(1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee;

He admitted that he had an inappropriate intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.   He refused to give specific sexual details.  Ms. Lewinsky testified as to specific places on her body where she was touched.  She told a number of friends that she was touched in those places.  Mr. Clinton's estimate as to when the first sexual contact occurred is not the same date as the one Ms. Lewinsky gives for the when the first sexual contact occured.  Mr. Clinton testified that the relationship was first friendship, then it included sexual contact, then it returned to a platonic friendship.   Ms. Lewinsky testified that sexual contact occured prior to any friendship, that later Mr. Clinton stopped all sexual contact, and that then there was a platonic friendship that she kept trying to to transform back into a relationship that would include sexual contact.  Ms. Lewinsky has embellished the "facts" about her relationships with men in the past -- and women, such as telling others that she lunched regularly with the first lady.  The accuracy of Ms. Lewinsky's testimony has been called into question by the prosecutors themselves.  Mr. Starr has asserted that Ms. Lewinsky, in at least one instance, misinterpreted discussions she was engaged in.   Ms. Lewinsky told different and contradictory versions of "where she was touched" to her friends.

(2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him;

Mr. Clinton accurately testified to the fact that he did not have sexual intercourse with Ms. Lewinsky.  Mr. Clinton carefully and possibly equivocally responded to questions about sexual contact with Ms. Lewinsky and how it did or did not match the complicated definition of sex put forth in the now dismissed and settled Jones' case. At this time, both parties in this suit have agreed that neither party in this suit should be held liable for anything that has to do with this suit.  Not to worry, we're sure you did not read that part of the settlement.

At the time this testimony was given, the Judge stated that she thought it possible Mr. Clinton would not be able to understand that definition.  Mr. Clinton's attorneys invited the attorneys on the other side to ask Mr. Clinton about specific aspects of his physical contact with Ms. Lewinsky.  They chose not to do so.  They only asked questions that specifically addressed the definition that the Judge had deemed possibly confusing.

The House of Representatives voted down an Article of Impeachment that alleged Mr. Clinton had been perjurious in this specific situation.  There is no substantial and credible evidence that he lied during his testimony in the Jones' case.  Therefore, his Grand Jury testimony that does not acknowledge lying in that previous testimony cannot be proven to be a lie.

But we have still decided to impeach The President of the United States for not lying about not lying at that time.  Go figure.

It does sound a lot better if you take his answers about sexual intercourse and mistakenly present them as answers about the Jones' case definition of sex.  It does sound a lot better if you take his answers that were addressing questions that specifically related to the Jones' definition and then claim he was talking about his personal definition of sexual relations instead.  This is our substantial and credible evidence to impeach your president.

(3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and

	This one is just plain weird and hard to follow.  Apparently, a defendant is supposed to interrupt his attorney during a court hearing anytime the attorney might be saying something that might be untrue.  Additionally, even if the attorney later corrects the mistake, the defendant is still guilty of a crime for not interrupting his attorney during a court proceeding.
	Mr. Clinton's attorney incorrectly asserts that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit asserts that "there was no sex of any kind."  It does not say that.  Her affidavit only asserts that no sexual intercourse occurred.
	Supposedly, Mr. Clinton knew what her affidavit said because at the same time his attorney was mischaracterizing what the affidavit said he also said that his client knew what the affidavit said.  Well, he kind of said that.  Not directly, but he implied it.  Sometime during these proceedings, Mr. Clinton may have seen the affidavit.  Whether or not he read parts of it at this time or not is a bit unclear.   The entire event is on tape, so if we could look at the whole tape instead of just parts of it, we might be able to determine this for ourselves.
	Okay, let's just keep going with what we have.  Assume Mr. Clinton knew that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit said she never had sexual intercourse with him but that it did not deny other types of sexual contact.  Assume that Mr. Clinton was paying attention to what his attorney was saying [on tape it looks like he is looking at his attorney when his attorney is speaking.]  Assume then that Mr. Clinton knew that when his attorney said the affidavit said there was no sex of any kind Mr. Clinton knew that that was not precisely what the affidavit said.  Hence, he knew that what his attorney said could be misleading.
	Next, the tape shows that at that point Mr. Clinton did not interrupt his attorney to clarify that the affidavit only denied sexual intercourse but did not address other types of sexual contact.

This action, or rather, this lack of action is a crime.  It justifies impeaching The President of the United States.

(4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

	Mr. Clinton talked to his secretary who was never on the witness list and who was never called to testify in this case.
	He says he talked to her in order to refresh his memory.  He asked her a series of questions about recent events.  Most of his questions could be answered in the affirmative at some point in time but not all points in time.  For example. Ms. Lewinsky testified that she repeatedly asked Mr. Clinton to have sexual intercourse with her and that he always refused.
	His secretary said she did not feel pressured by Mr. Clinton's questions.
	Both Mr. Clinton and his secretary have testified that during that time they were worried about what the press was going to say.  This was during the time that the Drudge Report appeared on the internet.
	His secretary was never on a witness list and never called to testify in that case.   His secretary has testified that she did not feel pressured by the questions.   His secretary testified that they were concerned about the press, not about the civil suit that she was never called to testify in.  Ms. Lewinsky's testimony and Ms. Currie's testimony actually indicates that some of the questions could be truthfully answered in the affirmative.
	This is our substantial and credible evidence that Mr. Clinton engaged in tampering with a witness that was never a witness and, therefore, he should be impeached.   Brilliant.

On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses.

Mr. Clinton told the American public and then told his aides that he had never had sexual intercourse with Ms. Lewinsky.  Because he used the synonym "sexual relations" for coitus, some people including some members of his staff misunderstood what he was saying and thought he was denying any sexual contact of any kind.  Later, the Grand Jury called some of Mr. Clinton's staff to testify, so they did actually become witnesses.

Therefore, as long as you do not believe that Mr. Clinton did this so that the American people and his friends and assistants and family would believe that he had not had sexual intercourse with Ms. Lewinsky [which is true], then you can believe that this entire set of events was done solely for the purpose of influencing their testimony if they were ever called as witnesses.

The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.

	At this point, you should have figured out that Mr. Clinton's statements were not false.   All of the evidence supports his assertion that he did not have sexual intercourse with Ms. Lewinsky.
	However, because he used the synonym "sexual relations" in place of the word "coitus," we are convinced he was being intentionally misleading.
	Thus, once we were able to find a reason to subpoena someone he had used the synonym with, we had created a situation in which he had made a misleading statement to someone who became a witness.

Phew, this then becomes substantial and credible evidence for impeaching The President of the United States.

Therefore, because Mr. Clinton told the truth about not having intercourse with Ms. Lewinsky, because Mr. Clinton did not interrupt his attorney in court and clarify that Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit only denied sexual intercourse but did not deny fooling around, because Ms. Lewinsky gave a box containing some but not all of the gifts she had received from Mr. Clinton to someone else to keep, because Mr. Clinton discussed certain aspects of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky with his secretary who was never a witness in the Jones' case, because Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky may have discussed not telling anyone that they had had some type of sexual contact and such discussions had such a significant influence on Ms. Lewinsky that she told many friends, her mother and two therapists about the sexual contact, because Mr. Clinton would not give Ms. Lewinsky the job she wanted and she managed to get some job offers in New York instead  --  we have decided the following:

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

Lynch Him   
Cover Page
Table of Contents
Chronology
Study Chart
Table of Names
Introduction
Narrative
Grounds
End Page
The Star Field
Ode to Mr. Thatsher
Progress
Pages of Proof