Article III

December 19, 1998
The Congress of the United States has decided to impeach The President of the United States because he disagrees with Starr's Witness, Ms. Lewinsky, as to when they first had sexual contact and agrees with her that he never asked her to lie and that no one got her a job in order to buy her testimony.

Draft of Article III ARTICLE III

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action [i.e. a frivolous sexual harassment case funded by Scaife] brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.

Please try to follow the logic here.

	First, we will now call the civil suit that Paula Jones filed against Mr. Clinton a Federal civil rights action. This wording sounds much more ominous.
	Second, forget that the Judge ruled there were no grounds for this suit.
	Third, forget that Mrs. Jones has signed an agreement [under oath???] that releases both her and Mr. Clinton from any liability in this matter.
	Fourth, remember that Ms. Lewinsky has testified that the President informed her that some individuals who were subpoenaed by Mrs. Jones' attorneys to testify in this suit submitted affidavits.
	Fifth, forget that the evidence [illegally obtained taped phone conversations] shows that Ms. Lewinsky is the one who talked about filing a "false affidavit" with Ms. Tripp and that Ms. Lewinsky is the one who asked Ms. Tripp to lie.
	Six, do not listen to the tapes where Ms. Lewinsky asserts, insists and argues with her friend Ms. Tripp that "sexual relations" means intercourse, that she has always believed that sexual relations means intercourse, and that she does not and cannot count Mr. Clinton in her long list of men with whom she has had sexual relations.
	Seven, do not read Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit. Do not under any circumstances look at the transcript of Mr. Clinton's deposition to discover that he was only asked about the veracity of certain parts of her affidavit, not the entire affidavit. Do not discover that both Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky actually believe the dictionary definition of "sexual relations" = coitus. Therefore, you are ordered not to notice that the part of Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit that Mr. Clinton was questioned about, i.e. where she asserts she did not have sexual relations with him, is in fact a true statement according to both of them.
	Seven, phew, unless you follow our directions carefully, you will believe that we have decided to impeach your President because, in the midst of a frivolous law suit, as to which he has now been released of any and all liability, he suggested a witness could submit an affidavit and that we have decided to impeach your duly elected President because he testified that a true statement was true.

(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.

This may have to do with Ms. Lewinsky's testimony that she talked on the phone with Mr. Clinton. According to the testimony, they may or may not have discussed the subpoena she received to be a witness in the now defunct Jones' civil suit. They may or may not have discussed the desirability of keeping the details of their [now in the past] sexual contacts private. Ms. Lewinsky does clearly testify that Mr. Clinton never asked her to lie. She does tell elaborate stories about how she or they hid their sexual contacts from others.

Thus, this is substantial and credible evidence that allows us to impeach your president.

(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

This is the one about the gifts.

	Ms. Lewinsky testified approximately 10 different times that she told Mr. Clinton she was worried because her subpoena asked her to turn over any gifts she had received from him and specified a hatpin. She had told Ms. Tripp that he had given her a hatpin, but she had never told him that she had told Ms. Tripp. Sometimes she testifies that Mr. Clinton mumbled something in response to her ideas about hiding the gifts. Sometimes she says he said nothing at all. Once she testifies that there was no discussion at all. She definitely testifies that he did not suggest to her that she give the gifts to Betty Currie.
	Betty Currie testified that Ms. Lewinsky asked her to keep a box for her. Ms. Currie testified that Mr. Clinton did not know anything about this.
	Ms. Lewinsky testified that Ms. Currie called her and said that Mr. Clinton had told Ms. Currie to pick up something from Ms. Lewinsky. Ms. Currie testified that she did not initiate the call. Ms. Currie testified that she did not tell Ms. Lewinsky that Mr. Clinton had told her to call Ms. Lewinsky or to pick up the box.
	The box was labeled "Do not throw away."
	Ms. Lewinsky testified that when she said something to someone or did something with someone that knew Mr. Clinton she could imagine she was actually saying or doing something with Mr. Clinton. When she talks to Mr. Jordan, she feels like she is talking to Mr. Clinton. Despite the testimony of her psychotherapists, Ms. Lewinsky's own testimony indicates that she has "loose boundaries" and that her own imagination gets her carried away into falsely believing that contact with one person means she has had contact with an entirely different person, in some kind of second-hand association. She does not just do this in regard to Mr. Clinton. When the assistant to the UN Ambassador calls her, she feels like she received a call from the UN Ambassador. When she travels as a part of her Pentagon job, she is "going to Europe" with the secretary of defense. When she is interviewing for jobs in New York, she tells people she has been lunching with Mrs. Clinton who is helping her find an apartment.
	The only recorded call from Ms. Currie to Ms. Lewinsky that day occurred after the time Ms. Lewinsky testified that the gifts were picked up.
	Ms. Currie and Ms. Lewinsky both testified that Ms. Lewinsky gave a box to Ms. Currie.
	Evidence: The box contained some but not all of the gifts Mr. Clinton had given to Ms. Lewinsky. It also contained a copy of the newspaper personal ad Ms. Lewinsky had put in the paper hoping Mr. Clinton would read it, i.e the box contained at least one item that was not a gift from Mr. Clinton to Ms. Lewinsky.
	Mr. Clinton gave Ms. Lewinsky more gifts on the day he was supposedly informed that gifts had been subpoenaed. Mr. Clinton has testified that he was not concerned about the gifts being subpoenaed because he gives many people gifts and because he had finally been effective at setting appropriate boundaries with Ms. Lewinsky that excluded sexual contact from their relationship.
	Mr. Jordan testified that Ms. Lewinsky had let him know how upset she was about the subpoena, and he had assured her it was just a standard subpoena and that there was nothing to worry about.

Phew, we think this is substantial and credible evidence that requires us to impeach your president.

(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.

	The job search began long before this date, but we don't like to mention that because it weakens our case. We also do not want you to notice that the testimony does not indicate Mr. Clinton actually did anything to help her get a job. Ms. Lewinsky may have suggested to Mr. Clinton that Mr. Jordan could help her. Ms. Lewinsky told Ms. Currie that Mr. Clinton said Mr. Jordan would help her. Ms. Lewinsky likes to name drop. She has found that she can often effectively motivate people to help her if she claims that someone in a position of power supports her ideas. Ms. Currie testified that she was the one that asked Mr. Jordan to help Ms. Lewinsky.
	Ms. Lewinsky begged, threatened, and cajoled Mr. Clinton and others to try to get the job she really wanted: A position at the White House. She wanted to return to work at the White House. Her testimony, the testimony of others, the illegally taped phone conversations and much more evidence demonstrates that this is the job she really wanted. Ms. Lewinsky was never offered such a job.
	Mr. Jordan met with Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Jordan gave Ms. Lewinsky a list of possible job leads. Other people with no connection at all to Mr. Clinton gave Ms. Lewinsky job leads.
	Ms. Lewinsky was offered a job at Revlon before the person who offered her the job ever heard that Mr. Jordan had contacted an influential person at Revlon and recommended Ms. Lewinsky for a position at Revlon. All the witnesses at Revlon testified that Ms. Lewinsky was hired through standard business practices and that it was not Mr. Jordan's recommendation that secured the job for Ms. Lewinsky.
	Ms. Tripp [listen to the illegally taped phone conversations again] repeatedly tried to get Ms. Lewinsky not to sign the affidavit until Mr. Jordan got her a job. Ms. Tripp told Ms. Lewinsky to tell Mr. Jordan: "No job; no affidavit." Ms. Lewinsky did not follow Ms. Tripp's advice in this matter. She never told Mr. Jordan that signing the affidavit was dependent on getting her a job. Ms. Tripp actually failed in this attempt to have Ms. Lewinsky entrap Mr. Jordan, and hence by association Mr. Clinton.

This is the substantial and credible evidence that requires us to attempt to overturn the democratic election of The President of the United States.

(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.

	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.

(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998,William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.

	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.

(7) 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 all of 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.