# Why was clinton under oath in the first place? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 9, 2004, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-clinton-under-oath-in-the-first-place/228226 "2004-02-09T04:09:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![agiantdwarf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8c91f0/32.png) [@agiantdwarf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/agiantdwarf)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-clinton-under-oath-in-the-first-place/228226/1 "2004-02-09T04:09:37Z")
In the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton was impeached because apparently he commited perjury by lying about whether he had sex with Lewinsky. My question, coming from someone who was 9 or 10 at the time, is, why the heck was he on trial in the first place for it? What charges were brought against him? Was it some kind of morals court? ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-clinton-under-oath-in-the-first-place/228226/2 "2004-02-09T04:21:07Z")
IIRC, he was under oath because of the sexual harassment charges brought by boxer Paula Jones. Those charges were settled, I believe. The perjury charge involving Ms. Lewinsky had to do with Jones’s lawsuit. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-clinton-under-oath-in-the-first-place/228226/3 "2004-02-09T04:26:06Z")
President Clinton was subpoenaed to testify in January 1998 in the sexual harassment civil suit that Paula Jones brought against him, for an incident that allegedly happened between them in 1991 while he was governor of Arkansas and she was a state employee. During this testimony, Jones’s lawyers probed him about rumors of other women he had been sexually involved with while governor or president, to establish a pattern of behavior. Monica Lewinsky was one of the women he was asked about, and he denied any sexual activity. Lewinsky herself had already submitted an affidavit in which she also denied the affair (she later admitted to lying on that affidavit). However, special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, who was investigating various other Clinton-related scandals, already had the tapes that Linda Tripp had recorded of her telephone conversations with co-worker Lewinsky, in which Lewinsky detailed her affair with Clinton. It all went downhill from there. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-clinton-under-oath-in-the-first-place/228226/4 "2004-02-09T04:38:22Z")
An excerpt from the Starr report: > [@](#): > > In the _Jones_ deposition on January 17, 1998, the President denied having had “a sexual affair,” “sexual relations,” or “a sexual relationship” with Ms. Lewinsky. He noted that “[t]here are no curtains on the Oval Office, there are no curtains on my private office, there are no curtains or blinds that can close [on] the windows in my private dining room,” and added: “I have done everything I could to avoid the kind of questions you are asking me here today. . . .” > > During the deposition, the President’s attorney, Robert Bennett, sought to limit questioning about Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Bennett told Judge Susan Webber Wright that Ms. Lewinsky had executed “an affidavit which [Ms. Jones’s lawyers] are in possession of saying that there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton.” In a subsequent colloquy with Judge Wright, Mr. Bennett declared that as a result of “preparation of [President Clinton] for this deposition, the witness is fully aware of Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit.” The President did not dispute his legal representative’s assertion that the President and Ms. Lewinsky had had “absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form,” nor did he dispute the implication that Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit, in denying “a sexual relationship,” meant that there was “absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form.” In subsequent questioning by his attorney, President Clinton testified under oath that Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit was “absolutely true.” Read all about it in [The Starr Report](http://clinton.infi.net/) ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-clinton-under-oath-in-the-first-place/228226/5 "2004-02-09T04:50:15Z")
As with all things Starr, there’s a lot of legal shenanigans going on. Clinton’s lawyers went over very carefully with the Jones judge as to what “having sex” meant. Under _that_ definition, he had _not_. Note that Clinton admitted having sex with Gena Flowers (unlike Bush I and his Jenna). He was playing things strictly by the book. Starr changed the definition of sex and asked Clinton under oath in his inquiry. It is _not_ clear if Clinton knew that the rules had changed. Clinton gave the same answer as before. Starr declared this a lie. (A really sleazy tactic.) Hence Bill Mahr’s comment: We had a constitutional crisis over the difference between third base and all the way. Just like “Travelgate” and “Fostergate”, there does not appear to be any original crime committed. Everything that people argue about are a _result_ of such investigations rather than what was originally being investigated in the first place. Millions of tax payer dollars down the hole. (And one guy dying in prison due to withholding of medical care, all because he didn’t want to commit perjury.) The act allowing a special prosecuter (esp. one allied to one political side) to be named so easily was “allowed to lapse” in the early Bush II days. Hence, no special prosecuters hounding Bush/Cheney over all the weird stuff they’ve been doing. Interesting how that just happened, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-clinton-under-oath-in-the-first-place/228226/6 "2004-02-09T06:20:26Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > Clinton’s lawyers went over very carefully with the Jones judge as to what “having sex” meant. Under _that_ definition, he had _not_. Not so. From the Starr report: > [@](#): > > On Saturday, January 17, 1998, the President testified under oath at a deposition in the _Jones_ case. Judge Susan Webber Wright traveled from Little Rock, Arkansas, to preside at the deposition in Washington, D.C. . . . Judge Wright accepted the following definition of the term “sexual relations”:For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in “sexual relations” when the person knowingly engages in or causes — > (1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; > (2) contact between any part of the person’s body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or > (3) contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person’s body. “Contact” means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing." At the request of Clinton’s lawyer, Judge Webber subsequently agreed to limit the definition of “sexual relations” to section one, and strike sections two and three. Here is President Clinton’s [testimony](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/clintondep031398.htm) from the deposition of January 17, 1998, in the _Jones_ case: > [@](#): > > Q. Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky? > A. No. > Q. If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie? > A. It’s certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth. > Q. I think I used the term “sexual affair.” And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court. > MR. BENNETT [Clinton’s lawyer]: I object because I don’t know that he can remember. > JUDGE WRIGHT: Well, it’s real short. He can — I will permit the question and you may show the witness definition number one. > A. I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. From the [Starr report](http://clinton.infi.net/6narrit.htm#L14): > [@](#): > > According to Ms. Lewinsky, she performed oral sex on the President on nine occasions. On all nine of those occasions, the President fondled and kissed her bare breasts. He touched her genitals, both through her underwear and directly, bringing her to orgasm on two occasions. On one occasion, the President inserted a cigar into her vagina. On another occasion, she and the President had brief genital-to-genital contact. > [@ftg](#): > > Starr changed the definition of sex and asked Clinton under oath in his inquiry. It is _not_ clear if Clinton knew that the rules had changed. Clinton gave the same answer as before. Starr declared this a lie. (A really sleazy tactic.) From President Clinton’s grand jury testimony of August 18, 1998, before Starr’s lawyers: > [@](#): > > QUESTION: This is an exact copy, Mr. President, of the exhibit that was provided you during that deposition. And I’m sure you remember, throughout the deposition, that paragraph one of the definition remained in effect, that Judge Wright rule that that was to be the guiding definition in that paragraphs 2 and 3 were stricken. Do you remember that Mr. President? > CLINTON: Yes. Specifically what I remembered is there were two different discussions, I think, of this. There was quite an extended one in the beginning. And everybody was entering into it. And then in the end, the judge said that she would take the — excuse me—the first definition and strike the rest of it. That’s my memory. > QUESTION: Did you—well, at page 19 of your deposition in the case, the attorney who provided you with the deposition asked you—Would you please take whatever time you need to read the deposition. > QUESTION: And later on the deposition, you did, of course, refer to the deposition several times. Were you, during the deposition, familiar with the definition? > CLINTON: Yes, sir. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-clinton-under-oath-in-the-first-place/228226/7 "2004-02-09T06:32:22Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > The act allowing a special prosecuter (esp. one allied to one political side) to be named so easily was “allowed to lapse” in the early Bush II days. Hence, no special prosecuters hounding Bush/Cheney over all the weird stuff they’ve been doing. Interesting how that just happened, isn’t it? Wrong again. Congress allowed the Independent Counsel Act to expire on June 30, 1999, during the Clinton Administration, not the Bush Administration. And as ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-clinton-under-oath-in-the-first-place/228226/8 "2004-02-09T06:33:53Z")
[this](http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/01/independent.counsel/) article notes, “Ironically, it was Clinton who successfully campaigned for the statute’s renewal in 1994.” ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-clinton-under-oath-in-the-first-place/228226/9 "2004-02-09T11:35:04Z")
According to [Judge susan Webber Wright](http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/clinton/wrightsorder13.html) > [@](#): > > Plaintiff Paula Corbin Jones filed this lawsuit seeking civil damages from William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, and Danny Ferguson, a former Arkansas State Police Officer, for alleged actions beginning with an incident in a hotel suite in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 8, 1991, when President Clinton was Governor of the State of Arkansas. Plaintiff was working as a state employee on the day in question and claimed that Ferguson persuaded her to leave the registration desk she was staffing and visit Governor Clinton in a business suite at the hotel. She claimed the Governor made boorish and offensive sexual advances that she rejected,(1) and that her superiors at work subsequently dealt with her in a hostile and rude manner and punished her in a tangible way for rejecting those advances.(2) > > ``` > Plaintiff's complaint was filed on May 6, 1994. On August 10, 1994, the President filed a motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice on grounds of immunity and to toll any statutes of limitations until he is no longer President, thereby allowing plaintiff to refile her suit after he is out of office. On December 28, 1994, this Court denied the President's motion to dismiss on immunity grounds and ruled that discovery in the case could proceed, but concluded, that any trial should be stayed until such time as the President is no longer in office. See Jones v. Clinton 869 F.Supp. 690 (E.D.Ark. 1994). Both parties appealed. On January 9, 1996, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed this Court's Order denying the President's motion to dismiss on immunity grounds and allowing discovery to proceed, but reversed this Court's order staying the trial of this matter for the duration of President Clinton's term in office. See Jones v. Clinton, 72 F.3d 1354 (8th Cir. 1996). The President subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States, which was granted, see Clinton v. Jones, 518 U.S. 1016 (1996), and on May 27, 1997, the Supreme Court handed down an opinion holding that there is no constitutional impediment to allowing plaintiff's case to proceed while the President is in office. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). > > Following remand of the case to this Court, the President, joined by Ferguson, filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ-P. 12(c). By Memorandum opinion and Order dated August 22, 1997, this Court granted in part and denied in part the President's motion. See Jones v. Clinton, 974 F.Supp. 712 E.D.Ark. 1997). The Court dismissed plaintiff's defamation claim against the President, dismissed her due process claim for deprivation of a property interest in her State employment, and dismissed her due process claims for deprivation, of a liberty interest based on false imprisonment and injury to reputation, but concluded the remaining claims in plaintiff's complaint stated viable causes of action. See id. The Court thereupon issued a Scheduling Order setting forth a deadline of January 30, 1998, for the completion of discovery and the filing of Motions. > > Discovery in this case proved be contentious and time-consuming. During the course of discovery, over 50 motions were filed, the Court entered 30 Orders (3), and phone conferences were held on an almost weekly basis to address various disputes and resolve motions. In addition, the Court traveled to Washington D.C. at the request of the President to preside over his civil deposition on January 17, 1998. It was at a hearing on January 12, 1998, to address issues surrounding the President's deposition and at the deposition itself that the Court first learned of Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern and employee, and her alleged involvement in this case. > > At his deposition, the President was questioned extensively about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, this Court having previously ruled on December 11, 1997, that plaintiff was "entitled to information regarding any individuals with whom the President had sexual relations or proposed or sought to have sexual relations and who were during the relevant time frame [of May 8, 1986, up to the present] state or federal employees." See December 11, 1997 Order, at 3.(4) Based on that ruling, this Court overruled objections during the deposition from the President's attorney, Robert S. Bennett, that questions concerning Ms. Lewinsky were inappropriate areas of inquiry and required that such questions be answered by the President. See Pres. Depo. at 53-55, 66, 78. Having been so ordered, the President testified in response to questioning from plaintiff's counsel and his own attorney that he had no recollection of having ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky and he denied that he had engaged in an "extramarital sexual affair," in "sexual relations," or in a "sexual relationship" with Ms. Lewinsky.(5) Id. at 52-53, 56-59, 78, 204. An affidavit submitted by Ms. Lewinsky in support of her motion to quash a subpoena for her testimony and made a part of the record of the President's deposition likewise denied that she and the President had engaged in a sexual relationship. When asked by Mr. Bennett whether Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit denying a sexual relationship with the President was a "true and accurate statement," the President answered, "That is absolutely true." Pres. Depo. at 204. > > The President's denial of a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky at his deposition was consistent with his answer of "None" in response to plaintiff s Interrogatory No. 10, which requested the name of each and every federal employee with whom he had sexual relations when he was President of the United States. See Pres. Clinton's Resp. to Pl's Second Set of Int. at 5; Pres. Clinton's Supp. Resp. to Pl.'s Second Set of Int. at 2. This interrogatory was answered on December 23, 1997, after this Court had entered its December 11th Order ruling on plaintiff s motion to compel responses to her second set of interrogatories and finding that plaintiff was entitled to such information. See December 11, 1997 Order, at 3, 6.(6) > > One day prior to the President's deposition, and unknown to this Court, the Special Division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted a request from Attorney General Janet Reno to expand the jurisdiction of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr and entered an Order authorizing the Independent Counsel "to investigate ... whether Monica Lewinsky or others suborned perjury, obstructed justice, intimidated witnesses, or otherwise violated federal law other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction in dealing with witnesses, potential witnesses, attorneys, or others concerning the civil case Jones v. Clinton." In re Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Ass'n, Div. No. 94-1, 1998 WL 472444 (D.C.Cir.Sp.Div. Jan. 16, 1998). A short time later, the President's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and OIC's investigation of that relationship broke in the national media. > > ```