White House Press Briefing (09/12/98)
The following is the full text transcription of the White House press briefing presented by President Clinton's lawyers in response to the Kenneth Starr report.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release September 11, 1998
PRESS BRIEFING BY
MR. DAVID KENDALL AND MR. CHARLES RUFF
The Roosevelt Room
5:00 P.M. EDT
MR. KENDALL: Good afternoon. I'm David Kendall, and
with my partner, Nicole Seligman, I represent President Clinton,
personally. With me here this afternoon are the White House Counsel
Chuck Ruff, Cheryl Mills, and Lanny Breuer of the White House
Counsel's Office.
First let me say that we have not had the opportunity to
fully review the voluminous referral from the prosecutors in the
Office of Independent Counsel. We have made only a very preliminary
review of this document. Please keep in mind that these allegations
are not intended to be, nor do they purport to be anything other than
the prosecutor's collections of charges and accusations. By its very
nature, this document is one-sided. I want to try to begin this
afternoon the process of telling the other side of the story.
This is not a news story. A man tried to keep an
inappropriate relationship private. The President has acknowledged
his personal wrongdoing and sought forgiveness from his family, Ms.
Lewinsky, the Cabinet, the Congress, and the country. In light of
that acknowledgement, the salacious allegations in this referral are
simply intended to humiliate, embarrass, and politically damage the
President. In short, this is personal and not impeachable.
The referral alleges obstruction of justice in the
testimony of Monica Lewinsky, but Ms. Lewinsky's own testimony
confirms that the President never told her to lie. The referral
alleges witness tampering of Betty Currie, but Ms. Currie was not a
witness in the Paula Jones lawsuit. She was not on any witness list,
nor was she in fact ever called as a witness. The referral also
alleges abuse of power, yet details conduct that is nothing more than
an assertion of constitutionally-protected rights.
But the referral does not allege anything of substance
that has not already been leaked, illegally, before the Congress or
the President even had a chance to review it.
Let me be clear: The President has acknowledged his
personal wrongdoing, and so no amount of gratuitous allegations about
his relationship with Miss Lewinsky, no matter how graphic, can alter
the fact that 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 his office. There are a lot of lurid allegations
in the prosecutor's referral, but there is no credible evidence of
impeachable offenses.
We received this report only a short time ago. We
haven't been able to fully review it or digest its allegations. We
don't know what supposedly backs it up. We were denied a request to
see this a little in advance so we could give a rebuttal. But thanks
to illegal leaks from the Office of Independent Counsel -- we didn't
have a copy, the report was locked up on the Hill -- we have been
able to prepare a 78-page rebuttal. And I hope you will review that
rebuttal because it directly speaks to the allegations in the actual
referral.
What we have here is a preliminary review by the House
Judiciary Committee of the prosecutor's allegations to determine
whether an impeachment inquiry would be justified. This is not an
impeachment inquiry and we believe there are no grounds for such an
inquiry.
Q Mr. Kendall, the independent counsel says that he
had no choice but to include these lurid, salacious details because
the President, on January 17th and on August 17th, denied a sexual
relationship with Monica Lewinsky and referred to the definition that
was given to him and said his remarks were legally accurate. Didn't
the prosecutor in this case have no choice but to make the case that
the President lied and provide all those details?
MR. KENDALL: No. The amount of lurid, graphic detail
here far exceeds any legitimate justification.
Q Mr. Kendall, the first point that you make is that
the President never told Monica Lewinsky to lie. Are you saying
explicitly he never said to lie, or are you saying that there may
have been cover stories talked about, as the independent counsel
alleges? What exactly are you saying here?
MR. KENDALL: No. The President never, never advised
her to testify falsely. He has admitted a wrongful relation, and the
fact is that in all such wrongful, improper relations, there is a
concomitant concealment by its very nature. That's all that is
involved here. The independent counsel has extricably exaggerated
that to try and make allegations of obstruction of justice.
Q Mr. Kendall, if I may just follow up on that --
Q Mr. Kendall, can there be in the context of a
criminal legal proceeding an innocent concealment story concocted,
even if it's just an older man having an affair with a younger woman?
MR. KENDALL: I don't think there was any concealment
story concocted here whatsoever.
Q Sir, following up then, on December 17th, at
roughly 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., according to Starr's report, the
President called Ms. Lewinsky and informed her that she was now on
the witness list in the Jones case, and according to Ms. Lewinsky's
testimony, he told Ms. Lewinsky that she --
MR. KENDALL: What page of the report is that?
Q This is from the Internet. I call it page one. But
if you want to take the time I do have the report, and if you want to
say that this is not the accurate Starr report, please do so.
He told Ms. Lewinsky that -- quote -- "she should say
she visited the White House to see Ms. Currie, and on occasion when
working at the White House she brought him letters when no one else
was around." Now, that's not true -- by the President's own
admission, he had had sexual contact with Ms. Lewinsky. Why is that
not subornation of perjury?
MR. KENDALL: I don't think -- first of all, I believe
it is true, Ms. Lewinsky did visit him, did bring him letters -- it's
not suborning perjury because suborning perjury is telling somebody
to testify falsely. I don't know -- again, I haven't had a chance to
review the report at that level.
Q But it says she says she visited the White House to
see Ms. Currie, when in fact she was visiting the White House to have
sexual contact with the President.
MR. KENDALL: No, the evidence will show --
Q That's lying.
MR. KENDALL: No, it's not. The evidence will show that
Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Currie were indeed friends, so that's not a lie.
Q So if she was called in the Jones case and was
asked why she was at the White House, you believed that if she
testified as the President she suggested she testify, she'd be
telling the truth?
MR. KENDALL: Well, I'm not going to speculate on that.
Q Mr. Kendall, you say that the lurid detail is far
more than was justified. I wonder if you could address the fact that
in Ms. Lewinsky's testimony she talks about encounters where there
was contact that clearly would fall within the definition of sexual
relations that the President has denied. Are you saying it's a he
said, she said? And is it your contention that Ms. Lewinsky lied in
her testimony?
MR. KENDALL: I haven't had a chance to review the
report at a specific level of detail, and I don't know what the
backup testimony is. The President testified truthfully both on
January the 17th and on August 17, 1998.
Q Mr. Kendall, your reference to not having had a
chance to look at backup detail goes I think to Sandra's question
once again. Are you telling us then that the allegations that Starr
is making of a sexual relationship of the President and Ms. Lewinsky,
and Mr. Clinton's statement in his testimony on August 17th that he
was technically right are not to be supported because there is no
backup testimony to Ms. Lewinsky's?
MR. KENDALL: On August 17th, the President acknowledged
an improper sexual relation. The question here really is no matter
how you spin that out and try and exaggerate it and extend it, is
there evidence here of high crimes and misdemeanors? That's really
the question at issue. The question is not the wrongful conduct that
the President has acknowledged. The question is whether there is
evidence here to countermand and override the judgment of the people
of this country, who not once, but twice, have elected this man
President of the United States.
Now, the framers did, in the Constitution, provide for
an impeachment mechanism. But that is only to be employed for the
most serious kinds of public malfeasance.
Q And the President's assertion that the contact did
not fit the technical definition specified in the Jones deposition
stands?
MR. KENDALL: He believed that he testified truthfully;
yes, he did.
Q Along the same lines, sir, what reason do you have
for saying that the President admitted to an improper sexual
relationship? He didn't use the word "sexual." It seems to be the
first time that anyone here has used the term "sexual relationship."
And in the Jones deposition, the President said, I never had sexual
relations with Monica Lewinsky. You argue that that's not perjury in
your rebuttal. Wasn't it simply a lie under oath?
MR. KENDALL: No. The term in the Jones deposition was
"sexual relations." There was no doubt from the President's August
17th testimony, which is quoted, I've seen, in the referral, that it
was an improper intimate relation of a sexual nature.
Q And then the second question, sir, that I asked?
You argue that it was not perjury; then are you saying it was a lie?
MR. KENDALL: No. Absolutely. The President testified
truthfully and accurately.
Q Mr. Kendall, when you say in your rebuttal
documents --
MR. KENDALL: Somebody has read our rebuttal document.
I commend it all to you.
Q Page 14. These encounters between Monica and the
President did not consist of sexual intercourse and they did not
consist of sexual relations as he understood that term to be defined
in the Jones deposition, blah, blah, blah.
Now, Mr. Starr in his report goes on and on and on for
pages and pages about Ms. Lewinsky's testimony contradicting this
statement here and alleging sexual relations, mutual gratification,
him touching her, et cetera, et cetera. Are you not, in effect, in
your deposition -- or, sorry, in your rebuttal, therefore, calling
her a liar?
MR. KENDALL: No. The President has admitted to
improper intimate contact. It may well be that people's
recollections differ. That does not necessarily mean that one is
lying.
Q Mr. Kendall, you said that whatever offense the
President has caused is not sufficient to warrant impeachment. But
there is a great sentiment that he deserves some kind of rebuke. And
I wonder if the President would be willing to accept some sort of
censure by the Congress for his behavior that would stop short of
impeachment or an effort to remove him from office?
MR. KENDALL: I think the President at his prayer
breakfast this morning said, legal language must not obscure the fact
that I have done wrong. He has acknowledged wrongdoing -- explicitly
as he can. He's apologized. What we're dealing with here is whether
the conduct that he has acknowledged, and the allegations in the
referral constitute evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Plainly they do not. That's the issue before us.
Q Would you fight a censure with the same energy that
he intends to fight impeachment?
MR. KENDALL: That's not a question before us in the
report, and I'm just not going to speculate about that.
MR. RUFF: Let me just say in response to that, because
I think it's important to understand, if there has been pain
inflicted, it's happened. We know that if you're talking about a
sanction, whether it be censure or public unhappiness with their
President for what he did in his personal capacity, there is no
question he's feeling that right now and he's made very clear that he
feels it. We're not talking about anything formal that's going to
reach out and impose more pain on the President than he's already
imposed on himself.
Q If I could refer to the brief again, on page 51 you
say that, "if answers are truthful or literally truthful, but
misleading, there is no perjury as a matter of law, no matter how
misleading the testimony is or is intended to be." I wonder if a
President ought not be held to a higher standard in your estimation?
I know that you're both lawyers, but essentially what you're saying
is the President can mislead anyone he wants to as long as he
literally doesn't lie. And is that an acceptable standard?
MR. KENDALL: No, that's not what we're saying at all.
The answers that you reference were in the context of the Paula Jones
lawsuit, a highly charged lawsuit by political enemies meant to do
nothing but entrap the President. He testified accurately. It was
not his obligation to help Ms. Jones' lawyers. Any of you with the
misfortune to have been deposed in a libel suit know -- and I'm sure
nobody here has committed libel -- know that the first advice your
lawyer gives you is, answer the question and only the question; don't
volunteer. If you're asked your name, don't give your name and
address.
MR. RUFF: Let me just add to that, if I may. If you
look at what the President said in the prayer breakfast this morning,
-- which is no legal language is going to stand between him and the
apology he's made and the contrition that he's expressed. And that's
exactly what he meant. His lawyers gave him advice. He followed his
lawyers' advice. And what he's done is to step out in front of the
American people and say, legal niceties aside, I've apologized, I
know I did wrong. And he's made that clear.
Q How do you answer the contention that the
President's use of you and your staff constitutes and abuse of his
power?
MR. RUFF: Nonsense.
Q What about Betty Currie?
Q -- talking about that, why is it nonsense, sir?
MR. RUFF: It's nonsense because if you read this report
what you will find is that the President is accused of abusing his
power by asserting his constitutional privilege. He did so, as our
rebuttal document reflects, on my advice. I went to the President of
the United States and I said, the independent counsel is seeking to
intrude into the legitimate, confidential discussions that you have
with your lawyers and that your senior staff have among themselves.
It is your obligation as the President to protect the core
constitutional interests of the presidency and I recommend to you
that you do this. He didn't initiate that process; I did.
Q Betty Currie, if I may, and Mr. Kendall, also --
about Betty Currie, if I may --
Q -- and he couldn't remember if he was ever alone
with Monica Lewinsky. How could that have been a truthful answer?
MR. KENDALL: You know, our rebuttal addresses that.
That's not what he testified. He testified that he did, in fact,
have recollections of that. It's all worked out in our rebuttal.
Q Mr. Kendall, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem
to be saying today that the President did not perjure himself on
January 17th, but even if he did, it's not a high crime or
misdemeanor. Is that a mis-impression on my part?
MR. KENDALL: No, he did not perjure himself. What is a
high crime or misdemeanor is finally up to the judgment of the House,
but certainly events which are largely private have never been the
basis for impeachment based upon the precedence of the House.
Q What is your level of confidence in the Republicans
on the Judiciary Committee and in Mr. Hyde's in particular,
impartiality?
MR. KENDALL: Mr. Ruff and I had a meeting with Chairman
Hyde and Congressman Conyers and their staff yesterday. I think it
was a good meeting. We talked about issues of mutual concern and I
believe that they intend to conduct a fair hearing.
Q Mr. Kendall, since so much of this definition of
sexual relations is at the core of whether or not the President
committed perjury -- you say he did not, the independent counsel says
he did -- and since both Monica Lewinsky and the President deny that
there was ever any sexual intercourse, are you disputing the other
descriptions of the sexual encounters that Monica Lewinsky described
in such graphic detail?
MR. KENDALL: I haven't read all those. The President
has acknowledged wrongful intimate conduct with Ms. Lewinsky. He's
also testified, as you'll see from his deposition, about his
understanding of the very narrow and contorted definition of sexual
relations at the Paula Jones deposition.
Q But if the President sought to arouse Monica
Lewinsky --
MR. KENDALL: I'm not going to answer speculation.
Q May I now address my question, now that other
networks have had their second question?
Q Did you go to court this week to delay the release
of this report? And when did you go --
MR. KENDALL: I did not. I requested a copy of the
report from the independent counsel on Monday.
Q -- file any motions to delay the report?
MR. KENDALL: We did not.
Q Some White House strategists have said privately
that from a public relations standpoint this case has been botched by
the President's counsel. I ask you what do you say to that? And
also, do you foresee bringing the political strategists in the White
House more into the fold at this point? And if I may, have you ever
seen a legal document like this before?
MR. KENDALL: I'll try and answer all three of those
questions. First of all, I think that the political strategists try
to do their job, the lawyers try to do their job; it's not always a
marriage made in heaven, but I think we try and advance the same
objective.
Second, I think that this is very much a political
question now because the issue is really before the House Judiciary
Committee as a matter of an initial review. And third, I've never
seen a document like this.
Q -- illegal leaks that you say are the source of
most of your rebuttal and the debate so far, what action will you
take and the White House Counsel's Office take to prosecute or
perhaps punish Ken Starr for making --
MR. KENDALL: Well, those are sealed proceedings. I
will only say that we will energetically pursue our remedies for
illegal leaking and it's very much alive.
Q About Betty Currie? You say that there could be no
witness tampering in the case of Betty Currie because at the time
whatever conversations the President had with her she was not a
witness, or was going to be called as a witness. But as we
understand it, on the Sunday after the Saturday he gave his
deposition in the Paula Jones case, he called Ms. Currie into the
White House and discussed with her whether he had ever really been
alone with Monica Lewinsky, saying, I don't think I've been alone
with her; have I? We know now, of course, he knew he'd been alone
with Monica Lewinsky. So what was the purpose of discussing that
with Betty Currie if it was not to try to shape her recollection
falsely?
MR. RUFF: I don't know whether you've pulled the
relevant page off the Internet, Sam, but if you look at that portion
of the report, it reflects Ms. Currie's own testimony that she did
not feel that she was being influenced, misled or otherwise
mistreated in the course of that conversation.
Q I understand, Mr. Ruff, but what do you think the
President had in mind when he was falsely going over his own
recollection with her?
MR. RUFF: Well, we've got to start with your premise.
What the President was attempting to do -- as he has testified -- was
to refresh his recollection about a series of events that had
occurred over the preceding year. There's nothing --
Q -- sexual contact with Monica Lewinsky.
MR. RUFF: There's nothing in this report, other than
the independent counsel's speculation -- totally baseless because it
doesn't reflect any record that I'm aware of -- that Ms. Currie was
going to be a witness.
Let me turn the question around. If the President was
seeking in some fashion to influence somebody, why would he do that
with somebody who wasn't on a witness list in the Jones' case, which
was two weeks away from closing discovery -- nobody had ever
suggested that Betty Currie was going to be a witness -- and the
President didn't know that there was a grand jury investigation.
Q -- and a good one.
MR. RUFF: And he was guessing?
Q Mr. Ruff, you never answered Sam's question. I
mean, Sam's question was what other plausible reason would there be
for the President to be trying to recollect his memory with Betty
Currie?
MR. RUFF: All I can tell you is the President has a lot
of things on his mind other than, believe it or not, this matter --
and did on January 18th. He's testified exactly why he asked those
questions. He was seeking to refresh his recollection.
Q Wouldn't it have been wiser to turn out this
73-page rebuttal immediately after the President's testimony in
August, or even prior to that time?
MR. KENDALL: We didn't have the benefit of all the
leaks that we've had in the last week. We tried to address, before
we got the document, what was going to be in the document.
Q But you did have the benefit of the knowledge of
what he said and what kind of questions he was asked. Was that, in
retrospect, a poor political judgment or a poor legal judgment?
MR. KENDALL: I don't believe it was either.
Q Mr. Kendall, you suggested that you expect a fair
trial. Would you explain a little bit, since the American people
want to know what's going to happen to their President, what will
happen and how you will deal with what happens on the Hill? What
will your strategy be?
MR. KENDALL: As we say where I come from, every pancake
ever made has two sides. I think we will have a fair opportunity to
present our side. At yesterday's meeting we didn't talk about
particular details of procedures. We did talk, though, about the
need for us to have an opportunity to respond to and rebut the
allegations that might be in the Starr -- prosecutor's report, and I
think we're going to have that.
Q Mr. Kendall, are there any serious errors in fact
in this report that you've found so far?
MR. KENDALL: I'm sure there are. I've gotten only a
short time ago, and I'm not going to be able to specify them all at
this time. But there are many.
Thanks.
END 5:22 P.M. EDT
