|
|
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Transcripts from video deposition of Lewinsky, Jordan, and BlumenthalJump to the start of individual depositions: Lewinsky, Jordan, Blumenthal [Previous Page][Page S1221][Next Page]
guards the okay for you to come in. Is that a short synopsis? A. I'm not really versed on-- Q. I'm not either. You know more than I do, probably, since you worked there, but-- A. Well, I know you had to go, you had to type in a thing in at WAVES, and now you have to give a Social Security, birth date, have to show ID. Q. Is there a record kept of that? A. I believe so. Q. Was it always Betty Currie that WAVE'd you in to the-- access to the White House? I'm talking about now after you left and went to work at the Pentagon. A. No. Q. Other people did that? A. There were other reasons that I came to the White House at times. Q. Did you ever ask the President if he would WAVE you in? A. Yes. Q. Did he ever do that? A. No, not to my--not to my knowledge. Q. Was there a reason? Did he express anything to you why he would or would not? A. Yes. He said that, uh--I believe he said something about that there's a specific list made of people that he requests to come in and--and there are people who have access to that list. Q. So, obviously, he didn't want your name being on that list? A. Correct. Q. Now, some of those people-- A. I think--well, that's my understanding. Q. Would some of those people be the people that worked outside his office, Ms. Lieberman and those--those folks? A. I--I believe so, but I'm not really sure. Q. Did you not want those people to know that you were inside the White House? A. I didn't. Q. Why is that? A. Because they didn't like me. Q. Would they have objected, do you think--if you know. A. I don't know. Q. Did you work with Betty Currie on occasions to--to get in to see the President, perhaps bypass some of these people? A. Yes. Q. And that would be another way that you would conceal the meeting with the President, by using Betty Currie to get you in? A. I--I think, yes, be cautious of it. Q. Did--well, I think we've covered that, about some papers, and I think we've covered that after you left your job inside the White House with Legislative Affairs and went to the Pentagon, you developed a story, a cover story to the effect that you were going to see Betty, that's how you would come in officially? A. Correct. Q. And during that time that you were at the Pentagon, you would more likely visit him on weekends or during the week? Which would--which would-- A. Weekends. Q. Weekends. And why--why the weekends? A. First, I think he had less work, and second of all, there were--I believe there were less people around. Q. Now, whose idea was it for you to come on weekends? A. I believe it was the President's. Q. When you--when the President was in his office, was your purpose to go there and see him? If he was in the office, you would go see him? A. What--I'm sorry. Q. No--that's not clear. I'll withdraw that question. Was Ms. Currie, the President's secretary--was she in the loop, so to speak, in keeping this relationship and how you got in and out of the White House, keeping that quiet? A. I think I actually remember reading part of my grand jury testimony about this and that it was more specific in that she was in the loop about my friendship with the President, but I just want to not necessarily--there was a clarification, I believe, in that about knowledge of the complete relationship or not. So-- Q. She would help with the gifts and notes and things like that--the passing? A. Yes. Q. Would you agree that these cover stories that you've just testified to, if they were told to the attorneys for Paula Jones, that they would be misleading to them and not be the whole story, the whole truth? A. They would--yes, I guess misleading. They were literally true, but they would be misleading, so incomplete. Q. As I understand your testimony, too, the cover stories were reiterated to you by the President that night on the telephone-- A. Correct. Q. --and after he told you you would be a witness--or your name was on the witness list, I should say? A. Correct. Q. And did you understand that since your name was on the witness list that there would be a possibility that you could be subpoenaed to testify in the Paula Jones case? A. I think I understood that I could be subpoenaed, and there was a possibility of testifying. I don't know if I necessarily thought it was a subpoena to testify, but-- Q. Were you in fact subpoenaed to testify? A. Yes. Q. And that was what-- A. December 19th, 1997. Q. December 19th. Now, you have testified in the grand jury. I think your closing comments was that no one ever asked you to lie, but yet in that very conversation of December the 17th, 1997 when the President told you that you were on the witness list, he also suggested that you could sign an affidavit and use misleading cover stories. Isn't that correct? A. Uh--well, I--I guess in my mind, I separate necessarily signing affidavit and using misleading cover stories. So, does-- Q. Well, those two-- A. Those three events occurred, but they don't--they weren't linked for me. Q. But they were in the same conversation, were they not? A. Yes, they were. Q. Did you understand in the context of the conversation that you would deny the--the President and your relationship to the Jones lawyers? A. Do you mean from what was said to me or-- Q. In the context of that--in the context of that conversation, December the 17th-- A. I--I don't--I didn't-- Q. Okay. Let me ask it. Did you understand in the context of the telephone conversation with the President that early morning of December the 17th--did you understand that you would deny your relationship with the President to the Jones lawyers through use of these cover stories? A. From what I learned in that--oh, through those cover stories, I don't know, but from what I learned in that conversation, I thought to myself I knew I would deny the relationship. Q. And you would deny the relationship to the Jones lawyers? A. Yes, correct. Q. Good. A. If--if that's what it came to. Q. And in fact you did deny the relationship to the Jones lawyers in the affidavit that you signed under penalty of perjury; is that right? A. I denied a sexual relationship. Q. The President did not in that conversation on December the 17th of 1997 or any other conversation, for that matter, instruct you to tell the truth; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And prior to being on the witness list, you--you both spoke-- A. Well, I guess any conversation in relation to the Paula Jones case. I can't say that any conversation from the--the entire relationship that he didn't ever say, you know, "Are you mad? Tell me the truth." So-- Q. And prior to being on the witness list, you both spoke about denying this relationship if asked? A. Yes. That was discussed. Q. He would say something to the effect that--or you would say that--you--you would deny anything if it ever came up, and he would nod or say that's good, something to that effect; is that right? A. Yes, I believe I testified to that. Q. Let me shift gears just a minute and ask you about--and I'm going to be delicate about this because I'm conscious of people here in the room and my--my own personal concerns--but I want to refer you to the first so-called salacious occasion, and I'm not going to get into the details. I'm not-- A. Can--can we--can you call it something else? Q. Okay. A. I mean, this is--this is my relationship-- Q. What would you like to call it? A. --so, I mean, is-- Q. This is the--or this was-- A. It was my first encounter with the President, so I don't really see it as my first salacious--that's not what this was. Q. Well, that's kind of been the word that's been picked up all around. So-- A. Right. Q. --let's stay on this first-- A. Encounter, maybe? Q. Encounter, okay. A. Okay. Q. So we all know what we're talking about. You had several of these encounters, perhaps 10 or 11 of these encounters; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, with regard to the first one on November the 15th, 1995, you have testified to a set of facts where the President actually touched you in certain areas--is that right--and that's--that's where I want to go. That's as far as I want to go with that question. MR. CACHERIS: If that's as far as it goes, we will not object-- MR. BRYANT: Okay. MR. CACHERIS: --and if it goes any further, we will object. MR. BRYANT: Okay. BY MR. BRYANT: Q. You have testified to that? A. Yes. Q. And I have the excerpts out, and I don't--but they've been adopted and affirmed as true. So I'm not going to get-- get you looking at--have you read those excerpts. A. I appreciate that. Q. Now, in the--in later testimony before the grand jury, you were given a definition, and in fact it was the same definition that was used in the Paula Jones lawsuit, of "sexual relations." Do you recall the-- A. So I've read. Q. Yes. A. I was not shown that definition. Q. But you were asked a question that incorporated that definition. A. Not prior to this whole--not prior to the Independent Counsel getting involved. Q. But--no--it was the Independent Counsels themselves who asked you this question. A. Right. Oh, so you're--you're saying in the grand jury, I was shown a definition of-- [[Page S1221]]
|
|
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MORE STORIES:Friday, February 5, 1999
• Transcript highlights from the witness depositions • Bipartisan group moves to open Senate deliberations • Straw poll focuses attention on potential women candidates • Secret Service concerned over Chelsea Clinton cover story • GOP told to develop post-impeachment message • Starr lawyers discuss impeachment • President to establish race relations office • Is Chelsea Clinton a valid journalistic subject? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
