Sharon Hiltibidal - Saturday, 01/02/99, 3:10:42pm (#72024 of 72053)
It becomes clear that the Referral has completely suppressed a host of pertinent facts, every one of them relevant to the question whether Ms. Lewinsky’s job was procured at a crucial time in the Jones case in exchange for a false affidavit or to buy her silence. Among those set forth in the above narrative, those omitted facts include the following: · that Ms. Lewinsky was simultaneously pursuing New York jobs through avenues other than the President and his associates, Supp. at 11 (2/26/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Kenneth Bacon);
· that those efforts occurred well before her name appeared on the witness list in the Jones case, Supp. at 11 (2/26/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Kenneth Bacon);
· that Mr. Jordan put no pressure on Mr. Peter Georgescu of Young & Rubicam/Burson Marsteller and that Mr. Georgescu told Mr. Jordan that the company "would take a look at Ms. Lewinsky in the usual way." Supp. at 1219 (1/29/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Peter Georgescu), that Mr. Georgescu’s involvement would be "arm’s length," and that after he set up the initial interview, Ms. Lewinsky would be "on [her] own from that point," Supp. at 1222 (3/25/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Peter Georgescu);
· that Ms. Lewinsky’s interview with a Ms. Celia Berk of Burson-Marsteller was handled "by the book", Supp. at 111 (3/31/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Celia Berk), and that it "went through the normal stops." Ibid.;
· that Burson-Marsteller never offered Ms. Lewinsky a job;
Sharon Hiltibidal - Saturday, 01/02/99, 3:13:12pm (#72027 of 72049)
· that Ms. Lewinsky’s initial contact with American Express was not extraordinary because according to Ms. Ursula Fairbairn, there was nothing unusual for board members or company officers to recommend talented people for work at American Express, Supp. at 1087 (1/29/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Ursula Fairbairn);
· that Mr. Jordan had recently made another employment recommendation to Ms. Fairbairn at American Express, Supp. at 1087 (1/29/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Ursula Fairbairn);
· that Ms. Fairbairn felt that no pressure was exerted by Mr. Jordan, Supp. at 1087 (1/29/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Ursula Fairbairn);
· that the person Ms. Lewinsky interviewed with at American Express, an official named Mr. Thomas Schick, never talked to Mr. Jordan at any time during this process, Supp. at 3521 (1/29/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Thomas Schick);
· that Mr. Schick stated that he felt absolutely no pressure to hire Ms. Lewinsky, Supp. at 3521 (1/29/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Thomas Schick);
· that during Ms. Lewinsky’s interview with Mr. Schick on December 23, 1997, she was told that she lacked the qualifications necessary for the position, App. 1480 (8/1/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Ms. Lewinsky);
· that Ms. Lewinsky was never offered a job at American Express;
· that the person Mr. Jordan first contacted at MacAndrews & Forbes/Revlon was an Executive Vice President named Mr. Richard Halperin who said that it was not unusual for Mr. Jordan to call him with an employment recommendation, Supp. at 1281 (1/26/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Richard Halperin), and that he did not think there was anything unusual about Mr. Jordan’s request, Supp. at 1286 (3/27/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Richard Halperin);
Sharon Hiltibidal - Saturday, 01/02/99, 3:17:40pm (#72037 of 72043)
· that in Mr. Jordan’s call to Mr. Halperin, Mr. Jordan did not "ask [Halperin] to work on any particular kind of timetable," Supp. at 1294 (4/23/98 grand jury testimony of Richard Halperin), and that "there was no implied time constraint or requirement for fast action," Supp. at 1286 (3/27/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Richard Halperin);
· that Ms. Lewinsky’s interview with Mr. Halperin was scheduled for December 18, 1997 in New York at her request, Supp. at 1282 (1/26/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Richard Halperin);
· that earlier that week, Mr. Halperin, with no input from Mr. Jordan or MacAndrews and Forbes CEO Ronald Perelman, had sent Ms. Lewinsky’s resume to Jaymie Durnan for his consideration, Ibid.;
· that Mr. Durnan became aware of Ms. Lewinsky in mid-December 1997, Supp. at 1053 (3/27/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Jaymie Durnan), and that at that time, he reviewed her resume and decided to interview her after the first of the year, Ibid.;
· that when Mr. Durnan returned from vacation, he had his assistant schedule an interview with Ms. Lewinsky for January 7, 1998, but, because of scheduling problems, he rescheduled the interview for the next day January 8,1998, Supp. at 1049 (1/26/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Jaymie Durnan);
· that Mr. Durnan’s decision to interview Ms. Lewinsky was made independently of the decision by Mr. Halperin to interview her;
· that when Ms. Lewinsky interviewed with Mr. Durnan on the morning of January 8th, Mr. Durnan thought she was impressive for entry level work, Supp. at 1049 (1/26/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Jaymie Durnan);
· that Mr. Durnan concluded that Ms. Lewinsky would have "fit in" at the parent company (MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings) but that there was nothing available at the time that matched her interest and so, for that reason, he referred her to Revlon, thinking she might be sui
Sharon Hiltibidal - Saturday, 01/02/99, 3:20:15pm (#72042 of 72043)
· that upon first speaking to Ms. Seidman about Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Durnan did not tell Ms. Seidman that CEO Perelman had expressed an interest in Lewinsky. Supp. at 1055 (3/27/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Jaymie Durnan). Rather, he simply told Ms. Seidman that if she liked ML, she should hire her, Supp. at 1050 (1/26/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Jaymie Durnan);
· that Mr. Perelman never said or implied that Ms. Lewinsky had to be hired and that Mr. Durnan concluded that Ms Lewinsky’s hiring was not mandatory, Supp. at 1055 (3/27/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Jaymie Durnan);
· that according to Ms. Seidman, Mr. Durnan told Ms. Seidman that he thought she should interview Ms. Lewinsky because he thought she was a good candidate, Supp. at 3634 (4/23/98 grand jury testimony of Allyn Seidman);
· that according to Ms. Seidman, when she interviewed Ms. Lewinsky, she liked her a great deal and so decided to hire her that very day, Supp. at 3643 (4/23/98 grand jury testimony of Allyn Seidman);
· and that when Ms. Seidman decided to hire Ms. Lewinsky, there is no evidence that Mr. Perelman or Mr. Durnan or Mr. Halperin told her to do that, Supp. at 3643 (4/23/98 grand jury testimony of Allyn Seidman).
Every one of the foregoing facts is relevant to the case for obstruction of justice. Every one of them suggests that there was no obstruction. And every one of them is missing from the Referral.
Sharon Hiltibidal - Saturday, 01/02/99, 3:21:46pm (#72046 of 72064)
d. The Referral Omits Ms. Lewinsky’s Own Statement of Her Reason for Seeking the President’s Help in Obtaining A New York Job
Ms. Lewinsky expressly told the OIC that her principal reason for moving to New York was her understanding -- growing throughout 1997 and confirmed on October 6, 1997 -- that she would never work in the White House again:
"LEWINSKY advised that the main reason she looked for a job in New York was because TRIPP said that "KATE at NSC" said LEWINSKY would never get a job in the White House . . ." LEWINSKY advised TRIPP told LEWINSKY this in an October 6, 1997 telephone call." App. at 1419-20 (7/29/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Ms. Lewinsky).
Despite the fact that Ms. Lewinsky stated that this was her "main reason for look[ing] for a job in New York," that statement is nowhere to be found in the Referral. And despite the fact that she apparently reached this decision on October 6, 1997, that fact too is not part of the Referral’s chronology of "key events."
These two facts sharply undermine the OIC’s insistence that the President’s
assistance to Ms. Lewinsky in obtaining a job in New York was motivated by an intent to
obstruct justice in the Jones case’s December-January discovery proceedings, but they
are missing from the Referral.
Sharon Hiltibidal - Saturday, 01/02/99, 3:23:28pm (#72050 of 72064)
e. The Referral Leaves Out Direct Evidence Contradicting the Notion that Ms. Lewinsky’s Job Was Procured in Exchange for Silence or for a False Affidavit
The OIC’s chronology of key events plainly intends to suggest that Ms. Lewinsky’s Jones affidavit was signed in exchange for a New York job. What the chronology omits are the following statements made by Ms. Lewinsky showing that there simply was no job-for-affidavit deal of any kind:
"[t]here was no agreement with the President, JORDAN, or anyone else that LEWINSKY had to sign the Jones affidavit before getting a job in New York. LEWINSKY never demanded a job from JORDAN in return for a favorable affidavit. Neither the President nor JORDAN ever told LEWINSKY that she had to lie." App. at 1398 (7/27/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Ms. Lewinsky);
and that the only person who suggested that she sign the affidavit in exchange for a job was Ms. Tripp:
"TRIPP told LEWINSKY not to sign the affidavit until LEWINSKY had a job." App. at 1493 (8/2/98 FBI Form 302 Interview of Ms. Lewinsky);
Ms. Tripp made Ms. Lewinsky promise her not to sign an affidavit without first telling Jordan "no job, no affidavit." App. at 900 (8/6/98 grand jury testimony of Ms. Lewinsky);
Ms. Tripp said to Ms. Lewinsky: "Monica, promise me you won’t sign the affidavit until you get the job. Tell Vernon you won’t sign the affidavit until you get the job because if you sign the affidavit before you get the job they’re never going to give you the job." App. at 902 (8/6/98 grand jury testimony of Ms. Lewinsky);
Ms. Lewinsky reiterated that, "as I mentioned earlier, she [Tripp] made me promise her that I wouldn’t sign the affidavit until I got the job." App. at 933 (8/6/98 grand jury testimony of Ms. Lewinsky);
"I [Ms. Lewinsky] told Mr. Jordan I wouldn’t sign the affidavit until I got a
job. That was definitely a lie, based on something Linda had made me promise her on
January 9th." App. at 1134 (8/20/98
Sharon Hiltibidal - Saturday, 01/02/99, 3:25:31pm (#72056 of 72068)
"I [Ms. Lewinsky] told Mr. Jordan I wouldn’t sign the affidavit until I got a job. That was definitely a lie, based on something Linda had made me promise her on January 9th." App. at 1134 (8/20/98 grand jury testimony of Ms. Lewinsky).
Five distinct statements by Ms. Lewinsky make Ms. Tripp the sole source of the
job-for-affidavit notion which the OIC holds out as the heart of the obstruction case. Ms.
Lewinsky’s recitation of Ms. Tripp’s statements are the only direct evidence
contained in the appendices bearing on that idea. Yet these statements are nowhere to be
found in the Referral.