Today's Whasington Post article on Jordan and Lewinsky conflicts in testimony : still not a word about Jordan denying meeting Lewinsky at the Hyatt for breakfast in December.
This conflict is much too simple and obvious to understand for the average American. They should not be told about it.
See, it's quite easy to fudge about conversations that took place, but it's a lot harder to appear even remotely credible when you pretend that you never met somebody over for breakfast in a Hotel.
How do you like your mainstream media ? Light, Medium, Well-done,or Totally corrupt ?
House Prosecutors Question Jordan
By Laurie Kellman
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, February 2, 1999; 3:06 a.m. EST
WASHINGTON (AP) -- House prosecutors are questioning Vernon Jordan on the conflicts between his testimony and Monica Lewinsky's in a final effort to bolster the perjury and obstruction case against President Clinton.
As senators for the first time today got access privately to Ms. Lewinsky's videotaped deposition, prosecutors were focusing their questions on some of the discrepancies that emerged after Jordan testified to a grand jury for a fifth and final time on June 9, according to a knowledgeable source who spoke Monday only on condition of anonymity.
It marked the first time Jordan, a Washington attorney and longtime Clinton friend, has testified since August, when Ms. Lewinsky began cooperating with Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.
In contrast to Jordan, Ms. Lewinsky gave the grand jury specific details that linked Jordan to conversations about gifts she received from Clinton, destroyed notes to the president and a false affidavit in which she denied an affair.
On Monday, in the first time she was exposed to possible questioning by Clinton's lawyers, Ms. Lewinsky gave testimony that closely tracked her earlier grand jury account, according to sources familiar with the testimony who spoke on condition of anonymity. The sources were not associated with the House prosecution team and worked outside the White House. Ms. Lewinsky's lawyers declined comment.
The differences in testimony are important because Jordan arranged a job for the former White House intern at the same time she was preparing the affidavit in December 1997. The two actions are joined in the impeachment article accusing Clinton of obstruction of justice.
Some examples of the discrepancies:
--According to grand jury testimony released by Congress, Ms. Lewinsky said she showed Jordan some gifts she'd received from the president; Jordan didn't recall being shown any.
--She said she thought Jordan was instructing her to destroy drafts of notes she'd written to the president. He denied ever telling her to destroy documents.
--He said he had no reason to doubt her denial of having had a sexual relationship with Clinton. While she didn't directly contradict Jordan's account, she did say she told him she had had sexually explicit phone conversations with Clinton.
In addition, Jordan said he remembered skimming the affidavit she filed in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case against Clinton, but not discussing it with Ms. Lewinsky. And through his lawyer, Jordan said he did not recall any reference to sexually explicit phone calls.
Ms. Lewinsky said she told Clinton's friend she was concerned about some of the language in her affidavit because it could cause the Jones lawyers to ask her if she'd ever been alone with the president.
Ms. Lewinsky's recollection is filled with other specific detail.
Regarding the sexually explicit phone calls, she said the topic arose after she told Jordan she was worried someone might have eavesdropped on her conversations with Clinton, and Jordan asked her why.
In the same conversation, the former White House intern said, she showed Jordan some gifts Clinton had given her.
When prosecutors questioned Jordan, he said he'd never had breakfast with Ms. Lewinsky. She said otherwise, describing details of what she and Jordan ate -- testimony corroborated by a restaurant receipt signed by Jordan.
Jordan's deposition is the second of three such sessions, as the Senate edges closer to the end of Clinton's impeachment trial. The trial is to resume Thursday, and unless the depositions yield new information, the Senate will proceed to closing arguments and final deliberations that could meet the lawmakers' target for ending the trial by Feb. 12, or sooner. Videotapes of the three depositions could be made public if a majority of senators vote to do so, or the witnesses could be called to testify live.
Under threat of nullifying her immunity agreement, Ms. Lewinsky offered no new information to House prosecutors during four hours of questioning by Rep. Ed Bryant, R-Tenn., according to the sources familiar with her testimony on Monday.
Passing up an opportunity to question her, White House lawyers instead offered an apology on Clinton's behalf.
Private presidential attorney Nicole Seligman read a statement that apologized to Ms. Lewinsky ''on behalf of the president for all the trouble the investigation and impeachment trial had caused her,'' one of the sources said.
One source said Ms. Lewinsky reaffirmed that:
--When she asked Clinton what to do about subpoenaed gifts from him on Dec. 28, 1997, his response was something like ''let me think about it.''
White House lawyers had argued to the Senate that on other occasions, Ms. Lewinsky said Clinton had no reaction.
--In a middle-of-the-night conversation on Dec. 17, 1997, Clinton told her she was on the witness list in the Jones lawsuit, suggested she could file an affidavit and mentioned their previously arranged cover stories to explain why she was coming to see the president. On Jan. 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky signed an affidavit denying an affair.
© Copyright 1999 The Associated Press |
