Clinton tampered with witness Currie, there is no doubt:
When Clinton Called Betty Currie
By Michael Kelly
Wednesday, January 27, 1999; Page A21
Bill Clinton must have grinned Tuesday when the prosecutors in his impeachment trial requested only three witnesses to make their case -- and Betty Currie wasn't one of them. The president knows that his secretary can testify to a truth he most devoutly wishes to hide.
It is this: Clinton coached Currie to agree with his lies about the Lewinsky affair after he learned that independent counsel Kenneth Starr had launched a criminal investigation he must have known would certainly call Currie as a witness. Indeed, a subpoena had been issued for Currie at the time of this coaching session, although she had not yet been served.
The Starr Report and the House Judiciary Committee both made little of this fact. It might have remained largely unnoticed except for the forensic talents of David Tell, the chief editorialist for the Weekly Standard. Tell has twice -- most recently this week -- argued that the record indicates Clinton must have coached Currie the second time after she became an actual or imminent subpoenaed grand jury witness. The case against Clinton for witness tampering in a federal criminal proceeding is a strong one.
On Saturday, Jan. 17, 1998, Clinton was questioned under oath by Paula Jones's attorneys about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. He lied and he urged the Jones lawyers to question Currie, clearly expecting that she would back up his lies. The following day, Sunday, Jan. 18, Clinton led Currie to agree with a series of false statements about Lewinsky and himself, which jibed with the false answers Clinton had given the day before.
From Currie's initial FBI interview: "Currie advised that Clinton said something like: 'You do remember I was never alone with Monica, right?' . . . Currie said that Clinton said something like: 'Monica came on to me and I never touched her, right?' . . . Currie advised [that] Clinton said something to the effect of: '[Lewinsky] wanted to have sex with me, and I cannot do that.' "
This first Currie coaching session is well known. But there was a second session. The second session, Currie testified to the grand jury, "was sort of a recap[it]ulation of what we had talked about on Sunday -- you know, 'I was never alone with her' -- that sort of thing." Clinton testified that he did not recall this second conversation. He has excellent reason to forget.
On Tuesday, Jan. 20, two important events occurred: (1) Starr issued a subpoena for Currie (but did not serve it until the evening of the 21st); and (2) that night, White House lawyers Lanny Davis and Charles Ruff and other senior advisers to the president learned that The Washington Post would, in the next morning's paper, break the news that Starr was investigating Clinton for alleged perjury and obstruction of justice in the Lewinsky matter.
And, at least by 12:30 a.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 21, when The Post put the story on its Web site, the president's lawyers and advisers knew that the story named Currie as someone who dealt directly with Lewinsky, making it certain that Starr would question her.
From Curry's grand jury testimony, we know that the president knew all of this too. At 1:16 a.m., he called Currie at home and talked for 20 minutes. Currie told the grand jury that Clinton told her that "a story is going to be in The Post tomorrow, that my name was in it." She said he talked "mostly about the article," and that "he just went on and on about that." Currie told the FBI Clinton mentioned "something about Linda Tripp."
Why is this call significant? Because Currie's second coaching session with Clinton most certainly occurred after this call -- after the president knew from The Post that he was the subject of a criminal investigation that would necessarily involve Currie. To the FBI: "Currie advised the next time she saw Clinton was either Tuesday or Wednesday. . . . They had a five-minute conversation. Currie advised their conversation was a repeat of their conversation on Sunday evening, where Clinton went over what he was asked at his deposition."
There are two points of confusion in the record. In her FBI interview, Currie said that the call from Clinton about The Post story came on the 18th or the 19th. But here she must be mistaken. Clinton did call Currie late in the evening of the 18th, but that call, while concerning the Lewinsky matter, could not have been the one Currie testified came just prior to the second coaching session.
Why? Because on the evening of the 18th, Clinton could not have known of The Post story, could not have known that the story would name Currie, and could not have known that story would also name Linda Tripp, who had not previously been mentioned in connection with the Lewinsky matter. He could not have known any of this until the night of the 20th.
Currie also said that her second coaching conversation with Clinton occurred on either Tuesday, Jan. 20, or Wednesday, Jan. 21. But it couldn't have been on Tuesday. Again, because Currie told the FBI the second conversation took place after Clinton called her to discuss The Post article, and White House phone logs show that call occurred at 1:16 a.m. Wednesday.
A final point of confusion: The Starr Report, at one point, says the second Clinton-Currie coaching conversation took place on either Tuesday the 20th or Wednesday the 21st. But at another point, the report explicitly places the conversation on the morning of Jan. 21, after the 1:16 a.m. phone call. And, in the context of the overall record, it seems clear that it is this latter placement that is the correct one.
The import of Currie's testimony is clear: Knowing that he was the subject of a federal grand jury investigation, and knowing that Currie must be called to testify in this investigation, Clinton called Currie in and ran her through the cover-up story one more time. At the time, whether Clinton knew it or not, Currie was in fact a subpoenaed witness. Bill Clinton tampered with a witness in a federal criminal proceeding.
Michael Kelly is the editor of National Journal.
washingtonpost.com |
