HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017356.jpg

4.2.12 WC: 191694 then in place — the Jones lawsuit and the Kenneth Starr investigation. These legal proceedings escalated the stakes by turning a private sexual encounter into the subject of sworn testimony and investigation by an independent counsel. It is unlikely that Bill Clinton confided the truth of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky to any of his lawyers. He couldn’t, because his principle lawyer was representing both him and his wife. Thus if he didn’t want his wife to find out about Lewinsky, he could not tell his lawyer about her. It is likely that his lawyers suspected the possibility that there was some truth to the rumors that something untoward had occurred between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. After all, Clinton did tell his lawyers — and did testify -- that he engaged in adulterous sex with Gennifer Flowers, despite his previous public denial. Moreover his reputation was well known. Any lawyer worth his salt should have based decisions regarding the president’s testimony on the assumption that he may well have engaged in a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. A good lawyer should also have assumed that a twenty two year old intern who had engaged in a sexual relationship with the President would talk about it. His lawyer in the Paula Jones case, Robert Bennett, was on notice that the president was going to be asked about Lewinsky. If he had conducted any kind of investigation to determine the nature of their relationship he would surely have uncovered the widespread concern around the White House over Monica Lewinsky’s unusual access to the President. He would also have learned of the dozens of logged meetings between the President and a young government employee. This should have put Bennett on notice to probe more deeply. At the very least he should have interviewed Lewinsky, confronted her with the concerns, and asked her direct questions. He should also have interviewed those White House officials who had expressed concern. Yet on the basis of little more than an assurance from the President, he allowed an affidavit to be submitted by Lewinsky denying any sexual relationship. Putting aside the ethical issues arising from relying on an affidavit that he was on notice might well be false, and having his client testify to facts that he had to suspect might be false, it is difficult to understand the tactical considerations that led the president’s lawyers to allow him to testify about his sex life. It is not as if Bennett had not been cautioned about the risks of having the President testify about his sex life at the Jones deposition. On May 27, 1997, six months before President Clinton testified at a deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit, I was a guest expert on “The Geraldo Rivera Show.” I made the following observation and offered the following advice: This case never should have gotten this far. It should have been settled early when he could have settled it easily. He must settle the case. . . Remember, depositions are very broad in latitude. He could be asked questions about adultery. He could be asked questions about his prior sexual life. There are no relevancy objections that are generally sustained to depositions. . . . quoted by Newsweek as saying that as Clinton continuing to define sex more and more narrowly, she begins to think of herself as a virgin! 269 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017356