Online NewsHour: Clinton's Deposition and Jordan's Testimony -- March 5, 1998

Robert Bennett: "The release of President Clinton's deposition was frankly one of the most reckless, reprehensible, unethical things I've seen in this town in a very, very long time."

ROBERT BENNETT: The release of President Clinton's deposition was frankly one of the most reckless, reprehensible, unethical things I've seen in this town in a very, very long time. We are going to seek relief in court for this. As all of you know, it's almost impossible to determine how these things get leaked, but there can be no doubt that the antagonists of the president, those who want to hurt him and hurt him badly, have done this. And it really is not fair, and it's a terrible thing. Starr Investigation

MARGARET WARNER: For more on this we return once again to The Washington Post newsroom and to Dan Balz, the correspondent on the Post's national staff.

Dan, sum up for us what the story is that Robert Bennett is referring to and how it connects to Ken Starr's investigation.

DAN BALZ, Washington Post: Margaret, the story he's talking about is a story we ran in

the paper today by Peter Baker, which is a full account of what the president said in his deposition that he gave in the Paula Jones case on Saturday, January 17th. It's, by far, the most extensive account of what he was asked and what he responded to in that deposition. The connection to the Starr investigation is quite direct. It's the document that Ken Starr will be looking at to determine whether the president committed perjury at any point along the way in the matter of Monica Lewinsky.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, Bob Bennett was expressing outrage it had been leaked. This is supposed to be under a gag order, is it not?

DAN BALZ: Well, it is technically under a gag order, that's correct, but through good reporting, Peter Baker was able to find out what was in it.

MARGARET WARNER: And what can you tell us, if anything, about where this came from? We had a lot of accusations in Washington today from everyone about everyone else, about somebody had leaked it.

DAN BALZ: Margaret, I'm sure, as you and others can understand, we do not talk about our sources on a story like this. I will say that the story was very thoroughly vetted by the senior editors of the paper before it was put into the newspaper, that we devoted roughly 100 inches to this story. We felt very confident about the contents of the story. No one has challenged the accuracy, for, as I say, the obvious reasons we do not talk about the sources.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, in the story, what would you say are the major points that relate to Ken Starr's investigation?

DAN BALZ: There are a series of points that are significant. One is that the president, as previously reported, denied that he had any sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. And I should add that there was a broad definition of what "sexual relationship" involved. So that's perhaps in many ways the most important. He said that he met with or was in her presence a number of times at the White House, about five that he could recall. He said he may have been alone with her, although he couldn't be certain of that, that that was a possibility. He said that he had talked to Vernon Jordan about efforts to find Monica Lewinsky a job. But he said that it was not at his initiative that Betty Currie, his personal secretary who had placed the call to Vernon Jordan, had been the person who had initiated that contact. He said that he spoke to Monica Lewinsky about the possibility that she might be drawn into the Paula Jones case as a witness, and finally he said that... we were interested in it because the deposition, itself, spent a considerable amount of time on Monica Lewinsky and questions about other women and much less time about Paula Jones. Starr Investigation

DAN BALZ: Well, it is odd, except if you remember one thing, and that is that the Paula Jones lawyers came to this deposition armed with a considerable amount of information about Monica Lewinsky, and that is because on the night before the deposition was given, they met with Linda Tripp, who is the woman who had secretly tape-recorded conversations with Monica Lewinsky about her relationship or alleged relationship with the president. They had met with her; they came with a lot of questions based on that. Now, it's important also to remember that at the time Linda Tripp met with the Paula Jones lawyers, she was also cooperating with Ken Starr's investigation, which on that weekend had been expanded to cover all of this.

MARGARET WARNER: The irony is, also, isn't it, that now the judge in the Paula Jones case has ruled that none of the Monica Lewinsky matter can be even introduced in that case?

DAN BALZ: Well, that is one of the ironies, and there will be, obviously, legal battles ahead as to how some of this will--whether it will not be relevant in terms of what Ken Starr is doing. But there's no question that the detailed questioning about Monica Lewinsky in this deposition relates directly to what Ken Starr is looking at in his investigation.

MARGARET WARNER: And finally, did anything in your story reporting on what reportedly the president said in his deposition, anything conflict with what he said publicly?

No conflict between president Clinton's public statements and his testimony.

DAN BALZ: No. So far nothing has conflicted with what he said publicly. As you know, he has denied that he had any relationship with her and basically has said nothing else of any significance. And so what we got is somewhat more detail out of him but nothing that seems to conflict with the public denials that he issued.

Also today there was considerable activity at the federal courthouse where the Starr investigation grand jury is sitting, presidential confidante Vernon Jordan concluded a second day of testimony, and he spoke to reporters late this afternoon.

VERNON JORDAN: First of all, it is a fact that I helped Monica Lewinsky find private employment in New York. Secondly, it is a fact that I took Monica Lewinsky to a very competent lawyer, Frank Carter, here in Washington, D.C., and thirdly, it is a fact that I kept the president of the United States informed about my activity. I want to say two further things: one is I did not in any way tell her, encourage her to lie, and secondly, that my efforts to find her a job were not a Starr Investigation

quid pro quo for the affidavit that she signed. That's the truth. That's the whole truth. That's nothing but the truth. As to how I feel about this process that I have just completed, I feel about like Paul wrote in a letter I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith, and we will see what time will tell us.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay, Dan, help us--put this in context for us, what Vernon Jordan just said and how it again relates to the Starr probe.

DAN BALZ: As you can tell, he reaffirmed many of the points he made in his January statement two days after this story broke in January, namely that he had helped her find a job and that he had never asked her to lie about anything. He went a little farther in a couple of cases. Today he Starr Investigation

said that he had been in contact with the president of the United States about those efforts, and, in addition to that, he also made a very clear point--seemed to want to go out of his way to make this point--that there was no quid pro quo, as he put it, between whatever efforts he was making or had been asked to make on behalf of the White House or the president, and the affidavit that she submitted in the Paula Jones case in which she denied that she had a sexual relationship with the president. Now, it has been reported that when he was called by Betty Currie--

DAN BALZ: --the president's secretary--to help Monica Lewinsky find a job, that he believed he was acting on behalf of the president, that she was calling on the president's behalf. He didn't say that one way or the other today. And, as you know, in the deposition story that we had, the president indicated that it had been initiated by Betty Currie. On the other hand, there's nothing that Vernon Jordan said today that in any way seriously conflicts with what the president has said and in many ways squares with what was reported in the Post today about what he said in the deposition. Starr Investigation

MARGARET WARNER: Okay, now, also at the courthouse today Monica Lewinsky's lawyer, William Ginsberg, was there with Ken Starr. Explain to us what was happening there.

DAN BALZ: This was actually a day of very high drama on that front. There have been these negotiations off again/on again, off again/on again, that seem to be completely stalled about whether Monica Lewinsky was going to receive immunity. What happened today was that William Ginsberg went to court to try to quash the subpoena that Starr's office has issued for Monica Lewinsky and at the same time get the court to enforce what he says is an agreement for immunity that he had been offered by Starr for his client.

DAN BALZ: Full immunity, that's right. Now, let's go back and review sort of how this happened. Initially, William Ginsberg, on behalf of Monica Lewinsky, submitted a written proffer, as it is known in legalese, outlining what she would testify if she was given immunity. At some point through those negotiations the Starr Investigation

independent counsel's office sent William Ginsberg a letter which he interpreted as a formal offer of immunity. What he did today was basically go into court and say, I was sent a piece of paper, I signed that piece of paper; it said that they were prepared to offer her immunity, and I think that the independent counsel's office should stick by this. Now, there's a lot we don't know about this. We don't know exactly all the details of that. We don't know whether both sides actually signed off on that. We don't know if any side tried to amend it, whether there were some loose threads that hadn't been stitched together, whether there were some contingencies that the independent counsel's office was demanding of Monica Lewinsky, for example, that they have an opportunity to interview her first before they initial this agreement finally. So there was a lot that was being hashed out. Interestingly, they were there all day. They met with the chief judge who's overseeing the grand jury, Judge Norma Holloway Johnson. Ken Starr was there; Bill Ginsberg was there. Lawyers for both sides were there. It went on all day. This is a very crucial moment in this investigation because the terms under which Monica Lewinsky testifies will determine a lot about where this goes.

MARGARET WARNER: And is the judge--just briefly--in a position to resolve this, herself?

DAN BALZ: Well, the judge will have the first call on that. I'm not actually 100 percent sure where it would go, but presuming it's like most legal negotiations, it is probably something that either side could appeal. But she will have the first decision on this.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: A reminder. The Washington Post's full coverage is available after 10:30 p.m. Eastern Time on their Web site and on ours.

Program
Support
From:

STARR INVESTIGATION

March 5, 1998

The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript