LITTLE ROCK — The text of a letter to the Judiciary Committee released Tuesday by attorney David Kendall and White House Counsel Charles Ruff, excluding a footnote:
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 tothe Committee's attentiona 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 factualpremise 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. Yesterday's release of Ms.Lewinsky's testimony made clear that our fears were, if anything, understated.
It is plain now from the 3,200 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 OIC ignored all reasonable standards of fairness in preparing and drafting its Referral. The Referral is stunning in its silence about evidence that supports the President.
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 questions that might elicit this exculpatory testimony in the grand jury and ended its interrogation of her without clarifying this key point. After 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 clarify 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."
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 Lewinsky's exculpatory statements and express denials raises grave questions about the fundamental fairness of the Starr Referral. The OIC 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 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 3,200 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 nature of the Referral, a document whose true goal was to embarrass the President and inflame (sic) 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.
We look forward to making additional submissions to the Committee as its review -- and ours -- proceed.
The text of a letter to the committee written in response by deputy independent counsel Robert Bittman, excluding a footnote:
Today, you have received a letter from David Kendall and Charles Ruff, the President's attorneys, that complains about two alleged omissions in the referral the Office of Independent Counsel sent to Congress on September 9. Their letter is wrong on both counts -- so clearly wrong that the letter is obviously an intentional effort to mislead the Committee and the public.
First, Messrs. Kendall and Ruff contend that the referral ignored Ms. Lewinsky's testimony that "no one ever asked me to lie." In fact, the referral in two places recounts Ms.Lewinsky's testimony to that effect. On page 23 of the official printed version of H. Doc. 105-310, the referral states: "While the President did not expressly instruct her to lie, according to Ms. Lewinsky, he did suggest misleading cover stories." On page 174, the referral states: "Ms. Lewinsky has stated that the President never explicitly told her to lie." Rather, as the referral points out, Ms. Lewinsky stated that she "knew what that meant" when the President called her and suggested false cover stories that they could both use under oath.
Second, Messrs. Kendall and Ruff contend that the referral ignored Lewinsky's testimony that she was not "promised a job for my silence." In fact, on page 185, the referral carefully explained the possible linkage between job assistance and a witness's testimony: "Indeed, in some cases, the witness receiving the job assistance may not even know that the party providing the assistance was motivated by a desire to stay on good terms with the witness during the pending legal proceeding." Footnote 361 on that page adds: "The arrangement may not be explicitly spelled out. In this case, for example, there is no evidence that Ms. Lewinsky received an explicit proposal where someone said: 'I'll give you a job if you lie under oath.'" That both Ms.Lewinsky and the President did lie under oath, that it was critical for the President that Ms. Lewinsky lie under oath, that the President suggested false cover stories, and that the President provided job assistance to Ms.Lewinsky are the facts with respect to Ground VII that the Committee will no doubt evaluate as it continues its work.
"We do not plan to respond to every false allegation that we anticipate Mr.Kendall and Mr.Ruff will make over the ensuing weeks and months. This first letter should give pause to all who might be inclined to take them at their word. It is noteworthy, however, that their letter accepts the credibility of Ms. Lewinsky on these issues, which should indicate that they have no intention of challenging Ms.Lewinsky's credibility on other matters.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Copyright © 1998, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. All rights reserved.