Timeline of events leading to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in December of 1998.
Compiled by Randy Griffin, PO Box 73653, Fairbanks, Alaska, 99707. Jan. 14, 1999 | ||
| Date | Event | News source |
| May 8, 1991 | Alleged incident in
hotel room between Paula Jones and then Governor Clinton. On that day, they
were both at the Excelsior Hotel, in Little Rock, Arkansas, for an annual
gathering of business executives and government officials. Paula was a state
worker at a table in the hotel lobby, passing out name tags. A portion of her
account is as follows: A state trooper, Danny Ferguson, came by her table to
relay a message from Clinton: “The Governor said you make his knees knock.” Ferguson came back with Clinton’s hotel-room number and the message that the Governor wanted her to stop up in a few minutes. She told the Washington Post that she wasn’t wary of the invitation because “I was brought up to trust people, and especially of that stature -you know a Governor.” | Time, May16, 1994, P. 45 |
| May 8, 1991 | Paula did not file an official complaint during the normal 6-month period that follows an incident of alleged harassment. | U.S. News & World Report Mar. 2 1998, P. 23 |
| 1992 | Kathleen Willey helps organize Clinton’s Virginia campaign committee, and she introduces the candidate to local politicians after the 1992 presidential debate in Richmond. | U.S. News & World
Report, Mar. 30, 1998, P.21 |
| Nov. 29, 1993 | Kathleen Willey (a White House volunteer) meets Clinton in the White House to ask for a paying job. Clinton allegedly hugs her for a long time and gropes her. Clinton asks a White House official to help her find a job. She later gets a job in the Office of the White House Counnsel. |
U.S. News & World Report Mar. 23, 1998, P. 18, 20 Time, Mar. 23, 1998, P.51 |
| Jan. 1994 | The American Spectator (conservative monthly) published the claims of Arkansas state troopers who said then Governor Clinton had used them to bring him women. One of the troopers (Danny Ferguson), told the story of having taken a woman named “Paula” to a hotel room where Clinton was waiting. The story suggested that she had been one of Clinton’s girlfriends. Paula Jones wanted to get a retraction from the magazine to clear her name. Her lawyer, Danny Traylor, however, saw other possibilities: a legal claim with money in it. |
Time, May 16, 1994, P. 45 U.S. News & World Report Jan. 13, 1994, P. 46 |
| Feb. 11, 1994 | Paula goes public with her charges during a press conference at a meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. |
Time, June 9, 1997, P. 24 Time, May 16, 1994, P. 45 |
| May 6, 1994 | Paula Jones files suit against Clinton. | Time, June 9, 1997, P. 24 |
| 1995 | Monica Lewinsky gets a degree in psychology from Lewis and Clark College, near Portland, Oregon. | U.S. News & World
Report, Feb. 2, 1998, P. 16, 18, 19. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Aug. 6, 1998, A-8 |
| Summer, 1995 | Monica Lewinsky, 21,
starts work as a White House intern. Through summer and fall, she is one of about 250 interns. | |
| Nov. 1995 | Lewinsky and Clinton begin affair, which is said to have lasted 18 months. | |
| Apr. 1996 | Lewinsky was transferred to the Pentagon as an assistant to the Defense Department’s bow-tied chief spokesman, Kenneth Bacon. At the Pentagon, Monica becomes friends with Linda Tripp. | |
| Mar. 1997 | A reporter from Newsweek, showed up at Tripp’s desk at the Pentagon. He wanted to know whether Tripp had seen a disheveled Kathleen Willey come out of the Oval Office. Tripp found herself reluctantly admitting that yes, she had seen Willey with her lipstick smeared and skirt askew. Tripp’s name was printed in Newsweek. | U.S. News & W R, March 23, 1998, P. 24 |
| May 27, 1997 | First time that the Supreme Court rules that a sitting president can be sued for actions outside his official duties. The Paula Jones trial is scheduled for May 1998. | The New American, Nov. 10 P. 36 |
| Summer, 1997 | Linda Tripp begins to secretly tape record Monica Lewinsky, after Clinton attorney Robert Bennett suggested Tripp wasn’t telling the truth about another allegation regarding Clinton. Tripp said another White House staffer , Kathleen E. Willey, had confided that she stepped from the Oval Office with Clinton and the president kissed and fondled her. (Nov. 29, 1993 incident) | Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Jan. 22, 1998, A-1 |
| Early Oct. 1997 | First of 3 anonymous phone tips alleging a Lewinsky – Clinton affair, are sent to the Rutherford Institute, which is funding the Paula Jones suit. | Time, Feb. 9, 1998, P. 39 |
| Nov. 1997 | Linda Tripp receives a subpoena from the Paula Jones lawyers. | U.S. News & W R, March 23, 1998, P. 24 |
| Dec. 17, 1997. (Dec. 19, 1997) | Monica Lewinsky receives a subpoena (from Paula Jones lawyers) to testify in the sexual harassment lawsuit of Paula Jones. (Actually, served on Dec. 19, 1997 according to Senate trial.) | Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Jan. 24, 1998, B-1 |
| Dec. 26, 1997 | Lewinsky leaves her job at the Pentagon. | U.S. News & W R, Feb. 2, 1998, P. 16 |
| Jan. 7, 1998 | Lewinsky gives sworn statement denying the affair. | Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Jan. 24, 1998, A-7 |
| Jan. 12, 1998 9 PM | Linda Tripp calls Whitewater independent counsel’s office and tells of Monica’s sexual relationship with Clinton and says that Clinton wanted Monica to conceal it. Tripp tells of her secret tapes. | Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Jan. 25, 1998, A-7 |
| Jan. 12, 1998 10:30 PM | Three Whitewater prosecutors, and an FBI agent drove to Linda Tripp’s home in Columbia, Maryland. | FDNM, Jan. 25, 1998, A-7 |
| Jan. 13, 1998 | Tripp (with hidden microphone) meets with Monica at the Ritz Carlton Hotel near the Pentagon. | FDNM, Jan. 25, 1998, A-7 |
| Jan. 16, 1998 | Tripp meets again
with Monica at the Ritz Carlton Hotel. Six FBI agents and
lawyers swarm around them. They go upstairs to two different rooms. Told
of her friend’s betrayal as well as the evidence the prosecutors had collected,
Lewinsky burst into tears. She was told that if she cooperated with
investigators, they could recommend lenient treatment in any subsequent prosecution. On one of the telephone tapes with Tripp, Lewinsky said that her mother had told her to lie if called to testify about her relationship in the Paula Jones lawsuit. This meant that Lewinsky had placed her mother at risk of possible prosecution too, though Starr’s lawyers assured her they were willing to overlook this if Lewinsky would cooperate. | FDNM, Jan. 25, 1998, A-7 |
| Jan. 17, 1998 | Clinton denies sexual relationship with Lewinsky, under oath, in in a deposition to Jones’ lawyers. | FDNM, Jan. 24, 1998, B-1 |
| Jan. 21, 1998 | Lewinsky story breaks to the press. | U.S. News & W R, Feb. 2 1998, P.17 |
| Jan. 29, 1998 | Judge Susan Webber Wright in Arkansas rules that “evidence concerning Monica Lewinsky should be excluded” from the Jones trial, on the grounds that it was more likely to confuse a jury than cast any light on Jones’ claims. | Time, Feb. 9, 1998, P. 49 |
| Apr. 1, 1998 | U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright dismisses the Jones case, saying Jones’ assertions even if true, “fall far short of the rigorous standards for establishing a claim of outrage under Arkansas law”. | FDNM, Oct. 7, 1998, A-11 |
| Approx. early June, 1998 | Kenneth Star collects fingerprint and handwriting samples from Monica Lewinsky. | U.S. News & W R, June 8, 1998 |
| Before Aug. 6, 1998 | One source described how Lewinsky cried during her preparation sessions with prosecutors working for Independent Council Kenneth Star. Lewinsky, 25, found it painful to discuss sexual subjects that normally would be private, the source added. | FDNM, Aug. 6, 1998, A-1 |
| Aug. 6, 1998 | Monica Lewinsky tells a grand jury that she and Clinton had a sexual relationship in the White House, and discussed ways to conceal their involvement. But she says Clinton never instructed her to lie under oath. She left the courthouse pale and drawn looking. | Fairbanks Daily News-Miner Aug. 7, 1998, A-1 |
|
President Clinton is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. The following letter was sent to some Republican senators. Some people feel that the Monica Lewinsky affair was material to The Paula Jones case. This letter presents another side. Randy Griffin PO Box 73653 Fairbanks, Alaska, 99707 Jan. 5, 1999 Senator U.S. Senate Washington D.C. 20510 Please do not vote to convict President Clinton on the basis of the Monica Lewinsky affair, and its resulting issues. I am a Republican and I do not care for Clinton. I did not vote for him, and I would never vote for him. It seems like many of his policies are aimed at taking freedoms away from the American people. Thank goodness for the Republican majority in Congress. However, I feel that convicting President Clinton would set a high profile and powerful legal precedent that would further erode the freedoms of the American people. (The freedom to have privacy). I believe that citizens should have the right to maintain the privacy of their very personal affairs. The exceptions to this are: 1. If conduct in such a private affair, infringes on the rights of another, or if such conduct violates a proper law, regulation, or signed contract. 2. If the details of such an affair are material to a criminal or civil case. There is nothing in the details of the 1995 Lewinsky affair that in any way indicates or proves that Bill Clinton, on May 8, 1991, did in fact drop his drawers in front of an unwilling Paula Jones, and then did say: “I know your boss” (a perhaps subtle threat to her job). Now, perhaps, he did, in fact, do these things. If I were a juror on the Paula Jones case, I would want to know: · What does the trooper, who escorted her up to Clinton’s Little Rock hotel room, say? · Who did Paula mention this to, right after the incident, and what do they say? · Did Paul’s job status suffer after the event? · What of these physical features that Paula says she saw, and what else did she notice in the hotel room? · Right after the event, did she document all the details of the event on paper or on tape? · What does Clinton say he was doing at the time? · What does the bell hop say?.....etc. · Also, is there a trend of behavior in which Clinton has forced himself in an obscene or in appropriate way upon other unwilling participants, and has he ever in any way threatened the job of anyone who has declined his advances? · How many women have come forward to complain of such behavior? · Upon investigation, how many people claim to have seen or have heard of such behavior? What do they have to say? Remember, the charge of wrongdoing in the Paula Jones case is not that Clinton became friendly with women, or asked for a date , or even that he did, or wanted to commit adultery. No, the charge is sexual harassment. The Monica Lewinsky affair was consensual. It had nothing to do with sexual harassment. Monica had no complaints to give to the Paula Jones lawyers. She did not want to testify about it. Hillary did not want to testify about it. (I know she claimed not to know.) It’s nobody’s business besides those three. I know it’s none of my business. I respect other people’s privacy, if privacy is what they want. The Lewinsky affair is not material to the Paula Jones case. If I were a juror in the Paula Jones case, all the dripping details of the Lewinsky affair would not help me one iota, in trying to figure out if Clinton forced himself on Paula in the Arkansas hotel room. The encyclopedia says that a lie under oath is not necessarily perjury. That lie must also be material. It is understandable, that the Paula Jones lawyers would want to search far and wide for any tidbit of information that might possibly help their client. That is their job, and they were well within their rights to investigate anyone, in a legal fashion. If they come up with a list of people who had an association with Clinton, they certainly have a right to go talk to those people. That includes Monica Lewinsky. The logical question to start off with is: Has Bill Clinton ever sexually harassed you, or have you ever seen or heard of Bill Clinton harassing anyone else? Also: Have you ever heard Bill Clinton admit anything regarding the Paula Jones case? These are topical questions. But it’s a free country, and they should be able to ask anything else, including: What color of panties are you wearing right now? But since it’s a free country, she should certainly have the right to decline to answer, and perhaps even show them the door. The lawyers have a right to ask Monica if she had a sexual affair with Bill Clinton. But they do not have a right to ask this question at gunpoint, because it is not material. By “gunpoint” I mean the government power that forces an unwilling person to testify by placing them between a rock and a hard place. That is the threat of a perjury conviction on the one hand, and the threat of jail for contempt of court, on the other. It's my understanding (I'm not a lawyer), that Monica did not have the option (after receiving her Dec. 17, 1997 subpoena), to remain silent by invoking her 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination. This is because her affair, while wery personal, was in no way criminal. When a person is forced by the government to testify about a personal matter, that person has had their freedom of privacy taken away. But of course, in our legal system, it is sometimes necessary to extract deeply personal information from a witness, if that information is relevant to a criminal or civil case, and serves the cause of justice. Sometimes the rights of the individual must be sacrificed for the greater good of society. But the decision to do so must be weighed carefully, and there should be strong safeguards against governmental abuse. The ultimate safeguard is the jury of one’s peers. In a perjury trial, a jury of reasonable people, should consider the entire situation. They should look at the information that the accused had attempted to keep personal. Was it in fact material to the original criminal or civil case? Was the exposed personal information, of a criminal nature? What was the nature of the original case, and what was the nature of the injury? Did the government overstep its bounds in extracting the personal information? Should the jury condone and sanction the government’s behavior? President Clinton certainly did lie under oath in his efforts to conceal his affair. But the details are plainly not material to the Paula Jones case. I don’t care what Judge Wright in Arkansas said. Did Clinton “obstruct justice” in the Lewenski matter? I don’t see how. But in the Lewinsky affair, there was nothing but air (hot steamy air). There was no victim; no crime; no guilty party; no penalty to be imposed. The Lewinsky affair was an isolated event. It was not material, pertinent or related to any criminal or civil case. It was poor practice for Clinton to have had this affair in the White House. The same can be said for the other presidents who did the same thing. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with the act itself, except very possibly from the standpoint of the wife. I have no idea as to what sort of marital arrangement or understanding exists between Bill and Hillary. That is their business. But it is poor practice because there is always a chance that such an affair could be exposed. Once exposed, it provides a very poor example to the youth of our country regarding fidelity. Clinton should not be above the law. But he should not be treated more harshly than any other citizen, either. Has there been any other case in which a person was convicted of perjury for lying under oath about sex, in a civil case, even though what he or she lied about, was harmless, and immaterial to the case? During the impeachment hearings, two women, who had been convicted of perjury, were brought forward as witnesses. In both case, the lies about sex for which they were convicted, were very material and central to their cases. Also, in their cases, they weren’t simply unwilling witnesses who were forced to testify. Barbara Battalino requested that the government certify her under the Federal Tort Claims Act, thereby making the government responsible for any monetary damages resulting from a certain lawsuit against her. There are very sound reasons why we have laws against perjury. It is so that the truth of the matter, can be determined, and justice can be achieved; so that the guilty can be convicted, and the innocent exonerated, and the victims compensated. If a witness lies, the perpetrator of the original crime might get off; the victim might be denied satisfaction; an innocent person could be framed. Or when filling out a form, a liar could gain some tangible assets to which he is not entitled (theft). The Constitution says that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects’ against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,”. This mean that love letters, email files, and intimate personal testimony shall not be seized without proper justification. Many of the American people are to blame for voting Clinton into office. The only long term solution is education, and to articulate the merits of the American constitutional system, the free enterprise system, American sovereignty and freedom. Impeachment with a flaky justification, is a band-aid at best and a boomerang at worst. The bottom line for me is: Did or did not the government (or government empowered lawyers), have the right to pry out nonmaterial, private, personal sexual information from Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? If by this monumental precedent, this governmental right is firmly established, what will be the ramifications to our country? Will spurious sexual harassment suits increase, due to this new threatening tool? Will good people be afraid to run for public office, because they fear that some clandestine adulterous fling from their past, will be dug out? Will people be afraid to have interoffice affairs? Sincerely yours, Randy Griffin |
This web page is written and paid for by Randy Griffin, PO Box 73653, Fairbanks, Alaska, 99707