by Peter Baker
Having won a battle he did not realize he was in, Bryant went into the deposition with one main goaldont make her cry. If Lewinsky became emotionally overwrought, the managers would be accused of browbeating her, and that would be the story. So with a list of questions drawn up by the prosecution staff, Bryant went in hoping to elicit the basics of her story without getting into details about the sex.
The Senate staff had set up the deposition in the same presidential suite at the Mayflower Hotel that the managers had used for their informal chat with Lewinsky. But any hopes of informality were quickly erased when Bryant and the other lawyers walked in on the morning of Monday, February 1, and saw the enormous crowd gathering for the spectacle. While reporters and cameras were barred from the event, more than forty attorneys, congressional aides, and other officials had managed to finagle their way into the secret deposition. It had become such a hot ticket that a fight erupted when a couple of aides to Senator Pat Leahy, who would be presiding over the session, arrived to find that they did not have assigned seats behind their boss.
Goddamn it, exclaimed Bob Bauer, the lawyer for Tom Daschle brought in to mediate. People are treating this deposition like a Beatles concert!
As if on the Ed Sullivan soundstage, all eyes turned to the door when Lewinsky made her appearance. She had not been able to eat dinner the night before and had barely slept, but she looked poised and confident in a navy blue blazer and skirt with pearls wrapped around her neck. Several of the middle-aged male lawyers in the room were struck by how beautiful she was in person.
Lewinsky did not seem the least bit fazed by the swarm of people. She simply breezed in and confidently stuck her hand out to the first person she saw, saying, Im Monica Lewinsky, as if anyone did not know.
Unlike the meeting a week before, the suite was set up for a formal conference, with a long mahogany table covered by a starched white cloth positioned above the presidential seal in the floor. Lewinsky sat at one end of the table, flanked by her lawyers, Plato Cacheris, Jake Stein, Preston Burton, and Sydney Jean Hoffmann, while a video camera was set up at the other end to record her. Bryant sat in the middle of the table to her left, joined by some of the House lawyers, though not David Schippers, who did not bother to come. Clinton lawyers Nicole Seligman and Cheryl Mills sat on the opposite side, to Lewinskys right. David Kendall did not sit at the table, but instead took a chair behind his two female colleagues. Chief Justice Rehnquist had declined to preside over the depositions on the theory that such a task went beyond his role in the trial, so Daschle and Trent Lott had assigned a half dozen senators to supervise the interviews, a pair at a time. Leahy and Senator Mike DeWine, a former prosecutor from Ohio, were first up, and they sat down at the table. A television showing Lewinsky as she was talking was set up so that others could see her. As a technician fastened a body microphone to her clothing, she was warned it would pick up every remark.
Oh, she said mischievously, the Linda Tripp version.
As the deposition began at 9:03 A.M., it did not take long to figure out the dynamics of the day. Bryant knew he was in trouble by the second question. The first had been to ask her to state her name for the record. The second was to ask her if she was a resident of California.
Im not sure exactly where Im a resident now, she answered, but Ithats where Im living right now.
Bryant was alarmed. If she was quibbling over the pro forma question of where she lived, that did not bode well. Sure enough, as the session unfolded, her answers were clippedoften just a yes or a no rather than the expansive elaboration she had offered the grand jury. When Bryant misstated a point, she made sure to correct him. She quarreled with the premises of his questions. She certainly was not going out of her way to volunteer anything. When Bryant asked her to describe how her relationship began with the president, she answered curtly, I believe Ive testified to that in the grand jury pretty extensively. From Bryants point of view, this was not the same woman he had met a week earlier.
Bryant rambled through his questions, often asking several at once and leaving many at the table confused. Cacheris repeatedly objected to the compound questions, prompting the presiding senators, DeWine and Leahy, to ask the manager to be more precise. It got to the point where Bryant stopped himself after one inquiry and announced that it was a compound question.
Im making my own objections now, he joked.
We sustain those, Lewinsky interjected, prompting a wave of laughter.
Much as he tried, Bryant could not draw her out. He asked Lewinsky to describe how she viewed Clinton, but she brushed him off.
Do you still have feelings for the president? he asked.
I have mixed feelings, she answered.
What, uhmaybe you could tell us a little bit more about what those mixed feelings are.
I think what you need to know is that my grand jury testimony is truthful irrespective of whatever those mixed feelings are in my testimony today, she replied firmly.
Bryant moved on to some of the events at the heart of the obstruction allegations, including the presidents December 17, 1997, middle-of-the-night telephone call to Lewinsky warning her that she was on the witness list in the Paula Jones case and suggesting that she could file an affidavit to get out of testifying. In her proffer to the prosecutors and in her grand jury appearances, Lewinsky had said that Clinton suggested during that conversation that she could cite the cover stories they had used, such as explaining her visits to the Oval Office by saying she was delivering papers, even though she was not really. She told Starrs prosecutors that she understood Clintons comments to mean she would deny their relationship under oath. But now with Bryant, she was adopting Clintons semantical defense, maintaining that such statements would be misleading but literally true.
Did you appreciate the implications of filing a false affidavit with the court? Bryant asked.
Lewinsky gave no ground. I dont think I necessarily thought at that point it would have to be false, so no, probably not. In other words, if she did not think it had to be false, then Clinton could not have been suborning perjury.
Bryant tried it another way. Did the president ever tell you, caution you, that you had to tell the truth in an affidavit?
Not that I recall.
It would have been against his interest in that lawsuit for you to have told the truth, would it not?
Im not really comfortableI mean, I can tell you what would have been in my best interest, but I
But you didnt file the affidavit for your best interest, did you?
Uh, actually, I did.
The White House lawyers had to contain their glee. She was running rings around Bryant. With every answer, it seemed, Lewinsky undermined the managers case even more. By asserting that it was in her own interest to file a false affidavit, rather than in the presidents, she again adopted a line of argument that Clintons counsel had been using on the Senate floor. She could not have been answering better for Clintons side if they had scripted it themselves.
Bryant grew increasingly frustrated. To demonstrate that the president had suggested Lewinsky lie in her sworn statement, he came back again to his mention of the cover stories they used.
Now, was that in connection with the affidavit? he asked, thinking the answer was yes.
I dont believe so, no, she answered.
Why would he have told you you could always say that?
I dont know.
At that point, Preston Burton, Lewinskys younger attorney, who typically deferred to his senior partner, Cacheris, could not contain himself any longer. Youre asking her to speculate on someone elses testimony, he objected.
The normally placid Bryant finally snapped back. He had had about enough. Lewinsky was arguing with his questions and shading every answer in the light most favorable to the president. And her lawyers were harassing him with objections every chance they got. Let me make a point here, he said testily. Ive been very patient in trying to get along, but as I alluded to earlier, and I said I a
m not going to hold a hard line to this, but I dont think the presidentsthe witnesss lawyers ought to be objecting to this testimony. If theres an objection here, it should come from the White House side.
But Senators DeWine and Leahy did not agree. Lewinskys lawyers were entitled to make objections.
Bryant lived up to his agreement not to get into the details of the sex between the president and the intern, but he made a faint stab at getting her to agree that Clinton had lied under oath when he denied engaging in activities that would qualify as sexual relations as defined by Joness lawyers during his deposition.
I want to refer you to the first so-called salacious occasion, he started.
Can you call it something else? she asked. I mean this isthis is my relationship.
He agreed and went into the crux of the dispute. So, if the president testifies that he did nothe was not guilty of having a sexual relationship under the Paula Jones definition even, then that testimony is not truthful, is it?
Cacheris objected, saying his client could not know what Clinton thought. The senators overruled the objection, but Lewinsky took the cue. I really dont feel comfortable characterizing whether what he said was truthful or not truthful, she said. She noted that the Jones definition of sex was predicated on touching with the intent to gratify or arouse sexual desire. Im just not comfortable commenting on someone elses intent or state of mind or what they thought.
On one subject, Bryant finally obtained firm testimony that helped his side. Asked if she had reason to doubt her recollection that Betty Currie called her to arrange pickup of the gifts, Lewinsky replied flatly, I dont think there is any doubt in my mind.
But she remained in command of the deposition to the end. At one point, when she paused to confer with her lawyer, Senator DeWine warned her that her microphone was picking up her words. Sorry, she said cheerily. I was only saying nice things about you all.
At another point, Bryant tried again to elicit her thoughts about Clinton, only to have her seize control of the exchange. I assume you think hes a very intelligent man, he said.
I think hes an intelligent president, she shot back.
Bryant knew when to quit. Okay. Thank goodness this is confidential. Otherwise, that might be the quote of the day.
By the time Bryant was done, the White House lawyers relaxed, confident that they had little to worry about. Nicole Seligman had been tapped to cross-examine the young woman and had spent the entire weekend poring through grand jury transcripts and preparing to question Lewinsky at length if she wandered off the reservation. Under Bryants erratic questioning, though, Lewinsky had not added anything new; the White House team knew that from the first moment Lewinsky referred back to her grand jury testimony and said she was sticking with that. And so Seligman decided to follow the old trial lawyers credo that if you had not been hurt, freeze the record before you were.
But as she discarded the myriad questions she could have asked, Seligman did take the opportunity to pass along a message to Lewinsky. In the days leading up to the deposition, it had occurred to Seligman that this twenty-five-year-old who had fallen so hard for the president had been completely cut off from him. Lewinsky had been distraught after what she considered Clintons dismissive treatment of her in his August 17 speech to the nation, and she was further upset that it took so long for him to apologize to her and her family in his public contrition tour that followed. Seligman realized this was a chance to reach out to her in a human wayafter her testimony was over, not as a means to influence it. Would there be anything wrong in offering an apology? Seligman asked her fellow lawyers during their strategy sessions. None of the men had thought of it but, after mulling it over, they agreed.
Ms. Lewinsky, Seligman now said, on behalf of the president, wed like to tell you how very sorry we all are for what you have had to go through.
With that, the deposition was over. The cameras were turned off at 3:14 P.M., and there was little question on either side about who had won this showdown. Lewinsky had dominated the session like the practiced witness she was. After two dozen other depositions, FBI interviews, and grand jury appearances, she had testifying down to an art and it showed. Bryant was on his heels the entire time. Senator Fred Thompson, who attended because he would preside at the Vernon Jordan deposition the next day, abruptly walked out partway through, disgusted by the circus atmosphere and convinced the questioning was not getting anywhere. I cant take this anymore, he told a colleague as he left. Lewinsky was likable, at ease, and anything but a put-upon woman, Thompson concluded; she could nick up Clinton here or there, but if the public saw her, they would see her as an equal to the president, not a victim.
Tom Griffith, the chief Senate lawyer, approached Preston Burton, one of Lewinskys attorneys, afterward and told him she would never have to worry again about work. Shes the best witness I ever saw, he said. She wouldnt need to ever get a job. She could go into business teaching people how to testify.
That night, Griffith went back to the Capitol to brief Lotts chief aide, Dave Hoppe: It was a disaster.
Word got back pretty quickly to the other managers, and that only increased the pressure on Asa Hutchinson, set to face off against Jordan the next day. Unlike Lewinsky, Jordan was to be questioned at the Capitol in a fourth-floor room normally used for national security briefings and specially shielded from electronic surveillance. The room was set up for a committee meeting, with an imposing dais for the members and tables and chairs in the audience for everyone else. The night before the Jordan deposition, Hutchinson went to the room with Senate officials to examine the layout.
Where will the witness sit? Hutchinson asked.
A Senate staffer pointed up to the chairmans seat, which effectively looked down on the rest of the room.
Where will I be? Hutchinson asked. Down here at a table facing up to the dais, the staffer said.
Hutchinson did not like what he saw at all. Jordan would have the commanding position in their confrontation. Hutchinson decided to have his position moved closer to where Jordan would sit and asked for a tabletop lectern to be brought in so that he could stand during the questioning, which would at least put him on eye level with his witness.
Hutchinson was tending to every detail. All he had heard for more than a week was how Jordan would chew up any interrogator. Hutchinson was a little intimidated. He stayed up late at night studying the transcripts and working on his script. On the left side of each page he wrote out the questions and on the right the answers Jordan should give if he stuck to his grand jury testimony as his attorney had promised. This way Hutchinson would know if Jordan deviated and would be ready to challenge him with his prior statements. Hutchinsons main goal was simply to get Jordan to repeat on videotape his description of Clintons involvement in the job search and the affidavit. Jordan had testified five times before the grand jury, but Hutchinson wanted to tie it all together and present it in a more coherent sequence.
When the deposition started at 9 A.M. on Tuesday, February 2, Hutchinson immediately understood what everyone had been telling him about Jordan, who wasted little time demonstrating that he was in control. Following routine legal practice, Hutchinson asked the witness to state his name for the record and asked him to confirm that this was the first time they had ever met.
Ive looked forward to this opportunity to meet you, Hutchinson said.
I cant say the feeling is mutual, Jordan responded, deadpan, provoking laughter around the room.
Hutchinson moved on, asking Jordan about his status as a senior partner at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, one of the capitals powerhouse law firms. What did it mean to be a rainmaker? Hutchinson asked.
I think even in Arkansas you understand what rainmaking is, Jordan said.
Weve read Grisham books, Hutchinson quipped back, refusing to become rattled by Jordans condescension.
While he no longer billed by the hour, Jordan once charged as much as $500 an hour, he said in response to a question. Not ba
d for a Georgia boy, Jordan added. Im from Georgia. Youve heard of that state, Im sure.
Hutchinson went on to establish Jordans closeness with the president, a relationship the witness was more than happy to detail. They vacationed together, he said, played golf together, spent the holidays together. Every year since his presidency, the Jordan family has been privileged to entertain the Clinton family on Christmas Eve, he said. Asked if he was cochairman of the Clinton transition team after the 1992 election, Jordan quickly corrected the misimpression: I believe I was chairman.
That settled, Hutchinson elicited Jordans version of the events that led to their encounter this day, including meetings with Lewinsky, conversations with New York executives on her behalf, and discussions with the president about her. The only time Jordan appeared a bit flustered was when Hutchinson appeared to suggest that Jordan had violated his fiduciary responsibility as a board member of the companies he was referring Lewinsky to by using his position to help out the president, an implication Jordan adamantly disputed. But the influential attorney enjoyed flaunting his lifestyle, at one point describing how he took Lewinsky to meet another lawyer in my Akin, Gump chauffeur-driven car.
Hutchinson did get Jordan to say that he was laboring for Lewinsky at Clintons behest, a statement the manager wanted to play for the Senate to make clear that the president had been running the show. There is no question but that through Betty Currie, I was acting on behalf of the president to get Ms. Lewinsky a job, Jordan said, to Hutchinsons satisfaction. But later in the questioning, Jordan took umbrage at the notion that he was acting on instruction from Clinton. I do not view the president as giving me instructions. The president is a friend of mine, and I dont believe friends instruct friends. Our friendship is one of parity and equality.
