachment. So getting to whether or not
the 'president did make a false statement before the
grand jury, let me ask you a few qu'estioris. First, Mr. Ruff, did the
president mislead the American people when he denied having sexual
relations with Monica Lewinsky?
MR. RUFF: He has admitted doing so, Mr. Congressman.
REP. SENSENBRENNER: _Did he lie, then?
MR. RUFF: Mr. Congressman, I think there is no secret here. When he stood
in the Roosevelt Room and said, "I never had sexual relations with Ms.
Lewinsky," he knew that the vast majority of the people who were listening
to him out there would probably understand that to mean that he had no
improper relationship '-':'ith her of any kind. And he-knew when he said that
-- holding within him, as he did, his understanding that sexual relations
means sexual intercourse -- that he
was misleading the people who were listening to him.
REP. SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Ruff, was the president evasive and misleading in
his answers-in the civil deposition and before the grand jury?
MR. RUFF: I've so stated, and so he.
REP. SENSENBRENNER: Did he lie?
MR. RUFF: The president engaged in an exercise, the hallmark of which was
a desire to be as little-help to these people on the other side of the
Jones case as he possibly could. I think my colleagues' description of
his testimony as evasive, misleading and maddening is probably as good as
you can get.
REP. SENSENBRENNER: But did he lie?
MR. RUFF: And I'm going to respond to your question.. I have no doubt that
he walked up to a line that he thought he understood. Reasonable people,
and you maybe have reached this conclusion, could determine that he
crossed over that line and that what for him was truthful but misleading
or non-responsive and misleading or evasive was, in fact, _false. But in
his_ mind-- and that's the heart and soul of perjury-- he thought and he
believed that what he was doing c
0
p y
A -o- - ---
ARMS Email System
was being evasive but truthful.
REP. SENSENBRENNER: The oath that witnesses take require them to tell the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And I seem to recall '
that there.were a lot of people, myseif included, when asked by the press '.? ll
what advice we would give to the president when he went into the grand ':? . /1_4! V. -;;::
jury in August, was to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the .\ :::=.
7
0 ,:r
Indeed. \..:' \ . '
REP. SENSENBRENNER: Did he tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the
truth when he was in the grand jury?
MR. RUFF: He surely did.
REP. SENSENBRENNER: And how come, following the grand jury appearances, we
heard
all kinds of allegations of legal hair-splitting and debating the meaning
.of various types of words and claims that some of the questions were
ambiguous? My list includes words such as "is," "alone," "sex" and
"sexual relations." Do you have any more?
MR. RUFF: Well, I'll take your list for starters, but I'm not sure how
tnat addresses the question that you put me, which is, did he tell the
truth? He made it very clear to the grand jury that he had engaged in an
inappropriate intimate relationship. ,There's nobody who listened to that
response -- .
. REP. SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Ruff, you ire saying that some of the questions
were aTnbiguous, and the president really did not understand what those
questions were. Now, who do we blame for the fact that the president
didn't understand, arid we have had all of these redefinitions and legal
hair-'splitting? Is it the president or is it his lawyers?
MR. RUFF: I don't think you'll find any suggestion that the president
'didn't understand-the questions put_to him. What you will find is an
effort by him to explain not how he was responding to the qilestions in the
grand jury but how he responded to the questions in the deposition. And
that's where the issues are debated over what the meaning of those terms
is.
REP. SENSENBRENNER: But whose responsibility is that? Is it the
president's responsibility or his lawyers' when he's talking about all of
the legal hair-spiitting?
MR. RUFF: When the president is answering questions in the grand jury
under- oath, it is his responsibility to answer truthfully. He did so.
What your --
REP. SENSENBRENNER: Thank you.
REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Michigan,
Mr.
Conyers
COPY
......__:...___---
l"UUV!Cl .CU!i:I.U 0Y:SLC111 - -o-- -- --
CREATOR: Melissa M. Murray ( CN=Melissa M. Murray/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
SUBJECT: Impeachment Trial Transcript #3, January 15, 1999
.. .
TO: Bruce R. Lindsey ( CN=Bruce R. Lindsey/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
---------------------- Forwarded by Melissa M. Murray/WHO/EOP on 01/15/99
04:34 P ~ ~
Mark A. Kitchens
01/iS/99 04:18:35 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom. of this message
cc:
Subject:Impeachment Trial Transcript #3, January 15, 1999
BEGIN.SEGMENT THREE
SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT"CLINTON
Aired on JANUARY is, 1999
GEKAS: And the issue at hand would be the speeding -- speed limit.
Would he feel the same way, if as a result of the perjury committed as to
the rate of.speed, that someone's rights were erased from the case by
virtue of that perjury?
Elapsed Time 00000, Eastern Time 14:38
The gentleman acknowledged that that made a difference, and that Is what
the difference is here. The perjury per se, that be a phrase that we
lawyerscan adopt, the perjury per se is almost a given pursuant to the
commentary that we've heard from people in and out of this chamber.
But when.you add to it, the terrible consequence of see:Lng a fellow
citizen.pursuing justice thwarted, stopped in her tracks as it were, by
reason of the actions of the president, that is what the core issue here
is.
And to take it then from the.status of what consequence it had to that
fellow American citizen to the next step is, in my judgment, an easier one.
GEKAS: To go to the determination of whether or not there was an
impeachable offense. My colleagues w1ll show you how the law of perjury
and the law of obstruction of justice fit into this pattern of factual
circuro'stance that webring to you.
Eastern Time 14:40
But in the meantime, we must recount, even at the risk of overlapping
in some of the testimony, that following the initial recognition by the
president that there was going to be a witness list. And that Monica
Lewinsky would eventually appear, as she did on that witness list, this
occurred. Which is little examined, thus far in the world of the scandal,
in which we're all participants.
And that is this, the first item of business on the part of the Jones
lawyers in pursuing the rights oClOlJYssue a set of
.tU\..lV10 .CU!Q.ll u J '>lv.LU
interrogatories, a discovery procedure that is well recognized in our
courts all over the land .
. ' GEKAS: I say to the ladies and gentlemen of the Senate that this was
'the first falsehood stated under oath which became a chain reaction of
falsehoods under oath, and even without the oath, all the way to the
nuclear explosion of falsehoods that were uttered in the grand jury in
August of 1998.
This little innocuous piece of paper called interrogatories was placed
before the president, presumably with or without counsel, but let's even
presume with counsel, and it was a straight question, not with any
definitions, no confusing colloquy between a judge and a gaggle of
lawyers, no interpretive -- interpretation being put on any particular .
word in the interrogatories, but whether or not sexual relations had been
urged or participated in by the president of the United States. And the
answer was none, in naming those persons.
What does that mean. to you?
GEKAS: Does that not mean to you that, when confronted right at.the
outset with the phrase ''sexual relations'' that the president adopted and
determined the common usage, well-understood definition of sexual
relations that everybody in America recognizes as being the true meaning
of sexual relations -- meaning sex of any kind?
Did not the president answer that under the.common understanding that
all of us entertain when we discuss, if more so than the last year than
ever before in our lives, the phrase ''sexual relations?''
To me, that's a telling feature in this case, because when you leap
over that and get to the depositions, and everything that the president
might have said in those depositions, as his counsel have repeatedly
asserted to us, was true .:._that he did not lie, that he did not commit
perjury, that.he did not evade the truth, that _:_ some of if was puzzling
to them, even -- but that it did_not amourit to perjury.
Can they say that about the statement one month before on December 23rd
in the interrogatories?
GE.KAS: That's extremely important. Now, that is my recollection. Yours
is the one that will have to predominate of course, but the weight that I
put on it, I urge you to at least evaluate as you begin to level your
weight on the evidence that has been presented.
Alld if that was not.enough, on January the 15th, again before .the
deposition, another interrogatory, this one a request for documents, was
submitted to the president. And again, the questioning there was, and
you'll see it in the record, it's iri the record, the request for documents
says to submit anything that pertained to Monica Lewinsky, the intern or
employee Monica Lewinsky, of whatever description --notes, gifts,
whatever. And the president in that particular instance against said
. ''none.' '
I'm willing to give the president a reasonable doubt on that, and even
ask you if you don't place as much weight on it as I do, to forget all
about that. But the point is that these assertions under oath were made
before the Jones deposition was ever even conceived, let alone undertaken
on January the.l7th.
GEKAS: And so, he cannot, the president cannot use the lawyer talk and
judge banter and the descriptions and definitions of sexual relations to
cloud the answers that he gave at that time. And all of this in the
continuous effort to destroy the rights of Paula Jones, a fellow American
citizen.
That brings up the question, if someone, a member of your. family, or
someone who is a witness to these proceedings, had a serious case in which
oneself, one's property, one's family has been severely damaged, would you
suffer without a whimper perjurious testimony given against you? Would you
know down deep that at the end to lose your
.,_ . -- . ....
(' \
.-:::,'

:-'I
'
\ /
1\..KlV!.:> CIUiill .:>y::;LClll ... -o- _, -A ..... ..,
chance at retribution, a chance to be compensated for damages, to restore
your family life? Isn't that what our system is all about? Isn't that what
the adverse consequence is of the attempt to obliterate the Paula Jones ._.-,.
civil suit? 'i
GEKAS: That's what it is, Not he committed perjury, so what! It is
the end result of that perjury might be that you should weigh. Skip over
1
\()
the fact that he committed perjury. We all acknowledge that, it is said.
But now, tell me what.that does to Paul jones or. potentially could do to
Paula Jones? Or to one of you or to one of your spouses, or to one of, a
member of your community who wants to have justice done in the courts.
Eastern Time 14:48
Obstruction of justice is obstruction of justice to an individual or to
a family. To take from Paula Jones and telescope it upwards to every to
community and every courthouse and every state and every community in our
land. And there is a Paul Jones eager to assert certain rights. And then,
be confronted with someone who would tear it down by false testimony,.by
lies under oath.
That is what the gravamen (ph) of ali of this really is.
One .more thing, the colinsel for the president, have repeatedly an very
authoritatively and professionally have asserted, as many of you have,
that this is not an impeachable offense.
GEKAS: For after all they say, an impeachable offense -- an impeachable
offense is one in which there is a direct attack on the system of
government, not perjury, not obstruction of justice. So what on tho-se,
they imply. They say it does not perjury, especialiy about sex --
attack the system of government.
Eastern Time 14:49
I must tell you that, as an eight or nine or 10 year old, I would
accompany my mother to naturalization school three or four nights a week
where my mother was intent on learning the English language and learning
about the history of the United States, as the teachers for naturalization
were preparing these prospective citizens. And she was so proud that she
learned that the first president of the United States was George
Washington, was prepared to answer that question if it was posed to her at
naturalization court. And she was so proud when I was testing her
preparing her.
GEKAS: Each time I said, what are the three branches of
government?'' And she would say, exec, andthe legislay, and the
judish'' in her wonderfui, lovable accent. She knew the system of
government and she did have to answer that at naturalization court. And
she knew that one wall of the three that protect our rights is the judish.
She knew that the courthouse and the rights of citizens which are advanced
in that courthouse is -- are the system of government.
Eastern Time 14:50
Can anyone say that purposely attempting to destroy someone's case in
the courthouse is not an attack on the system of government of our country?
Mr. Chabot will elucidate on perjury.
REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Chabot.
CHABOT: Mr. Chief Justice, senators, distinguished counsel for the
president, I'm Steve Chabot and I represent the 1st District of Ohio.
CHABOT: Prior to my election to Congress, I practiced law in Cincinnati
for about 15 years. As I stand before you today, I must admit that I feel
a long way away from that small neighborhood law practice that I had. But
while (his arena may be somewhat foreign to me, the law remains the same.
As one of the managers who represents the House, I am here to summarize
the law of perjury. While today's discussion of the law may not be as
captivating as yesterday's discussion of the facts, it is nevertheless
essential that we thoroughly review the law as we move forward in this
historic process.
I will try to lay out the can. without
--
C:J\; /;>j:_
( \,
/ ,,
'(i.. \
).':
>
using an extraordinary amount of the Senate's time, but I beg you to
indulge me.
In the United States Criminal Code, there are two perjury offenses. The
offenses are found in section 1621 and 1623 of Title 18 of the United
States Criminal Code. Section 1621 is the broad perjury statute which
makes it a federal offense to knowingly and willfully make a false
statement about a material matter while under oath.
CHABOT: Section 1623 is the more specific perjury statute, which makes
it a federal offense to knowingly make a false statement about a material
matter while under oath before a federal court or before a federal grand
jury.
Eastern Time 14:53
It is a well-settled rule that when two criminal statutes overlap, the
government may charge a defendant under_ either one. As you know, the
president's false statements covered in the first impeachment article were
made before a federal grand jury. Therefore, section 1623 is the most
relevant_ statute. However, section 1621 is applicable as well.
The elements of perjury. There are four general elements of perjury.
They are an oath, an intent, falsity and materiality. I'd like to walk you
through each of those elements at this time.
First, the oath. The oath need not be administered in any particular
form. But it must be administered by a person or body legally authorized
to do so. In this case, there has been no serious challenge made to the
legitimacy of the oaths administered to the president, either in a civil
deposition in the Jones v. Clinton case, or before the federal grand jury.
Let's once again witness President Clinton swearing to. tell the truth
before a federal grand jury.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
QUESTION: . . . you're
whole truth and nothing
CLINTON: I do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
about to give in this matter be the truth, the
but the truth, so help you God?
. .
CHABOT: The oath element has clearly been satisfied in this case.
The next element is intent. To this day; the president has refused to
acknowledge what the vast majority of Americans know to be true -- that he
knowingly lied under oath. The president's continued inability to tell the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth has forced this body,
this jury, to determine the president's true intent.
_The interit element requires that the false testimony was knowingly
stated anddescribed. This requirement is generally satisfied by proof
that the defendant knew his testimony was false at the time it .was
provided. As with almost all perjury cases, you will have .to make a
decision regarding the president's knowledge of his own faise statements
based on the surrounding facts, and, yes, by circumstantial evidence.
CHABOT: This does not in any way weaken the case against the president.
In the absence of an admission by the defendant,_ relying on circumstantial
evidence is virtually the only way to prove the crime of perjury.
The federal jury instructions, which federal courts use. in perjury
cases, can provide helpful guidance in understanding what is by the
requirement that the false statement must be made knowingly. Let me quote
from the federal jury instructions.
the word 'knowingly' is used, it means-that the defendant
realized what he was doing and was aware of the nature of his conduct and
did not act through ignorance, mistake or accident.''
So as you reflect on the president's carefully calculated statements,
remember the federal jury instructions and ask a few simple questions: Did
the president realize what he was doing, what he was saying? Was he aware
of the nature of his conduct? Or did the president simply act through
ignorance, mistake or accident? .
The answers to these even to the
/. <
'' J
. .J
.Cl....J.. '-1. Y.l.U .LJJ..J...u.&.J..J.. U J "-.&..L.A.
president's own attorneys. In fact, Mr. Ruff and Mr. Craig testified
before the Judiciary Committee that the president willfully misled the
court.
CHABOT: . Let's listen to Mr. Ruff.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(UNKNOWN) : But did he lie?
RUFF: And Iim going to respond to your question. I have no doUbt that
he walked up to a line that he thought he .understood. Reasonable people,
and you maybe have reached this 'conclusion, could determine that he
crossed over that line and that what for him was truthful but misleading
or nonresponsive and misleading or evasive was in fact false.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Eastern Time 14:57
CHABOT: In an extraordinary admission, the president's own attorney has
acknowledged thecare, the intention, the will of the president to say
precisely what he said.
The president's actions speak volumes about his intent to make false
statements under oath. For example, the president called his secretary,
Betty Cu+rie, within hours of concluding his civil deposition and asked
her to come to the White House the following day. The pres -- President
Clinton then recited false characterizations to her about his relationship
with Ms. Lewinsky.
As you've already heard, Ms. Currie testified that the president made
the foliowing statements to her. You were always there when she was there,
right? We were riever really alone .
. GEKAS: A of interrogatories arrives at the president Is desk .. At
this juncture, this is way before the president.appeared at the
depositions about which you know everything now. The facts have been
related to you in 100 different ways. You.know that pretty well. I know
you do ..
But did you know -- did you -- can you fasten your attention for
a moment, knowing that th.is happened in depositions on a month before, on
December the 23rd 1997 when what the president had in front of him were
interrogatories that said, that asked: Did he ever have sexual rel.ations
with anyone other than his spouse during the time that.he was governor of
Arkansas or president of the United States?
And there the president answered, or I think that the interrogatory
stated, name any persons with whom you've had sexual relations other than
your wife. And the answer that the president rendered into those
interrogatories
1
.under oath, WaS I I
CHABOT: You could see and hear everything. Monica came on to me and I
never touched her, right? She wanted to have sex with me and
I can't dathat.
Eastern Time 14:58
This is not the conduct of someone who believed he had testified
truthfully. It is not the conduct of someone who acted through ignorance,
mistake, accident. Rather, it is the conduct of someone who lied, knew he
had lied and needed others to modify their stories accordingly.
Finally, it is painstakingly clear, during the president's grand jury
testimony, that he again knows exactly what he's doing. Let's again watch
the following expert from that testimony:
(BEGIN VIDEO.CLIP)
UNKNOWN: It was a utterly false statement. Is that correct?
CLINTON: It depends upon what the meaning of the word is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHABOT: In this instance, and in many others that have presented to you
over the last two days, the facts and 'the law speak plainly.
CHABOT: The president's actions and demeanor make the case that
President Clinton knowingly and willfully lied under oath in a grand jury
proceeding and in a civil deposic OOP'Y'vidence in this case
.-".,: :,':.::2-S < C.:,v i,:;.;,
.'..::::.
,1. ,''-
rll\...l.V.UJ .l..JJ.J.J.U...U
- -o- - -- --
satisfies the intent element required under both sections 1621 and 1623 of
the federal criminal code.
The next element, falsity -- the next element of perjury.is falsity. In
order for perjury to occur in this case, the president must have made one
or more false statements. Yesterday, my colleagues went through the
evidence on this matter in great detail and clearly demonstrated that the
president did in fact make false statements while under oath.
Because of the evidence that was presented to date, without question
the president's falsity and his false statements have been shown, so I'm
go;i.ng to rricive forward to the final element of perjury, which is
materiality.
The test for whether a statement is material is stated. by the Supreme
Court in Kunges (ph) versus United States, is simply whether it had.a
natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the official
proceeding ..
CHABOT: The law also makes clear that the false statement does not have
to actually impede the grand jury's investigation for the statement to be
material.
Eastern Time 15:01
The law regarding the of false statements before a grand
jury is very straightforward. Because a grand jury's authorities to
investigate is broad, the realm of declarations regarded as material is
broad. The president's false statements to the grand jury were material,
. because the grand jury was investigating whether the president had
_obstructed justice and committed perjury in a civil deposition.
Now,_ let's look at potential legal smokescreens. The president's
attorneys will try to dist_ract you from the relevant law and facts in this
case. To help you stay focused on the law, I would like to preview some of
the arguments that may be made by the president's attorneys.
Legal smokescreen number one, the Bronston case. You will probably hear
opposing counsel argue that the president did not technically commit
perjury and appeal to the case of Bronston v. United States. Th:l.s is a
legal smokescreen.
In the Bronston case, the Supreme Court held that statements that are.
literally truthful and nonresponsive carinot by themselves form the basis
for perjury conviction. This is the cornerstone of the president's defense.
However, the court also held that the unresponsive statements must be
technically true in order to prevent a perjury conviction.
CHABOT: Such statements must not be capable of being conclusively
proven false. As we've. seen, none of the president's perjurious statements
before the grand jury covered in the first impeachment article are
technically true.
So when the president's counsel cites the Bronston (ph) case, remember
the facts and askyourselves: Are the president's answers literally true?
And remember, to be literally true, they must actually be true.
. It is also important to note that, consistent with the Bronston case,
the response ''I don't recall'' is not technically true if the president
actually could recall.
The factual record in the case, consisting of multiple sworn statements
contradicting the president's testimony and highly specific corroborating'
evidence, demonstrates that the president's statements were not literally
true or legally accurate. On the contrary, the record establishes that the
president repeatedly lied, he repeatedly deceived, he repeatedly feigned
forgetfulness.
There are other clear and important limitations on the Bronston (ph)
case's scope. In U.S. vs. Dezarn (ph), handed down just three months ago
by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, the court made an important ruling
that is directly on point in this case.
CHABOT: The court of appeals stated, and I quote, ''because we believe
that the crime of perjury of the
.....-
!
:'
.: i--
/.
questioning itself, but also upon the knowledge and reasonable
understanding of the testifier'' -- President Clinton -- "as to what is
meant by the questioning, we hold that a defendant'may be found guilty of
perjury if a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence
presentea that the defendant knew what the question meant and gave
knowingly untruthful and materially misleading answers in response .. ''
The Bronston (ph) case has further limitations. For example, in Uni
States versus Swindall (ph), the court held that the jury can convict
perjury even if the questions of statements. involved are capable of
multiple interpretations; where only one interpretation is reasonable
under the circumstances surrounding their utterance.
In United States versus .Doherty (ph), the court held that the
prosecution for perjury is. not barred under Bronston, and I quote,
''whenever some ambiguity can be found by' an implausibly strained reading
of the question posed.''
CHABOT: I would submit to this body that implausibly strained reading
of the questions posed is precisely what confronts us time and again in
the.case of the president before the grand jury.
Legal smoke screen number two, the two witness rule. In the coming
days, you.may hear opposing counsel argue that the president did not
commit perjury by appealing to the so-called two witness rule. Again, this
is nothing but a legal smoke screen .
. This common law rule requires that there be either two witnesses to a
perjurious statement or in the alternative, that there be one witness and
corroborating evidence of the perjury.
Opposing counsel may suggest that because there were not. two witnesses
present for some of the president's he did not
.technically commit perjury. Such ari appeal tci the two witness rule is
wrong for several reasons.
First, the two .witness rtile.:Ls not applicable under Section 1623, only
under 1621. The'lariguage of 1623 provides and ..
. I quote, "It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any
particular number of witnesses. Or, by documentary or other type of
evidence.'' Congress passed Section 1623, back in 1970, to the
two witness requirement. And to facilitate the prosecution.of perjury and
erihance the reliability of testimony before federal courts and federal
grand juries.
CHABOT: The legislative history establishes this as the fundamental
purpose of the statute. Additionally, substantial evidence has been
presented over the last two days to satisfy the requirements of the two
witness rule under Section 1621.
Eastern Time 15:06
Remember, when the two witness rule applies it does not actually
require two witnesses. Indeed, it requires either two witnesses or one
witness and evidence. As you know, there is a witness to
each and every one of the president's false statements. And th.ere is
voluminous evidence which corroborates the falsehood of his statements.
Finally, case law tells us that the two witness rule is not applicable
under certain circumstances when the defendant falsely claims an inability
t9 recall a material matter.
CHABOT: Another possible legal smokescreen? The drafting of Article I,
Article I being the first article of impeachment.
As you know, impeachment Article I says that, and I quote, ''contrary
to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious,.
false and misleading testimony to the grand jury.' '
You may hear opposing counsel argue that section 1621 is the only
applicable statute, because the article of impeachment accuses the
president of willfully committing perjury. This is another legal
smokescreen. Following that reasoning, one could just as easily make the
argument that 1623 was contemplaCeOP yerm "false'' does
- t.,;J-
01J.lQ.1l u J O::.LvlH
not appear in 1621 but does appear in 1623.
However, that's not the point. The point is that the language of the
impeachment article did not use these terms as terms of art, as they. are
defined and used in various criminal statutes. While. the article of
impeachment does not draw a distinction between the standards, evidence
has been presented over the last two days that demonstrates that the
president did knowingly and willfully lie under oath regarding material
matters before a grand jury, and that satisfies both 1623 and 1621.
in the context of perjury law, the distinction between a knowing
falsehood and a willful falsehood is almost a distinction without a
difference. In American Surety Company v. Sullivan, the Second Circuit
stated that the word ''willful,'' even in a criminal statute, means no
more than the person charged with the duty knows what he is doing.
CHABOT: So that in essence is the law of perjury.
Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Senate, throughout this long and
difficult process, apologists for the president have maintained that his
actions might well_have been reprehensible but are not necessarily worthy
of impeachment and removal from I would sUbmit, however, that
telling the truth under oath is critically important to our judicial
system, and that perjury, of which I believe a compelling case is being
made, strikes a terrible blow against the machinery of justice in this
country.
The president of the United States, the chief law enforcement officer
of this land, lied under oath.
CHABOT: He. rc:l.ised his right hand and he swore to tell the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth, and then he lied, pure and simple.
Why is perjur such a serious offense? Under the American system of
justice, our courts are charged with seeking the truth. Every day,
American citizens raise their right hands in courtrooms across the country
.and take an oath to tell the truth .. Breaking that oath cripples our
justice system.
. By lying under oath,- the president did not just commit perjury --an
offense punishable under our .criminal code -- but he chipped away at the
very cornerstone .of our judicial system.
The first chief justice of the United _States Supreme Court, John Jay,
eloquently stated why perjury is so dangerous, 2,00 years ago. On June
25, 1792, in a charge to the grand jury of the circuit court for the
district of Vermont, the chief justice said, and I quote: ''Independent of
the abominable insult which perjury offers to the divine being, there is
no crime more extensively pernicious to society. It discolors and poisons
the streams of justice.
CHABOT: And by substituting falsehood for truth saps the foundations of
persorial and public-rights.
Controversies of various kinds exist at all times and in all
communities. To decide them, the courts of justice are instituted. Their.
decisions must be regulated by evidence, and the greater part of evidence
will always consists of the testimony of witnesses.
This testimony is given under those solemn obligations which an appeal
to the God of truth impose, and if oaths would cease to be held sacred,
our dearest and most valuable rights would become insecure.
Why has the president been impeached by the United States House of
Representatives? Why he is on trial here today in the United States
Senate? Because he lied under oath. Because he committed perjury. Because
if oaths cease to be held sacred, our dearest and most valuab-le rights
will become insecure.
During the_ course of this trial, members of this distinguished body,
the jurors in this case, will have to consider the law and the facts very
carefully. It is a daunting task and an awesome responsibility, one_that
cannot be taken lightly.
CHABOT: I would humbly

of the
.;
/
rl.J.'UV.li..J DlilCLU LJ J
president that we must all weigh the impact of our actions, not only our
beloved nation today, but on American history.
It is my belief that if the actions of the president are ultimately
disregarded or minimized, wewill besending a sorry message to the
American people that the president of the United States is above the law.
' We will be sending a message to our children, to my children, that
telling the truth doesn't really.matter if you've got a good lawyer or
you're an exceptionally skilled liar. That would be tragic.
Mr. Chief Justice, senators, let us instead send a message to the
American people, and to the boys and girls who will be studying American
history in the years to come, that no person is above the law and that
this great .nation remains an entity governed by the rule of law.
Let us do what is right, let us do what is just. Thank you.
REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Cannon.
CANNON: Mr. Chief Justice; senators, distinguished coUnsel for the
president, my name is Chris Cannon. .
CANNON: I represent Utah's 3rd Congressional District. John Locke once
said, ''Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.'' And speaking to our American
experience, Teddy Roosevelt added, ''No man is above the law and no man is
below it. Nor do we ask any man's permission 'when we require hiin to obey
the law. Obedience to the law is demanded by right, not as a favor.''
This case is about the violation of.law. My task.is to clarify what the
law states pertaining to the obstruction of justice and what legal
precedent is applicable to the charges against William Jefferson Clinton.
While both the laws and_ the violations in this case are clear and
direct, the presentation I am about to make will not be simple.
I ask your indulgence and attention as I walk you through case history and
statutory elements. I promise to be brief, probably less than a half an
hour, and direct.
CANNON: I will present the legal underpinnings of the law of
obstruction of justice.
Eastern Time 15:16
You should have before you a text of the speech, including the full
citations to the cases and (OFF-MIKE) that I will use in this
presentation, I have a -- Article II of the articles of impeachment
alleges that the president prevented, obstructed, and impeded the
administration of justice, both personally and through his subordinates
and agents, and that he did 130 as part of a pattern designed to delay,
impede, cover up and conceal the. existence of evidence and testimony
related to a federal civil rights action brought against him. Article II
specifies seven separate instances in which the president acted to
obstruct justice.
The House believes the evidence in this case proves that each of the
seven separate acts which comprised the president's scheme constitute
obstruction of justice.
I'd like to draw your attention at this time to the chart at my right,
and the first page in your packet, which depicts.section --elements of
section 1503. Whoever corruptly influences, obstructs, or impedes or
endeavors to influence, obstruct or impede the due administration of
justice shall be punished as provided in subsection {b) . The punishment
for an offense under this section is imprisonment for not more than.lO
years, a fine under this title, or both.
CANNON: Section 1503 is often referred to as the general obstruction
statute. It describes obstruction simply as an impact on the due
administration of justice.
Section 1503 deems it criminal to use force or threats or to otherwise
act corruptly in order to influence, obstruct or impede the due
administration of justice. Federal court rulings clarify that it is not
necessary for the defendant to succeed in obstructing justice.
Again, I direct your attentioc chart
...... _
DlllQ.U .:>J;:.Lvlll
in your packet. Russell and Agular (ph) each ruled that it is not
necessary that a defendant endeavor -- a defendant, s endeavor succeed for
him to have violated the law. Rather simply attempting to influence,
------
.obstruct or impede the due administration of justice violates the statute. ' .. ,:;.: S!i);::,;.
Magot (ph) clearly stated it is the endeavor to bring about the "';
1
:<;
forbidden result and not the success in actually .achieving the result that).?'
is forbidden.

must . . For the government to prove a section 1503 crime, it
that the de.fendant acted with intent. This can be shown
force, threats or by -- threats by the defendant, or by
that the defendant ac.ted corruptly. The following chart
histories regarding the term corruptly. ' '
i\ .-l
through the use of)
simply showing
gives three case
Haldeman and Sprecker (ph) held that a defendant acts corruptly by
having an intent or by having an evil or improper purpose and intent.
Barfield (ph) defined acting corruptly as knowingly and intentionally
in order to encourage obstruction.
Sprecker (ph) also ruled that the government need not prove the actual
intent of the defendant. Rather, the intent to act corruptly can be
inferred from the proof that the defendant knew his corrupt actions would
obstruct the justice being administered.
Under section 1503, the government must also prove that the defendant
endeavored to infiuence, obstruct or impede the due administration of
justice. The statute is broadly applicable.to all phasesof judicial
proceedings.
CANNON: Haldeman and.Sprecker (ph) held that a defendant acts corruptly
by ari. havingan intent or by having ari evil or improper purpose and
intent. Barfield (ph) defined acting corruptly was knowingly acting and
intentionally acting in order to encourage to corruption.
Sprecker (ph) also.ruled that the government need not prove the actual
intent of the rather the intent to act corruptly can be
inferred from the proof that the defendant knew his corrupt actions would
obstruct justicebeing administered.
Under Section 1503, the government must also prove that the defendant
endeavored to influence, obstruct or impede the due administration of
justice. The statute-is broadly to all phases of judicial
proceedings. In Brenson (ph), described due administration of justice as a.
protective cloak over all judicial proceedings regardless of the stage in
which the improper activity occurs.
Lundall (ph) clarifies that Section 1503 is also intended to protect
the discovery phase of judicial proceedings, stating that the phrase
administration of justice'' is intended to provide
a free and fair opportunity to every litigant in acase pending in the
federal court to learn what he may learn concerning the material facts and
to exercise his option to testimony or such facts.
The House believes that the facts of this case make it very clear that
the president did corruptly impair the ability of a litigant in federal
court to learn all of the facts that she was entitled to learn.
cANNON: In doing so, the president committed obstruction of justice
under section 1503.
The other federal crime'which the president committed was witness
tampering under.section 1512 of Title XVIII. Again, I refer you to the
chart on my right and to the second page in your packet which depicts the
elements of the section.
knowingly corrupts -- knowingly corruptly persuades another
person or attempts to do so or engages in misleading conduct toward
another person with the intent to, one, influence, delay or prevent the
testimony of any person in an official proceeding, or, two, cause or
induce any person to withhold. testimony or to without a document or an
object from an official proceeding; shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned for not more than ten CsdoPY
.. --
i
I
Sections 1503 and 1512 differ in an important way. There does not need
to be a case pendirig at the time the defendant acts to violate the law
under section 1512. The statute specifically states that, for the purposes
of this section, an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be
instituted at the time of the offense for the crime to be committed.
Putting it another way, a person may attempt to tamper with a witness ;::-
and commit the crime of witness tampering before such a person is called t\j . Cl. /
as a witness and even before there is a case underway in which that person (]_D
might be called to testify. , \. J
CANNON: For the government to prove the crime of witness tampering, it
must prove that the defendant acted with the intent to cause one of
several results.
The defendant can be convicted if he acted to influence, delay or
prevent the testimony of any person in any official proceeding; or the
defendant ca.n be convicted if he acted to cause another person to withhold
an object from an official proceeding. In the. case before us, the evidence
proves that the president endeavored to cause both of these results on
o6casiohs.
And the government may show intent on the part of the defendant in
several ways. It may prove 'the use of intimidad.on, physical force or
threats, or it may prove intent by showing the use of corrupt persuasion
or misleading conduct. In this case the evidence shows that onseveral
occasions the president acted corruptly to persuade some witnesses, and
engaged in misleading conduct toward others in "order to influence their
testimony and cause them to withhold_ evidence or give wrongful testimony.
In each instance the president violated the witness tampering statute.
How does acting corruptly to persuade a witness differ from misleading
engaging in misleading conduct? Section 15i5 of title 18 states, as
used in section 1512, that's the witness tampering_section, of this title
and this section, the term conduct'' means knowingly making a
false statement or intentionally omitting information from a statement and"
thereby causing a portion of such statement to be misleading or
intentionally concealing a material fact, and thereby creating a false
impression by such statement; or with intent to mislead, knowingly
submitting or inviting reliance on a writing or recording that is false,
forged, altered or otherwise lacking in authenticity.''
CANNON: The difference, then, between corruptly persuading a witness
and engaging in misleading conduct toward the witness depends on the
witness' level of knowledge about the truth of the defendant's statement.
Rutelitz (ph) held that misleading conduct involves a situation where a
defendant tells a potential witness a false story as if the story were
true, intending that the witness believe the sto.ry and testify to it
before a grand jury.
Let me clar{fy this detail: if a defendant simply asks a witness to
lie, and the witness knows that he is being asked to lie, then the
defendant is corruptly persuading the witness. In cont:J:"ast, if
a defendant lies to a witness, hoping the witness will believe the story,
and -- this is misleading conduct. They're different but they are both
criminal.
Some may it is necessary that the witness who is influenced or
tampered with know that he or she might be called to testify. The answer
is no, and both sections 1503 and 1512 answer this question. The witness
tampering statute can be violated even if the victim has not been
subpoenaed or listed as a potential witness in an ongoing proceeding.
CANNON: In Shannon, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
reviewed the conviction of a defendant under section 1503 who had
attempted to influence the testimony of a person who had not yet been
subpoenaed or placed on a witness list.
On appeal, the defendant argued that because the target of the
obstruction had nOt yet become "()iQ wf>s\('the case, it was
impossible for the defendant to have engaged in obstruction toward her.
The court of appeals rejected that assertion. In affirming the conviction, ...
the court held, must the target be scheduled to testify at the ,- ) ''
1

time of the offense, nor must he or she actually_ give testimony at a later
\
('\
time. It. is only necessary. that there is a possibility that the target of 2. /2,.., &. \.
the defendant IS activities be called on to testify in an official J I 0:. ; 7.)'
proceeding. ' ' \0 D ;:, I
The witness tampering statute can be violated even when no case is \'1, ;:_ci
pending. Therefore, it will not always be clear to whom the defendant "
.intended the individual to testify, and the statute does not require proof
of this.
In Morrison (ph) , the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia explained that section 1512 is violated if the defendant asks
a person to lie to anyone who asks. The court held that it is not
necessary that the defendant even use the words ' .or
when he tries to influence the testimony of the other person. In such a
case, there are no subpoenas. There are ,no-witness lists.
CANNON: The mere attempt to influence the persori to lie, if asked, is
the crime.
So under either section 1503 or 1512, the fact that the target of a
defendant's actions. is. not named as a witness or that the person is not
ever called to be a witness is immaterial. The focus of both statutes is
on what the deferidant:believed. If the defendant believes that it is
possible that some person might someday be called to testify at some
laster proceeding and them acted to influence, delay or prevent his or her
testimony, the defendant commits the crime.
Now, some have asserted that an obstruction of justice charge cannot or
should not be made against the president because some of his acts occurred
in the context of a civil trial. There is simply no merit to this view.
There is no question that the obstruction and witness tampering statutes
can be violated.by acts that occur in civil proceedings. And case law is
consistent in upholding that any attempt to influence., obstruct or impede
the due administration of justice in a civil proceeding violates section
. 1503.
Lundwall (ph), which I referred to earlier, is a perfect example as it
began as a civil case. The actual language of the witness tampering
statute makes it clear that it also applies to civil cases. The statute
provides for enhanced penalties in criminal proceedings, a provision that
would be unnecessary if the law were only to apply to criminal cases.'
CANNON: In short, the fact that some instances of the president's
misconduct occurred in the course of a civil proceeding does not absolve
him of criminal liability. As Mr. Barr will demonstrate, the president of
the United States endeavored and did obstruct justice and tamper with
witnesses in violation of the law of the United States.
Eastern Time 15:26
On numerous occasions he acted with an improper purpose, with an intent
to interfere with the due administration of justice in the federal civil
rights lawsuit filed by Paula Jones. President Clinton corruptly
endeavored to persuade a witness to lie. In some case cases he succeeded.
In every case he violated the law. President engaged in misleading conduct
in or<;ler.to influence the testimony of witnesses in judicial proceedings.
He succeeded. In each case, he violated the law. President Clinton
acted with an improper person -- purpose to persuade a person to withhold
objects from a judicial proceeding in which that person was required to
produce them. He succeeded, and in so doing, he violated the law.
President Clinton made misleading statements for the purpose of
deterring a litigant from further discovery that would lead to facts which
the judge ordered relevant in a federal civil rights case. In so doing, he
obstructed the case -- and
--------
violated the law.
CANNON: Whether attempting to persuade a person to testify falsely or
to ignore court orders or to produce objects, whether suggesting to an ..
innocent person a false story in the hopes that he or she _will repeat it _;, ,,, ,
' '<
in a judicial proceeding or testifying falsely in the hopes of blocking :, \
other parties' pursuit of the truth, all these acts obstruct justice. lJ"'J '(J\
these acts are federal felony crimes. All these acts were committed by -
William Jefferson Clinton. (17 _ -_
_Thank you. '
REHNQUIST: The court recognizes -- the chair recognizes the majority
leader.
\
LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a
recess again of the proceedings for 15 minutes. Please return promptly to
the chamber.
REHNQUIST: Without objection, it's so ordered.
(RECESS)
LOTT: Would the senators return to their desks, plea_se, so that we can
resume the proceeding.
REHNQUIST: The Senate will come to order. The chair recognizes the
majority leader.
LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I believe we're ready for the final segment
for today. It will be presented by Mr. Manager Barr.
REHNQUIST: The chair recognized Mr. Manager Barr.
BARR: Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, learned counsel for the president
and fellow managers. On behalf of the House of Representatives, I thank
the Senate for the opportunity to appear today _and to present this
argument.
BARR: The House and I especially greatly appreciate the time and effort
the Senate has taken on this most important and notable matter.
You have heard the facts summarized by my colleagues. They have
described for you the law of perjury and_the law of obstruction. I will
discuss several of the specific instances in which William Jefferson
Clinton violated these laws as set forth in the articles of impeachment
presented to you. _
The process facing you, as jurors, of fitting the federal law of
obstruction of justice and of witness tampering and of perjury _into the
facts of the case against President William Jefferson Clinton is not a
case in which there is, nor shouid be, a great deal of It is
not a problem of fitting a round peg into a square hole. Quite the
contrary. We have a case here -- you have a case here for consideration,
in which the fit between fact and law is as precise as the finely tuned
mechanism of a Swiss watch, or as seamless a process as the convergence
and confluence of two great rivers_ such as flow through many of the cities
which you represent.
BARR: The evidence that President William Jefferson Clinton committed
perjury and obstruction is overwhelming. These are pattern offenses.
I beg your to the following exposition of facts and law; but,
before commencing, I would like to address three issues which have come up
during the course of the proceedings and which I believe might be helpful
for all of us to keep in mind as we proceed not only through today's final
presentations, but tomorrow's and those made by _ _: which will be made by
learned counsel for the president.
First, by' way of background on the process, that is the process that
brings us, House managers, to the_well of this great body, the trial of
the president of the United States of America.
As has been indicated previously by one of my colleague house managers,
and as everyone here knows full well, the responsibilities, the
jurisdiction and the process between the House of Representatives and the
Senate is very different in all three of those respects.
COPY

rl..!.UV.U..) .L.Jll!O.l.l. U J .:JI.VJ..l.l
END SEGMENT THREE
Message Sent

John Podesta/WHO/EOP
James E. Kennedy/WHO/EOP
Cheryl D. Mills/WHO/EOP
Charles F. Ruff/WHO/EOP
Lawrence J.
Jennifer M. Palmieri/WHO/EOP
Paul E. Begala/WHO/EOP
Anthony R. Bernal/OVP @ OVP
Melissa G. Green/OPD/EOP
Leslie Bernstein/WHO/EOP
Robin M. Roland/WHO/EOP
Maya Seiden/WHO/EOP
Chandler G. spaulding /WHO/EOP
Dominique L. Cano/WHO/EOP
Dag Vega/WHO/EOP
Brenda M. Anders/WHOiEOP
gamble-bennett @ dol.gov@ inet
Megan C. Moloney/WHO/EOP
Jake Siewert/OPD/EOP
Jordan
Beverly J. Barnes/WHO/EOP
Elizabeth R. Newman/WHO/EOP
Julia M. Payne/WHO/EOP
Julianne B. Corbett/WHO/EOP
Jeffrey M. Smith/OSTP/EOP
Lowell A. Weiss/WHO/EOP
Jonathan A. Kaplan/OPD/.EOP
Jonathan Orszag/OPD/EOP
Thurgood Marshall Jr/WHO/EOP
Jennifer Ferguson/OMB/EOP
Mark D. Neschis/WHO/EOP
Matthew I. Fraidin/OVP @ OVP
Ruby Shamir/WHO/EOP
Nanda Chitre/WHO/EOP
Amy Weiss/WHO/EOP
DavidS. Beaubaire/WHO/EOP.
Lisa J. Levin/WHO/EOP
Peter A. Weissman/OPD/EOP
William A. Halter/OMB/EOP
Eli G. Attie/OVP @ OVP
Patricia M. Ewing/OVP @ OVP
Sara M. Latham/WHO/EOP
Melissa M. Murray/WHO/EOP
Jonathan E. Smith/WHO/EOP
BarrY J. Toiv/WHO/EOP
Anne M. Edwards/WHO/EOP
Michael Waldrnan/WHO/EOP
Gene B. Sperling/OPD/EOP
Paul K. Engskov/WHO/EOP
Laura D. Schwartz/WHO/EOP
Kevin S .. Moran/WHO/EOP
Julie E. Mason/WHO/EOP
Steven J. Naplan/NSC/EOP
Daniel J. Gunia/OA/EOP
COPY
- -o- - . -- --
.: ... _
Alison Muscatine/WHO/EOP
Gordon Li/WHO/EOP
Jason H. Schechter/WHO/EOP
-Mark A. Kitchens/WHO/EOP
June Shih/WHO/EOP
Jeffrey A. Shesol/WHO/EOP
Rochester M. Johllson/WHO/EOP
Rachael E. Sullivan/OVP @ OVP
Christopher Ferris/OMB/EOP
Julie B. Goldberg/WHO/EOP
Sarah E. Gegenheimer/WHO/EOP
Susanna B. McGuire/WHO/EOP
Gregory B. Craig/WHO/EOP
Steve Ricchetti/WHO/EOP
Edward F. Hughes/WHO/EOP
Melissa J. Prober/WHO/EOP
Roger V. Salazar/WHO/EOP
Justin Coleman/WHO/EOP
Clara J. Shin/WHO/EOP
Guy Smith/WHO/EOP
Jonathan M. Prince/WHO/EOP
Joshua S. 'Gcittheimer /WHO/EOP
Heather M. Riley/WHO/EOP
Alejandro G. Cabrera/OVP @ OVP
Rebecca L. Walldorff/WHO/EOP
Jon P. Jennings/WHO/EOP
Katharine Button/WHO/EOP
Tracy Pakulniewicz/WHO/EOP
James T. Heimbach/WHO/EOP
Victoria L. Valentine/WHO/EOP
COPY
\_I(
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
001. email
002. email
003. email
004. email
005. email
006. email
007. email
008. email
009. email
010. email
011. email
COLLECTION:
SUBJECTffiTLE
gardner@penn.com to Charles F. Ruff at 17:14:39.00. Subject:
Impeachment trial. (2 pages)
rmcsween@iglobal.net to Charles F. Ruff and Cheryl D. Mills at
18:27:15.00. Subject: Please Read Before Monday's Session ... or, if
this case is NOT (4 pages)
Michele Steiner to Heather L .Davis at 20:45:59.00. Subject: Re: the
man, the myth, the legend. (1 page)
Jonathan E. Smith to Sidney Blumenthal at 11:49:15.00. Subject:
[none] (1 page)
Betty W. Currie to Melissa J. Prober at 11:54:27.00. Subject:
Witness. (1 page)
Abigail Smith to devin.c.green@nationsbank.com at 15:23:52.00.
Subject: Re: [none] (1 page)
Ruby Shamir to Sidney Blumenthal at 16:22:30.00. Subject: For what
it is worth ... (2 pages)
Hill to Anne Whitworth at 21 :40:00.00. Subject: I've e.mailed you
back... (1 page)
Reynolds Thomas GS 15 to Cheryl D. Mills at 12:48:41.00. Subject:
Suspicious Activity (1 page)
Barry J. Toiv to Amy Weiss, James E. Kennedy, Adam W. Goldberg,
and Joseph P. Lockhart. Subject: McCollum on Currie. (1 page)
Judithanne V. Scourfield to 0002152792 at 20:14:09.00. Subject: Re:
LOVE. (1 page)
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[0 1119/1999 - 02/0811999]
RESTRICTION CODES
DATE
01/19/1999
0112411999
01/2511999
01126/1999
01/2611999
01/26/1999
01/27/1999
01127/1999
01128/1999
02/0111999
02/04/1999
Presidential Records Act- 144 U.S.C. 2204(a)) Freedom of Information Act- 15 U.S.C. 552(b))
RESTRICfiON
P5
l
P5, P6/b(6)
I '"3 2' -s-
P6/b(6)
P5
P5
P6/b(6)
P5
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P5
P6/b(6)

1-:s k (__
13

2006-0319-F
ab897
PI National Security Classified Information l(a)(l) of the PRA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office l(a)(2) of the PRA)
PJ Release would violate a Federal statute l(a)(J) of the PRA]
financial information l(a)(4) of the PRA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors la)(S) of the PRAI
personal privacy l(a)(6) of the PRA]
of gift.
2201(3).
b(J) Release would violate a Federal statute l(b)(J) of the FOIA]
information l(b)(4) of the FOIA]
personal privacy l(b)(6) of the FOIA]
purposes l(b)(7) of the FOIA]
financial institutions l(b)(8) of the FOIA]
concerning wells l(b)(9) of the FOIA]
CREATOR: gardnerspenn.comINETLNGTWY ( gardnerspenn.comINETLNGTWY
SUBJECT: Impeachment trial
TO: Charles F. Ruffeop ( Charles F. Ruffeop [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
- -o- - - ..
UNKNOWN ] )
Mr. Ruff, I must commend you. You are undoubtedly one of the best defense ----
lawyers around. You did a good job today, considering the facts are not
on your side. You were very disingenous today. Although judge Wright did
not make her ruling on Monica Le
winsky until the evening of 12/11/98, do you claim that Clinton had no
idea that she may be a witness? That would be absurd!! Also, you forgot
to mention that Clinton explicitly broke the rule of the judge by speaking
with Curry about his testimony. . 0
h, I forgot, he was only "trying to get the facts straight" That is
ridiculous, considering he and Monica are the only ones who know the
facts. How could Betty tell him if he was ever alone with Monica? Oh,
that's right, Mr. Clinton doesn't understand
the definition of alone.
In closing, you are everything that the pUblic hates about
lawyers. You talk about everything except when the facts inconveniently
get in your way. I would threaten to break your legs, but .they already
are, so I can only wish you misfortune.
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE:
TEXT:
Richard c. Gardner
0 00:00:00.00
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
~
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-eqUiv=Content-Type>
<META content=' "MSHTML 4. 72.2106. 6" ' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Mr. Ruff, I must commend you. You are
undoubtedly one of the best defense lawyers around. You did a good job
today, considering the facts are not on your side. You were very
disingenous today. Although judge Wright did not make her ruling on Monic
a
Lewinsky until the evening of 12/11/98, do you claim that Clinton had no
idea that she may be a witness? That would be absurd!! Also, you
forgot to mention that Clinton explicitly broke the rule of the judge by
speaking with Curry about his testimony. Oh, I forgot, he was only
"trying to get the facts straight" That is ridiculous,
considering he and Monica are the orily ones who know the facts. How could
Betty tell him if he was ever alone with Monica? Oh, that's right, Mr.
Clinton doesn't understand the definition of alone.</DIV>
<DIV>' In closing
You talk about
everything except when the facts inconveniently get in your way. I would
threaten to break your legs, but they already are, so I can only wish you
misfortune.</DIV>
<DIV> </"fJIV>
<DIV>
&
nbsp;
Richard c. Gardner
</DIV></BODY></HTML>
================== END ATTACHMENT
1 ==================
==================== ATTACHMENT 2 ====================
-..
TEXT;
RFC-822-headers:
Received: from conversion.pmdf.eop.gov by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.l-9 #29131)
id <01J6QDPJNFGG002RPD@PMDF.EOP.GOV> for ruff_c@al.eop.gov; Tue,
19 Jan 1999 17:09i27 EST
Received: from storm.eop.gov by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.1-9 #29131)
with ESMTP id <01J6QDPHZEY0004UNO@PMDF.EOP.GOV> for ruff c@al.eop.gov; Tue,
19 Jan 1999 17:09:24 ~ s (EST) -
Received: from jane.penn.com ( [208.0.122.30]) by EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.2-29 #34437)
with ESMTP id <01J6QDOU4TRS0009LA@EOP.GOV> for ruff_c@a1.eop.gov; Tue,
19 Jan 1999 17:08:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from default (pm2port19.dubois.pcidu.com [208.6.10.89])
by jane.penn.com .(8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA03681 for <ruff_c@a1.eop.gov>;
Tue, 19 Jan 1999 17:08:46 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MIMEOLE.: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4. 72.2106.4
x-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
================== END ATTACHMENT
2 ==================
COPY
/
AlUVl;:) .Cllilill ;:) y:stvlU
CREATOR: rmcsweeniglobal. net@INET@LNGTWY ( rmcsweeniglobal. net@INETLNGTWY [ UNKNO
SUBJECT: PLEASE READ BEFORE MONDAY'S SESSION ..... or, if this case is NOT .
r -:_:. . ,; .
TO: Charles F. Ruff@eop ( Charles F. Ruff@eop [ WHO ]
READ: UNKNOWN
/. .. ..
'""?',,.
.-......
. .
TO: Cheryl D. Mills@eop ( Cheryl D. Mills@eop [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Dear Sirs and Madam,
First of all, I want to thank you for your brilliant defense of
my President. It is a load off of my mind to know that he has
true enthusiasts of the Constitution to help him through this
great d:l.fficulty. It is time for all of us to let go of
our feelings about the personal problems of Mr. and Mrs.
Clinton:. problems that I and the nation should never have known
about. It is my fervent hope that the First Family can get help
after this is done,. though I am afraid 'that this may not be
possible due to the inordinate publicity surrounding the entire
issue. What has happened to the spiritualtenet,
O&love the sinner .. hate the sin08?
I have spent a great deal of time considering the whole pi<(ture,
and I have come to the understand what the polls tell us, and I
want to share it with you because-it has not been brought forward
thus far: My understanding falls into three categories:
The people love and respect theConstitution and the ideals
of Democracy more than they love the people who
uphold or rebel against it.
That the whole premise of small government/local control is a
farce where the RepUblican party is concerned; and,
That the people in the United States understand what has
happened, and it has made us realize that what happens to one
man can.and probably will happen to another ..
1. WE DO NOT WANT THE CONSriTOTION OVERTHROWN.
It has been shown through the investigation of the President that
apparently ordinary citizens can lose their rights of free
speech, and indeed, their rights to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness if the O.I.C. wants to take them
away. Miss Monica Lewinsky has lost all of these principles of
.freedom as long as Ken Starr lives. This, indeed, is frightening
to me and to many others like me, Democrats and RepUblicans
alike.
The kind of power that the O.I.C. exercised during the UNLIMITED
investigation of the President, et.al. is a kind of power that
no one in a democracy should ever possess legally or otherwise.
We might expect that kind of power iri Nazi Germany or some other
Authoritarian government, but noceo p y
/
, ..
fi\,..1 V .liJ .L.JlJ.Hl.J.J. 1rJ J I) L.VJ..l.l
Ken Starr and his team, including the House Managers have shoWn
us that normal American citizens, or their duly elected officials
cannot expect to enjoy a private life. Such people who have
nearly omnipotent authority to investigate and the money to back
such an investigation could find "dirt" on anyone because we are
human and because we make mistakes. These.mistakes can (and
will) be amplified, exaggerated, publicized and tried without due
process or fairness. The right of a citizen under StarrO,s
investigative authority cannot expect to have the presumption of
innocence. Indeed, it seems to me that this team has
UNCONSTITuTIONAL power.
Indeed, it seems that most of those in the majority party of the
Congress feel that it is okay for them to eliminate a President,
just because they want to and they feel that they can. If they
cannot remove him from office, then. they will try to destroy him
and those around him in the media d&by hook or by crook.DB
Their own quest for power has blinded them to the fact that it is
their actions which have brought about that which is indecent and
unscrupulous. (I knew this the moment that I heard the phrase
0& ... the Presidenttl, s sperm08 on the TODAY SHOW.) Such material has
become prime time, and now pedestrian news for all time.
By being graphic, it was hoped that the public would somehow
become magnetized to their side. And, _when that did not happen,
they_did it again and again under the guise 6f O&new
information. OS
And to think, most of us believe that character assassination is
illegal.
2. I.will not elaborate on the House Managers' "we know better,
you poor plebeian servants," attitude toward the Ame-rican people:
IT IS THIS EXAMPLE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABHOR AND FEAR more
than
anything else.
I am worried that the precedents set in this investigation and
trial will carry over into the lives of all of us. When any
body, acting for the government in any-capacity, has license to
pursue (or staik) a citizen for the purpose of finding ANYTHING,
which might or might not be a crime, then we all lose.
We watched as Ken_ Starr used his power to subpoena a list of
books that Miss Lewinsky purchased, to collect articles of
clothing, to search and seize private property, not because they
knew that there was a crime, but because they were desperate to
find ANY evidence they could use at ANY COST.
And now, _we are listening to and watching .a "trial" that has at
its core illegally recorded tapes of conversations that cannot be
used as evidence in any other criminal trial because it would be
considered to be "fruit of a poisoned tree," I believe. No one
can assume.that any part of these conversations is true: at the
very least, one person is lying on thosetapes and at least one
of those peo'ple is engaged in a fantasy. How can anybody presume
which part is real and which
. ARMS Email System
..
On top of that the charge of perjury is based upon a case that
was thrown out of court because the. judge ruled that "even if all
of the evidence in the case were true, sexual harassment as
defined in legal statutes did not occur." Paula Jones lost
because she did not have a case.. It IS that simple.
In a real trial, most of the prosecution's case would be objected
tobecause the "evidence" is based upon supposition and
inference. Much of what the prosecution has put forward to would
be objected to and sustained as facts not in evidence. How is it
that this has been allowed to go forward?
It goes.on because we have a party that is wrapped up in its
power of majority.
I have never seen a more obvious example of the axiom that
" ... absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I am a teacher. I.teach the difference between fact and
opinion. The characteristics of opinion have been trampled upon
by the House Managers and the prosecutors iri this case, unless it
can be proven that theyhave suddenly been blessed with unusual
clairvoyant powers, I suppose.
How much larger can a government get? For now, it seems, leaders
of one of the parties have provable mind-reading abilities so we
can trust them to do everything correctly and we should let them
do so. In fact, we may not ever need elections again ... these
leaders can just name the successors tbiit they deem worthy.
3. I am not worried about what has been put forward as "the bad
example that the President is setting for our children." All of
us who have notbeen on Venus or Mars for the last two years know
and understand what the President has done. We also know and
understand the damage done to his wife and family. And we wish
that we did not.
I am petrified by the example being set by the prosecution: When
one knows he/she has a majority, anything goes, and the
Constitution be damned.
The entirety of this investigation and trial has put the American
way of life in jeopardy, and we could lose it for all time if
this "thing" succeeds and goes forward.
I love my country and I am a diehard fan of the liberties and
freedoms we enjoy. I am proud to teach that ours is a
Constitution that has lasted longer and stood more tests aver
time than any other.
Please win.
Sincerely,
Judi L. McSween
COPY
Page3 of4
:, j ...
\
,..... ..
,_, \
CUI
;7.)1
:;.;,;
:c 1
\!
/
_,/
ARMS Email System
Page 4 of4

fs gs
==================== ATTACHMENT 1 ====================
TEXT:
RFC-822-headers:
Received: from conversion.pmdf.eop.gov by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.1-9 #29131)
id <01J6XFOHSB4G006JS4PMDF.EOP.GOV>; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 18:21:25 EST
Received: from storm.eop.gov by PMDF.EOP:Gov (PMDF V5.1-9 #29131)
with ESMTP id <01J6XFOFJXLS0068MAPMDF.EOP.GOV>; Sun,
24 Jan 1999 18:21:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from iglobal.net ([209.83.240.7]) by EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.2-29 #34437)
with ESMTP id <01J6XFNRCNAYOOOEEREOP.GOV>; Sun,
24 Jan 1999 18:20:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from iglobal.net (real name [208.15.1.47])
by iglobal.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA08925; Sun,
24 Jan 1999 17:14:55 -0600 (CST)
Organization: McSweenEnt
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-IGlobal (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
================== END ATTACHMENT 1 ==================
ARM.:::; hmall :::;ystem
CREATOR: Jonathan E. Smith ( CN=Jonathan E. Smith/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
SUBJECT:
TO: Sidney Blumenthal ( CN=Sidney Blumenthal/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
I.
TEXT:
The House managersO, brief claiming a White House plot to O&discreditOB
Monica Lewinsky is inaccurate and wrong. There was, of course, no O&plotOB
and there is no evidence that there was. Unsurprisingly, a search reveals
that the articles from January-February 1998 culled by the Republicans to
make theircase that there was such a O&plotOB are highly selective,
tendentious and. distorting. Not one of the articles they.chose as proof is
directly sourced. But a fuller search shows that LewinskyO,s former lover,
Andrew Bleiler, at a nationally televised press conference on January 27,
1998, the night of the State of the Union, described her-in terms that the
Republican managers have attributed to the White House. Articles published
~ this time shOw that her acquaintances among the interns and junior
staff described her to reporters as a O&stalker. 08 Finally, . LewinskyO, s
attorney publicly called her a stalker and said that he was using the term
in a positive sense. In conclusion, there is no evidence whatsoever that
the White House was directing or involved in any campaign against her. The
evidence, however, does prove that the description of her as a
0&stalker,08 O&a clutch08 and O&obsessed08 was commonly used by the media,
her former lover, her friends, and her attorney. This is overlooked by the
Republicans, who cast a false light on the White House. Given that they
had to search for the articles they decided ultimately to present through
all the articles that existed on the data base, it is clear that they also
decided they would not present articles that showed others describing
Lewinsky in the terms the RepUblicans insist came from the White House.
They could make their case only by deliberate distortion of the truth.
COPY
~ -o- - -- -
CREATOR: Betty W. Currie ( CN=Betty W. [ WHO ] )
SUBJECT: Witnesses
TO: Melissa J. Prober ( CN=Melissa J. Prober/OU=WHO/O=EOP@ EOP [WHO]
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
---------------------- Forwarded by Betty W. Currie/WHO/EOP on 01/26/99
11:54 AM
Amy Weiss
01/26/99 11:49:12 AM
Record Type: Record
To: Betty W. Currie/WHO/EOP
cc:
Subject:
Clinton-Impeachment, 4th Ld, a0601,140
WASHINGTON (AP) - House prosecutors have decided to ask the
.senatE!
for permission to call three witnesses at President. Clinton's
impeachment
trial - Monica Lewinsky, presidential friend Vernon Jordan and
White
House aide Sidney Blumenthal, The Associated Press has learned.
The prosecutors made the decision today at a meeting, said a
House source,
speaking on condition of anonymity.
The prosecutors, expecting to be limited by the Senate to only
two or three
witnesses, decided to leave Oval Office secretary Betty Currie
off the list
because they felt her testimony was not clear enough on the
retrieval of
subpoenaed gifts the president had given Ms. Lewinsky, the
source said.
COPY
.
-------

CREATOR: Ruby Shamir ( CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME :27-JAN-1999 16:22:30.00
SUBJECT: For what it is worth ...
TO: Sidney Blumenthal ( CN=Sidney
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Jonathan E. Smith ( CN=Jonathan E. Smith/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Sid- .
This woman asked that I forward this to you. I do not know her.
-Ruby
----------------------Forwarded by Ruby Shamir/WHO/EOP_on 01/27/99 04:21
PM ---------------------------
"Linda S. Commodore" <lscommodore @ chubb.com>
01/27/99 10:55:48 AM
Record Type: Record
To: Ruby Shamir/WHO/EOP
cc:
Subject: For what it is worth ...
Someone sent this to me today and I found it quite-interesting. Hope you
can use it?
Linda Commodore.
North Bellmore, NY
The author of this material is Susannah Heschel, the daughter of Rabbi
Abraham Heschel.
====================================================================
"He who publicly shames his neighbor is as though he shed blood."
Talmud Baba Mezia 58b
Americans have been discussing the moral issues of the Starr Report in
terms of the values of Chris-tianity. From the perspective of Judaism,
however, the terms of the discussion change. Unfortunately, even very few
Jews are aware that Judaism teaches a different set of moral principles.
According to classical Jewish law, President Clinton did not commit
adultery; adultery is defined as a: married man having intercourse with a
married woman, and Monica Lewinsky is single. At worst, President Clinton
is guilty_ of the common sin of onanism, a sin that probably afflicts the
consciences of most Jewish men at one time or another.
While most of our morai debate focuses on the actions of President
Clinton, the worst sin from the perspective of Jewish law is the public
humiliation of President Clinton, undertaken by Kenneth W. Starr with the
cooperation of the House Judiciary Committee. According to the Talmud,
humiliating a human being in public is tantamount to murder, and, like
murder, is a sin that can never be forgiven. Repentance is not possible
for Mr. Starr, because it must bccobpyon. Neither murder
nor the destruction of a person's reputation can ever be restored, so the
sinner can never receive forgiveness. Seen in Talmudic perspective, the
Starr Report, with its salacious and often irrelevant sexual details from
MonicaLewinsky's testimony, constitutes assassination. For the members of
the US Congress to make public a Report that humiliates the President, his
wife, and his daughter makes them partners in this assassination.
>From the perspective of Jewish history, we have to ask how Jews can
condemn President Clinton's behavior as immoral, when we exalt King David?
King David had Batsheva's husband, Uriah, murdered. While David was
condemned and punished, he was never thrown off the throrie of Israel. On
the contrary, he is exalted in our Jewish memory as the unifier of Israel,
the builder of Jerusalem, the author of our psalms, the of the
messiah. His wicked deed of murder was placed in perspective and the
entirety.of his life was judged, without condemning him on the basis of
one sin, as outrageous as it was. IfPresident Clinton should be asked to
resign his office, then King David ought to be wiped from our memory.
Also troubling is the rush by some Jewish leaders, such as Senate Joseph
Lieberman and Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, to condemn President Clinton, when
they uttered not a peep concerning Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's
admitted confession to adultery. When was Netanyahu ever condemned as
unfit to.hold office because of his affairs?
Jews like to say that President Clinton has been one of the best friends
Israel and the Jewish people have had in the presidency; what kind of
integrity do wehave, if we abandon our friend when powerful people are
trying to assassinate him?
Finally, members of Congress, including Representative Gephardt,
have condemned President Clinton's efforts at self-defense as legal
''hairsplitting," as if that were beneath contempt. The term itself derives
from age-old Christian polemics that Judaism is a legalistic system that
fails to understand.religious values of love and charity. Yet unlike
Christianity, Judaism rests on a system of law that demands and exalts
hairsplitting, due and minute precision in its judicial

Just as we expect minute precision from our physicians and scientists, why
not expect it from our religions? There is no shame in hairsplitting,
oespite the mockery and contempt in which it has been held for centuries
.by Christians. Exactitude is the most important feature of Jewish law, and
without it there can be no justice, and without justice there can be no
viable society.
This country's population contains a majorityof Christians, but the ofteri
very different values and principles of other citizens- among them, Jews,
Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists -must also be heard. Christianity is but one
of many systems of religious values, not the only one.
Prof. Susannah Heschel
Department of Religion
Da.rtmouth College >>
COPY
CREATOR: Barry J. Toiv ( CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ]
CREATION DATE/TIME: 1-FEB-1999 14:13:07.00
SUBJECT: McCollum on Currie
TO: Amy Weiss ( CN=Amy Weiss/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ]
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: James E. Kennedy ( CN=James E. Kennedy/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
.. Etv
_.,
j
TO: Adam W. Goldberg
READ: UNKNOWN
CN=Adam W. Goldberg/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ UNKNOWN ] )
TO: Joseph P. Lockhart ( CN=Joseph P. Lockhart/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Heather M. Riley ( CN=Heather M. Riley/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
I thought McCollum was pretty definitive on the issue of not needing
Betty's testimony. When they inevitably ask the Senate to add her to the
list later this week or next week, .this language will be useful.
SNOW: Can you make the case stick with three? Or do you need to hear at
least from Betty Currie?
MCCOLLUM: Well, we would like to have had all three plus 12 more,
probably. But the reality is, we can do it with the three. Betty Currie is
not essential to this case .. The two charges that she's related to are ones
that A, in the case of the gifts, we can prove our case with Monica
Lewinsky, she's very credible. I think you're going to find that's the
case when you see her. That's why you bring-a witness live, for demeanor
and so on.
And then the question of whether President tampered with Betty Currie's
testimony, the day after he gave his deposition in the Jones case, and
made those answers to her, as seeking her to lie, that she
recalled.
SNOW: So you don't really need her? You don't really need her?
MCCOLLUM: Nope. We don't need her because those statements are so
clear. And the crime is so clear that the president committed in that
case. There's no --no one's disputing the facts, no one's disputing the
fact that he made those statements to her, not only once, but on a second
occasion as well.
So I .think what we're needing to do is to show the full ramification of
this scheme. Not just that --.we can prove from the record four 'or five of
these charges. But if we can show the whole scheme, what we think is all
there, that the president was trying to lie and obstruct justice and then
lie to the grand jury and then destroy Monica Lewinsky until the dress
showed up.
Heck, why wouldn't, why would somebody want to leave him in office
after that? That shows somebody who has such character that he might well
be willing to do that or a lot of other things again under similar ..
circumstances that have no relationship to -- a relationship with a Monica
Lewinsky.
COPY
...... '
\. --------------------
\\
).

'
..
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
001. email
002. email
003. email
004. email
005. email
006. email
007. email
008. email
Clinton Library
SUBJECTrriTLE DATE
larryshannon@usa.net to Paul E. Begala at 18:09:19.00. Subject: 02/09/1999
Ashcroft stuff ... LarryShannon@CapitoiStrategy.com. (3 pages)
Owner-ecolint-online-Iist@nmr.varian.com to Sara M. Latham@eop at 02110/1999
16:54:08.00. Subject: EOL Delete this if not interested in the Pres. (3
pages)
roger brown to Walker F. Bass at 13:49:21.00. Subject: [none] (1 02/1311999
page)
Bill Schreiber to Toby C. Graff, Anne Milias, and Wendel Fong at 02/15/1999
13:14:38.00. Subject: Letters to Bill. (4pages)
Tyler_ White@abraham.senate.gov to Carrie A. Street, Neal Sharma, 02/1611999
and dseitz@bruman.com at 17:14:46.00. Subject: Re: bowling (1
page)
Sidney Blumenthal to Todd Gitlin at 14:50:38.00. Subject: Re: FYI, 02/1711999
from this week's New York Observer. (1 page)
Sidney Blumenthal to jdbroder at 12:31:26.00. Subject: today's piece. 02/17/1999
(1 page)
Steve Super to Philip C. Droege at 21 :01 :20.00. Subject: Thank you, 0211711999
Redskins. (1 page)
RESTRICTION
P5, P6/b(6)

P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
009. email Amy Weiss to Elizabeth R. Newman at 19:57:31.00. Subject: One 02/22/1999 P5 t'S't(
America. ( 1 page)
010. email Adam Carstens to Adam G. Robins at 11:56:19.00. Subject: Re: your 02/2411999 P6/b(6)
mail. (2 pages)
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[02/0911999 - 03/04/1999]
2006-0319-F
ab898
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- [44 U.S.C.
PI National Security Classified Information [(a)(l) of the PRA]
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA)
of gift. .
2201(3).
Freedom of Information Act- [5 U.S.C. SS2(b))
b(3) Release would violate a l<'ederal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA)
, b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA)
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA) ----------- -
Clinton Library
AND TYPE
011. email Dawn L. Smalls to Shoekman at 09:10:50.00. Subject: Fwd: You'll 02/2311999 P6/b(6)
like this: ). (2 pages)
012. email James E. Kennedy to Amy Weiss at 13:20:05.00. Subject: Re: monica 02/2311999 P5 t1't:>_
tv. (1 page)
013. email Susan Estrich to Ann F. Lewis at 16:21:50.00. Subject: Im sure it will 02/2611999 P6/b(6)
go away soon. (1 page)
014. email Megan C. Moloney to Robert B. Johnson at 17:30:20.00. Subject: 03/0211999 P5
1 '3 9 L(
Excerpt from Joyner's show today. (1 page)
015. email Robert B. Johnson to Megan C. Moloney at 18:59:04.00. Subject: Re: 03/02/1999 P5
, rs't-s-
Excerpt from Joyner's show today. (2 pages)
016. email Christine A. Stanek to Deborah B. Mohile at 18:48:26.00. Subject: 03/0311999 P6/b(6)
Monica drinking game. (3 pages)
017. email Neal Sharma to Jeffrey Fuhrman at 10:34:48.00. Subject: Re: what's 03/0311999 P6/b(6)
up? (1 page)
018. email dunel@home.com to Suntum_M at 16:52:00.00. Subject: Re: re 03/0311999 P6/b(6)
tickets. (2 pages)
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[02/09/1999- 03/04/1999)
2006-0319-F
ab898
RESTRICTION CODES
PI National Security Classified Information l(a)(l) of the PRAl
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office l(a)(2) of the PRA]
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors la)(S) of the PRA]
of gift.
2201(3).
Freedom of Information Act- IS U.S.C. 552(b)l
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial institutions l(b)(8) of the FOIA]
RECORD TYPE : PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: larryshaimonusa.netINETLNGTWY larryshannonusa.netINETLNGTWY
.. CREATION DATE/TIME: 9-FEB-1999 18:09:19.00
SUBJECT: Ashcroft stuff .... LarryShannonCapitolStrategy. com
TO: Paul E. Begalaeop (Paul E. Begalaeop [WHO.] )
READ: UNKNOwN
TEXT:
Paul. ...
A friend of mine in Missouri {works for a State Senator there) got this
regarding an e-mail inquiry he sent to Sen. John Ashcroft .. Interesting
spin!
Larry Shannon .
. LarryShannonCapitolStrategy.com
. .
, >Subject: Response. from Sen. John Ashcroft>Date: 5 Feb 1999 10:53:46
-0500>>>
> Thank you for contacting my office about the serious crisis
>in: the White House. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to>your
concerns.>
> As you know, on August 17, 1998, President Clinton
>admitted that he. lied to the American people, his family, and his
>Colleagues about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The
>perpetuation of that lie for months is disgraceful. While I do not
>question the sincerity of the President's apology, I also have no
.>question about the grave and long-lasting negative effects his
';:.actions are having on the nation and on our. culture. As a result; I
>believe that the best course for our country and our culture is for
>the President to resign.>
> In li.ght. of the President' s actions and his continued
>unwillingness to admit that his actions were unlawful, on
>December 19,. 1998, the House of Representatives took the
>extraordinary step of approving. two articles of impeachment
>against President Clinton. The solemii duty of conducting an
>impeachment trial now falls upon the Senate. As this matter comes
>to trial before the Senate, I will honor my oath to judge the matter
>impartially based on the evidence presented and on no other basis.>
> The Constitution imposes a solemn duty on the Senate to
>Conduct a fair, speedy and impartial t r i l ~ However, this important
>constitutional obligation cannot distract us from pursuing our
>legislative agenda. Protecting Social Security, cutting taxes,
>educating our children, and keeping them safe from the scourge o ~
>drugs cannot await the end of this trial. The President's admitted
>misconduct has hampered his ability to provide leadership, both at
>home and abroad. We cannot allow our constitutional obligation
>Of evaluating that misconduct to prevent the Senate from supplying
>the missing leadership and making progress ori this agenda.>
> Americans expect their President to provide moral
COPY
UNKNO
--- ........ .
>leadership. They expect someone who will call them to their
>highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least.
>They count on the President to uphold the law, not undermine it.
>They want him or her to provide a model for their children to
>emulate, not serve as an embarrassing example that causes children to
question the moral lessons>instilled by their parents.>
'::,: :J EtV
. _--:.
> The President's actions are indicative .of a values deficit in
Washington. The culture of
>Washington exudes a spirit of arrogance that is not reflective of the \;:!,
people's values. From his
>first days in office, this President has presided over a cascade of
investigations, scandals, and
>ethical controversies. He has borrowed against the people's trust over
and over, and he has no>moral capital left. >
> .What is. more, the President's values.deficit illustrates that ours is
a culture in crisis. Its
>Symptoms include family breakdown, teen pregnancy, violence, and drug
abuse. Now, more
>than ever, America needs a president who offers moral leadership. :The
President, who should be
>able to lead by example and who should be a model, is unable to provide
that leadership. His
>Self-inflicted wounds
culture.so desperately
. > From the outset,
against the President
disable him from providing the leadership the
needs.>
I have consistently stated that if-the allegations
>were true, then he has disgraced himself, he has disgraced the_Presidency,
and he should resign.
>NOW that the President has admitted the allegations are true, the
act is to resign so that . .
>the nation can properly heal from the wounds he has inflicted and the
culture can be put on the>path to recovery.>
> If the President refuses to resign, the nation will.continue to be
dragged through an
>ordeal to determine whether the President has forfeited the legal
authority to govern. ' However I
>statements by members of Congress of both political parties make it
increasingly clear that this
>President already has lost his moral authority to govern. Under these
circumstances, he owes it>to a culture in need of moral.leadership to
resign.>
> Again, thank you for contacting me about the Clinton crisis. It is a
privilege to serve you> in the U.S . Senate. > > >
> Sincerely
1
>> John Ashcroft>
http://www.senate.gov/-ashcroft >>
>Do you think that America's best days are yet to come? Find out how
Senator Ashcroft intends
>to make sure that they are with his economic plan, A New Beginning at
>http://www.senate.gov/-ashcroft/planf.htm.>>
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=l===========
TEXT:
RFC-822-headers:
Received: from conversion.pmdf.eop.gov by PMDF.EOP.GOV {PMDF VS.1-9 #29131)
id <0iJ7JROZSB4WOOOSAHPMDF.EOP.GOV> for begala_p@al.eop.gov; Tue,
9 Feb 1999 18:02:56 EST
Received: from storm.eop.gov by PMDF:EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.1-9 #29131)
COPY
\
. / \
,__.....
v .. \
.?:: i
..,1.

\ '
..
J'
with ESMTP id <01J7JRON4B8GOOOSP4@PMDF.EOP.GOV> for begala_p@al.eop.gov; Tue,
09 _Feb 1999 18:02:47 (EST)
Received: from wWwOB.netaddress.usa.net ( [204.68.24.28]) . . ... . <'.<:.;::c.siDErv;-
. by Ec:il?.Gov (PMDF vs.2-29 #34437) with sMTP id <01J7JRo46JsKooo3PF@EoP.Gov>/f.ar
begala_pAl. eop .gov; Tue, 09 Feb 1999 18:02:20 -osbo (EST)
Received: (qmail 3453 invoked by uid 60001); Tue, 09 Feb 1999 22:56:56
Received: from 153.34.11.240 by www.netaddress.com via web-mailer(3.1)
on Tue Feb 9 22:56:53 GMT 1999
==================
END ATTACHMENT 1 ==================
COPY
r:
. :1 \) . ':&:'\
+00-00 . 0\. ?-,:I
" ;r_,
'.:.)
\.'
1"\.l\...1V10 L.lUQ.U ..:> J;>LvlH - -
0
- -
CREATOR: Amy Weiss ( CN=Amy Weiss/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 22-FEB-.1999 19:57:31.00
SUBJECT: One AMerica
TO: Elizabeth.R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@ EOP [ WHO] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
---------------------- Forwarded.by ~ y Weiss/wHO/EOP on 02/22/99 07:57 PM
Robert B. Johnson
02/22/99 07:49:42 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Amy Weiss/WHO/EOP
cc: Maria Echaveste/WHO/EOP
Subject:
Ma.ria/Christopher: here is my first cut at a q&a. It's pretty weak, and
we need help. Thanks! !
Q: Mr. President, you have referred to a report on race . What will it
look like and when will it be out? Who is actually writing it?
A: My report on race to the American people will be out this spring.
Hopefully It. will have a posi.ti ve affect on our nation and move us forward
to one society. One that not only benefits our nation but also the world
community because we. will be the model.
Q: How are you continuing the work you b e g ~ n in your race initiative? Was
it a success? Why?
A: The fact that race is being discussed within the context of One
America makes it a success. The advisory board took the first steps in
getting the dialog started. I appointed Ben Johnson, who has worked in
the office of public liaison for six years, to head a free standing new
office to continue this work, The new White House office on my initiative
for One America by its creation makes the point that we are serious about
this effort. We will continue the work of initiative because it is badly
needed as we move into the 21st century. We plan to not only are propose
new budgetary initiatives to close the opportunity gaps among the races,
we also plan to continue fostering dialog between the races. Since my
announcement appointing Ben Johnson, he has met with white ethnics and
members of several minority communities to discuss ways to expand the
dialog between the races.
Q: Do you think the Lewinsky scandal took attention away from the PIR,
thus making it not a successful as it could have been? Are you to blame?
A: The fact that there is a discussion on race. of this magnitude makes it
all worthwhile and I don't think anything has lessened that fact.
COPY
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL) .
CREATOR: James E. Kennedy ( .CN=James E. Kennedy/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME:23-FEB-1999 13:20:05.00
SUBJECT: Re: monica tv
TO: Amy Weiss ( CN=Amy Weiss/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
In my draft Q&A for the news conf. , I just have this so far:
Q: Monica LewinskyO,s interview with Barbara Walters will air next
week. Do you plan to watch, and what are your feelings now about her and
what sheO,s had to go through?
A: I have already expressed my regret for what she and others have
had togo through because of things I have said and done. I wish her well
in whatever she does.
I had a line about him not planning on watching TV next Wednesday, but one
of the lawyers took it out. Perhaps Joe, if asked, can say he usually
watches "Star Trek: Voyager" at that hour.
COPY
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL . (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Megan C. Moloney ( CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
CREATION 2-MAR-1999 17:30:20.00
SUBJECT: . Excerpt from Joyner' s show today
TO: Robert B. Johnson ( CN=Robert B. Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Julianne B. Corbett ( CN=Julianne B. Corbett/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] ).
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Alejandro G. Cabrera ( CN=Alejandro G. Cabrera/O=OVP @ OVP [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Beverly J. Barnes .( CN=Beverly J. Barnes/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:.
I wanted you to see this. This is a transcript from "Talk Daily". Please
keep this in mind the.next time he asks for an interview
Tom
ABC Radio Networks
ISSUE: Monica's Financial Situation
QUOTES:
Joyner: "You've beenseeing and hearing the commercials about Monica
Lewinsky and Barbara
Walters in their interview on Wednesday night. Here's a story that says
Monica isunemployed and
indebt.
Co-host: "Who's going to hire her?"
Joyner: "Aaarrgh!!!!!"
(Laughter)
Co-host: "You going to pay her though."
Joyner: "Yeah, you mean to tell me that guy, Vernon Jordan fell through?!"
. (Laughter)
Co-host: Come oil! What do you think?"
Joyner: "It says here that Monica is $2 million in debt in legal bills."
Co-host: "What about the money from the book?"
Joyner: "She hasn't got that money yet."
Co-host: " The book is out. They have an excerpt in Great Britain."
Joyner: You know what her qualifications are, she obviously has some
skills she learned at the White
House."
(Laughter)
Joyner: "You know what happens when tabs get tilted? You have to suck it
up! (Laughter) And get on
your knees and pray! "
(Laughter)
COPY
-,

~
CREATOR: Robert B. Johnson ( CN=Robert B. Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 2-MAR-1999 18:59:04.00
SUBJECT: Re: Excerpt from Joyner's show today
TO: Megan C. Moloney ( CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Julianne B. Corbett ( CN=Julianne B. Corbett/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ]
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Alejandro G. Cabrera ( CN=Alejandro G. Cabrera/O=OVP @ OVP [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Beverly J. Barnes ( CN=Beverly J. Barnes/OU=WHO/O=EOP@ EOP [ WHO ] )
READ :.UNKNOWN
Jeria V. Roscoe ( CN=Jena V. Roscoe/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
Maurice Daniel ( CN=Maurice Daniel/O=OVP [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
I find some things said on his show distasteful too. BUT,
to be on our side when it counts. I would not be too hasty
plug. He needs to be kept engaged for our message and for
Politics baby!!!!!
Megan c. Moloney
0 3 0 ~ 9 9 05:29:34 PM
Record Type:
Record
Tom has proven
to pull the
GORE.
To: Robert B. Johnson/WHO/EOP
cc: Beverly J. Barnes/WHO/EOP, Julianne B .. Corbett/WHO/EOP, Alejandro G.
Cabrera/OVP @ OVP .
Subject:Excerpt from Joyner's show today
I wanted you to see this. This is a transcript from "Talk Daily". Please
keep this in mind the next time he asks for an interview --
'J;'om Joyner
ABC Radio Networks
ISSUE: Monica's Financial Situation
QUOTES:
Joyuer: "You've been seeing arid hearing the commercials about Monica
Lewinsky and Barbara
Walters in their interview on Wednesday n:ight. Here's a story that says
Monica is unemployed and
indebt.
Co-host: "Who's going to hire her?"
Joyner: "Aaarrgh!!!!!"
COPY
;i
. ~ S Email System
(Laughter)
Co_;host: ny0U going tO pay her though. II
Joyner: "Yeah, you mean to tell me that guy, Vernon Jordan fell through?! II
(Laughter)
Co-host: Come on! What do you think?"
Joyner: "It says here that Monica is $2 million in debt in legal bills."
Co-host: "What about the money from the book?"
Joyner: II She hai:m
1
t got that money yet. II
Co- host: " The book is out. They have an excerpt in Great Britain. "
Joyner: Y ~ u know what her qualifications are, she obviously has some
skills she learned at the White
House."
(Laughter)
Joyner: "You know what happens when tabs get tilted? You have to suck it
up! . (Laughter) And get on
your knees and pray!"
(Laughter)
COPY
-----
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
001. email
002. email
003. email
Clinton Library
SUBJECT!fiTLE DATE
Melissa Erwin to elizabeth C. Jones at 14:05:53.00. subject: Re: hey. 03/05/1999
(1 page)
Eilleen_Force@kerry.senate.gov to .[list] at 13:35:08.00. Subject: 03/05/1999
Monica drinking game. ( 4 pages)
Erick A Kurkowski to Jade L Riley at 14:59:35.00. Subject: Re: More 03/05/1999
funnies! Happy Wednesday! -Reply-Reply. (1 page)
RESTRICTION
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
004.-email Craig Hughes to Minyon Moore at 19:44:00.00. Subject: Re: I am 03/08/1999 P5
131'"
personally uncomfortable with doing individual fundraising letter. (1
page)
005. email Charles J. Payson to Debbie Pesanti at 16:49:22.00. Subject: Re: 03/08/1999 P6/b(6)
[none] (1 page)
006. email Edward F. Hughes to Jmutts at 21:37:28.00. Subject: Re: Why is Lou 03/09/1999 P6/b(6)
Dobbs ... (1 page)
007. email Dawn V. Wollen to bsmith@law.harvard.edu at 10:03:15.00. Subject: 03/10/1999 P6/b(6)
Promises Promises. (1 page)
008. email Dawn V. Wollen to bsmith@law.harvard.edu at 09:00:44.00 Subject: 03/1111999 P6/b(6)
Good Morning. (1 page)
009. email Dawn V. Wollen to bsmith@law.harvard.edu at 18:35:01.00. Subject: 03/11/1999 P6/b(6)
Oh my! (3 pages)
010. email Daniela E. Nanau to Laura Wood, Ruby Shamir, Melissa J. Prober, 03/11/1999 P6/b(6)
and Robin M. Roland at 15:36:24.00. Subject: How closely were you
paying attention???? (1 page)
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[03/05/1999 - 08/1 011999]
2006-0319-F
ab899
RESTRICTION CODES
PJ Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(J) of the PRA]
of gift.
2201(3).
Freedom of Information Act- [5 U.S.C. 552(b)[
b(J) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(J) of the FOIA[
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA] .----------------------------------------
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
011. email
012. email
013. email
014. email
015. email
016. email
017. email
Clinton Library
SUBJECTffiTLE DATE
James Gennan to Key C. Gennan at 12:56:16.00. Subject: Re: info. (4 03/16/1999
pages)
Brenda Stanley to Patrice L. Stanley at 16:03:13.00. Subject: Fwd: 03116/1999
American Pie. (2 pages)
Susan Estrich to Ann F. Lewis at 03:16:15.00. Subject: Re: Favors 03118/1999
(fwd) (1 page)
Paul Zafrani to Janice H. Vranich at 17:48:04.00. Subject: Re: No 03/21/1999
decision. (I page)
Monkmag@aol.com to Jordan Tamagni at 15:43:33.00. Subject: Re: 03/29/1999
Re: ace and more. (1 page)
Susan Powers to Katharine Button at 15:59:11.00. Subject: catching 04/18/1999
up. (1 page)
Lauren J Katunich to Minyon Moore at 14:54:20.00. Subject: Re: 04/26/1999
Hello. (1 page)
RESTRICTION
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
018. email Sidney Blumenthal to Jonathan Freeland at 09:21 :48.00. Subject: Re: 04/3011999 P5
\ 3 ~ 1
see if this works ... (1 page)
019. email Jonathan.Freeland to Sidney Blumenthal at 10:53:37.00. Subject: 04/30/1999 P5 , slf 8'
[none] (2 pages)
020. email Sidney Blumenthal to Jonathan.Freeland at II :53:44.00. Subject: Re:. 04/3011999 P5 ,L'S'l'f
(1 page)
021. email Daniela E. Nanau to Benjamin Bolitzer at 11:54:38.00. Subject: Re: 05/07/1999 P6/b(6)
Hello. (3 pages)
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[03/0511999 - 0811 011999]
2006-0319-F
ab899
RESTRICTION CODES
PI National Security Classified Information l(a)(l) of the PRA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA].
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute l(a)(3) of the PRA]
financial information l(a)(4) of the PRA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors la)(S) of the PRA]
of gift.
2201(3).
Freedom of Information Act- 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute l(b)(3) of the FOIA]
information ((b)(4) of the FOIA]
concerning wells l(b)(9) of the FOIA]
r ~ .
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
022. email
023. email
Clinton Library
SUBJECTffiTLE DATE
Jeffrey Denny to Laura E. Schiller at 14:03:24.00. Subject: web site. 06/08/1999
(1 page)
Ellen Askin to john_cordes@westlb.com at 14:27:33.00. Subject: RE: 0611611999
Family values?? (10 pages)
RESTRICTION
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
024. email Jeffrey A. Shesol to Joshua S. Gottheimer, June Shih, Lowell A. 06/24/1999 P5
l ~ o o
Weiss, Paul D. Glastris, Jordan Tamagni, and Michael Waldman at
14:36:06.00. Subject: AP. (1 page)
025. email Christina Alvarez to Janice H. Vranich at 02:17:17.00. Subject: Don't 07/09/1999 P6/b(6)
Fret. ... (2 pages)
026. email Gene Lyons to Sidney Blumenthal at 00:00:34.00. Subject: web wars. 07/19/1999 P5
[ Lto ~
(3 pages)
027. email Stephanie A. Cutter to Bmcnearney@aol.com at 19:29: 18.00. subject: 08/02/1999 P6/b(6)
Re: Hi Stephanie. (1 page)
028. email rzweigen@GUILFORD.EDU to Marsha Scott at 13:49:49.00. Subject: 08/03/1999 P6/b(6)
[none] (1 page)
029. email ILL to Joseph E. Voeller at 04:50:22.00. Subject: Re: E.W.S. (1 page) 08/0511999 P6/b(6)
030. email Adam Sulesky to Gina_Falconio@aging.senate.gov at 17:38:14.00. 08110/1999 P6/b(6)
Subject: Re: FW: Biking! (2 pages)
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[03/05/1999 - 08/1 0/1999]
2006-0319-F
ab899
RESTRICTION CODES
PI National Security Classified Information l(a)(l) of the PRA)
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office l(a)(2) of the PRAI
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute l(a)(3) of the PRA)
financial information l(a)(4) of the PRAJ
and his advisors, or between such advisors la)(S) of the PRA)
personal privacy l(a)(6) of the PRA)
of gift.
2201(3).
Freedom of Information Act- 15 U.S.C. 552(b))
b(l) National security classified information l(b)(l) of the FOIA)
b(2) Release would disclose internal persminel rules and practices of
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute l(b)(3) of the FOIAI
information l(b)(4) of the FOIAJ
personal privacy l(b)(6) of the FOIA)
purposes l(b)(7) of the FOIAJ
b(S) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions l(b)(S) of the FOIA)
\
~
CREATOR: Craig Hughes ( CN=Craig Hughes/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-MAR-1999 19:44:00.00
SUBJECT: Re: I am personally uncomfortable with doing individual fundraising letter
TO: Minyon Moore
READ: UNKNOWN
CN=Minyon Moore/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ] )
TEXT:
Upside is we make Rep. Fattah happy. As you know, no one has been a
stronger ally of this President than Fattah, who was the first Member in
my region to come .out strong to the President's defense during the.
Lewinsky episode. He did radio shows, and I think even national TV shows,
in our defense at a time when a lot of people were hiding.
I think sometimes he also feels o:vershadowed by Rendell, so doing
something extra for him can help overcome that impression.
COPY
,.___ ______ ... ~
ARMS Email System ragt: 1 u11
CREATOR: Sidney Blumenthal ( CN=Sidney Blumenthal/OU=WHO/O=EOP .[WHO] )
SUBJECT: Re: see if this works ..... .
TO: Jonathan.Freedland
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Several fadtual points:
Jonathan. Freedland @ guardian. co. uk [ UNKNOWN ] )
On me: I testified that I spoke every day to my friends and family
about the news stories about Monica Lewinsky. I also testified that I was
not the source of any of the.news stories in the early days of the scandal
describing Lewinsky as a stalked, which, as I testified, began on day one,
January 21, with a report by Michael Isikoff describing her as a stalker,
follo;wed immediately by Nightline and so on. Hitchens obviously never
read my:testsimony. His affadavit never contradicted my testimony. It was
filled with falsehoods; nevertheless, it had no meaning in any legal
sense, certainly about the President (as any lawyer could.have told
Hitchens had he consulted one, which he never did) or about me. The
.stalker chargewas not news and it was not perjury. Hitchens, however, was
confused, to be generous, and believed, as his wife has said in New York
magazine, that he could change the course of history. What he could do,
the oniy thing he could do, was defame me with innuendo. As soon as he
filed his affadavit it became apparent to the House Republican staffers,
:an overheated.right wing group, that it didn't do the jjob. So they went
back to Hitchens, who went to his wife, and his wife filed an affadavit
saying that I haci explicitly said that the President had told me Lewinsky
was a stalker. This was itself perjury, but on. the part of Hitchens' wife,
at his instigation. I told nobody that the President had told me anything,
as .I testified, not any of my White House colleagues, only my attorney,
the President's attorney and my wife. I was ironclad on that. Hitchens, in
short, was an eager tool of the most virulent element of the right in the
House, desperately using any ploy, even though these right wingers knew
these gambits would all fail, to keep the proceedings rolling for another
day and another day and another day ... Hitchens was their stool pigeon for
a day. And to this day he has not acknowledged the facts to which I
testified and therefore the context in which he acted. Instead, he
continues to use me and my name for his self-serving promotions, lately on
tv talk shows, waving his book.
I hope you will make the correction before your review goes to
press.
COPY
-..... ----.
CREATOR: Jonathan.Freedland@guardian.co.uk ( Jonathan.Freedland@guardian.co.uk [ UNK
CREATION -DATE/TIME: 3 0-APR_-1999 10:53: 3 7,. 00
sUBJECT:
TO: Sidney Blumenthal ( CN=Sidney Blumenthal/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
. READ: UNKNOWN
'1--'
TEXT: \0
Arrrghi I've just seen your message, but it's too late: the books pages ,
went -,
last night. I'm annoyed with myself because i should have phoned you on it
beforehand (I didn't because I vaguely reckoned'that I shouldn't lay
either of
us open to the charge that we had colluded on a book review). Still, if
it's any
consolation, I'm not sure there's anything but a very narrow gap between
what
you've just told me and my inevitably shorthand account. Here's what I
mean:
You say: "So they went back to Hitchens, who went
to his wife, and his wife filed an affadavit saying that I had explicitly
said that the President had told me Lewinsky was a stalker."
I say: The affidavit swore that, during a lunch at the start of the
Zippergate scandal, Blumenthal told Hitchens and his wife that the
President ' . .
believed _Monica Lewinsky was a "stalker. "
Isn't the only difference between these, the fact that it was Carol's
affidavit
notCH's -- which I hope is not that significant, given that hers was, as
you
say, "at his instigation."
You then say:
"I told nobody
not any
of
my White House
my wife. I was
that the President had told me anything, as I testified,
colleagues, only my attorney, the President's attorney and
ironclad on that."
'I say: Blumenthal had denied that under oath - and still denies it now.
So apart from the conflation of Carol's and CH's two affidavits, I'm not
exactly
sure how we could phrase a correction. Still, the Guardian does now have
(uniquely in the Brit press) a "correction & clarification" column, so if
you
would like me to have one put in, I can do that with pleasure ....
I'm really sorry if this has put you out: I genuinely was trying to avoid
any
potential line-crossing (which might have been entailed by a phone call)
and
COPY
~ ~ ; /
that might have been a mistake.
Hope this explains things a.l.ittle
best
Jonathan
I
/
COPY
ARMS Email System .Page 1 ot l
CREATION DATE/TIME: 3 0-APR-1999 11:53 ': 44.00
SUBJECT: Re:
TO: Jonathan.Freedland .( Jonathan.Freedland @ guardian.co.uk [ UNKNOWN ] )
. READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
No need to run a correction. Too late, I think. What I denied under oath
was being the source of the stories onLewinsky as stalker early on in the
scandal. I never deriied talking about her. on the contrary, is aid I
talked about her like everybody else in the country with my friends. Also,
.the President never told me she was a stalker and I never testified to
that. What he said is that she complained that she was called "the
stalker"in the White House (whichis true) and that if he didn't have
sexual.intercourse with.her she'd tell people that they did anyway. So the
one who called her."the stalker" in this story is Lewinsky herself.
Hitchens, willfully at this point certainly, ignores all facts to continue
his .. psychodrama, This is not a simple conflict of Hitchens said/I said.
It's about.his traducing the truth, using me and promoting himself.
COPY
CREATOR: Jeffrey A. Shesol ( CN=Jeffrey A. Shesol/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ) )
El\i
,,
sl
.-, i
./ SUBJECT: AP
CREATION DATE/TIME:24-JUN-1999 14:36:06.00
/':::
TO: Joshua S. Gottheimer ( CN=Joshua S. Gottheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO),) /
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: June Shih
. READ: UNKNOWN
CN=June Shih/OU=WHO/O=EOPEOP [ WHO ) )
TO: Lowell A. Weiss ( CN=Lowell A. Weiss/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ) )
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Paul D. Glastris
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jordan Tamagni
READ: UNKNOWN
CN=Paul D. Glastris/OU=WHO/O=EOPEOP [ WHO ) )
CN=Jordan Tamagni/OU=WHO/O=EOPEOP [. WHO )
TO: Michael Waldman ( CN=Michael Waldman/OU=WHO/O=EOPEOP [ WHb ) )
READ: .UNKNOWN
TEXT:
The president has been distracted from domestic
priorities for about 18 months, beginning with the
Monica Lewinsky scandal and then the impeachment
followed quickly by the showdown with
Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic and NATO's
78.:.day bombing campaign.
You could have fooled me ....
COPY
ARMS bmall :::;ystem
CREATOR: Gene Lyons <GeneLyons@compuserve.com> ( Gene Lyons <GeneLyons@compuserve.co
CREATION DATE/TIME:19-JUL-l999 00:00:34.00
SUBJECT: web wars
TO: Sidney Blumenthal { CN=Sidney Blumenthal/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ) )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Sid--
Blessedly, our editor wanted an
Afterword. Here's how it goes. I modestly
think it's terribly good.
GL
Until the remarkable events of January 199.8, none of the many
eHorts to bring about the political destruction of Bill and Hillary
Clinton appeared to have. any chance of succeeding. His enemies relentless
intrusion_ into the President's intimate life, the continuing examinations
of his family's finances, and the constantly expanding invesigation of his
Administration had failed to find credible evidence to prevent either his
election or re-election, to support impeachment or indictment, or even to
sustain a civil lawsuit.
Despite several years of effort by teams of investigative
reporters, two i'ndependent counsels, multiple Congressional investigations,
as well as the privately financed probes by Richard Mellon Scaife and other
political adversaries, the "Clinton Scandals," so:.called, had reached a
dead end. Nearly four years of expensive litigation by the Paula Jones
legal team aweak case that could not withstand a motion to
dismiss.
Yet the hunting of the President had done untold damage to him and
his family; to his Administration; to the institution of the Presidency; to
public life and the political culture of Ame-rican democracy. It had
perverted the law corrupted journalism. Despite his folly, the.danger
of impeachment was not created by Clinton alone, as his enemies would
stridently insist despite all the evidence of their collusion and
complicity. The separate strands with which bitterest foes had so long
hoped to hang him--Paula Jones's civil lawsuit and Kenneth Starr's
ever-expanding "White-water" investigation--were too fragile by themselves
to bear any s.uch constitutional weight. But during the bleak early days of
January those two threads had been cunningly twisted together to form a
legal noose, which the President had then pulled over his own head.
The American people, however, _refused to be E;tampeded. To the
outrage and astonishment of Clinton's most dedicated enemies, public
support for the embattled President actually grew in the weeks after the
Lewinsky star broke in the media. A poll commissioned by CNN and the Wall
Street Journal in early February, 1998 gave Clinton an astonishing 79%
favorable rating vs. 15% negative. Such numbers could not be sustained,
particularly not after Clinton was forced after eight months of denials to
admit that he'd been lying about his relationship to the young woman.
Never-theless, to all intents and purposes the Republican .party's
impeachment crusade was effectively over almost before it began.
Disbelieving Washington CUPYest that thO .public
lffi.MS Email System
had been.lulled into moral decadence by economic prosperity. But there was
clearly something else going on. As long ago as the Gennifer. Flowers
episode, upwards of two-thirds of the voters told pollsters they didn't
think the media had any business exploring politicians' sex lives. Despite
their disappointment in Clinton, there was never any indication that they'd
changed their minds. It appeared that the more they thought about it, the
more the great majority of Americans resented everything about the Lewinsky
saga: a young woman betrayed by an older friend; a zealous, clearly
partisan, holier-than-thou prosecutor using illegal tape recordings to.
entrap the woman, then trying to bully her into betraying her lover by
threatening her family and feeding smutty :r:umors to an insatiablenews
media; persons calling themselves "conservatives" stripping the last
vestiges of privacY, and dignity from the President of the United States.
Furthermore, if the American public understands anything, it
understands _TV. And what it saw on TV was a parade of public scolds using
the magical words "oral sex" to drive up ratings and enhance their own
celebrity even as they affected to be shocked and horrified by the
Presi-dent's behavior. Even as it avidly consumed the made-for-TV soap
opera, the public was wise to what it saw. It didn't buy the
character-as-sex, sex-as-character equation so beloved -of puritanical TV
preachers and right-wing commentators. Contrary to the shrillness-of his
attackers, most Ame-ricans continued to see Bill Clinton as a flawed but
highly capable and essentially decent man with a big weakness about women.
They didn't need the publisher of Hustler magazine to tell _them that his
was a wt;:.akriess shared by many powerful men, and eagerly indulged by all too
manywomen.
More important, the majority accurately sensed the Lewinsky
.scandal's con-spiratorial origins. They never bought Paula Jones's story,
and had heard too manY reporters and pundits cry wolf too often over
Whitewater to take its premises very seriously. After the fourth or fifth
"critical phase" inKenneth Starr's interminable investigation, the
majority correctly deduced that he would never find credible evidence
against the Clintons, probably because none existed. Starr's legalistic
merger of Whitewater and the Jones case struck them as intrinsically
suspect.
Faced with a stacked deck, most concluded, Clinton had lied to
protect himself, his marriage, his daughter, Monica Lewinsky and his
"political viability"--to choose the meanest way of putting it--from the
consequences of his all too human folly. His shame posed little danger to
the republic; his falsehoods and evasions were no threat to the
constitution. Hardly felonious behavior, most thought, and certainly not an
impeachable offense.
As Bill Clinton was also fortunate in his enemies. As
preoccupied with personal profit as ''message," the professional
Clinton-haters had overdone it from the start. If a fanatic is defined as
somebody who redoubles his effort when all is lost, then the President's
attackers ap-peared to be fanatics. Seemingly maddened by their inability
to persuade most Americans of the President's criminal nature, they
continued to raise the stakes_ Impeachment, furthermore, is a political
more than a judicial process. If Kenneth Starr's legal judgement was less
than perfect--in the end, his office lost three out of four jury
trials--his political instincts were awful, as were those of his most
fervid supporters. In retrospect, it appears that every step his enemies
took to weaken Clinton backfired: the incessant press leaks, the obsessive
prurience of the "Starr Report," Congress's decision to release the OIC's
entire investigative file, the decision to televise his August 17, 1998
Grand Jury testimony, the impeachment vote in the If
these tactics succeeded in ruining Clinton's reputation, they also
strengthened him politically.
Nor did it help that thee OPY calling for the
.z
'I'
\0
.,
ARMS Email System
President's impeachment spoke with Southern white-boy accents ironically
like his own. That they espoused mainly fundamentalist religious views
.t'age j or j
somewhat unfairly associated in the public mind with closet racist, ,> c::i.Di::: ..
anti-Semitic and natiyist sentiments also helpedshape the debate in terms /'j,:(e-._, -fV?'i:,
reminiscent of earlier cultural and political clashes ranging from the \ --y/ \
Scopes trial of the Twenties to the civil rights movement of the Sixties. ;>j' (, \
It did Clinton's detractors little good when Georgia Representative Bob f;) \ . \
Barr referred to the effort to remove the President as a "civil war," nor \.d . \
when he lectured a black Federal judge testifying before the House
Judiciary Committee that "real Americans" favored impeachment. \. /
But the alliance most: resented and mistrusted by most Americans
throughout the Lewin-sky affair, it took no great wisdom to understand, was
the one between independent counsel Ken-neth Starr and the Washington
press. It was hard not to notice that the selfsame reporters and news
organizations which had produced quite one-sided coverage of the .Jones case
and Whitewater.also turned out. to be the same ones who routinely "scooped"
their rivals on the Lewinsky affair. Starr's petulant denials that he and
his staff were illegally "leaking" grand jury evidence for political
pur-poses.were simply not believed. Were reporters and their editors and
producers fabricating attribu-tions like "sources in Starrs office,"
".sources close to Starr," "Starr's investigators," and "prose-cutors
painted a different picture?" It seemed unlikely.
Rather, as with street drugs, it was the very illegality of.the
OIC's leaks that turned them into such a valuable commodity. Reporters and
news organizations who displayed skepticism toward any aspect of Kenneth
Starr's mission could be (and were) dismissed with a brisk "no com-ment."
Only by turning themselves into Lewinsky .junkies and de facto press agents
for Starr were journalists able to keep up with the competition. "What
makes the media'. s performance a true scandal, " wrote media critic Steven
Brill iri his Brill's Content magazine "a true example of an institution
being corrupted to its core, is that the competition for scoops so
bewitched almost everyone that they let the man in power [Starr] write the
story--once Tripp and Goldberg put it together for him."
The public didn't have to know all the ins and outs of the news
business.to recognize a rigged game when it saw one. As the most powerful
unaccountable institution in American life, the Washington press appeared
to most citizens to have joined forces with a partisan prosecutor in a
brazen attempt to undo the results of two presidential elections. Its
arrogant over-reaching was more bitterly resented than many in the media
realized. Whatever they thought of Bill Clinton's private behavior, the
American people were determined not to surrender their constitutional right
to choose their own leaders to what they saw as a media-driven coup
attempt.
Once the politicians understood that, the independent counsel law
was history, and the "Clinton scandals" were over.
--30--
COPY
/
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
Clinton Library
08/20/1999 P5
I '-fO ;;>,
David Greenberg to Jeffrey A. Shesol at 00:27:34.00. Subject: Re:
CNN Larry King, August 17, 1999. (1 page)
001. email
002. email
003. email
004. email
0 0 ~ . email
006. email
nhenry@mellmangroup.com to Stephen K. Hom at 09:15:19.00.
Subject: -no subject. (1 page)
regina key to Meridith A. Webster at 18:35:01.00. Subject: Re: [none]
(1 page)
Wnrfiest@aol.com to Jared Powell at 15:47:13.00. Subject: (no
subject) (2 pages)
Maura M. Pally to RECasst at 18:16:22.00. Subject: Re: [none] (1
page)
Williamson Scott LTC A WC to Michele R. Zellers at 20:00:32.00.
Subject: Re: HOT HOT HOT HOT StarN om: Junior Military
Assistant to the Sec ... (3 pages)
08/23/1999 P6/b(6)
08/31/1999 P6/b(6)
09/10/1999 P6/b(6)
09/22/1999 P6/b(6)
09/22/1999 P6/b(6)
. 007. email Kenneth S. Baer to Jeffrey A. Shesol at 18:56:48.00. Subject: Re:
extraordinary indeed. (2 pages)
10/13/1999 P5
IY"''3
008. email Richard L. Siewert to Erica S. Lepping and Jennifer M. Palmieri at
11:17:50.00. Subject: One More Time. (2 pages)
10/14/1999 P5
ILtO'-(
009. email Barry J. Toiv to Richard L. Siewert at 11:12:57.00. Subject: Re: 10/14/1999 P5 l ~ o s
Rough Draft. (2 pages)
010. email Paul Begala to Lowell A. Weiss at 16:40:08.00. Subject: Re: ? (2
pages)
10/22/1999 P5, P6/b(6)
lllO C
011. email Kevin Moran to Andrew J. Mayock at 15:40:15.00. Subject: Re: 10/2611999 P6/b(6)
Potential Recruit. (2 pages)
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[08/12/1999- 0 1/28/2000]
2006-0319-F
ab900
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- (44 U.S.C. 2204(a)J
PI National Security Classified Information ((a)(l) of the PRAJ
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office ((a)(2) of the PRAJ
PJ Release would violate a Federal statute ((a)(J) of the PRAJ
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRAJ
and his advisors, or between such advisors (a)(S) of the PRAJ
personal privacy ((a)(6) of the PRAJ
of gift.
2201(3).
Freedom of Information Act- (5 U.S.C. 552(b)J
b(l) National security classified information [(b)(l) of the FOIAJ
an agency ((b)(2) of the FOIAJ
b(J) Release would violate a Federal statute ((b)(J) of the FOIAJ
b(4) Release would oisclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information ((b)(4) of the FOIAJ
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIAJ
purposes ((b)(7) of the FOIAJ
financial institutions ((b)(8) of the FOIAJ
concerning wells ((b)(9) of the FOIAJ
I ' I ' I . ". :' I
L
Clinton Library
AND TYPE
012. email Ashley Raines to Brian A. Barreto at 17:14:19.00. Subject: RE: Hi. (2 "11/01/1999 P6/b(6)
pages)
013. email Lindsey Mead to [list] at 15:06:28.00. Subject: re: Happy Halloween. 11102/1999 P6/b(6)
(2 pages)
014. email Rosemary Hart to Paul Oetken at 09:41:54.00. Subject: Re: [none] (1 11105/1999 P6/b(6)
page)
015. email Dorothy Robyn to PatrickM. Dorton and Richard L. Siewert at 1111411999 P5, P6/b(6) l<-t01-
14:34:46.00. Subject: Fw: aiming high. (5 pages)
016. email Sidney Blumenthal to Jeff_Frank at 16:09:00. Subject: Re: (1 page) 11115/1999 P5
l'i_o'(
017. email Nanda Chitre to Jordan Matyas at 10:15:19.00. Subject: Re: toiv story. 12/13/1999 P6/b(6)
(partial) (1 page)
018. email Jason H. Schecter to James E. Kennedy at 07:26:41.00. Subject: tripp. 12/1611999 P5
1'-f. ocr
(l page)
019. email James E. Kennedy to Jason H. Schechter at 08:11:17.00. Subject: Re: 1211611999 P5
I Lt La
tripp. (1 page)
020. email Frederick A. Hartman to Jennifer L. Dewitt at 20:02:06.00. Subject: 12/21/1999 P6/b(6)
Soft Money. (partial) (1 page)
021. email Sidney Blumenthal to admin@inflite at 09:30:32.00. Subject: Re: Just 01/06/2000 P5
Ill l l
who WAS that Posner Clerk? ( 1 page)
022. email Sidney Blumenthal to jconason and genelyon at 18:14:33.00. Subject: 01/06/2000 P5
~ { ~
. Re: Just who WAS that Posner Clerk? (7 pages)
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[08/12/1999- 01/28/2000]
2006-0319-F
ab900
RESTRICTION CODES
PI National Security Classified Information l(a)(l) of the PRAJ
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office l(a)(2) of the PRAJ
PJ Release would violate a Federal statute l(a)(J) of the PRAJ
financial information l(a)(4) of the PRAJ
and his advisors, or between such advisors la)(S) of the PRAJ
personal privacy l(a)(6) of the PRAJ
of gift.
2201(3).
Freedom of Information Act- IS U.S.C. 552(b)J
b(l) National security classified information l(b)(l) of the FOIAJ
an agency l(b)(2) of the FOIAJ
b(J) Release would violate a Federal statute l(b)(J) of the FOIAJ
information l(b)(4) of the FOIA[
personal privacy l(b)(6) of the FOIAJ
purposes l(b)(7) of the FOIAJ
financial institutions l(b)(8) of the FOIA[
concerning wells ((b)(9) of the FOIAJ
: ' I I 'I I
,-_
Clinton Library
AND TYPE
023. email Shawn J. Johnson to Sidney Blumenthal at I2:06:49.00. Subject:
letter. (2 pages)
024. email Sidney Blumenthal to Underwriter's Digital Research at 09:26:36.00.
Subject: Re: ?'s (I page)
025. email Ladyla978@aol.com to Caroline I. Allred at 22:45:53.00. Subject: Re:
Washington DC. (I page)
026. email Chad Jenkins to Charles M. Brain at I2:3I :44.00. Subject: Quote of
the Year (so far) (I page)
021. email Todd A. Bledsoe to Jeremy. Edge@mail.state.ky.us at II :39:43.00.
Subject: Re: FW: Here's the .first quotable quote of the new century.
(2 pages)
email Brennan Doyle to Dawn V. Woolen at 13:07:09.00. Subject: Re:
tease. (6 pages)
029. email Brennan Doyle to DawnV. Woollen at II :40:43.00. Subject: Re: big
deal. ( 4 pages)
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
(08/1211999- 01/28/2000]
DATE
01/I0/2000
01/II/2000
01/26/2000
01/27/2000
OI/27/2000
OI/28/2000
01/28/2000
RESTRICTION
P5
I <-{
l3
P5

P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
2006-0319-F
ab900
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records 1-ct- (44 U.S.C. 2204(a)l
PI National Security Classified Information ((a)(l) of the PRAl
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office ((a)(2) of the PRAl
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute ((a)(3) of the PRAl
financial information ((a)(4) of the PRAl
and his advisors, or between such advisors (a)(S) of the PRAl
personal privacy ((a)(6) of the PRAl
of gift.
2201(3).
Freedom of Information Act- (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(
b(l) National security classified information ((b)(l) of the FOIAl
an agency ((b)(2) of the FOIAl
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute ((b)(3) of the FOIAl
information ((b)(4) of the FOIAl
personal privacy ((b)(6) of the FOIAl
purposes ((b)(7) of the FOIAl
financial institutions ((b)(8) of the FOIAl
concerning wells ((b)(9) of the FOIA(
I : I : I : I
CREATOR: David Greenberg <dgl07@columbia.edu> ( David Greenberg <dgl07@columbia.edu>
CREATION DATE/TIME:20-AUG-l999 00:27:34.00
SUBJECT: Re: CNN Larry King, August 17, 1999
TO: Jeffrey A.' Shesol ( CN=Jeffrey A. Shesol/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Jeff,
Finally read this transcript. WHy King has this particular trio on is
baffling. But' BW doesn't come off as anti-Clinton at all. He says people
will look back on Lewinsky etc. and wonder why we got so hung up on it;
also that it pales next to Kosovo in importance. He just denies Frank
Rich's claim that it was all .a creation of the media.
Anyway, sorry I didn't get to call you back before going (I take off
tomorrow). I have been crashing on Ch. 2, finally "done" (always a
provisional term) and now am ready.forvacation. But I would love torsee
you in Sept . ; whether in NY or DC.
Hope all is well there. Enjoy the,waning days of Washington's August.
Best,.
David
COPY
AKNl:S ::sysiem
CREATOR: Kenneth S. Baer ( CN=Kenneth S. Baer/O=OVP [ UNKNOWN ] )
SuBJECT: Re: extraordinary indeed
TO: Jeffrey A. Shesol ( CN=Jeffrey A. Shesol/OU=WHO/O=EOPEOP [ WHO ]
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
He'll do anything for publicity.
\ [j i'::.i\i
;:--.,.'
. /' )'
.;i--
2
As for Sat., let me know if you're around and coming to dinner. And thanks
for tl:J.e books.
Kenny
Jeffrey A. ShesolEOP
10/13/99 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Kenneth S. Baer/OVPOVP
cc:
Subject: extraordinary indeed
. . .
Your former boss is really just trying to help.
(see below)
So should I make my reservation now? For Sat., I mean? There's a chance
I'll be.out of town, but most likely not.
OCTOBER 13 I 17:32 EDT
Book: Clinton Rejected Apology
By LAURENCE ARNOLD
Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) 0* Sen. Robert Torricelli, a close
ally of President Clinton, includes in a new book the
text of an apology-laced speech that he says Clinton
considered but rejected before addressing the nation
last year on his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
The speech Clinton ultimately delivered to the nation
on Aug. 17, 1998, hours after testifying to a grand
jury, was more critical thancontrite.
The White House and clinton advisor Paul Begala
denied Wednesday that Clinton ever actually reviewed
the apologetic speech that presents in his
book entitled, ''In Our Own Words: Extraordinary
Speeches of the runerican Centub
0
p y
/
ARMS Email System
White House spokesman Jim Kennedy said the rejected
speech .to be a drat that was volunteered
by someone outside the White House, and my
understanding is it is not one that the president saw.''
But Torricelli, a New Jersey Democrat, stuck by his
book's contention that the apologetic speech was a
real option considered and rejected by Clinton.
Analyzing why Clinton chose the speech he did,
Torricelli writes that to even many of
his closest advisors, ' '. Clinton was planning a military
strike against Osama bin Laden and not want
either the United States or himself to appear weak
before conducting the attack_, '
Four days later, the United States fired cruise missiles
at eastern Afghanistan in an attempt to knock out
suspected terrorist camps in retaliation for the
bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa two
weeks earlier.
Torricelli said Clinton also chose the second speech out
of anger at questions he.was asked hours earlier by
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and his deputies.
The two versions are strikingly different.
The second version is no secret; it's the one he
delivered to a television audience estimated at 67
mi,llion people. In it, Clinton said Starr's investigation
gone on too long, cost too much and hurt too
many innocent people.''
Begala said Democratic consultant Robert Shrum wrote
and faxed to the White House what Torricelli describes
as original draft.'' A Shrum assistant said he was
in meetings and not available for comment Wednesday
afternoon.
That draft begins, one who is not in my position
can understand the remorse I feel today,' ' and it
includes an acknowledgmen.t o responsibility
hurting my wife and daughter, for hurting Monica
Lewinsky and her family, for hurting friends and staff,
and for hurting the country I love.''
It also contains the line, -r never should have had
any sexual .contact with Monica Lewinsky, but I did. ' '
In the speech he delivered, Clinton did not mention
contact,'' admitting only to relationship
with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate.''
COPY
!'age 1. or 1.
CREATOR: Richard L. S.iewert ( CN=Richard L. Siewert/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
SUBJECT: One More'Time
TO: Erica S. Lepping ( CN=Erica S. Lepping/OU=WHO/O=EOPEOP [ WHO
READ: UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/OU=WHO/O=EOPEOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
You seem to have stumbled into a blunder of historic on the
nuclear test treaty vote. Are you worried that your administration's
failure to lay the groundwork for this vote. over the last two years has
ended up badly hurting American credibility around the world?
With this bitter battle over nuclear testing worsening relations with
Congress, is it even possible to work through some of your disagreements
with the Hill on the budg'et?
Did Senate Democrats blunder in trying to force the Senate to take up the
CTBT, and did the White House support.those tactics?
You have signalled that you would like to spend much of your remaining
time on foreign policy challenges that confront the U.S. With a Congress
voting .down CTBT, failing to provide funds for the Wye Accords, refusing
to give you fast track, steadfastly opposing the Climate Change Kyoto
accord, how much can you really get done?
What do you think the CTBT vote says about .the future of the Republican
party and its internationalisttradition?
After the 1994 elections, you said "I'm still relevant." With Congress
refusing to do your bidding and attention shifting to the presidential
campaign or your wife's Senate campaign, do you still. think that's true?
You recently.said that George W. Bush was closely allied with the
conservatives of his party, but many analysts have noted that Bush
campaign seems to have copied your successful 1992 and 1996 playbooks.
While the Vice President courting the AFL-CIO and Governor Bush
criticizing Congress, isn't it clear that he is really running a more
centrist campaign?
Isn't it unavoidable that the Social Security surplus will be spent? Why
don't you just settle with the GOP leadership on a compromise to fund key
priorities out of the surplus?
Major Medicare reform seems to be out of the question this year, but you
have frequently said that health care providers are being squeezed too
much. Wouid you go along with a slimmed-down version of Medicare reform
that tried to undo some of thedamage done by the 97 budget package?
You practically accused the GOP of racism when they voted down Ronnie
White's judicial nomination. And when the Senate votes down the CTBT, you
accuse them of isolationism. Why do you turn honest policy debates into
occasions for name-calling?
COPY
;.
J i:./:t \:.
. /
':-.-
Between the Lewinsky affair and the various ethical problems this
administration has had, don't you share some of the blame for the
poisonous partisan atmosphere in Washington?
You apparently have.been raising money for your library in huge increments
with checks ranging as high as $1 million. And you and your wife relied
on a prominent Democratic fundraiser to help finance your mortgage,
without which you could not have purchased your house in New York. Aren't
you concerned that it will be hard to say no to a library supporter when
he or she asks for some consideration of an issue?
You seem to have spent more time cultivating the political left in recent
days-- from gays.and lesbians to organized labor. In the wake of
. impeachment, have you become more on core liberal consituencies
and hurt your image as a centrist?
From gun control to Social Security reform to nuclear testing, your
legislative agenda is absolutely dead. Has your influence with Congress
reached a low point?
Your One America agenda seems to have vanished into thin air. Your race
book "is not done and the "national conversation" seems to have wound
down. Is there anything life left in this initiative?
You frequently speak the importance of doing more to open markets
around the world. But how can our trading partners take that. talk
seriously when we slap new tariffs on steel and lamb on.the one hand and
lack fast track authority on the other hand?
A number of Congressional Republicans have said that they do not trust
you, and there is some evidence _that on issues from the CTBT to Medicare
to the Patients Bill of Rights, one of the reasons given for a lack of
.progress is that Republicans simply do not want to give you a victory.
Are you now convinced that one of the consequences of the political and
legal fight that resulted your behavior with Monica Lewinsky is that
you have not been able to accomplish critical elements of your policy
agenda for your last term in office? .
If House and Senate conferees agree on a Patients Bill of Rights that
contains all of the elements of the House-passed bill, including the right
to sue, but in weakend form, might you be willing to sign it?
News reports indicate that House and Senate Republicans may be close to an
greement on compromise gun legislation that would include proposals you
have supported on trigger locks and importation of large'-capacity
ammunition clips, and barring violent juveniles from owning guns, and a
version of legislation to close the gunshow loophole. While it is not all
that you have asked for, it would include a number of your proposals.
Would you be willing to sign legislation that represented progress but
fell short of what you have asked for?
Would you support a minimum wage bill that also includes significant tax
cuts for both large and small businesses?
The budget that you proposed back in January would have spent some of next
year's Social Security surplus, but you and the Congress have both been
saying since that you would oppose spending any of that surplus. Will you
veto any legislation that spends the Social Security surplus?
COPY
)

("
. /

(C
'.i :J
,u...fJ

\.) ;r
\
/
/
_..
""t\RMS Email System
CREATOR: Barry J. Toiv ( CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
SUBJECT: Re: Rough Draft
TO: Richard L. Siewert ( CN=Richard L. Siewert/OU=WHO/O=EOPEOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: m. palmieri ( CN=jennifer m. palmieri/OU=who/O=eopeop [ WHO ] )
READ :UNKNOWN
TEXT:
With this bitter battle over nuclear testing worsening relations with
Congress, is it even possible to work through some of your disagreements
with the Hill on the budget?
What do you think the CTBT vote says about the future of the Republican
party and its internationalism?
Did Senate Democrats blunder in trying to force the Senate to take up the
CTBT, and did the White House support those tactics?
Many analysts have noted that George W. Bush seems to have copied your
successful 1992 and 1996.playbooks. While the Vice President courting the
AFL-CIO and Governor Bush criticizing Congress, isn't it clear that he is
really running a more centrist campaign, much like your own?
Isn't it unavoidable that the Social Security surplus will be spent? Why
don't you just settle with the GOP leadership on a compromise to flind key
priorities out of the surplus?
From gun control to Social Security reform to nuclear testing, your
legislative agenda is absolutely dead. Has your influence with Congress
reached a low point?
Your One America agenda seems to have vanished into thin air. Your race
book is not done and the "national conversation" seems to have wound
down. Is there any life left in this initiative?
You seem to have stumbled into a blunder of historic proportions on the
nuclear test treaty vote. Are you worried that your administration's
failure to lay the groundwork for this vote over the last two years has
ended up badly hurting American credibility around the world?
After the 1994 elections, you said "I'm still relevant." With Congress
refusing to do your bidding and attention shifting to the presidential
campaign or your wife's Senate campaign, do you still think that's true?
You practically accused the GOP of racism when they voted down Ronnie
White's judicial nomination. And when the Senate votes down the CTBT, you
accuse them of isolationism. Why do you turn honest policy debates into
occasions for name-calling?
Don't you share some of the blame for the posionous partisan atmosphere in
Washington?
You apparently have been huge increments
L) i::.-':\l
1 .
'("'\
..,.,....,
r> 1

i
,, I

-ARMS Email System rage .L. or 1..
with checks ranging as high as $1 million. And you and your wife relied
on a prominent Democratic fundraiser to help finance your mortgage,
/' .. :.
without which you could not have purchased your house in New York. Aren't / ,
you concerned that it will be hard to say no to him or to a library .:<-2:' <
supporter when he or she asks for' some consideration of . an issue? _ <, 'i\
You se.em to have spent more. time cultivating the political left in recent \3 j::: ,i
days -- from gays and lesbians to organized labor. In the wake of '\ -.,
impeachment, have you become more dependent on core liberal consituencies
and hurt your image as a centrist?
You frequently speak about the importance of doing more to open markets
around the world. But how can our trading partners take that talk
'seriously when we slap new tariffs on steel and lamb on the one hand and
lack fast track authority on the other hand?
A number of Congressional Republicans have said that they do not trust
you, and there is some evidence that on issues from the CTBT to Medicare
to the Patients Bill of Rights, . one of the reasons given for a lack of
progress is that Republicans simply do not want to give you a victory.
Are you now convinced that one of the consequences of the political and
legal fight that resulted from your behavior with Monica Lewinsky. is that
you.have not been able to accomplish critical elements of your policy
agenda for your last term in office?
If House and Senate conferees agree on a Patients Bill of Rights that
contains all of the elements of the House-passed bill, including theright
to sue, but in weakend form, might you be willing to sign it?
News reports indicate that House and Senate Republicans may be close to an
greement on compromise gun legislation that would include proposals you
have supported on trigger locks and importation of large-capacity
ammunition clips, and barring violent juveniles from owning guns, and a
version of legislation to close the gunshow loophole. While it is not all
that you have asked for, it would include a number of your proposals ..
Would you be willing .to sign legislation that represented progress but
fell short of what you have asked for?
Would you support a minimum wage bill that also includes significant tax
cuts for both large and small businesses?
COPY
.. -
CREATOR: Paul Begala <pbegala@hotmail.com> ( Paul.Begala <pbegala@hotmail.com> [ UNK
SUBJECT: Re: ?
TO: Lowell A. Weiss ( CN=Lowell A. Weiss/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
. READ: uNKNOWN
TEXT:
Lowell,
Here's what I sent to Katz. Please share with Jeff (whose email address I
don't have - why I do not know)
THANK YOU ... AND KEEP WORKING., I NEED THE HELP!
Thanks to you and the other sound bite artistes, I've got a start. But I'm
still scared.
I need to open big. Russert is emcee, and he'll intra me with
zinger. I'd like to fire back right away AND (if possibie) be
self-deprecating at the same time. Piece of cake, right?
a _good
One recurring motif that I think has potential is Imus the Urban Cowboy.
He's a vegetarian who runs a cattle ranch. What are they gonna do, let the
bulls die of old age? That's gonna be a sight: a 90-year-old bull,
aimlessly stumbling through the hills of New Mexico, skin sagging off of
him, useless equipment dragging the ground below him. Just like Imus
himself. (or: Oh, well, I guess all pets eventually look like their
owner.)
What else can we do on that rif? Lowell suggested branding tofu, rounding
up rootabagas.
I also think there's a joke on the flip-side of the "Thinking man's
Greaseman" (though I think I prefer Stern.) The flip side being "May be
more accurate to describe him as "The Idiot's Jean Paul Sartre. Talk about
the pointlessness of existence!" Is that the line?
Macks has a good idea for a conceit: Russert taught me how to interview.
Said, "Just stick to the basic questions: Who, what, when, where, why,
how ... and what's the Nielsen Rating?" Then go through some.comical
questions:
Who chose Imus? Was Saddam Hussein unavailable? (We've gotta get a more .
absurd bad guy than Saddam, though)
How:
old.
that
How did Imus land Dierdre. I asked her, and she said: "Sure he' s
Sure he's wrinkly. Sure he's ugly. But he's also vicious -- and
counts for a lot with me.
What? What is it about this town that makes powerful politicians grovel to
this lunatic? We're not Republicans and Democrats with Imus, we're sadists
and masochists
COPY
.l.
Email System
rage .t. or .t.
etc ...
Imus' new obsession is the "Dixie Chicks" -- which is a long way from his
days as a young Marine when he found himself making out with a transvestite
in a border town bar. Hmmmm ... from Dixie chicks. to chicks with d ,!' ! '/'i>
<'.... ' \
better not go there. Sen. McCain, that was one .of your jokes, \Q.
it? > I .
il.-l
lO '\." ;n '
\\ " -..(-/
Russert asked me 13 times in one interview what the president's
relationship
with Monica Lewinsky was. Hell, I don't even know what his relationship
withAl Gore is. (is Gore the right guy? !'REALLY .want to stayaway from
anything that could be misconstrued as a shot at POTUS. There will be
enough of that from everyone else! )
Rather than Imus on famous authors, bow 'bout upcoming book titles on the
Iitms Book Section at Barnes & Noble? Or Imus' Children's Books: "Why
Daddy
Needs a Walker"
Gonna Fill Thatr
HELP!!!
or "Diapers Are for Daddy, Too" or stop Crying Or I'm
Baby-Bottle With Bourbon" This, I think, has potentiaL
What about telegrams from famous folks? Worth it or not? Is this
something
the emcee traditionally does? Are you writing Russert's too, or should I
.call him?
That's enough rambling for now. TharikyouTbankyouThankyouThankyou. You're
my hero ..
>From: Mark Katz <markatzearthlink.net>
>To: Pbegalahotmail.com
>Subject: ?
>Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 i1:52:34-0400
>
>How's the material coming? Call if you need more assistance. Mark Katz
>operators are standing by.
>--mark

>
>
>

>
>The Sound Bite Institute. Making mirth since 1992. (TM)
>
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
COPY
.:r'
.. ;Y/
--------.--'".
ARMS Email System
CREATOR: Dorothy Robyn ( CN=Dorothy Robyn/OU=OPD/O=EOP. [ OPD ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME:14-NOV-1999 14:34:46.00
SUBJECT: Fw: i m i n ~ high
TO: Patrick M. Dorton ( CN=Patrick M. Dorton/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ) )
READ :UNKNOWN
TO: Richard L. Siewert ( CN=Richard L. Siewert/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ) )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Sarmila Bose was a very talented Ph.D. student at the Kennedy School when
i taught there in the mid-80s. An American citizen of Indian ancestry,
she is back living in India and writes a weekly column for a major Indian
newspaper. She would like to interview the POTUS prior to his visit to
India and would be willing to come here to do so. As the attached emails
indicate, she is a strong Clinton supporter and so we could expect a very
positive story.
How should she proceed? Is there a formal .process for seeking such an
interview?
----------------------, forwardedby Dorothy Robyn/OPD/EOP on 11/14/99
02:29 PM ---------------------------
mgluck@nasi.org
11/12/99 07:23:00 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Dorothy Robyneop
cc:
Subject: Fw: aiming high
Dorothy --
I hope all is well. Below is a note from KSG officemate, Sarmila Bose,
whom I believe you met a few years back when she was doing some work on
technology policy in Britain.
She is now in Bombay where she has taken up her previous work as a
part-time journalist, which currently includes a column in The Telegraph,
a major Indian paper. (She is an American citizen, by the way -- She was
born in the U.S., grew up in Calcutta, a
nd was educated in the U.S. and Europe, I believe)
She is very interested in landing an interview with the President here in
DC prior to his expected trip there in February. She has asked for my
help infiguring out how she might do this. Do you have ideas about how
she should proceed, or how I might b
e able to pave the way for her a bit?
Her note below gives a few more details, although she did tell me that her
publisher, who seems to be a mover and shaker in India is very supportive
of her doing this. It also sounds as if she was very supportive of the
President in print during the Star
Page 1 of5
" : ARMS Email System
i
r /Lewinsky mess, which I suppose doesn t hurt.
I think she would be great at this, but .then I'm very biased -- I would
love to.have her visit DC again!
Michael
Original Message
From: Michael E. Gluck
To: Gluck Michael
Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 10:13 AM
Subject: Fw: aiming high
Original Message -----
From: sarmila bose <sarmilabose@yahoo.com>
To: <mglucknasi.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, ~ 10:15 AM
Subject: aiming high
> Hi there! I am back in Bombay, with my brood.
> Mercifully with cook, chauffeur, 'ayah' and cleaner,
to some form of life (even social
>
> Returned to work, sort of, today, with my regular
> column, this one on the pope, who just visited India ..
>
> Now, there is talk of the Prez, our very own favourite
> Bill Clinton, visiting India around February. If so, I
> think the absolutely perfect person to do a
> full-ranging interview splash on him is ~ well, me!
> American citizen, but Indian as well, educated in the
> US, yet closely connected with and well-connected in,
> India, currently senior journalist in major Indian
> newspaper group - the perfect bridge between the two
>great nations .... not to mention I voted for the man
> twice and wrote a robust defense of him in The
> TeJ.:egraph amidst the Lewinsky mess!
>
> Unfortunately, Clinton doesn't know how perfect I am
> as his interviewer for his India visit. So, I need
> someone/some people in the White House to whom I can
> send my short bio, explanation of why I am the perfect
> person to interview him for a major media splash in
> India, and probably a copy of my article defending him
> during the infamous impeachment proceedings. Ideally,
> I want to go to Washington (or anywhere else, wherever
>he is), and see him in the week prior to his departure
> for India, so that the write-up is his opening gambit
> as he arrives in India. It is virtually impossible to
> do a proper interview or write-up in the middle of a
> foreign trip.
COPY
Page2 of5
__. \
,_..... \
C:) I
{ ~ I
;,. '
~ /
.. ARMS Email System
t
>
> Now, do we/you know anyone within the charmed circle
> at the White House at present? Can you think of people -
> whom I can contact with this proposition?
>
>
>
>
> sarmila
> .. ;,..,_ = =.
>
>
> =====
>
>
>Do You Yahoo!? .. . . . .
> Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
>
==================== ATTACHMENT 1 ====================
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 OO:OO:OO:oo
TEXT:
dDOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional/fEN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-BB59-1" bttp-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2014.210" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>.
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Dorothy --</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV> .
Page 3 of5
<DIV>I hope all is well. Below is a note from KSG
officemate, Sarmila Bose, whom I believe you met a few years back when she was
doing some work on technology policy in Britain.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>She is now in Bombay where she has taken up
her previous work as a part-time journalist, which currently includes a column
in The Telegraph, a major Indian paper. (She is an American
citizen, by the way-- She was born in the U.S., grew up in Calcutta, and was
educated in the U.S. and Europe, I believe) </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>. .
<DIV>She is very interested in landing an interview with the President here in
DC prior to his expected trip there in February. _She bas asked for my hel
p
in figuring out how she might do this. Do you have ideas about how
she should proceed, or how I might be able to pavethe way for her a bit?
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Her_note below gives a few more details, although she did tell me that her
COPY
I
ARMS Email System Page4 ofS
publisher, who.seems to be a mover and shaker in India is very supportive of he
r
doing this. It also sounds as if she was very supportive of the President
in print during the Starr/Lewinsky mess, which I suppose doesn't hurt.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think she would be great at this, but then I'm very biased -- I would
love to have her visit DC again!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> <
<DIV>Michael</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> ----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: lOpt arial">
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black">From: <A
href="mailto:mgluckbellatlantic.net" title=mgluckbellatlantic.net>Michael E.
Gluck</A> </DIV>
<DIV>TO: <A href="mailto:mglucknasi.org" title=mglucknasi.org>Gluck
Michael</A> </DIV>
<DIV>Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 10:13 AM</DIV>
<DIV>Subject: Fw: aiming high</DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV> ----- Original Message ----- From: sarmila bose <<A
href="mailto:sarmilaboseyahoo.com">sarmilaboseyahoo.com</A>> To: <<A
href="mailto:mglucknasi.org">mglucknasi.org</A>> Sent: Tuesday, Novembe
r
09, 1999 10:15 AM Subject: aiming high > Hi there! I am back i
n
Bombay, with my brood. > Mercifully with cook, chauffeur, ayah' and
cleaner, > can return to some form of working life (even social >
sort of, today, with my regular > column, thisone on the pope, who just
visited India .. > > Now, there is talk of the Prez, our very own
favourite > Bill Clinton, visiting India around February. If so, I >
think the absolutely perfect person to do a > full-ranging interview
splash on him is - well, mei > American citizen, but Indian as well,
educated in the > us, yet closely connected with and well-connected
in, > India, currently senior journalist in major Indian > newspape
r
group- the perfect bridge between the two > great nations .... not to
mention I voted for the man > twice and wrote a robust defense of him in
The > Telegraph amidst the Lewinsky messl > > Unfortunately,
Clinton doesn't know how perfect I am > as his interviewer for his India
visit. So, I need > someone/some people in the White House to whom I
can > send my short bio, exPlanation of why I am the perfect >
person to interview him for a major media splash .in > India, and probably
(C(O 1-
. ARMS Email System Page 5 of5
a copy of my article defending him > during the infamous impeachment
proceedings. Ideally, > I'want to go to Washington (or anywhere else,
wherever > he is), and see him in the week prior to his departure >
for India, so that the write-up is his opening gambit > as he arrives in
India. It is virtually impossible to > do a proper interview or write-up
in the middle of a > foreign trip. > > Now, do we/you know
anyone within the charmed circle > at the White House at present? Can you
---------------------------------------------------- > Do You
Yahoo!? > Bid and sell for free at <A
href="http://auctions.yahoo.com">http://auctions.yahoo.com</A> >
 </BODY></HTML>
================== END ATTACHMENT 1 ==============.====
( <.{rJ 1-
CREATION DATE/TIME: 15-NOV-1999 16:09:00.00
SUBJECT: Re:
TO: Jeff_Frank@newyorker.com ( Jeff_Frank@newyorker.com [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
In truth, not to be shared: Very minor story. Overblown. Almost all well
known already. Interesting tidbit on Starr's office and its
unprofessionalism, the division into Likud and Comsymps. The item about
the President and the file is almost certainly untrue. What he wrote about
me had a silly a t t ~ t u d e especially about how sad I was about what
happened to the prosecutors, by the way an emotion I've never expressed.
The business about Udolph and his concern for his chl.ld is mawkish. (Don't
'others have children?) Mentioning it. twice only made it more ridiculous.
Jeff created an impression that the ore did nothing wrong, no abuses, but
t!J.e leaks case goes on, Starr invaded the .Jones case, through illegal
contacts involving. the elves, because he had nothing on Whitewater, and
the handling of the entrapment of Lewinsky was at the least dubious,Reno
was certainly manipulated and misguided in granting an expansion of the
probe, etc.--presumably all of which Jeff knows. But I g-Uess he likes
Udolph, .who I've been assured by others I like and respect is a fairly
nice guy, but who has fostered sympathy for himself because he.had a
break-down. Oh, well.
COPY
ARMS Email System 1 u1 1
. .
CREATOR: Jason H. S.chechter ( CN=_Jason H. Schechter/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME:l6-DEC-1999 07:26:41.00
SUBJECT: tripp
TO: James E. Kennedy ( CN=James E. Kennedy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
hey jim - altl:fough i'm sure joe's ok on lewinsky testifying, we might want
to do a few tp' s with some good lines.
COPY
-""
i .
)
.i ;--
-...,.
I
.l"'l....l.'\.lV.li.J Ll.J..H..L.U U} L V l U
CREATOR: James E. Kennedy ( CN=James E. Kennedy/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
.CREATION DATE/TIME:l6-DEC-1999 08:11:17.00
SUBJECT: Re: tripp
TO:. Jason H. Schechter ( CN=Jason H. Schechter /OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Q: Are you concerned that Monica Lewinsky testifying today will
serve to renew interest in last year's problems and deepen "Clinton
fatigue'?
A: I don't have any comment on what is an ongoing legal mat.ter.
We're focused on the important work of the President and his agenda for
the country.
COPY
ARMS Email System l'age 1 ot 1
RECORD TYPE; PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
SUBJECT: Re: Just who WAS that Posner Clerk?
TO: admin@inflite.com ( admin@inflite.com [ OA ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
What's strange is that Posner in his book says he never talked about the
Lewinsky matter with Porter. But he never says anything about the Jones
case. Why not another call to Conway? Or how about to Posner?
COPY
\,
,_
'-
~ ... - .-
/
Email System rage 1 or 1
CREATOR: Sidney ( CN=Sidney Blurnenthal/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
'. "j
SUBJECT: Re: Just who WAS that Posner Clerk?
TO: jconason@aol.corn
READ: UNKNOWN
j conason\IDaol. corn @ inet [ UNKNOWN ] .) .
\
TO: genelyonscornpuserve.corn ( genelyonscornpuserve.corn @ inet [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
---------------------- Forwarded by Sidney Blurnenthal/WHO/EOP on
01/06/2000 06:14 PM
"Underwriters Digital Research Inc. "
01/06/2000 06:04:54 PM
Please respond to admininflite.corn
Record Type: Record
To: Sidney Blurnenthal/WHO/EOP
cc:
Subject: Re: Just who WAS that Posner Clerk?
Sidney_Blurnenthalwho.eop.gov wrote:
>What's strange is that Posner in his book says he never talked about the
> Lewinsky matter with Porter. But he never says anything about the Jones
> case. Why not another call to Conway? Or how about to Posner?
Sid:
Well, we are a step ahead of you. We have several calls in to Porter who is.
well screened by his secretary. Thus we simply ask the question - "we have
information that Judge Posner was involved or helpful in filing the amicus
brief in the Jones case - do you have a statement."
We tried this on the third call. She froze like a monkey in a banana
boat. Nothing thus far from Porter because, of course he is talking, to
Posner and checking us out. If he does a good job he'll see that we are
not afraid to run the story. If he is smart, he'll return the call.
Posner is busy with Bill Gates. But he is also busy trying to get
appointed to the Supreme Court.
However, you have to keep in mind that he is "perhaps" one of the most
respected and oft quoted judge at his level. He is more than highly
influential - although that kind of influence we don't need. As you know
he the founder of the "law and economics movement" and has more than a
thousand majority rulings in his pocket.
COPY
(' \
..-
cc i.
7:'
..
,;.:I
-,. ..
... . '
\I
'ARMS Email System L.. Ul I
Jim Talent (R-MO) was also a law clerk to Posner.
.)
Posner has written some 20 books - the ones aimed at the masses are how to
get around the law genre. I think he turned after his year at Stanford -
ju,st after clerking with Bill Brennan. Then, of course, you know he
founded Lexecori Inc. - a job shop for "expert witnesses" - who better to
come upwith "witnesses" and their frames then.Posner? Why he could have,:...J
invented Tripp if she hadn't already been hatched. '
1
! .. )
But I am convinced that Posner is a bit off his rocker, yet briliiant. He
is totally unpredictable. It would not be beyond him to "use the system"
through advice or worse to try and unseat a President he didn't approve of.
Jeff
"I've attached some other disturbing stuff about him.
Read this:
Chief Judge Posner's advocacy of cost-benefit arialysis becomes far more
controversial and problematic -- when applied to what are commonly
viewed as non-economic issues, such as civil rights, criminal, and
procedural matters. See, e.g., United States v. Caputo, 97.8 F.2d 972,
974-75 (7th Cir. 1992) (applying cost benefit analysis to plain error
question in criminal case); Luddington v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 966
F.2d 225 (7th Cir.) (applying economic analysis to determination of
whether a skeletal argument is waived), petition for cert. filed, 61
U.S.L:w. 344G (Dec. 3, 1992) (No. Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser
Industries, Inc., 749 F.2d 380 (7th Cir. 1984) (economic analysis applied
to. preliminary injunction standard), American Hosp. Supply Corp. v.
Hospital Products Ltd., 780 F.2d 589 (7th Cii'. 1986) (same), limited by
Lawson Products, Inc. v. Avnet, Inc., 782 F.2d 1429 (7th Cir. 1986);
Merritt v. Faulkner, 697 F.2d.761, 768-70 (7th Cir.) (Posner, J.,
dissenting) (arguing that if a prisoner had a good case, the market would
provide counsel) (Cudahy, J., concurring, pointed out that "the barriers
to entry into the prison litigation market might be very high" for
prisoners), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 986 (1983}./ These areas are
discussed in more detail below.
In short - he's nuts.
The Chief Judge has stated his judicial philosophy in a nutshell:
I take a hard line on waiver and jurisdiction. But once a ground is
properly before the court, I aim in disposing of it to give the reader a
full and candid explanation of the reasons for my disposition. If
candor require_s me to acknowledge disagreement with precedent, or
puzzlement ' at the parties' failure to explore a particular line of
analysis, or.distress at the lawyers' incompetence, or belief that
proper disposition hinges on an issue not recognized by the
parties, I say so; and that is why my opinions strike some lawyers as
being outside the professional groove. I say outright what other
judges prefer to keep under their hat./
Thus, Chief Judge Posner feels less constrained by precedent, history,-
and the proper limits cin appellate judging than, in the Council's view,
he should. Chief Judge Posner frequently reaches out to comment on, and
decide, issues not presented by the record. In
\.,
.i
ARMs Email System
that sense, Chief Judge Posner can fairly be called a judicial activist.
All too often, he does not defer to normal procedural rules constraining
appellate courts' conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Lechuga, 994 F.2d
346, 352, 355 (7th Cir.) (en bane) (separate opinions attack Judge
Posner's ma:j ori ty opinion for giving an advisory opinion en bane) , cert.
denied, 62 U.S.L.W. 3349 (Nov. 15, 1993); Reed v. Gardner, 986 F.2d
1122, 1129 (7th Cir.) (constitutional tort case) (Posner, J.,
dissenting) (arguing. that it is permissible for court of appeals to sua
sponte suggest a remand leading to a grant of summary judgment, even
where it has not been requested), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 389 (1993);
Diginet, Inc. v. Western Union ATS, Inc., 958 F.2d 1388, 1395, 1401 (7th
Cir. 1992) (deciding Illinois state law issue despite pendency of same
issue in another case in the Illinois Supreme Court and possibility of
certifying issue to that court in this case) (Ripple, J., dissenting);
Harris v. Board of Goveinors, ~ 8 F.2d 720, 724-25 (7th Cir. .
1991) (Ripple, J,, concurring) {criticizing Court .for giving an advisory
opinion after finding the case moot)./.
Chief Judge Posner also at times refuses to accept existing Circuit or
Supreme Court precedent as controlling the outcome of a case. See
Kurland, Foreword: The Seventh Circuit as a Criminal Court: The Role of
a Federal Appellate Court in the Nineties, 67 Chi. [-]Kent L. Rev. 3
(1991) (discussing cases) , I Judge Posner's loose approach to constraints
on appellate courts is exemplified by Marrese v. American Academy of
Orthopaedic Surgeons, 692 F.2d 1083 (7th Cir. 1982), vacated en bane and
replaced by more narrow panel opinion, 706 F.2d 1488 (7th Cir. 1983),
aff'd en baric, 726 F.2d 1150 {7th C i r ~ 1984), rev'd, 470 U.S. 373
(1985) . There, Judge Posner reached out to decide an antitrust issue on
the merits when the issue on appeal was properly only the validity of a
discovery order./
Chief Judge Posner has ciearly acknowledged that he does not always view
the traditional limitations on a judge's role as constructive. See,
e.g., Cardozo, supra note 46, at 107./ This appears to derive from Chief
judge Posners very expansive view of his role as an appellate judge. He
wrote in Cardozo "the appellate judge is the central figure in
Ari.glo-American jurisprudence . . ."/Whether or not that claim is
accurate, it is instructive as a statement of Chief Judge Posner's
.self-image.
While much of Chief Judge Posner's work is marked by a willingness to
reach out to decide issues not cleariy before the Court,/ there is also
a contrary strain apparent in some cases. Chief Judge Posner has
expressed a concern that the federal courts are overworked, to the point
of being in an institutional "crisis." See Posner, The Federal Courts,
Crisis and Reform 59-93 {1985) ./ This view may influence his rulings in
certain cases where he has sought to avoid ruling on the merits,/ or to
limit review of lower court orders./ From wherever the view is derived,
many of the Seventh Circuit's opinions discussed in the introduction to
this Report that take a strict view of procedural, juri'sdictional, and
other points were authored by Judge Posner./
The tension between Chief Judge Posner's 'impulse to reach out and decide
issues that are of interest. to him and his inclination to construe
procedural rules narrowly so as to limit access to the Court .of Appeals
creates an appearance of arbitrariness in his decisions. It contributes
.to the perception of many lawyers that the Seventh Circuit is
unpredictable in the sense that lawyers cannot predict which issues will
be decided in a case.
COPY
.t'age j or 1
"ARMS Emml System
Sidney_Blumenthal@who.eop.gov wrote:
>What's strange is that Posner in his book says he never talked
.
> Lewinsky matter with Porter_ .But he never says anything about the Jones
> case. Why not another call to Conway? Or how about to Posner? \
- attl.htm
==================== ATTACHMENT l ===.============='====
TEXT:
Sidney _Blumentha1who. eop. gov wrote:
What's strange is that Posner in his book says he
never talked about the
Lewinsky matter with Porter. But he never says anythingabout the Jones
Sid:
Well, we are a step ahead of you. We have several calls in to Porter
who is well screened by his secretary. Thus.we simply ask the
- "we have information that.Judge Posner was involved or helpful in filing
the amicus brief in the Jones case- do you have a statement."
. We tried this on the third call. She froze like a monkey
in a banana boat. Nothing thus far from Porter because, of course
is talking to Posner and checking us out. If does a good job
he'll see that we are not afraid to ruri the story. If he is smart,
he'll return the call.
Posner. is busy with Bill Gates .. But he is also busy trying to
get appointed to the Supreme Court.
However, you have to keep in mind that he is "perhaps" on:e of the most
respected and oft quoted judge at his level. He is more than highly
influential - although that kind of influence we don't need. As you
know he the founder of the "law and economics movement" and has more than
a thousand majority rulings in his pocket.
Jim Talent (R-MO) was also a law clerk to Posner.
Posner has written some 20 books - the ones aimed at the masses are
how to get around the law genre. I think he turned after his year
at Stanford - just after clerking with Bill Brennan. Then, of course,
you know he founded Lexecon Inc. - a job shop for "expert witnesses" -
who better to come up with "witnesses" and their frames then Posner?
Why he could have invented Tripp if she hadn't already been hatched.
But I am convinced that Posner is a bit off his rocker, yet brilliant.
He is totally unpredictable. It wouldnot be beyond him to "use the
system" through advice or worse to try and unseat a President he didn't
approve of.
Jeff -
"I've attached some other disturbing stuff about him.
Read this:
COPY
.. ARMS Email System
Chief Judge Posner's advocacy of cost-benefit analysis becomes far more
controversial -- and problematic -- when applied to what are commonly
viewed as non-economic issues; such as civil rights, criminal, and
procedural matters. See, e.g., United States v. Caputo, 978 F.2d 972,
974-75 (7th Cir. 1992) (applying cost benefit analysis to plain error
question in criminal case); Luddington v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 966
F.2d 225 (7th Cir.) (applying economic analysis to determination of
whether a skeletal argument is waived), petition for cert. filed, 61.
U.S.L.W. 3446 (Dec. 3, 1992) (No. 92-977); Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser
Industries, Inc., 749 F.2d 380 (7th Cir. 1984) (economic analysis applied
to preliminary injunction standard), American Hosp. Supply Corp. v.
Hospital Products Ltd., 780 F.2d 589 (7th Cir. 1986) (same), limited
by
Lawson Products, Inc. v. Avnet, Inc., 782 F.2d 1429 (7th Cir. 1986);
Merritt v. Faulkner, 697 F.2d 761, 768-70 (7th Cir.) (Posner, J.;
dissenting) (arguing that if a prisoner had a. good case, the market
would
provide counsel) J., concurring, pointed out that "the barriers
to entry into the prison litigation market might be very high" for
cert. denied, 464 U.S. 986 (1983) ./These areas are
discussed in more detail below.
In short - he's nuts.
The Chief Judge has stated his judicial philosophy in a nutshell:
I take a hard line on waiver and jurisdiction.
But once a ground is
properly before the court, I aim in disposing of it to give the reader
a
full and candid explanation of the reasons
for my disposition. If
candor requires me to acknowledge disagreement with precedent, or
puzzlement at the parties' failure to
explore a particular line of
analysis, or distress at the lawyers' incompetence, or belief that
proper disposition hinges on an issue
not recognized by the
parties, I say so; and that is why my opinions strike some lawyers
as
being outside the professional groove.
I say outright what other
judges prefer to keep under their hat./
Thus, Chief Judge Posner feels less constrained by precedent, history,
and the proper limits on appellate judging than, in the Council's view,.
he should. Chief Judge Posner frequently reaches out to comment on,
and
decide, issues not presented by the parties or even by the record.
In
that sense, Chief
All too often, he
appellate courts'
F.2d
Judge Posner can fairly be called a judicial activist_.
does not defer to normal procedural rules constraining
conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Lechuga, 994
. .
346, 352, 355 (7th Cir.) (en bane) (separate opinions attack Judge
Posner's majority opinion for giving an advisory opinion en bane),
cert.
denied, 62 U.S.L.W. 3349 (Nov. 15, 1993); Reed v. Gardner, 986 F.2d
1122, 1129 (7th Cir.) (constitutional tort case) (Posner, J.,
dissenting) (arguing that it is permissible for court of appeals to
sua
sponte suggest a remand leading to a grant of summary judgment, even
where it has not been requested} CtOiPY Ct. 389 (1993};
r J v.L 1
'f ... _
-,.

,_
.,
'-

. I
AKlVl;::i nmau i:)YSlt:m
Diginet, Inc. v. Western Union ATS, Inc., 958 F.2d 1388, 1395, 1401
(7th
Cir. 1992) (deciding Illinois state law issue despite pendency of same
issue in another case in the Illinois Supreme Court and possibility
of
certifying issue to that court in this case) (Ripple, J., dissenting);
Harris v. Board of Governors, 938 F.2d 720, 724-25 (7th Cir.
1991) (Rippie, J., concurring) (criticizing Court for giving an advisory
opinion after finding the case moot) ./
Chief Judge Posner also at times refuses to existing Circuit
or
Supreme Court precedent as controlling the outcome of a case. See
Kurland, Foreword: The Seventh Circuit as a Criminal Court: The Role
of
a Federal Appellate Court in the Nl.neties, 67 Chi. [-]Kent L. Rev. 3
( 1991) (discussing cases) ./ Judge posner's lOose approach to constraints
on appellate courts is by v. American Academy of
Orthopaedic.Surgeons, 692 F.2d 1083 (7th Cir. 1982), vacated en bane
and
replaced by more narrOw panel opinion, 706 F. 2d 1488 (7th Cir. 1983),
aff'd en bane, 726 F.2d ilSO (7th Cir. 1984) I rev'd, 470 u.s. 373
(1985). There, Judge Posner reached out.to.decide an antitrust issue
on
the merits when the issue on appeal was properly only the validity
of a
discovery order./
Chief Judge Posner has clearly acknowledged that he does not always
view
the traditional limitations on a judge's role as constructive.
See,
e.g., Cardozo, supra note 46, at 107./ This appears to derive from
Chief
Judge Posner's very expansive view of his role as an appellate judge
He
wrote in Cardozo "the appellate judge is the central figure in
Anglo-American jurisprudence . ."/Whether or not that claim is
accurate, it is instructive as a statement of Chief Judge Posner's
self-image.
While much of Chief Judge Posner's work is marked by a willingness to
reach out to decide issues not clearly before the Court,/ there is
also
a contrary strain apparent in some cases. Chief Judge Posner has
expressed a concern that the federal courts are overworked, to the
point
of being in an institutional "crisis." See Posner, The Federal Courts,
Crisis and Reform 59-93 (1985) ./This view may influence his rulings
in
certain cases where he has sought to avoid ruling on the merits,/
or to
limit review of lower court orders./ From wherever the view is derived,
many of the Seventh Circuit's opinions discussed in the introduction
to
this Report that take a strict view of procedural, jurisdictional,
and
other points were authored by J'udge Posner./
The tension between Chief Judge Posner's impulse to reach out
and decide
. fUUVl.:> CllH:til .:>y:sLClll
issues that are of interest to him and his inclination to construe
procedural rules narrowly so as to limit access to the Court
of Appeals
creates an appearance of arbitrariness in his decisions.
It contributes
to .the perception of many lawyers that the Seventh Circuit is
unpredictable iii the sense that lawyers cannot predict which issues
will
be decided in a case.
Sidney Blumenthalwho.eop.gov wrote:
What's strange is that Posner in his book says he
never talked about the
- -o- . -- .
. \
Lewinsky matter with Porter. But he never says anything about the Jones
================== END ATTACHMENT 1 ==================
COPY
I
...,.
-ARMS Email System
CREATOR: Shawn J. Johnson ( CN=Shawn J. Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [WHO ] )
SUBJECT: letter
TO: Sidney Blumenthal ( CN=Sidney Blumenthal/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
---------------------- Forwarded by Shawn J. Johnson/WHO/EOP on 01/10/2000
12:06 PM---------------------------
Sidney Blumenthal
01/10i2000 11:49:57 AM
Record Type:. Record
To: .. Shawn J. Johnson/WHO /EOPEOP
.cc:
Subject:letter
Jeffery Toobin
The New Yc:irker
4 Times SqUare
New York, NY 10036-7441
Dear Jeff,
Thanks for your letter. Jackie is rea.ding your book and. says it is
extremely readable and informative. She likes it. When she's finished,
I'll get my chance at last with our copy.
I just want to conclude our correspondence on this so we can get on to the
main event, a madcap episo<?-e of "I Love Lucy."
On Henry Hyde, you do strongly suggest that the publication of the Salon
story was connected to some "oppo" campaign I was conducting, whcih is
false. Many White House aides, not to mention many others on the Hill, in
law firms, in constituency groups, etc., engaged in gossip on the private
lives of numerous public figures during the whole impeachment trial.
Gossip has existed 'since the founding of Washington and it's going on
right now. I've learned that some of my colleagues knew a good deal more
than me about various characters--and they talked about it to friends,
acqUaintances and, yes; evem members of the press informally. But nobody
was the source of any story. Nobody pushed anything. Npbody gave any
evidence to anybody. Often, I would push people away from that sort of
line of inqUiry. Jonathan Alter and Bill Schneider, for example, recalled
in Brill's Content that I waved them off any such discussion about Hyde. I
don't recall our conversation the way you do. I'm riot particularly
surprised or upset. As I've learned people have varying memories. It may
well ahve happened as you remember. Regardless, all those involved in the
Salon story have publicly stated that nobody in the White House had
anything to do with it. And I issued a public statement through the White
House press office saying that while I may have had conversations about
Hyder was not the source of anyCryOP v=l life. You ought
'-'ARMS Email System
to have noted that. I had nothing to. do with the Salon piece rather than to
have created an impression that I was somehow mysteriously behind it.
Furthermore, you and I know that News' report that I was the source
and instigator of the Hyde. story 'wit's completely false, but that ABC News
never corrected the record.
On Hitchens: His affidavit never contradicted my testimony. I testifed
. that I spoke every day with my friends and family about Lewinsky.
Hitchens, of ceruse, never read my testimony. When it was clear that his
affidavit did not contradict my testimony, the House Republican staffers
went back to him and he convinced his wife to issue an affidavit. That
affidavit was in condiction to hi.s. Carol Blue stated that I said that I
was conveying the President's story. That was false. If there were perjury
committed, it was by her, pushed by her husband. Htichens then went on CNN
and said that she was wrong, that I had not said that at all. Scott
Armstrong's affidavit stated that_Hitchens had told him that I had spoken
about Lewinsky. At the same time, I learned, Hitchens and his wife were
calling and pressuring Steve Wasserman, the editor fo the LA Times Book
Review, to issue a similar affidavit. He told them that such a
conversation never took place and that he would not say something false to
help Hitchens out of his jam. Hitchens then changed the date of .our
supposed lunch to two days earlier than in his affidavit in order. to
sqtiare with the Armstrong (meaningless) affidavit .. As I noted I was out of
the country on that date. Armstrong subsequently denounced his ownpart
and aitchens' role in a story saying that he was badly used. Once
again, .speak with Jeff Frank to determine exactly what I told close
friends. I do not remember speakign with Hitchens about this at any lunch,
but if I did I would certainly not have spoken to him differently t:han I
sppoke with Jeff. I did not trust Hitchens, though I liked his company,
not leastbecause Ithought he had become irrationally anti-Clinton
was drinking much more than he had in the past.
Also, on the notion that my grand jury appearance was not about my
contacts with the media I enclose correspondence with one Ronald Rotunda.
You may find it comical.
Best,
COPY
yage Lor L
\
.... ---- ------- -.I------
CREATOR: Sidney Blumenthal ( CN=Sidney Blumenthal/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] .)
CREATION DATE/TIME: ll-JAN-2000 .09:26: 36.00
SUBJECT: Re: ?'s
TO: Underwriters Digital Research ( Underwriters Digital Research
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
UNKNOWN ] .. J
What is your relationship with those who had active. ties to Ken Starr and
the ore--and what wwas the substance of your conversations--with Ted
Olson, Barbara Olson, Joseph DiGenova I Victoria Toensing I and/ or others I
members of Starr's law firm, Kirkland and Ellis, but not
restricted to them, who you knew had active ties to Starr, his office and
his proteges at Kirkland and Ellis?
What is your relationship with Robert Bartley, the editor of the editorial,
page of the Wall Street Journal, and his deputies and writers? Did you
ever have any discussions with Bartl.ey or others on the Journal editorial
board aboutWhitewater, the Jones case, other issues raised
President Clinton by the Journal, or.the Lewinsky matter? Were you aware
of Bartley's advisory relationship with Ken Starr while he was the
independent counsel? Were you active in Federalist Society events with
Bartley? Did you ever attend social events with Bartley? Did you ever
attend social events at which both Bartley and Starr were present?
Did you ever discuss the Jones amicus brief with any attorney working on
l.t, or any attorney advising those working on it? Who were'they? Were any
of them former students or clerks, or friends of formerstudents or
clerks? What was the substance of your conversations? Did they call you or
did you ever call them?
What is your relationship with Chicago banker Peter Smith? Were you aware
of his fUnding of secret campaigns against Bill Clinton in the 1992
campaign and afterwards involving your former law clerk Richard Porter?
Did you ever meet Smith? Did you ever _have a conversation with him? Did
you ever discuss him with Richard Porter or others?
Did you ever discuss with Richard Porter the revelations in the Chicago
Sun-Times and other publications of Peter Smith's payoffs in Arkansas and
elsewhere to individuals with the intent to.get them to make false
accusations against Bill Clinton? If so, what was the substance of your
conversations? Did you ever discuss these revelations with anyone? Who?
What was the substance of your conversations? Did you ever express your
concern about the involvement of your former student and law clerk Richard
Porter in these payoffs? To whom?
COPY
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
001. email
002. email
003. email
004. email
005. email
006. email
007. email
008.email
Clinton Library
SUBJECT!fiTLE DATE RESTRICTION
Frank Addonizio to Robin M. Roland at 22:32:17.00. Subject: Hey. (1 01/31/2000 P6/b(6)
page)
Sean Wilentz to Sidney Blumenthal at 15:52:33.00. Subject: Re:
borosage. ( 4 pages)
Lynboomer@aol.com to awrabb@juno.com, Emhparker@aol.com,
Caroline J. Croft, FilKaren@aol.com, lizp@newage.com, and
idalynch@mindspring.com at 20:39:24.00. Subject: I need a speaker!
(1 page)
Robin M. Roland to Frank Addonizio at 09: 19:57.00. Subject: Re:
Hey. (partial) ( 1 page)
perry nusbaum to [list] at 11:04:43.00. Subject: RE: subway. (2 pages)
Erin McLaughlin to [list] at 12:56:22.00. Subject: Kate's Goodbye. (3
pages)
Heather M. Riley to Mark Halperin at 18:44:17.00. Subject: Re:
[none] ( 1 page)
Josh Stewart to Caroline I. Allred at 00:27:31.00. Subject: whaddup.
(2 pages)
01/31/2000 P5
02/0112000 P6/b(6)
02/01/2000 P6/b(6)
02/08/2000 P6/b(6)
02/16/2000 P6/b(6)
02/18/2000 P6/b(6)
03/08/2000 P6/b(6)
009. email Amy V. Oberdorferto ]green and sharrison at 14:41:27.00. Subject: 03/13/2000 P5
I (._! l eo
Re: Request for Document re:'"ARMS" system-Delegated. (4 pages)
010. email Daniel A. Barry to Dimitri J. Nionakis at 14:54:40.00. Subject: ARMS
search request. (4 pages)
03/14/2000 P5
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky])
OA!Box Number: 500000
FOLDER TITLE:
[01/31/2000- 03/16/2000]
2006-0319-F
ab901
RESTRICTION CODES
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office ((a)(2) of the PRA]
PJ Release would violate a Federal statute ((a)(J) of the PRA)
and his advisors, or between such advisors (a)(S) of the PRA)
personal privacy ((a)(6) of the PRA)
of gift.
2201(3).
Freedom of Information Act- (5 U.S.C. 552(b))
b(l) National security classified information ((b)(l) of the FOIA)
an agency ((b)(2) of the FOIA]
b(J) Release would violate a Federal statute ((b)(J) of the FOIA]
information ((b)(4) of the FOIA)
purposes ((b)(7) of the FOIA]
concerning wells ((b)(9) of the FOIA] '
.-------------------------------------------------------
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
011. email Daniel A. Barry to Dimitri J. Nionakis at 15:45:22.00. Subject: ARMS
search addendum #2. (5 pages)
03/15/2000 P5
012. email JediSpywalker@aol.com to Michele Ballantyne at 00:18:35.00. ,,
Subject: Re: dates. (1 page)
03/16/2000 P6/b(6)
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky])
OA!Box Number: 500000
FOLDER TITLE:
[0 1/3112000 - 03/16/2000]
2006-0319-F
ab901
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- (44 U.S.C. 2204(a)(
Pl National Security Classified Information ((a)(l) of the PRA(
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office ((a)(2) of the PRAl
PJ Release would violate a Federal statute ((a)(J) of the PRAl
and his advisors, or between such advisors (a)(S) of the PRA)
personal privacy ((a)(6) of the PRA(
of gift.
.PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
2201(3).
Freedom of Information Act- (5 U.S.C. 552(b)l
b(l) National security classified information ((b)(l) of the FOIA)
an agency ((b)(2) of the FOIA)
. b(J) Release would violate a Federal statute ((b)(J) of the FOIA)
personal privacy ((b)(6) of the FOIA)
concerning wells ((b)(9) of the FOIA)
. ARMS Emall System
- -o- - -- .
CREATOR: Sean Wilentz <swilentz@Princeton.EDU> ( Sean Wilentz <swilentz@Princeton.ED
SUBJECT: Re: borosage
TO: Sidney Blumenthal
READ: UNKNOWN
CN=Sidney Blumenthal/OU=WHO/O=EOP. [ WHO ] )
TEXT:
Bob, alas, is right up their w/ Kuttner. Why have they all turned so
doctrinaire? Or were they always this way, and just suppressed it for a
while?. Ah well, some of us are serious.
Fax still hasn't arrived: send it to 609-258-2765
done; it is: Unlike other of Bill ClintonO?s Atlantic piece
left-wing
critics, David
the
Corn is honest enough to concede, albeit grudg:lngly; that
President has stood up for working Americans. But he wonO?t allow himself to
think too.hard about this -'- because as every good leftist knows, Bill
Clinton
must be, deep down, a bad guy.
Given CornO?s ritualistic, damned-if-you-do, damned-i-you-donO?t
style of
denunciation, Clinton can only emerge as a villain. According to Corn,
Clinton
should be despised because his original health care plan was
business 0?
and Clinton should also be despised because big business defeated his plan!
According to Corn, Clinton should be loathed 0? not just criticized, but
loathed
-- because he apologized about his inaction in Rwanda in 1994 with what
Corn
says was insufficient.contrition. (When did Presidents Reagan or Bush ever
take
one iota of personal responsibility for any of their political disasters,
foreign or domestic? And what about. the entire Clinton record on Africa,
including the relationship with Nelson Mandela and South Africa, the
creation
of an international African response group, the efforts to build democracy
in
Nigeria, let alone the fact that Clinton has been the first American
president
ever to visit Africa? ItO?s a far cry from the eraO?s cynical
O?constructive engagementO? with apar.theid.)
According to Corn, Clinton, who has signed the Kyoto accords and
tried to
do something serious about global warming, is indistinguishable from Bush
the
elder, who believed that global warming was a hoax, and who once smirked.
and
called Al Gore O?Mister Ozone.O? Then thereO?s CornD?s charge about ClintonO?s
alleged pollution of our public life. Over the years, G.O.P. spokesmen and
.their friends have puhliclylabeClO P'YChristian.D? a
ARMS Ema11 System
O?counter-cultural McGovernik,O? and, in one of their choicer epithets, a
O?scumbag. 0? Since l993, they have accused him of every felony under the sun,
including murdering his oldest friend -- an all-time low in American
political . .
scur'rility. With the aid of right-wing fat cats, including Richard Mellon
Scaife, they have spent millions of dollars on projects in order to pump
this
filth into public circulation. With additional help from the likes of
Rupert
Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, and Matt Drudge, they have repeatedly manipulated
the
national news media into reporting on numerous false scandals. (Remember
ClintonO?s mulatto love child? For that matter, remember 0?
Filegate,O?
and O?TravelgateO??) The grandest result of their efforts was a reckless,
partisan impeachment drive, led by Ken Starr and the House Judiciary
Committee
majority, that nearly succeeded in shredding the Constitution. Yet,
according
to Corn, Clinton is the one responsible for debasing the national political
discourse, in part because he did not follow the NationD?s preferred
rhetorical
line, and in part because he lied his relationship with Monica
Lewinsky
(which Clinton has since publicly regretted) .
Corn is aghast that Clinton is a O?wavererO?.O? which is to say that
Clinton
{reely and skillfully engages in the sort of tactical maneuvering that is
part
and parcel of any kind of' democratic elective government. (I canO?t imagine
what
Corn thinks of those exemplary waverers, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham
Lincoln, and
. Franklin Roosevelt.) Corn refuses to acknowledge that Clinton has
repeatedly
put his presidency on the line, from the health care battle and the
government
shutdown to the decision, one month after his impeachment, to intervene in
Kosovo. Corn is likewise oblivious to how, in Kosovo, Clinton was the first
American president ever to begin successfully halting a genocidal
onslaught.
I seriously wonder if any national elected official, except, perhaps,
the
quixotic Paul Wellstone, would pass CornO?s litmus test as anything other
than a
right-winger or a sell-out. (Forget.about Ted Kennedy and Tom Harkin: they
backed Clinton and now back Al Gore.) And I detect in CornD?s contempt for
Clinton a deep-seated contempt for American politics and the Democratic
Party. He speaks superciliously, for example, of O?ClintonO?s successful
political useD? of the education issue [italics his] . In fact, ClintonO?s
record
on education includes .the following: making the first two years of college
universally available; proposing thirty million dollars in federal tax
credits
in order to make the second two
proposing an initiative to hire
proposing ambitious federal aid
expanding
years of college more widely available;
lOO,bOO new, schoolteachers;
to rebuild crumbling schools; vastly
COPY
---------
ARMS Email System
federal support for everything from Project Head Start to Pell Grants; and
more. If such. be the fruits of ClintonO?s politics, so much the better for
politics 0? and for the vast majority of the American people.
Whereas CornO?s piece is dogmatic, David BrooksO?s suggests that its
author
is in denial. On the one hand, he concedes that ClintonO?s administration
rescued the Democratic Party from the stigma of what Brooks calls 0?
traditionalO?
liberalism; that it freed the federal government from the imm'ense and
seemingly
inevitable deficits accumulated under Reagan and Bush; and that it became
the
first Democratic administration since the Vietnam era to back an
internationalist foreign policy successfully with military force. In the
wake
rage :J Ul "t
of ClintonO?s presidency, fn fact, Brooks claims that O?[p]rogressivesO? 0? a
group that, in BrooksO?s view, includes ClintonO?s Vice President Al Gore 0? 0?
are
right in feeling as hopeful as they do. 0? In short 0? and here a historian
can
only agree -- a great deal has changed since the elder George BushO?s days
of
decline . On the other hand, Brooks conforms to the conveu'tional punditsD?
consensus.by sticking his head in the sand and claiming that ClintonO?s
presidency has been O?diaphanousO? and O?insubstantial.O?
Brooks tries to paper over these contradictions by offering up a
fanciful
account of the presidential politics of 2000. The real.story here is that
both
of the leading Republican candidates have, at least rhetorically, backed
off
from the hard-right Reagan-Bush era legacy as sustained by the
congressional
G.O.P. , and have tried to move closer to the center 0? a plain consequence
-of_
political .and policy successes. (George W. BushO?s 0?
compassionate
conservatism,O? for example, is a slogan blatantly designed as a Republican
me-too alternative to ClintonD?s O?third way.O?) Over in the other party, Bill
Bradley has positioned himself ever-so-slightly to the left of Al Gore
but
he is hardly running as a Humphrey/Mondale Democrat, as Brooks says he is.
Gore; like all Vice who have tried to move up, has had to
distinguish himself from Clinton, but he has done so almost entirely in
connection with the Lewinsky fiasco. Politically and programmatically,
Clinton
and Gore rightly-consider themselves, as the strongest of allies. And
however
the New Hampshire primary turns out 0? I am writing the day before the
balloting
0? it appears that most Democrats see Gore as ClintonO?s rightful successor.
In
all, pace Brooks, ClintonO?s policy legacy, within his party and in the
nation
at large, is enormous.
COPY
/
A.KM:::> t:mall :system
Sidney:_Blumenthal@who.eop.gov wrote:
> I've faxed you a piece by Bob Borosage that is grist for the TRB mill.
What
> an amazingly specious and ultimately intellectually dishonest piece!
'-
COPY
.tU\..!Vlu DHH:LU y ::m:au
RECORD'TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Amy V. Oberdorfer ( CN=Amy V. Oberdorfer/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME:l3-MAR-2000 14:4l:27.00
SUBJECT: Re: Request for Document re: "ARMS" system-Delegated
TO: lgreen@ustr. gov
READ: UNKNOWN
lgreen@ustr. gov [ UNKNOWN ] )
TO: sharrison@ustr.gov ( sharrison@ustr.gov [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
I have no responsive documents. Should I still be now that I am
over here, and if so, to what section?
thanks.
Amy Oberdorfer <oberdorfer_amyustr.gov>
03/13/2000 .02:02:05 PM
Please respond to oberdorfer_amy@ustr.gov
Record. Type: Record
To: Amy V. Oberdorfer/WHO/EOP
cc:
Subject: Request for Document re:
"ARMS" system-Delegated
Forwarded to EOP account.
>>>OVERTON BRUCE 03/13/00 14:00 >>>
Please do nOt respond directly to this e-mail.
We have received a document request from the.Counsel to the President.
Please respond to your section heads; section heads respond to the
FOIA unit (Sybia.' Harrison, or Jacquie Caldwell) . The text of .the
request follows:
MEMORANDUM TO.: All EOP Staff
FROM: Beth Nolan
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS
We have received a subpoena requesting records relating to the
Information
System & Technology's Automatic Records Management System ("ARMS").
Accordingly, please conduct a thorough and complete search of all your
records -- whether in hard copy, computer form, or any other form --
for
COPY
AKNl:S nmau i::> ysu:m
'<
..
any of the following material,. for the period January 20, 1993 to the
present, as set forth in the subpoena:
All records relating to the discovery, diagnosis, planned,
implemented, or
partially implemented solutions to problems associated with the
Automatic
Records Management System (ARMS) process and the failure to collect
e:-mail
messages (also known as "Project X" or "Mail2 reconstruction project")
from
Executive Office of the President ("EOP") mail servers, including but
not
limited to:
1. E-mails dated approximately January or February 1998, between
Daniel
"Tony" Barry and John Spriggs regarding ari e-mail from Monica Lewinsky
to
Ashley Raines missing from ARMS;
2. Incident reports drafted approximately January or February 1998,
by
Tony Barryrelated to the Lewinsky e-mail being missing from ARMS;
3. E-mails on or about June 12, 1998_, between Yiman Salim and/or
Robert
Haas and/or Betty Lambuth regarding the discovery of a problem with
ARMS;
4. Summaries or briefings or progress reports about efforts to
remedy the
ARMS problem;
5. Lists of users affected by ARMS failure to collect incoming
e-mails
including but not limited to Yiman Salim's list of Mail2 users who had
active accounts on November 20, 1998 and a list of user accounts
created by
Robert Haas;
6. All notes or memoranda regarding meetings in or about the middle
of
June, 1998, qetween Steven Hawkins and Mark Lindsay and Laura
Crabtree;
7. All letters from Northrop Grumman legal counsel to employee Dale
Helms
regarding unauthorized work performed by contract employees for EOP;
8. All analyses produced by Robert Haas regarding the scope of
problems
with ARMS and EOP mail servers;
9. All Internal Work Order ( "IWO") prepared by John Spriggs relating
to
the ARMS problem and possible solutions and/or partial solutions;
10. E-mails between Tony Barry and John Spriggs regarding EOP
rejection of
COPY
ARMS Email System
....
the :i:WO;
11'. E-mails sent to all .EOP Lotus Notes users dated on or after
January 1,
1998 requesting that users delete e-mails; and
12 ,. Weekly reports or memoranda or notes dated after January 1, 1998
by
Tony Barry regarding problems with e-mails not being recorded in ARMS.
Every employee is responsible for searching. his or her own files and
records to ensure acomprehensive search. Each office head or
Assistant to
the President must certify that his or.her staff has done a complete
and
thorough search.
In addition, .if you believe that files f:iom your office that have been
sent
to the Office of Records Management may contain responsive
information,
.please advise us so that we may n s ~ r that all responsive documents
have
been located.
All materials must be provided to Dimitri Nionakis in EEOB Room 400,
by
noon on Thursday, March 16, 2000. If you have any questions,,please
contact Dimitri Nionakis.at 6-5814.
COPY
r at:,v J u.L '1"
Page 4 of4
\ 4 ~
r-'- : .
. . :'
~ .
.... ' ..
: . .. . ; ; .
' ':! , .
. ....
ARMS Email System
~ ~
CREATOR: Daniel A .. Barry ( CN=Daniel A. Barry/OU=OA/O=EOP [ OA 1 )
CREATION DATE/TIME:14-MAR-2000 14:54:40.00
SUBJECT: ARMS search request
TO: Dimitri J. Nionakis ( CN=Dimitri J. Nionakis/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO 1 )
. READ: UNKNOWN
CC: John H. Young ( CN=John H. Young/OU=OA/O=EOPEOP. [ OA] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Dimitri;.
Per our meeting on 3/i4/00 regarding the searching of the ARMS records in
response .to the document. request issued 3/13/00, here is the search
definition, estimate and schedule for the search/searches we discussed:
The numbers used below correspond to the numbers used in the attached Memo
from Postmaster: Numbers are missing because it was determined that the
information referred to in those paragraphs would be gathered from a
source other than ARMS.
Please note that this ARMS search is independant of the search that I am
doing on my personal NOTES documents and paper files.
Search Definition
1. Search for ALL mail to/from John Spriggs, To/From Daniel A. Barry
between Jan and Feb 9 ~ 8
3. Search for ALL mail to/from Yiman Salim, Bob Haas, and Betty Lambuth
during June 1998
4. Search ALL mail from Jan 20 1993 to present (Feb 2000) (86 months) for
the follwing phrase combinations:
"Mail 2 reconstruction project"
or
"project x"
or
"mail 2 probiem"
or
"mail 2 project"
or
"mail 2 error"
5. Search ALL mail to/from Bob Haas and Yiman Salim from June - Nov 1998
ri:ig,t: 1 u1 't
6. Search ALL mail to/from Steve Hawkins,Mark Lindsay, Laura Crabtree from
June- Nov 1998
11. Postmaster mails containing the word "DELETE" send since Jan 1 1998
ALL other paragraphs referenced in the MEMO below are covered by searches
by individuals of their own documents.
COPY
"/
./.
/
ARMS Email System
.-e
PageL ot 4
Search estimate:
1. Setup Time: 1 hour
Runtime (2 months OA only) 2 CPU hours.
.$ 40
$1,200
$ 40
$100
D E:lv
'/' )' \::.. \
C\

Print time
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
1 hour
Runtime (1 months OA only) 1 CPU hours
Print time 1 hour
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
4. Setup Time:
2 hour
Runtime OMB(86 X 2)
172 CPU hours
WHO (86 X 2)
172
OA (86 X 1)
86
CEQ(86 X 1)
86
OPD(86 X 1)
86
DON(86 X 1)
86
NSC(86 X. .25)
21.5
STP(86 X 1)
86
CEA(86 X 1)
86
.25)
21.5
.$1,380
$ 40
$600
$ 40
$100
$780
$ 80
VP0(86 X
TOTAl CPU time 903
$541,800
Monitoring time
8 hours $
Print time
8 hours $
Miscellaneous
$
TOTAL
$542,620
5. Setup Time:
1 hour
$ 40
Runtime (6 months
OA only) 6 CPU hours
$3,600
Print time
1 hour $
40
Miscellaneous
$
100
TOTAL
$ 3,780
6. Setup Time:
1 hour $
40
Runt.ime (6 months
OA only) 6 CPU hours
$3,600
.Print time
1 hour
$ 40
Miscellaneous
.$ 100
TOTAL
$ 3,780
11. Setup Time: 2 hour $
Print time 1 hour
Miscellaneous
'TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
$568,120
Search Schedule:
$ 100
$ 15,780
320
320
100
40
$15,600
$ 40
.r--
z
Part 4 is by far the longest part of this search. It will take about 10
days to complete. I will get this started as soon as I hear back from
you. Whilethat is running, I wcoap y parts of this
,,
J:.f

..
ARMS Email System
-.!,
search.
Please let meknciw how you want to proceed.
Later ... Tony
PostMaster 03/13/2000 01:13:19 PM
Record Type: Record
To: All EOP Users, All USTR Users
CC:
Subject:REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS
MEMORANDUM TO: All EOP Staff
FROM: Beth Nolan
S_UBJECT: REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS
We have received a subpoena requesting records relating to the Information
System & Technology's Automatic Records Management System ("ARMS") .
Accordingly, please conduct a thorough and complete search of all your
records -- whether in hard copy, computer form, or any other form.-- for
any of the following material, for the period January 20, 1993 to the
present; as set forth in the subpoena:
All records rela.ting to the discovery, diagnosis, planned, implemented, or
partially implemented solutions to problems associated with the Automatic
Records Management System (ARMS) process and the failure to collect e-mail
messages (also known as "Project X" or "Mail2 reconstruction project")
from Executive Office of the President ("EOP") mail servers, including but
not limited to:
1. E-mails dated approximately January or February 1998, between
Daniel "Tony" Barry and John Spriggs regarding an e-mail from Monica
Lewinsky to Ashley Raines missing fl:om ARMS i
by Tony Barry related to the Lewinsky e-mail being missing from ARMSi
3. E-mails on or about June 12, 1998, between Yiman Salim and/or
Robert Haas and/or Betty Lambuth regarding the discovery of a problem with
ARMSi
remedy the ARMS problemi
5. Lists of users affected by ARMS failure to collect incoming
e-mails including but not limited to Yiman Salim's list of Mail2 users who
had active accounts on November ~ 1 : : : 1 ~ ~ user accounts
Page 3 of4
ARMS Email System
,(,
created by Robert Haas;
of June, 1998, between Steven Hawkins anci Mark Lindsay and Laura Crabtree;
Helms regarding unauthorized work performed by contract employees for EOP;
B. All analyses produced by Robert Haas regarding the scope of
problems with ARMS and EOP mail servers;
9. All Internal Work Order (
11
IWO
11
) prepared. by John Spriggs
relating to the ARMS problem and possible S()lutions and/or partial
solutions;
10. E-mails between Tony Barry and John Spriggs regarding EOP
rejection of the IWO;
11. E-mails sent to all EOP Lotus Notes users dated on or after
January 1, 1998 requesting that users delete e-mails; and
i2. Weekly reports or memoranda or notes dated after January 1,
1998 by Tony Barry regarding problems with e-mails not being recorded in
ARMS.
Every employee is responsible'for searching his .or her own files and
records to ensure a comprehensive search. Each office head or Assistant
to the President must certify that .his or her staff has done a complete
and thorough search.
In addition, if you believe that files from your office that have been
sent to the Office of Records Management may contain responsive
information, please advise us so that we may ensure that all responsive
documents have been located.
All materials must be provided to Dimitri Nionakis in EEOB Room 400, by
noon on Thursday, March 16, 2000. If you have any questions, please
contact Dimitri Nionakis at 6-5814.
.t'age q or q.
~ M S Email System
.rage 1 or)
,>;
;}
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL) ' .. :),
CREATOR: Daniel A. Barry (. CN=Daniel A. Barry/OU=OA/O=EOP [ OA ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME:15-MAR-2000 15:45:22.00
SUBJECT: ARMS search addendum #2
TO: ,Dimitri J. Nionakis ( CN=Dimitri J. Nionakis/OU=WHO/O;,EOPEOP [ WHO ]
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: John H. Young ( CN=John H. Young/OU=OA/O=EOPEOP [ OA ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Dimitri;
After the meeting this afternoon with Jack, The following is a
modification to the search definition yesterday: See attached:
"
' )
Search definition Item 3 will be modified to capture ALL mail sent by or
rec'eived by the three named individuals, regardless of who sent it to them
or to whom they sent it.
I am still awaiting your Go on this search.
Later ... Tony
DANIEL A.
BARRY
. 03/14/2000 02:54:36 PM
Record Type:
Record
To: Dimitri J. Nionakis/WHO/EOPEOP
cc: John H. Young/OA/EOPEOP
SUbject:ARMS search request
Dimitri;
Per our meeting on 3/14/00 regarding the searching of the ARMS records in
response to the document request issued 3/13/00, here is the search
definition, estimate and schedule for the search/searches we discussed:
The numbers. used below correspond to the numbers used in the attached Memo
from Postmaster: Numbers are missing because it was determined that the
information referred to in those paragraphs would be _gathered from a
source other than ARMS.
Please note that this ARMS search is independant of the search that I am
doing on my personal NOTES documents and paper files.
Search Definition
1. Search for. ALL mail to/from John Spriggs, To/From Daniel A. Barry
between Jan and Feb 1998
3. _Search for ALL mail to/from
Betty Lambuth
..............
-------
AtMS Email System
,,
during June 1998
4 .. Search ALL mail from Jan 20 1993 to present (Feb 2000)
the follwing phrase combinations:
2 reconstruction project"
or
"project x"
or
"mail 2 problem"
or
"mail 2 project"
or
"mail 2 error"
(86 months) for
5. Search ALL mail to/from Bob Haas and Yiman Salim from June - Nov 1998
6. Search ALL mail to/from Steve Hawkins,Mark Lindsay, Laura Crabtree from
June- Nov 1998
11. Postmaster mails containing the word "DELETE" send since Jan 1 1998
ALL other paragraphs .referenced in the MEMO below are covered by searches
by individuals of theirown documents.
. . '
Search estimate:
Print time
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
1 hour
2 . Setup Time: 1 hour
Print time
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
4. Setup Time:
Runtime OMB{86
X 2)
WH0(86 X 2)
OA (86 X 1)
CEQ(86 X 1)
OPD(86 X 1)
DON(86 X 1)
NSC(86 X .25)
STP(86 X 1)
CEA(86 X 1)
VP0(86 X .25)
1 hour
2 hour
172 CPU hours
172
86.
86
86
86
21.5
86
86
21.5
$ 40
$1,200
$ 40
$100
$1,380
$ 40
$600
$ 40
$100
$780
$ 80
TOTAl CPU time 903
$541,800
Monitoring time
Print time
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
5. Setup Time:
Runtime (6 OA only)
8 hours $
8 hours $
$
$542,620
1 hour $ 40
COPY
320
320
100
t'age 1. or)
................. ______ _
AR.MS Email System
u
Print time
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
1 hour
. 6 . Setup Time : 1 hour
Print time
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
1 hour
$ 40
$ 100
$ 3,780
$ 40
$3,600
$ 40
$ 100
$ 3,780
11 .. Setup Time: 2 hour $
Print time 1 hour
Miscellimeous
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
$568,120
Search Schedule:
$ 100
$ 15,780
40
$15,600
$ 40
Part 4 .is by far the longest part of this search. . It will take about 10
days to complete: I will get this started as soon as I hear back from
you. While that is running, I will complete the other parts of this
search.
Please let me know how you want to proceed.
Later. .. Tony
PostMaster 03/13/2000 01:13:19 PM
Record Type: Record
.To: All EOP Users, All USTR Users
cc:
Subject:REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS
MEMORANDUM TO: All EOP Staff
FROM: Beth Nolan
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS
rage j or J
We have received a subpoena requesting records relating to the Information
System & Technology's Automatic Records Management y s t ~ m ("ARMS").
Accordingly, please conduct athorough and complete search of all your
records -- whether in hard copy, computer form, or any other form -- for
any of the following material, for the period January 20, 1993 to the
present, as set forth in the subC'O p y
/
ARMS Email System Page 4 of5
"
All records relating to the discovery, diagnosis, planned, implemented, or
partially implemented solutions to problems associated with the' Automatic ..
Records Management System (ARMS) prqcess and the failure to collect
messages (also known as "Project X" or "Mail2 reconstruction project") ..
from Executive Office of the President ( "EOP") mail servers, including but2
. not limited to : ,: ::::i
\U
1. E.:.mails dated approximately January or
Daniel "Tony" Barry.and John Spriggs regarding
. Lewinsky to Ashley Raines missing from ARMS;
February 1998, between
an e-mail from Monica
by Tony Barry related to the Lewinsky e-mail being missing from ARMS;
3. E-mails on or about June 12, 1998, between Yiman Salimand/or
Robert Haas and/or Betty Lambuth regarding the discovery of a problem with
ARMS;
remedy _the ARMS problem;
5. Lists of users affected by .ARMs failure to collect incoming
e-mails including but. J;J.Ot limited to Yiman Salim's list of Mail2 users who
had active accolints on November.20, 1998 and a list of user accounts
created by Robert Haas;
of June, 1998, between Steven Hawkins and Mark Lindsay and Laura Crabtree;
Helms regarding unauthorized work performed by contract employees for EOP;
8. All analyses produced by Robert Haas regarding the scope of
problems with ARMS and EOP mail servers;
9. All Internal Work Order ( "IWO") prepared by John Spriggs
relating to the ARMS problem and possible solutions and/or partial
solutions;
10. E-mails between Tony Barry and John Spriggs regarding
rejection of the IWO;
11. E-mails sent to all EOP Lotus Notes users dated on or after
January 1, .1998 requesting that users delete e-mails; and
12. Weekly reports or memoranda or notes dated after January 1,
1998 by Tony Barry regarding problems with e-mails not being. recorded in
ARMS.
Every employee is responsible for searching his or her own files and
records to ensure a comprehensive search. Each office head 'or Assistant
to the President must certify that his or her staff has done a complete
and thorough search.
In addition, if you believe that files from your office that have been
sent to the Office of Records Management may contain responsive
information, please advise us so that we may ensure that all responsive
documents have been located.
COPY
'"
f
,/
J\RMS Email System
,
All materials must be provided to Dimitri Nionakis. in EEOB Room 400, by
noon on Thursday, March 16, 2000. If you have any questions, please
contact Dimitri Nionakis at 6-5814.
COPY
Page5of5 .-------------------- ---------------------------------
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
001. email
002. email
003. email
004. email
005. email
006. email
007. email
008. email
009. email
010. email
----- . H . ~
COLLECTION:
SUBJECTffiTLE
Sara Latham to [list] at 09:19:59.00. Subject: hello (3 pages)
Mark Katz to Jeffrey A. Spesol at 12:19:36.00. Subject: veep draft.
(10 pages)
Andrew Stephen to Sidney Blumenthal at 13: 10:50.00. Subject: Re:
The Little Finch: Quite Uncanny. (6 pages)
Sean Wilentz to Sidney Blumenthal at 18:17:51.00. Subject: Re: good
review. (1 page)
James E. Kennedy to Julia M. Payne at 13:21:11.00. Subject: Re: yes,
it was all Elian, all the time ... (1 page)
Alexander Komlosi to Daniela E. Nanau, Ruby Shamir, Elizabeth Van
Benschoten, Purva Bedi, Maggie SifT, and Laura Wood at
05:27:31.00. Subject: Hey All. (9 pages)
Leslie Dunton-Downer to Edward L. Widmer at 17:35:26.00. Subject:
Re: testing (2 pages)
Robert Jadon to Brendan Cooney at 04:31:55.00. Subject: B. (1 page)
Robert Jadon to Brendan J. Cooney at 12:49:26.00. Subject: Re: B. (3
pages)
Benjamin M. Adams to Charles C. Easley at 10:55:13.00. Subject:
[none] (1 page)
Benjamin Kirby to Eugenie Bisulco at 12:47:55.00. Subject: Re: NYT
article/dowd. (4 pages)
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[03116/2000- 09/06/2000]
DATE
03/20/2000
03/2112000
0
04119/2000
05/19/2000
06/09/2000
06116/2000
06/26/2000
07/05/2000
07/06/2000
07/19/2000
08/02/2000
RESTRICTION
P6/b(6)
P5, P6/b(6) I ~ . _ _ I
P5
I <-t 20
P5 l '-{ -:t l
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P5
P6/b(6)
\\
2006-0319-F
ab902
RESTRICTION CODES
Pl National Security Classified Information [(a)(l) of the PRA]
PJ Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(J) of the PRA]
and his advisors, or betWeen such advisors [a)(S) of the PRAJ
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRAI
of gift.
2201(3).
Freedom of Information Act- [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
an agency [(b )(2) ofthe FOIA]
b(J) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(J) of the FOIA]
. b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
finanCial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
Email System
Page 1 oflO
CREATOR:-Mark Katz <mark@soundbiteinstitute.com> (Mark Katz <marksoundbiteinstitut
CREATION
SUBJECT: veep draft
TO: Jeffrey A. Shesol ( CN=Jeffrey A. Shesol/OU=WHO/O=EOP [. WHO ] )
READ: UNXNOWN
TEXT:
Jeff:
Please feel free to make this funnier.
Thanks ..
mark
ps tight hold.
GRIDIRON SPEECH OUTLINE & DRAFT
March 21,.2000
OUTLINE
I. OPENERS
A. iced tea
B. Barbour & Strauss
.II. Apology: Joe Smith University
III. Buddhist Temple
IV. Strategy Briefing
v. VIDEO: RGeneral" Pop Quiz
VI . Things I .will Not Do
VII. Conclusion
I OPENERS:
\
After VP arrives at the podium, he picks up a pitcher of iced tea and
slowly
pours himself a tall glass. Placing the pitcher down, he proceeds to imbibe
the entire glass in a single, uninterrupted drink .. He places the glass
down and announces:
"I canut stay long."
Good evening [dais dignitaries], members of the Gridiron, ladies and
gentlemen: I challenge each and every one of you to debate me twice a week
between now and the election.
Thank you for your invitation to speak to you this evening. I must admit,
.I
feel a little out of my element but I suppose itus good for me to get out
COPY
ARMS Email System l'age 1. ot 1 u
of
Nashville every now and again.
Oh, before I forget to ask: this isnut a fundraiser, is it? You know, you
canut be too careful about these things.'
As usual,_the Gridiron skits were entertaining. If I had to give them a
grade, I would say, B-minus. Which by my standards, is very, very good.
You know, having your IQ published in the. Washington Post is a very
compromising experience. I donut think any candidate for president should
have to endure that kind of embarrassment. But if they had to publish the
scores of one of us, I suppose rum glad it was me.
HALEY BARBOUR/ BOB STRAUSS
Iud like to congratulate Haley Barbour and_Bob Strauss on their very funny
speeches. Addressing the Gridiron Club is not the only recent distinction
theylive shared. Both Bob and Haley were also identified by John McCain as
the fourth and fifth pillars of Washingtonus Iron Rhombus.
Bob Strauss has been the premier Washington power broker for so long, heus
the one who got Vernon Jordan his job interview with Revlon.
Haley was one of many in the Republican establishment who welcomed John
McCain back to Washington this week. In fact, it was in his capacity as
the
former head of the RNC that he pulled John aside and said, "Luke, I am yoU:r
fatherL"
Senator McCainhas earned his vacation and triumphant return. It was a
vigorous campaign for everyone. Millions of Democrats carefully sized me
up .
against Bill Bradleylis while Republicans compared the agendas of George
Bush, John McCain and Bob Jones .
. Say what you will about Bob Jones, heus a divider with results.
JOE SMITH UNIVERSITY
Now that a few weeks have passed since the end of the primaries, thereus
only incident I look back upon with regret: my decision to speak at Joe
Smith University. During the heat of California primary, I accepted an
invitation\to bring my message of moderate moderation to that well-known
bastion of radical, left-wing extremism. And in the firestorm that
followed, America came to learn all about this intemperate liberal breeding
ground that disguises itself as a campus.
By now the details are all too familiar: Joe Smith University is the only
school in America that still requires a signed letter of parental
permission
before students are allowed to watch the Fox News Channel
Last fall, the cafeteria was shut down after a semester-long protest
organized by PETVA, People For the Ethical Treatment of Vegetables.
It is also the only campus in America that bans smoking, second-hand sm:oke
and third-hand smoke o which is tobacco smoke you hear about from somebody
else.
Itus the only academic institution in the world that granted Ethel and
Julius Rosenberg an honorary chac 0 p y
',,
'-
________

_.,.
ARMS Email System
Joe Smith University is also one of the last strongholds of the
anti-nuclear
Page 3 oflO
)
family movement. And to this day, thereus a ban on
inter-gender
. / ...
dating. (Think about it.)
The point is, I am sorry that I missed an opportunity to denounce their
backwards brand of liberalism that day. Although, in my own defense,
Hubert
Humphrey spoke there in 1968 and nobody gave it a second thought.
BUDDHIST TEMPLE
Speaking of mistakes:
Ill.ve admitted my visit to the Buddhist temple was mistake and hope to go
forward from there. That was Zen and this is now .
. No, sir. I would not do that again. Or in a future life.
You know what the real irony is: the video of that event wouldnut even
exist if I had never invented the camco.rder.
-,
Still, the possibility exists that.my opponents will make mention of this
issue come fall. Ifill tell you what: I'll make a deal with Governor Bush:
if he agrees not to mention anything about the Buddhist temple, I will
promise not to ask him to name the founder of Buddhism.
III srRATEGY BRIEFING
This dinner is perhaps the only remaining off-the-.record event in this
city,
so I thought that this would be a good time to share with you, the
Washington press corps, my strategy for this campaign, on the understanding
thai: what I'm telling you tonight is off-the-record and is not to leave
this
room. But I think it will provide you with a context to understand what I
will be doing for the next eight months.
In the broadest strokes, I, plan to associate myself with the successes of
the administration, while distancing myself from the
President's personal problems. Let me explain. The uninterrupted
expansion of our economy during the past seven years is something I want
Americans to associate with me. The Starr Report, I want them not to
associate with me. The lowest Unemployment rate in thirty years:
Clinton-Gore. The impeachment: Clinton. The largest deficits in our
nation's
history turned into the largest surpluses: Clinton-Gore. Monica Lewinsky:
not me.
Let me explain why I think this is a sound strategy, and by the way, it's
mine, it wasn't given to me by some highly-paid campaign consultant --
although they all agree with it. I think that. Americans will vote for
someone who has brought them peace with prosperity and the lowest crime
rate
in years. Americans like that. The unfortunate scandal regarding the
President's personal life? Frankly, I think.that's a .downer.
Anyway, throughout the next
disciplined Al Gore when it
eight months, I think you' 11 see a very
comeC OPY dare say that
you
/
..
ARMS Email System Page 4 oflO
will not seeme even once get mixed up and reverse the strategy, giving
President Clinton all the credit for our successes while blamingmyself for
the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
So, that's my strategy. Let me give you one off-the-record tactical ploy.
During one of my debates with Governor Bush, I'm going lay a trap for him.
I'm going to say something criticai about the Bush.:.Quayle administration so
that he-has to defend President Bush and say something positive about him.
That's when I'm going to say: "I knew George Bush, George Bush was a
friend
sir, are no George Bush." Which I think will hopelessly
_!
of mine. You,
confuse him.
!r._
IV VIDEO: "GENERAL"
Yet I donut want to reinforce an unfair image of Governor. I happen to
think
he knows a lot more than heus given credit for. The fact is, heus gotten a
bad rap from the liberal media. Sure, everyone saw that famous pop-quiz.
adm1nistered by a Boston television reporter. But. I wonder how many of you
have seen Governor Bushus interview with an unbiased, mainstream poLitical
reporter during which Governor Bush demonstrated an agile, nuanced mind
able
to answer any question put to him.
Can we see the video?
$CRIPT TK
Robert Novak "interviews" GWB, matching the questions below to his
"General"
response in the famous Andy Hiller "pop quiz" interview.
Possible Questions
Q: Governor, now that the primaries are over, which elections are you .
focusing on?
A: General
Q: What does the G in GAO stand for?.
A: General
Q: Who would you appoint as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
A: General
Q: Which well-loved Chinese dish is an example of Mandarin cuisine:
Kung-pao
beef or General Tsous chicken?
A: General
Q: Can you complete this quote from Virginia Woolf:
"subduing .all her impressions as a woman, to something more
A: General
Q: It is common knowledge that the name of the new leader of Pakistan is
Pervaiz Musharraf. My question for you, sir, if its not too esoteric to
ask, is what is his military rank?,
A: General
Q: Impressive!
A: [GWB self-satisfied smirk]
Q: What is the military rank of Chicken?
'
ARMS Email System
.
A: (obviously dubbed) Colonel
***
II THINGS I WILL NOT DO
Yes, my opponent is clearly on the ball and up to the
worthy opponent but letus not kid ourselves, this is going a
hard-fought race.
Page 5 of 10
As the battle plans for the fall campaign are being drawn, Iuve heard my
critics ask out loud if there anything Al Gore wonut do or say to win this
election? They suggest there is nothing I wonut do to win this campaign.
Ium sorry but thatus just not true. There aresome lines I would cross.
I would not engage in an act that.would diminish the office of the Vice
Presidency such as using intemperate language, exacerbating divisions or
appearing on Hardball with Chris Matthews.
I would not .select a running mate for mere tactical political advantage in
a
key battleground state. Knowing very well the crucial role of Americaus
Vice
President, I will have only one criteria for mine. Whomever I select must
possess the unquestioned qualifications to help me among suburban women and.
disenfranchised MCCain voters.
This one came from Tipper: I would not' exaggerate the truth to win. this
.election. God, she must have told me .that five billions times.
I would not radically reinvent my wardrobe ... again.
I will not use the word "risky" in this campaign. Provided no one proposes
a tax cut that is really risky.
I would not hold a fundraiser among the Amish.
MORE TK
VIII .CONCLUSION:
Take it away, Shrummie.
New material
The Washington Post reported that I got mostly Cus and Dus my sophomore
year
in college. What they failed to mention was that that was also the year
that I invented the bong,
I guess I am willing to tolerate a certain level of stupidity to advance my
. agenda.
COPY
/
ARMS Email System
- att1.htm==================== ATTACHMENT
TEXT:
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>veep draft</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
 
Jeff: .
 
Please feel free to make this funnier. 
 
 
. Thanks . 
mark 
212 68609455 
 
ps tight hold 
. 
GRIDIRON SPEECH OUTLINE & DRAFT 
March 21, 2000 ~ B R
 
OUTLINE 
rage o u11V
l ====================
.. )
I. .;;/FONT>OPENERS 
A. iced tea 
B. Barbour & Strauss 
 
II. Apology: Joe Smith University 
 
III. Buddhist Temple 
 
IV. Strategy Briefing 
 
V. VIDEO: "General" Pop Quiz 
 
VI. Things I Will Not Do 
 
VII. Conclusion 
 
 
I OPENERS: 
 
After VP arrives at the podium, he picks up a pitcher of iced tea and slowly po
urs himself a tall glass: Placing the pitcher down, he proceeds to imbibe .the e
ntire glass .in a single, uninterrupted drink. He places the glass d
own and announces: 
"I cant stay long." 
 
Good evening [dais dignitaries], members of the Gridiron, ladies and gentlemen:
I challenge each and every one of you to debate me twice a week between now an
d the election. 
 
Thank you for your invitation to speak to you this evening. I must admit,
I feel a little out of my element but I suppose its good for me to. get out of
Nashville every now and again. 
 
Oh, before I forget
to ask, thisC OPY
it?
You know, you
\i
AAMS Email System .rage I Ul lV
cant be too careful about these things: 
 
As usual, the Gridiron skits were entertaining. If I had to give them a g
rade, I would say, B-minus. Which by my standards, is very, very good. 
 
)
'
.. ,
You know, having your IQ published in the Washington Post is a very compromisin
g experience. I dont think any candidate for president should have to end ,
ure that kind of embarrassment.. But if they had to publish the scores of
one of.us, I.suppose Im glad it was me. 
. 
HALEY BARBOUR/ BOB STRAUSS 
Id. like to congratulate Haley Barbour and Bob Strauss on their very funny speec
lies. Addressing the Gridiron Club is not the only recent distinction they
ve shared. Both Bob and Haley were also identified by John McCain as the
fourth and fifth pillars of Washingtons Iron Rhombus. 
 
Bob Strauss has been the premier Washington power broker for so long, hes the o
ne who got Vernon Jordan his job interview with Revlon. 
 
Haley was one of many in the Republican establishment who welcomed John McCain
back to Washington this week. In fact, it was in his capacity as the form
er head of the RNC that he pulled John aside and said, "Luke, I am your
father!" 
 
Senator McCain has earned his vacation and triumphant return. It was
a vigorous for everyone. Millions of Democrats carefully sized m
e up against Bill Bradleys while Republicans compared the agendas of George Bus
h, John McCain and Bob Jones. 
... Say what you will about Bob Jones, hes a divider with results. 
 
 
JOE SMITH UNIVERSITY 
Now t,hat a few weeks have passed since the end of the primaries, theres only in
ciderit I look back upon with regret: my decision to speak at j9e Smith.Universi
ty. During the heat of California primary, I accepted an invitation to br
ing my message of moderate moderation to that well-known bastion of radical, le
ft-wing extremism. And in the firestorm that followed, America came
to learnall about this intemperate liberal breeding ground that disguises its
elf as a campus. 
 
By now the details are all too familiar: Joe Smith University is the only
school in America that still requires a signed letter of .parental permission b
efore students are allowed to watch the Fox News Channel 
 
Last fall, the cafeteria was shut down after a semester-long protest organized
by PETVA; People For the Ethical Treatment of Vegetables. 
 
It is also the only campus in America that bans smoking, second-hand smoke and
third-hand smoke which is tobacco smoke you hear about from somebody else. 
 
Its the only academic institution in the world that granted Ethel and Julius Ro
senberg an honorary chair. 
 
Joe Smith University isalso one of the last strongholds of the anti-nuclear fa
roily movement. And to this day, theres a campus-wide ban on inter-gender
dating. (Think about it.) 
 
The point is, I am sorry that I
COPY to denounce their backwar
,.'.
..
ARMS Email System Page 8 of 10
ds brand of liberalism that day. Although, in my own defense, Hubert Hump
hrey spoke there in 1968 and nobody gave it a second thought. 
 
 
BUDDHIST TEMPLE 
Speaking of mistakes: 
 
Ive admitted my visit to the Buddhist temple was mistake and hope to go
from there. That was Zen and this is now. 
.No, sir. I would not do.that again. Or in a future life.
; 
 
You know what the real irony is: the video of that event wouldnt even exi
st if I had never invented the camcorder. 
 
Still, the possibility exists that my opponents will make mention of this issue
come fall. Ill teil you what. I'll make a deal with Governor Bush:
if he agrees not to mention anything about the Buddhist temple, I will promise
not to ask him to name the founder of Buddhism. 
 
 
III STRATEGY BRIEFING 
This dinner is perhaps the oniy remaining off-the-record event in this city, so
I thought that this would be a good time to share with you, the Washington pre
ss corps, my strategy for this campaign, on the Understanding that what I'm tel
ling you tonight is off-the-record and is not to leave this room. But I t
hink it will provide you with a context to understand what I will be doing for
the next eight months. .
 .
In the broadest strokes, I plan to associate myself with the. successes of the C
linton-Gore administration, while distancing myself from the President's person
al problems. Let me explain. The uninterrupted expansion of o
ur economy during the past seven years is something I want Americans to associa
te with me. rhe Starr Report, I want them not to associate with me. The lowest
unemployment rate in thirty years: Clinton-Gore. The impeachment: Clinton. The
largest de{icits in our nation's history turned into the largest surpluses: Cli
nton.:.Gore. Monica Lewins.ky: not me. 
 
Let me explain why I think this is a sound strategy, and by the way, it's mine,
it wasn't given to me by some highly-paid campaign consultant -- although they
all agree with it. I think that Americans will vote for someone who has
brought .them peace with prosperity and the lowest cr:lme rate in years. American
s like that. The unfortunate scandal regarding the President's personal 1
ife? Frankly, I think that's a downer. 
 
Anyway, throughout the next eight months, I think you'll see a very disciplined
Al Gore when it comes to this st.rategy. I dare say that you will not see
me even once get mixed up and reverse the strategy, giving President Clinton a
ll the credit for our successes while blaming myself for the Monica Lewinsky sc
andal. 
 
So, that's my strategy. Let me give you one off-the-record tactical ploy.
During one of my debates with Governor Bush, I'm going lay a trap for hi
m. I'm going to say something critical about the Bush-Quayle administrati
on so that he has to defend President Bush and say something positive about him
That's when I'm going to say: "I Jalew George Bush, George Bu
sh was a friend of mine. You; sir, are no George Bush."- Which
I think will hopelessly confuse him. 
 
 
COPY
' ... -
/
..
i\RMS Email System .Page ':J or lU
. .
IV VIDEO: "GENERAL" 
Yet I dont want to reinforce an unfair image of Governor. I happen to think he
knows a lot more than hes given credit for .. The fact is, hes gotten a bad rap f
rom the liberal media: Sure, everyone saw that famous pop-quiz administer
ed by a Boston television reporter. But I wonder how many of you have see
n Governor Bushs interview with.an unbiased, mainstream political reporter duri
ng which Governor Bush demonstrated an agile, nuanced mind able to answer any q
uestion put to him. 
 
Can we see the video? 
 
SCRIPT TK 
Robert Novak "interviews" GWB,
"General" response in the famous
terview. 
 
Possible Questio:ils 
matching the questions below to his
Andy Hiller "pop in
Q: Governor, now that the primaries are over, which elections are you focusing
on? 
A: General 
<Bib
Q: What does the G in GAO stand for? 
A: General 
 
Q: Who would you appoint as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? 
A: General 
 
.Q: Which well-loved Chinese dish is an example of Mandarin cuisine: Kung-pao be
ef or General Tsos chicken? 
A: General 
 
Q: Can you complete this quote from Virginia Woolf: 
"subduing all her impressions as a woman, to something more
; . .
A: General 
 
II
Q: It is common knowledge that the name of the new leader of Pakistan is Pervai
z Musharraf. My question for you, sir, if its not too esoteric to ask, is
what is his military rank? 
A: General 
Q: Impressive! 
A: [GWB self-satisfied smirk] 
 
Q: What is the military rank of purveyor of Kentucky Fried Chicken? 
A: (obviously dubbed) Colonel 
*** 
 
 
II THINGS I WILL NOT DO 
Yes, my opponent is clearly on the ball and up to the challenge. He is a
worthy opponent but lets not kid ourselves, this is going to be a hard-fought r
ace. . 
 
As the battle plans for the fall campaign are being drawn, Ive heard my critics
ask out loud if there anything Al Gore wont do or say to win this election? &n
bsp;They suggest there is nothing I wont do to win this campaign. Im sorr
y but thats just not true. There are some lines I would cross: 
 
I would not
ncy such as
engage in an act that would diminish the office of the Vice Preside
using intemperate or appearing on
ARMS Email System
.Page 1U or lU
Hardball with Chris Matthews. 
 
I would not select a running mate for mere tactical political advantage in
a key battleground state. Knowing very well the crucial role of Americas Vice P
resident, I will have only one criteria for mine. I select must
possess the unquestioned qualifications to help me among suburban women and dis
enfranchised McCain voters. 
 
This one came Tipper: I would not exaggerate the truth to win this electio
n. God, she must have told me that five billions times. 
 
I would not radically reinvent my wardrobe ... again. 
: 
I will not use the word "risky" in this campaign.
ne proposes a tax cut that is really risky. 
 
I would not hold a fundraiser among the 
 
MORE TK 
 
 
 
 
VIII
CONCLUSION: 
Take it away, Shrummie. 
 
 
 
Provided no o
New material 
 
Thewashington Post reported that I got mostly Cs and Ds my sophomore year inc
ollege. What they failed to mention was that that was also the year that
I invented the bong. 
 
 
I guess I am willing to tolerate a certain level of stupidity to advance my age
nda. 
 
 
 

</BODY>
</HTML>
================== END ATTACHMENT
1 ==================
COPY
ARMS Email System ... "S"' ... v ... v
CREATOR: Andrew Stephen { Andrew Stephen <astephen@erols.com>
UNKNOWN ] )
. .
SUBJECT: Re: The Little Finch: Quite Uncanny
TO: Sidney Blumenthal { CN=Sidney Blurrienthal/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Hope you're battening down the hatches for any vengeance to come. Can it
be
possible that Ray is worse than Starr?
Saw they you were "spotted" going
into
10 Downing Street the. other day ...
Best
Andrew
Sidney_Blumenthalwho.eop.gov wrote:
> Vengeance Is Mine, Says Starr?s Successor
>
> by Joe Conason
>
> The other day Robert Ray?the prosecutor appointed to
> succeed former independent counsel Kenneth Starr in the
> six-year-old Whitewater-Foster suicide-Travel Office-F.B.I.
> files-Rose Law Firm files-Monica Lewinsky-Kathleen Willey
> investigation?announced that he may seek to indict Bill
> Clinton after the President leaves office next January.
> Evidently he is in no hurry to complete the legally required
> reports about the long list of pending probes left behind by his
> predecessor. Instead, he apparently considers it his primary
COPY
. AR.IVts .bmml system
.rage Lor o
>
duty to vindicate Mr. Starr.
C ..
j
>
>
Even the editorialists at The New York Times, who strained to
>
excuse the excesses of the Starr-investigation, think that Mr. /
>
Ray?s proposed adventure is a bit much. Richard Posner, the
> ultraconserVative legal eminence from the University of Chicago and no
>.friend of
> the President, has written, that the prospect of a Clinton indictment
> next January is
> .
. >
> Winning a felony conviction of Mr. Clinton might lie beyond the reach
of
> the most
> persistent prosecutor. Would he,be charged with perjury? He certainly.
> lied, but the
> independent counsel would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
> the
> President?s prevarications were actually material to the Paula Jones
> case.
->
> Would Mr. Clinton be charged with obstruction of justice? Given what
we
> already
> know about the grand jury testimony of Ms. Lewinsky and others, an
> obstruction
> count would be equally hard to prove. Had the independent counsel
really
> believed
> that Vernon Jordan or Betty Currie were. lying about the Lewinsky
COPY
ARMS Email System
ragt: .J u1 u
> scandal, he
> could have indicted them two years ago and tried to induce them to
> testify against
> the President. Evidently there was insufficient evidence to support
any
..._
> such theory,
> no matter how ferventlyMr. Starr may have believed it.
>
> That leaves the Kathleen Willey affair, in which Mr. Starr and.his
> deputies
> attempted to show that someone associated with the Clinton White House
> had tried
> to intimidate her from testifying about the alleged Presidential
grope.
> But Linda
> Tripp, Mr. Starr? s other star witness, severely undermined Ms .
Willey?s
'>. credibility
> when she swore that Ms. Willey had desired a romantic involvement with
> the
> President.
>
> Yet Mr. Ray may not be discouraged by such factual obstacles. It must
be
> tempting
> to make history as the first prosecutor to indict a former President;
> and if most
> Americans would not approve, there is still a small and very powerful
> minority who
> would applaud loudly. Conservatives whp once tried to justify the
COPY
ARMS Email System
pardon
>. afforded
> Richard Nixon?a m.an whose crimes in bffice make Mr. Clinton?s
> peccadilloes
>
the
\
seem vanishingly insignificant?now admonish us that "no one is above
:> law."
>
> Based on Mr. Ray?s previous service, he may indeed become the perfect
> champion
> of that unreconciled faction. Prior to taking over from Mr. Starr, he
> served as chief
> deputy to Donald Smaltz, the independent counsel who spent years and
>millions in
> the bumbling, intensely politicized and ultimately unsuccessful
> prosecution of
> former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy. While Mr. Espy was found
> innocent of
> accepting an illegal gratuity from Tyson Foods, the giant Arkansas
> poultry
> processor, others caught up in that probe didn?t fare as well.
>
> One of those unfortunates was Archie Schaffer. As a Tyson official,
Mr.
> Schaffer
.t'age 4 oro
> invited Mr. Espy to two events in early 1993: an inaugural party and a
> birthday
> party for company chairman Don Tyson. On that basis, Mr. Ray charged
Mr.
> Schaffer with violating the Meat Inspection Act, a statute whose true
COPY
\ ~ \
7-!
>I
~ : ;
/
-ARMS Email System
> purpose is
> obvious from its title?that is, to punish butchers who try to bribe
D E i'v

. ,
> federal
> inspectors.
>
>
.Mr .. Ray won a conviction of. Mr. Schaffer, which was overtuned on
appeal
>by the
> trial judge. Among other problems, the judge noted that the Meat
> Inspection Act
'
_-:::,.
.)
f.J
\r_)
\
> doesri?t cover the poultry industry. He ruled that "no rational trier
of
> fact" could
> find that Mr. Schaffer had tried to influence Mr. Espy?s official
> actions.
>
> Two months after Mr. Schaffer?s conviction was overturned in September
> 1998,
> the former Agriculture Secretary was acquitted on all counts. That
> repudiation by
> the jury, however, didn?t dissuade Mr. Ray from seeking to punish Mr.
> Schaffer cin
> the flimsiest grounds. He sought and won reinstatement of the
> conviction, even
> though the aims of the investigation had been permanently thwarted.
>
> Just weeks ago, Mr. Ray once more demonstrated that he is ruled by a
> vengeful
> . impulse, well beyond any necessity to uphold' the law. He personally
> appeared in a
COPY
.,
ARMS .Email System
t'age o ot o
> federal courtroom in Virginia to oppose Julie Hiatt Steele?s plea for
> reimbursement
> of the enormous costs of Mr. Starr?s failed perjury prosecution of
her.
> Under
> Federal law she is entitled to such assistance, but Mr. Ray thinks the
>destitute single
>. mother should be denied it. The prosecution of Ms. Steele was a low
> point for the
> Starr office, .but Mr. Ray appears doggedly intent upon "vindication"
> there, too.
> Such poor judgment is a bad omen for the heavy decisions that still
> await him.
.>
back to top
>
> This column ran on page 5 in the 4/24/2000 edition of The New York
> Observer.
>
>
SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEW YORK OBSERVER
>
>
HOME PAGE OF THE NEW YORK OBSERVER
>
>
COPYRIGHT ? 2000
>
THE NEW YORK OBSERVER
COPY
ARMS Email System rage 1 011
CREATOR: Sean Wilentz ( Sean Wilentz <SwilentzPrinceton.EDU> [ UNKNOWN ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME:19-MAY-2000 18:17:51.00
SUBJECT: Re: good review
TO: Sidney Blumenthal ( CN=Sidney Blumenthal/OU=WHO/O=EOP
READ: UNKNOWN
WHO ] )
TEXT:
And now it's all .moot anyway. Katie's embarrassed, though, and she'll at
least
pay me in full -- the pittance that it is. Let's talk this p.m.
Sidney_Blumenthal@who.eop.gov wrote:
>Problems: 1. Ted Forstmann is not running. 2. The Quinnipiac poll is not
>be relied on at this moment. The race is actually not even. Hillary is
>ahead. 3: This personal incident is different because Rudy made it public
>himself and because he humiliated his wife. Voters do not think it's the
> same as the Lewinsky incident. Moreover, voters are just beginning to
>punish Rudy. He's doing badly among womennow, and, as I noted, his
ratings
> are beginning to tumble.
>Be careful about all this. It's_treacherous ground. Rudy, if he stays in,
>will never rise above the mess he brought into the public arena himself.
COPY
':
;r
, ..
/
J."J,....L.'\..LY..LU ..I...J.LJ...L ..... .L.L ._,)...,.__...,..._.._
CREATOR: Benjamin M. Adams ( CN=Benjamin M. Adams/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
CREATION DATE/TIME:19-JUL-2000 10:55:13.00
SUBJECT:
TO: Charles C. Easley ( CN=Charles C. Easley/OU=OA/O=EOP@EOP [ OA ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
CC: Kathryn H. Ruemmler ( CN=Kathryn H. Ruemmler/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ]
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Dear Charles,
,; /-
Per our discussion this morning, this e-mail requests a copy of
the bates labeled setof the Ashley Raines - Monica Lewinsky e-mail
correspondence, deliverable to Kathy Ruemmler, Associate Counsel to the
President, on July 19, 2000. Ms. Ruemmler's office is in room 488 of the
Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
Thank you for youhelp in this matter.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Adams
COPY
/
/
/
/
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
001. email
002. email
003. email
004. email
Clinton Library
SUBJECTrriTLE DATE
mdunn@nwe.com to Lucy A. DeFabio at I6:38:25.00. subject: Re: 09/I5/2000
Wine. (8 pages)
Kyle Baker to PooknNate@aol.com, 09/21/2000
Andrew.Goldenbaum@usdoj .gov, jessica_ arons@hotmail.com, Lori
K. Krause, mazhude@hotmail.com, dianeikemi@yahoo.com,
jeff.p.dailey@alltel.com, and Lori_Abrams@ed.gov at I6:43:IO.OO.
Subject: Re: okay ... and how many of us ... (3 pages)
Dawn V. Woollen to Brooke B. Livingston at 09:30:I6.00. Subject: 09/26/2000
Re: Wake Up and Smell the Treason. (2 pages)
Rick Chatenever to Marsha Scott at 22: I6:30.00. Subject: Re: 09/28/2000
American Rhapsody. (3 pages)
RESTRICTION
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
P6/b(6)
005. email Lowell Weiss to Mara A. Silver at 00:10:07.00. Subject: [Fwd: elle] . I 0/26/2000 P5
\ l._l

(4 pages)
006. email Richard.Marcus@dc.ogilvypr.com to Mark A. Kitchens at I0/30/2000 P6/b(6)
I7:10:32.00. Subject: Re: So? (3 pages)
007. email Katherine A. Brown to Chris.Mayon@spark.com at I7:09:49.00. II/I3/2000 P6/b(6)
Subject: yikes, this is long. (5 pages)
008. email Kyle Bayliss to Geoffrey Littlehale and Vincent LoVoi at I7:59:53.00. II/I4/2000 P6/b(6)
Subject: RE: Week 9. (5 pages)
009. email Sean Wilentz to Sidney Blumenthal at I6:26: I4.00. Subject: Berman. II/I5/2000 P5
l L( '2.L(
(2 pages)
010. email Julie Denisenko to [list] at II :51:56.00. Subject: Sighting. (2 pages) I2/06/2000 P6/b(6)
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
[09/06/2000 - 0 I /I8/200 I]
2006-0319-F
ab903
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act -(44 U.S.C. 2204(a)l
PI National Security Classified Information ((a)(l) of the PRA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office ((a)(2) of the PRA(
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute ((a)(3) of the PRAI
financial information ((a)(4) of the PRAI
and his advisors, or between such advisors (a)(S) of the PRAI
of gift.
2201(3).
Freedom of Information Act- [5 U.S.C. 552(b)l
b(l) National security classified information l(b)(l) of the FOIAI
an agency ((b)(2) of the FOIAI
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute ((b)(3) of the FOIAI
information ((b)(4) of the FOIAI
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIAI
purposes ((b)(7) of the FOIAI
financial institutions ((b)(8) of the FOIAI
concerning wells ((b)(9) of the FOIA( .-------;------------------ -----
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
011. email
012. email
013. email
Clinton Library
SUBJECT/TITLE
PWeinst497@aol.com to [Jist] at 21:51:49.00. Subject: Fwd: YOU
MUST READ THIS ... INFO ON RELATiONSHIP BETWEEN JEB
AND KA THRINE. (5 pages)
ShaiN. Halbe to Adrian E. Miller at 20:40:52.00. Subject: Re: Indian
Guy in U.S. Senate? (1 page)
Shelby Jones to Jena V. Roscoe at 18:08:51.00. Subject: Top Ten
Lessons We've Learned From The 2000 Election. (1 page)
DATE RESTRICTION
12/07/2000 P6/b(6)
12/11/2000 P6/b(6)
12/13/2000 P6/b(6)
014. email dagnos to Andrew R. Goodrich at 11: 15:41.00. Subject: Re: Good
Morning. (1 page)
12114/2000 P5 I q 0-.'b""
015. email Black Star to Jena V. Roscoe at 17:36:13.00. Subject: reply. (1 page) 12117/2000 P6/b(6)
016. email Sidney Blumenthal to will hutton at 11:07:00.00. Subject: Re:
greetings. (1 page)
12/26/2000 P5 {L(d_ ~
I I '-' ...... , ,"..,.<
017. email Will hutton to Sidney Blumenthal at 13:32:07.00. Subject: Re:
greetings. (1 page)
12/27/2000 P6/b(6)
J l.f
018. email Jeffrey A. Shesol to james _patterson at 10:12:59.00. Subject: 01104/2001 P5
\ L ~ ~
ProposaL (3 pages)
019. email Zasima Razack to Devanshu Patel at 10:15:40.00. Subject: hey. (1
page)
. 01111/2001 P6/b(6)
020. email Mary Morrison to marymorrison1616@yahoo.com at 10:30:27.00.
Subject: election day. (4 pages)
01/18/2001 P6/b(6)
021. email l ~ m n Staada to Brad Cillian, Brent, Glenn Staada, Lucy A. DeFabio,
and Moira at 09:37:58.00. Subject: Re: [none]. (1 page)
01118/2001 P6/b(6)
COLLECTION:
WHO ([Lewinsky])
FOLDER TITLE:
(09/06/2000- 01/18/2001]
( .
2006-0319-F
ab903
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- [44 U.S.C. 2204(a))
PI National Security Classified Information ((a)(l) of the PRA)
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office ((a)(2) of the PRA)
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute ((a)(3) of the PRA)
and his advisors, or between such advisors )a)(S) of the PRA)
P6 Release would constitute a dearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy ((a)(6) of the PRA)
of gift.
2201(3).
Freedom of Information Act- [S U.S.C. SS2(b))
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute ((b)(3) of the FOIA)
personal privacy ((b)(6) of the FOIA)
concerning wells ((b)(9) of the FOIA(
ARMS Email System .Page 1 ot 4
CREATOR: Lowell Weiss <lowellweiss@mindspring.com> ( Lowell Weiss <lowellweissminds
CREATION DATE/TIME: 26 -OCT-200 0 00:10:07. 00.
SuBJECT: [Fwd: elle]
TO: Mara A. Silver ( CN=Mara A. Silver/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
mara,
could you forward this to heather? it just bounced back to me.
Date: Wed, 25 Oct. 2000 -0400
From: Lowell Weiss <lowellweiss@mindspring.com>
.. Subject: elle
To: hhurlburt@who.eop.gov
Reply-to: lowellweiss@mindspring.com
Message-id: <39F7A63D.94A51FE6@mindspring.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4. 75 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
Content-type: text/plain; x-mac-creator=4D4F5353; x-mac-type=54455854;
.
Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
heather,
thanks so much for agreeing to talk to that fact-checker. i really
appreciate it. here's the piece. let me know what you think. (i'll give
you a call afterthe election. let's hope we have lots to celebrate!)
-------It has been said, accurately I think, that working in the White House is
like dating the hottest woman (or man) you?ve ever seen. You know the
relationship can?t last. You know it?s not healthy for you. But man,
it?s hard to give up.
Five months ago, I did manage to leave. After I finished writing my
181st speech for President Clinton, I turned in my coveted West Wing
pass and loaded my hatchback with several boxes fUll of road-trip
memorabilia ? movie listings from Air Force One, Navy blue baseball caps
from aircraft carriers, programs from college commencement exe.rcises, a
tomato crate from an Arkansas farming cooperative. My three-year
relationship with the White House was finally over. It was an affair I
will never forget.
Like most great jobs, writing for President Clinton began as a
sink-or-swim proposition. I was only 29 at the time, and I came to the
job with only a single, four-month speechwriting gig under my belt.
Unfortunately, on day 15 I sank. Moments before a major East Room event
on the science of global warming, President Clinton, Vice President
Gore, and I stood in a huddle in the basement of the White House. The
an inveterate procrastinator, was reading over his speech ?
only the third I had written since joining the staff ? for the first
time. "I can?t say this," he grumbled, his eyes fiery and fixed on my
nothing but rhetoric!"
I had no idea how I had days on that
ARMS Email System
speech ?. studying reams of briefing memos, gathering the views of a
dozen of the President?s top.advisors, and attempting to tease a few
lines. of poetry out of the dense discourse of science. And yet here I
was: a speechwriter scared speechless, having just given the leader of
the free world something that made him seethe.
Fortunately, Al Gore stepped in to save me from drowning. "Mr.
President," he said, shooting me a big,. broad wink, "don?t worry. The
American people like rhetoric!" Clinton smiled, gave me a pat on the
shoulder, and his anger passed. He walked up the stairs and gave a
brilliant speech ? 90 percent of it off the cuff.
It was not easy writing for someone who didn?t always need the help of a
speechwriter. But I quickly learned not to take it too personally. Each
one of my seven speechwriting compatriots had war stories about spending
a week of agonizing days and sleepless nights writing a set of .remarks,
only to watch the President discard the prepared text and move an
audience to tears by simply speaking from the heart.
Part of the problem ? and, as the President himself would sayi it?s a
high-class problem ? is that Bill Clinton is just so damned smart.
Anyone who?s ever watched.him improvise during a televised press
conference can See that for herself .. But it?s even more apparent up
close. Often.when I would go into the Oval Office to help brief the
President before an event; he wouid be sitting as his imposing oak desk
making edits to my speech, reading glasses on his nose, unlit cigar .in
his mouth. Without looking up, he would tell us to start the briefing.
While the President continued making his edits, one or more of us would
then bring him up to speed on a handful of crucial, and often esoteric,
points he had to know before stepping up to the podium. At first, I.
assumed that there was no possible way he could be taking in these
details at the precise moment he writing out unrelated edits in his
indecipherable southpaw scrawl. But I was wrong. Notonce in three years
did I ever hear him say something at the podium that suggested he had
missed a delicate point in his brief.
Another problem is that the President just does not feel comfortable
delivering the kind of soaring, made-for-marble lines that every brash,.
young speechwriter is itching to write. "If I say that," the President
once told me, looking at a line that a Kennedy or Reagan would have
found downright subdued, "I?ll look like a big, bragging peacock."
Sometimes he?ll go to unintentionally humorous lengths to bring down to
earth a line that he deems to be up in the clouds. Once, when the
President signed a modest bill for providing bullet-proof vests for
local police, one of my colleagues tempted the fate? by giving the
following whiff of "rhetoric" : "The line of fire will always be a
dangerous place. But today we are make.it less dangerous for those brave
enough to walk that line." The President said this to the audience
instead: "The line of fire will always be a dangerous place. People can
get hit in the leg in the wrong. way and bleed to death." We learned to
be cavalier about these kinds of substitutions. "It?s just the way the
cookie falls apart" was our usual refrain.
The final complication is that the President?s speechwriters usually
don?t get a chance to drop by and ask the boss what he might like to say
before they prepare his drafts. On the hit TV show "The West Wing," the
President?s speechwriter, played by Rob Lowe, seems to march right into
"the Oval" to engage President Bartlett in witty repartee whenever he?s
in the mood. In real 11fe, no spcro p yennedy
Page 2 of4
. ' )
"ARMS Email System
Administration has had an open invitation to drop by in advance of a
speech and ask the President what?s on his mind. (And even though
Clinton is as unpretentious as you would guess from his public image, we
almost never interacted with. him in the casual, insouciant way you see
each week on "The West Wing.") So unless it?s a State of the Union
address or a declaration of war or peace, we?d spend a couple of days ?
or minutes, depending on the deadline ? typing away at our computers
without any input from him. Then we?d turn in the speech, show up to
brief him a few minutes before his address is scheduled to begin, and
pray that we?d got it right.
Over time, I got much better at.giving the President the kind of
material that suited his salt-of-the-ear:th style. One successful
technique involved finding the kind 6f colorful stories and personal
detail that allow the President to humanize even the wonkiest subjects ?
and show that his motivation for action comes from his heart, not just
his head. If I were writing about legislation.to provide mentors for
at-risk teehagers, for example, I would spend hours on the phone with
his cousin Marie or his dear childhood friend Carolyn Staley, teasing
out great stories about the encouragement the fatherless Clinton
received in Hot Springs from li:Ls warm-hearted band teacher, Virgil.
Spurlin. Several times during briefings the President paused at this
kind of detail and asked, "Where the hell did you get this?" I think he
was both impressed and a little bit spooked.
Another technique was to add grace notes that fit the President?s deep
faith. (Few peopie realize that Clinton is so well versed in the Bible
that he could give you, off_ the top of his head, just about any passage
in the New or Old Testament) . For instance, when the President announced
the administration?s policy response to global warming in 1998, I
gathered NASA astronauts? spiritual reflections on their first glimpse
of Earth from space and turned it into a powerful framing device. In the
President?s remarks to the winners of the annual Kennedy Center Honors,
I started a paean tp Stevie Wonder with the following story: "When he
was a baby in inner-city. Detroit, his mother dreamed of carrying her son
to the holy city of in hopes that he would regain his sight.
What she could not yet know was that her child had already been
profoundly blessed ? blessed with a prodigious, awe-inspiring ?inner
vision? that-could only have come from the Almighty Himself." These
passages didn?t always turn into eight-second soundbites on the evening
news. But on my best days, Clinton would turn my firie-grain details into
stardust, sprinkling it over the audience to create an enchanting
intimacy that few speakers have ever matched.
Like a biographer who devotes years to studying and writing about a
single human being, I often felt an eerie sense of connection to Bill
Clinton. Not only did I write hundreds of thousands of words that came
out of his mouth. I heard his when I typed words at my keyboard. I
memorized his favorite passages from the Bible. I knew volumes of his
childhood stories he?d never told. When I was consumed in my writing, I
truly lived inside his head.
And yet, in person, I didn?t know him all that well. In a normal week, I
would meet with him only once or twice, for a few:minutes at a time.
Even when I spent casual moments with him during trips, I was often
unable to wipe from my conscious mind the fact that he was the President
of the United States.
Once, I sat next to him on a C-20, a ten-seat version of Air Force One.
At the start of the flight, r tac OPY'uce himself in the
Page 3 of 4
/
"ARMS Email System
Navajo language, for an "Ich bein ein Berliner" moment I?d scripted in
speech he would deliver (word for word!) later that day: Then he started
dealing out cards to me, to his deputy chief of .staff, and his press
secretary. "Ever played Oh Hell?" he asked me. I told him I hadn?t. No
matter ? he was happy .to explain the rules. The good news:. the rules
weren?t that complicated. The bad news: I missed about every other one.
I couldn?t quite get over the fact that I ? rather than my written words
? were the focus of his intense, tractor-beam stare.
Interestingly enough, the one period of time I was really at ease
chatting with the President was during the year. Sure, there
was a part of me that was angry with him for the recklessness of his
antics, but I wasn?t prudish enough to be appalled by the allegations or
the reality. The scandal didn?t make me want to sever my connection with
Clinton. If anything, by taking him .off his pedestal and making him more
human, it had the opposite effect.
He.became noticeably more approachable and more appreciative when he was
under siege. Was that just his way of shoring up his base? Sure. I?m
not na?ve. But I?ll be honest: I didn?t mind one bit. Two days after the
scandal broke, for example, the President pulled me aside during a Diet
Coke break in our State of the Union rehearsals. "Hey, Lowell," he said,
"you wrote a beautiful statement for the Medal of Freedom ceremony." And
then, to make it absolutely clear that it wasn?t just a boilerplate
compliment akin to his standard "nice tie," he singled out three of his
favorite lines from memory. He had given the speech almost three weeks
before.
During the scandal, the psychobabblers said that the President was
"compartmentalizing," locking the mess away in some dark corner of his
mind during daylight hours. That simply wasn?t true. With me, at least,
he didn?t get into details, and he never asked me to write any of his
now- famous scandal..:.relat.ed speeches. (I can?t even count how many
I?ve been asked if I wrote the finger-wagging "that woman, Miss
Lewinsky" speech.) But he didn?t pretend that the. scandal didn?t exist.
During many Oval Office briefings and in one long private .conversation I
had with him over the phone, he brought up the subject ? in a
crestfallen but not self-pitying sort of way. Yes, he precipitated the
mess. But I .couldn?t help but ? you guessed it ? feel his pain.
In the end, those of us who worked for him and the vast majority of
Americans who knew him only through TV are going to miss the hell out of
this guy. We?ll miss the brainpower, the stardust, the intimacy. We?ll
even miss the flops and the foibles. Our eight years with Clinton were
an affair we?ll never forget.
COPY
Page 4 of4
. ..
f:r"
.i ll'-LV.h.J IJ J ..:ll.Vl..U
- -o- - ---
CREATOR: Sean ( Sean Wilentz <swilentz@Princeton.ED
CREATION DATE/TIME:15-NOV-2000 16:26:14.00
SUBJECT: Berman
.. . )
CN=Sidney Blumenthal/OU=WHO/O=EOP [. WHO .] )
/-
2
TO: Sidney Blumenthal
READ: UNKNOWN
.1-
a_\
(J
TEXT:
Paul wrote this and sent it to Shulevitz, before I had a chance to read
it. But I think it's fine. And witty too.
sw
15, 2000
RESPONSE TO TIMOTHY NOAH
I PSi
.In an article posted two days ago, Tomothy Noah cited a couple of New
York Times ads about the election, and ascribed to them the doleful word
"fiasco." I was cine of the signatories of those ads and recruited some
of the other signatories_ and generally helped put the thing together.
I'd like to explain why the said fiasco was actually a smashing triumph,
despite a few lamentable glitches.
I joined the effort to produce those ads because, in the first hours
after the election, ah enormoup tide of pundit opinion arose to press Al
Gore to concede defeat. Patriotism, national stability, international
stability, and market stability, not to mention the fortunes of the
Republican Party, all were said to require Gore to do the gentlemanly
thing, and admit he had lost- Now, some of us, .in gazing at the election
statistics, had. come away with the impression that, on the. contrary,
Gore had won, not just in the popular vote nationwide. Even in Florida,
he seemed to have won the plurality of intended votes, judging from
whatever was visible,beneath the clouds of Florida electoral murk._
And so, the-tide of pundit opinion worried me. It shocked me, .r began to
think that, if these opinions were left unchallenged, the pressure on
Gore to concede the election might become irresistible, and his apparent
victory (as I saw it) might be turned into a defeat, with disastrous
effects on democracy, not to mention on Democracy. sa I conferred with a
few friends; who were in similar states of shock. And we set out to
counter the tide of pundit opinion as quickly and visibly as we could,
hoping to forestall the forestallable.
A couple of my friends composed a statement, to which I contributed a
few editorial comments. We c-irculated the statement. We recruited people
to sign it and people to pay for it. Timothy Noah in his article makes
it sound like our ad called for nothing in particular. Not so. We called
for the murk in Florida to be clarified in a careful and just manner. We
called for legal and democratic 'processes to straighten out the mess,
which was quite different from calling for Vice PResident Gore to
straighten it out by taking a dive. We didn't know exactly what legal or
democratic processes would be appropriate, and so we suggested different
possibilities. We cited the .precedent from the disputed election of 1876
(which Noah found especially amusing, for some reason). We mentioned a
re-vote in Palm Beach County as another possibility .. And we addressed
ourselves to the Florida Election Commission, which Noah likewise found
somewhat humorous.
But to whom should we have
obvious, in case, that
addressed ourselves? It ought to have been
we weCOPYs to the public.
I
\: .. \ .
c:: \
7.1 :

.. I
i
\ i
- ; - -. -- ------- - J - - ----
We were saying: wait a minute. This election isn't being fairly
resolved. Let's find out who actually won, in reality and not just in
appearance. Let's find a proper resolution, and let's stop calling on Al
Gore to back down.
Were we foolish to say such things? In the days since those ads
appeared, many people have taken a similar position. But in those first
moments, hardly anyone was speaking up. The pundits were conducting one
of their habitual stampedes. It was riot unlike what the pundits had done
during the Lewinsky affair, when there. was a general rush to demand
horrible punishments to be wreaked on President Clinton, and a general
rush to demand his resignation. So we stood up right away, and were
among the first to break the pundit consensus.
The ad ran a second day, and had to be cut to fit a smaller space. In
cutting sentences, the tentativeness of our proposed solutions to the
crisis was lost, and the ad ended up calling for one specific solution,
are-vote. It w s ~ mistake.to.lose the tentativeness in our proposals.
I think that many of us who signed the ad, and all of us who helped
organize it, didn't and don't .really care what. the solution should be,
so lorig as it is legal and democratic. Of course, the lawyers who signed
our ad are unhappy about the loss of vagueness in our language, and they
are right to be. It might have been better to have the lawyers write the
ad, and have the rest of us sign it.
But I should point out that, in efforts like ours, slip-ups always
occur. We are a group of friends, we are not a well-oiled political
machine. We did .this by the seat of our pants; in a few hours. All kinds
of mistakes took place that Noah didn't. even mention. Philip Roth signed
the ad, and somehow his name was misspelled. Imagine! Some very
distinguished people signed and were supposed to be listed in the ad,
but somehow their names evaporated among.the whirring e-mails. It's
always like that when you try to throw together a political response in
a few hours.
But our main message got out .. The election was conducted shoddily, at
best; the election should be resolved through careful, legal, and
democratic procedures; the pressure on Gore .should be ended. That
message was correct.
A c()uple of years ago, at the height of the effort to drive Clinton out
of office, some of us, in a similar state of patriotic panic, organized
a teach-in at New York University. All kinds of wonderful speakers got
up to address the crowd and the C-SPAN cameras. Arthur Schesinger,
Caroline Kennedy, Elie Wiesel, Ronald Dworkin, E. L. Doctorow were among
those who spoke. Jessye Norman stood up in the audience and sang
"America the Beautiful." Allow me to point out that TimothyNoah.wrote
an article about that event, too, and found it similarly ridiculous.
He's very good at sneering.
-- Paul Berman
COPY
ARMS Email System t'age 1 or 1
CREATOR: dagnos@sas.upenn.edu (Dean P Agnos)
( dagnos@sas.uperui.edu (DeanP Agnos)
SUBJECT: Re: Good Morning
TO: Andrew R. Goodrich ( CN=Andrew R. Goodrich/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO .) )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
"I did not have. sexual relations with that woman--Ms. Lewinsky.;,
Andrew_,R._Goodrich@who.eop.gov wrote:
>
> both the speaches were mediocre and will be quickly forgotten. What did
> you expect them to say?
>
>
COPY
'

)
I
' _l
:,._1
'
'
'

(..
\
():.
\

,i
;r
I
...,.
I
I
Page 1 ot 1
ARMS Email System
/ )?j;:-,'2 \ ; t: iV ; ~ ~ ~ ; , ..:
'.,
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES. MAIL)
," .. '
)
,"
.......
........
-.. ____ - - - ~ - - .
SUBJECT: Re: greetings
TO: will hutton <Will.huttonvirgirt. net> ( will hut ton <Will.huttonvirgin.net> [ .UN
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Great column in the Guardian on the election. I'm curious what evidence
you refer to when you say that it was fabricated in the Lewinsky
investigation. What do you have in mind? Hope you're spending a happy new
year's. I ieave on Jan. 20th, per the Constitution, but I will be .engaged
invery interesting projects, which should take me tO London. We should
discuss in the new year. Soon, I willinhabit a decadent occupied capital
in a former democracy. All the more reason for a Labour victory.
COPY
<:' \
/'
~ .
,.,u
01
;r:/
\
', ARMS Email System
CREATOR: Jeffrey A. Shesol ( CN=Jeffrey A. Shesol/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ] )
SUBJECT: Proposal
TO: james_patterson@brown.edu ( james_pat.terson@brown.edu@ inet [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Dear Jim,
Here's what I made reference to yesterday ...
Thanks again,
Jeff
Jeff Shesol
Personal Statement for
The Anschutz Distinguished Fellowship
in American Studies
At a recent dinner of the Judson Welliver Society-- an alumni
association of presidential speechwriters -- we representatives of the
Clinton White House were inducted with some fanfare. We were welcomed,
warmly greeted as new members, and then, over dinner, carved up like roast
duck. For speaker after speaker, we provided the punchline to every
(inside) joke and the moral to every story, or cautionary tale. Yet the
real target was not what we then called, simply, "the scandal." Instead,
it was what might be called the shame of the speechwriter: a legacy of
relentless, unmemorable, colloquial chatter. Our seniors upbraided us as
rhetorical spendthrifts, squandering the presidentD,s political capital,
saying far too much and, at the same time, too little.
What I knew, but did not volunteer, was that our own research confirmed
much of what theyargued: in 1997, for example, President Clinton made
550 public statements -- compared, at similar points in their
presidencies,. to 320 for Ronald Reagan and 88 for Harry Truman.
What I did say to my predecessors, however, was that the comparison is
unfair. And what I wish to explore at Princeton is why.
:r propose to teach a seminar on the presidential speech: its evolution
over the course of two hundred years; the. insights it offers into
particular presidencies and policies; the ways in which presidents have
redefined the bully pulpit, and, more broadly, the ways in which the bully
pulpit has redefined the presidency. I would place considerable emphasis
on the new challenges confronting presidential speakers in an Information
Age, in a 24-hour news cycle. I would pose a central historical question:
what is the transformative power of presidential speech-making? Or,, put
more simply, how much does it matter?
My own belief is that speeches matter significantly. But my aim as an
Anschutz Fellow would be to impart the knowledge for my students to answer
that question themselves. I would ask them to draw upon a:E.d discuss the
growing body of literature on thcjo pys to"'monographs to
/
6-u\..lVl.:l .Cllli:111 .;, y;::;Lvlll
.anthologies of speeches. I would also share my own insights as both a
presidential hist?rian and a presidential speechwriter -- endeavors that
have been, in many ways, mutually reinforcing. I hope that I would bring
the strengths of both to the classroom.
The fears of the Fotinders would be an appropriate place to begin an
historical survey. The paucity o.f presidential rhetoric in AmericaO, s .
first hundred year$ was, as students would see, mostly the product of the
FoundersO, equating popular oratory with demagoguery. We would proceed
briskly toward Lincoln, who shared, somewhat, the reticence of his
predecessors, but also, in a single speech, redefined democracy. We would
of course study that address, as well as Garry WillsO, seminal Lincoln at
Gettysburg. Also, two important analytical works -- The Rhetorical
Presidency, by Jeffrey Tulis, and Speaking to the People, edited by
Richard Ellis -- would help students to frame questions more broadly,
with respect not only to the l9th century but to .the 20th as well.
\.. .
But the lionO,s share of our time would be spent in the latter. In
Theodore Roqsevelt and Woodrow Wilson, we find, for the first time,
speech-making at the center of presidential leadership. In every
presidency from FDR to LBJ, the advisors responsible for the. development
of policy were also responsible for the articulation of policy. Students
would read the rich .accounts by these men and women -- Sam Rosenman, Dick
Goodwin, Harry McPherson, Peggy Noonan -- and assess the role of
speechwriters in a context larger than any given speech. For it is true
that policymakers must persuade one_ariother before their president can
persuade the public; and the speech text, historically, has been the'
primary arena of intellect"ual engagement. It is the place where competing
ideas are reconciled (or not)_
The role of the speechwriter at the nexus of policy and politics, at the
interface of ideas and action, collapsed under Richard Nixon. The
.speechwriter was "professionalized" as a result, marginalized.
The resulting disconnect between words and actions is something we would
examine in the presidencies from Nixon to George Bush. Here Carol
GeldermanO,s book, All the PresidentsO, Words, would be instructive.
As Gelderman argues, the role of the speechwriter has been largely
restored by the president I_have served. Michael WaldmanD,s recent POTUS
Speaks: Finding the Words That Defined the _Clinton Presidency, is a
thorough account of a president who is more fully engaged in the process
of speechwritirig than any since FDR. It is here that my own perspective
-- as the deputy director of President ClintonO,s speechwriting office and
the coordinator of the policy and drafting process for the State of the
Union Address -- would be most germane.
The members of the Judson Welliver SQciety hold that the currency has been
devalued. In my public lecture, I would argue strongly that it has not.
The bully pulpit, viewed through the prism of my own experience, remains
one of a presidentO,s powerful tools. President Clinton gives color
commentary on the events of the day not (merely) because he likes to talk,
and not because his speechwriters like to write, but because the din of
the new media demands it. A president in these times must be seen and
heard daily, if not several times daily. For the moment he fails to write
his own narrative, then others -- political opponents and unaccountable
commentators -- will fill the void and set his agenda. Surviving the
Lewinsky scandal taught me that.
My own stories of speechwriting -- of the State of the Union Address, of
the 2000 Democratic Convention scopyumor dinners that
\
l.""UUVl;) cmau ;:::,
have become a basic obligation of the office -- would, I believe, show
students the power of presidential speech to transform the political
landscape and to provide not merely the memorable moments, but the pivotal
ones, of this and many other administrations. The modern presidential
voice is, indeed, changing.. Once commanding, ,it is now mostly colloquial,
and even, at times, confessional. But it continues to ring loudly and
clearly; and I am eager for the opportunity to help Princeton students
develop a discerning ear.
COPY
; ::;, \ C' i.: /11
...:;,.
. )'
,,'/-
z
\.
. /
/
/

Monica Lewinsky Documents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Monica Lewinsky Documents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (ALL- IN-: 1 MAIL)

. CREATOR: Stacey L. Rubin ( RUBIN_S ) . (WHO)

'0 '") ]' /

You might also like