November 16, 1998

John F. X. Gillis, M.A., Ph.D.
Graduate Assistant Office

Skip Fox, Ph.D.
Professor

University of Southwestern Louisiana
Department of English
Lafayette, LA 70504-4691

Certain lines of inquiry to the OIC might be more vigorously pursued to expose the weaknesses and contradictions in the OIC's investigation. The following recommended questions (with followups as needed) will focus mostly on the OIC's handling of the so-called "talking points," although our review of the Starr Referral reveals other intriguing possibilities, for example, the OIC's handling of Linda Tripp's evidence relating to the Travel Office controversy.

In the following, "Referral Appendix" refers to the seven volumes of documentation released by the House of Representatives on September 21; "Supplementary Materials," to the three volumes released on October 2.

In her interview with the OIC January 18, 1998, (p. 3793 of Supplemental Materials, appended) and in her Grand Jury testimony of July 28, 1998 (p. 4279 of Supplemental Materials, appended), Linda Tripp claimed to possess direct knowledge of a document relating to the Travel Office which implicated First Lady Hillary Clinton. Yet Tripp acknowledged to the Grand Jury that she held "very important information" that she "didn't volunteer" throughout the "different depositions and hearings" she participated in. In her Jan. 18 interview, Tripp charged that in her earlier appearance before the Grand Jury convened by the OIC to investigate the Travel Office, "the attorneys asking the questions did not ask the proper question" to elicit her knowledge of the purportedly incriminating document. Question for the Independent Counsel: Would you agree that another way to phrase Tripp's explanation just quoted would be if she had said, "Although my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information"?

Question for the Independent Counsel: The inevitable conclusion is that, from the Senate Whitewater Committee Staff to your own deputies, either all the lawyers involved in questioning Tripp for years are completely incompetent, or that Linda Tripp lied about this document; isn't that true? Followup Question: What did Tripp actually testify to regarding her knowledge of documents in her 1996 appearance before your Grand Jury investigating the Travel Office? Followup Question: Considering that she had never mentioned this document before despite numerous opportunities to do so, Tripp's claim regarding a Travel Office document should have been investigated very carefully before being accepted by your office; was it? Followup Question: Was Tripp's accusation presented to the Department of Justice in the January 15th briefing in which you petitioned for extension of authority?

In her Grand Jury testimony (ibid.) Tripp claimed to have been "completely offended" by a question during earlier testimony that implied she leaked information, declaring she "had never done any such thing." Yet in her interview with the OIC (p. 3995 Supplemental Materials, appended), Tripp admitted leaking information from the White House Counsel's Office. Tangential Question: How can Linda Tripp claim to have never leaked information and at the same time admit having leaked information?

According to footnote 8 of the OIC's report:

The negotiations [with Lewinsky for immunity] in January and February 1998 (which produced the written proffer) did not result in a cooperation agreement because Ms. Lewinsky declined to submit to a face-to- face proffer interview... .

While that refusal by Lewinsky may have been one reason that no agreement was reached, as early as the February 2 New York Times and as late as the July 21 USA Today, press accounts suggested that the OIC rejected Lewinsky's account of the so-called "talking points" (Grand Jury Exhibit ML-5). Question for the Independent Counsel: Was the refusal to submit to an interview the ONLY reason no cooperation agreement was reached between January and late July? Followup Question: Was Lewinsky's refusal to explain to the OIC's satisfaction the creation of this document also a factor?

Again according to press accounts, including the June 22 Washington Times, the OIC's theory of how the "talking points" came to be created was that persons or persons connected to the President created the document to influence Tripp's testimony regarding Kathleen Willey, which would, if proven, provide a virtually unassailable case of obstruction of justice against the President or his agents. Question for the Independent Counsel: Isn't it a fact that for seven months the OIC was committed to demonstrating that White House was implicated in the creation of this document? Followup Questions: In his first appearance before the Grand Jury you pressed Bruce Lindsey on his involvement with the "talking points," didn't you? (p. 2369 Supplemental Materials, appended) You were convinced he assisted in the preparation of this document, weren't you? In fact, although the document is now labeled ML-5 and catalogued with evidence from Monica Lewinsky, for the first seven months of the investigation the "talking points" were catalogued with Bruce Lindsey evidence, weren't they?

It was also Linda Tripp's contention that Bruce Lindsey assisted in the preparation of "talking points." In the March 23 Newsweek she suggested they "sounded like" Lindsey and when she was asked her opinion of authorship before the Grand Jury she named Bruce Lindsey (p. 4355 Supplementary Materials, appended). In fact, your Deputy Mr. Weisenberg asked Tripp's opinion based on her "Observation of the language used in those paragraphs," referring to all the paragraphs except the one beginning "Remember how I said there was someone else I knew about." Question for the Independent Counsel: To your knowledge, was Linda Tripp in any way qualified to make expert observations of language? Followup Questions: Did you at any time during the seven months you were investigating authorship commission or receive an expert assessment of possible authorship? Special Agent Sue Adams of the FBI is a "content analyst, did you consult her? Professor Donald Foster of Vassar is listed as a textual analyst in the FBI's directory of qualified consultants, did you seek his advice? Followup Question if "Yes": What were their conclusions? Followup Question if "No": Why not? Did you become aware of the existence of any independent analyses?

Similarly, in her January 18 interview with the OIC, Tripp claimed that Lewinsky "would never use words like `plausible' or phrases like `in lieu of a deposition'" (p. 3779 Supplementary Materials, appended).Question for the Independent Counsel: If the fact that Lewinsky would never use the phrase "in lieu of a deposition" indicates that Lewinsky had help preparing the "talking points," does it not stand to reason that someone involved in this investigation who used the phrase naturally and in a context divorced from the "talking points" might have contributed to the "talking points"? Followup Question: Then don't you think that the following testimony by Tripp regarding her January 16 meeting with Wesley Holmes suggests that she herself contributed to the "talking points"? (p. 4358 Supplementary Materials, appended):

THE WITNESS: I'm not clear on the question.
A JUROR: I'm not sure how much plainer I can be
THE WITNESS: It was in lieu of--
A JUROR In lieu of?
THE WITNESS: In lieu of a deposition.

In the end, Lewinsky testified unequivocally that no one formally or informally connected to the White House had anything to do with preparing the "talking points" (p. 947 Referral Appendix, appended):

Q: Did you ever talk with anyone associated with the White House in any way about the talking points?
A: No. And that would include Mr. Jordan.

In fact, she testified that she did not "talk with anyone in an effort to get assistance editing or writing or getting approval for what is in the talking points." (p. 944 Referral Appendix, appended). Question for the Independent Counsel: Was it not the consensus agreement in the OIC's office that the level of expertise in the document rendered it highly unlikely that Lewinsky wrote document completely unaided? Followup Question: Yet, you eventually accepted that very account of the origin of the "talking points," did you not, when you accepted Lewinsky's proffer that included that claim, correct?

In her Grand Jury testimony regarding the "talking points" summarized in her public declaration after her final appearance, Tripp claimed:

I had nothing, let me repeat, nothing to do with preparing the so-called talking points. Allegations to the effect that I contributed to or assisted in any way with the creation of the talking points are as illogical as they are patently false.

Question for the Independent Counsel: Do you agree with Tripp's characterization of her involvement in the "talking points"?

In her Grand Jury testimony that she did not seek assistance or approval editing or writing the "talking points" Lewinsky also testified that the "talking points" were "based on conversations" between Tripp and Lewinsky including conversations "the morning of the 14th on the phone." (ibid.) Similarly, in her first interview with the OIC under terms of her cooperation agreement (p. 1420 Referral Appendix, appended), Lewinsky declared that she spoke to Tripp by phone on January 14th precisely to discuss "different things to say in an affidavit" that Tripp might submit.

Question for the Independent Counsel: Is it your contention that Tripp and Lewinsky could discuss in the morning a proposed document that was delivered in the afternoon yet Tripp was speaking truthfully when she claimed she had "nothing to do" with the "talking points"? Followup Question: Do not Lewinsky and Tripp's testimony directly contradict on this issue? Followup Question: Since both these witnesses testified pursuant to an immunity agreement, is it not your duty to determine which witness is being less than candid in the matter of the "talking points" and to withdraw immunity? Followup Question: Did you, for example, examine phone records in an attempt to confirm the existence of the phone conversations the morning of January 14th that Lewinsky testified to?

It is impossible for the public to judge whether you tested the truth of this testimony about the "talking points" because the phone records of Monica Lewinsky included in your Referral Appendix stop at January 13. Question for the Independent Counsel: Why are Lewinsky's phone records cut off at January 13? Did she not make numerous calls later that week that also figure prominently in your Referral?

Not only are records missing that might shed light on conversations that Lewinsky and Tripp had concerning the "talking points," but the conclusion of the January 13 conversation during which Tripp and Lewinsky would have settled on drafting a proposed affidavit is also missing, i.e., at precisely the moment when Tripp would have commissioned the "talking points" the recording cuts off, as Tripp's contact with the OIC the next day indicates (p. 3767 Supplemental Materials, appended). Question for the Independent Counsel: Why was that recording supervised by the OIC incomplete?

Lewinsky also told the OIC during an interview that the "`Talking Points' were not a collaborative effort with Tripp," and that Lewinsky "typed them up on her own, without any assistance from anyone (p. 1422 Referral Appendix, appended). Question for the Independent Counsel: Does that mean Lewinsky had no assistance typing the document although she may have had other sorts of assistance?

Lewinsky repeatedly told the OIC that she did not realize the marked resemblance between the content of the "talking points" and Tripp's previous public statements on the Kathleen Willey matter were until after the "talking points" were published, as in the August 11, 1997 Newsweek and the August 14 Washington Times, and she specifically asserted that "she did not refer to Tripp's public statements to draft the `Talking Points.'" (p. 1421 and 1427 Referral Appendix, appended). Yet in the conversation recorded on January 13 at the Ritz-Carlton (p. 2776 Supplemental Materials, appended) Lewinsky advises Tripp to say, "Well, I didn't see her come out of the Oval Office, but after she allegedly came out of the office," which is not only virtually verbatim phrasing from the "talking points" delivered the following day, but is, in fact, also very close to Tripp's public statement. Further in that conversation (ibid. p.2792, appended) this exchange occurs as they discuss a prospective affidavit:

TRIPP: Because, see, Bennett--here.
LEWINSKY: Okay.
TRIPP: Let me finish this. Bennett said that he remembers consoling her. Only it was--the incident happened before her husband was dead.

Question for the Independent Counsel: When Tripp refers to "here" in that exchange and then quotes directly from the August 11, 1997 Newsweek article, do you not believe that she was referring to that article in hand? Followup Question: Did either Tripp or Lewinsky arrive at that lunch with papers? Followup Question: How can you accept Lewinsky's account that she did not refer to public statements in drafting the "talking points" when you have a taped conversation from just a few hours before that drafting in which Tripp's public statements are cited explicitly?

In her testimony to the Grand Jury and in interviews with the OIC, Tripp repeatedly testified that the "talking points" suborned perjury. Yet in her accounts of the Willey matter in those interviews, Tripp herself corroborates every single factual detail of the Willey matter as it was related in the "talking points," even such arcane details as a conversation with Willey on the evening that Michael Isikoff contacted Tripp (p. 4000 Supplemental Materials, appended). Question for the Independent Counsel: In what way do the "talking points" suborn perjury as they concern Kathleen Willey?

Question for the Independent Counsel: Is it not true that Linda Tripp lied under oath when she disclaimed knowledge of the "talking points"? Followup Question: Is it not true that you carefully prepared Lewinsky testimony on that point to obscure the fact that the "talking points" were commissioned and inspired by Tripp in an effort to manufacture evidence that would falsely and deceptively incriminate the President and Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey? Followup Question: Does not such an effort by Tripp constitute obstruction of justice? Followup Question: If it could be proven that Tripp was in fact involved in preparing the "talking points," are you prepared to withdraw her immunity and charge her with obstruction of justice?

Question for the Independent Counsel: Were the "talking points" presented to the Department of Justice in the January 15th briefing in which you petitioned for extension of authority?

Copyright (C) John F.X. Gillis. Reprinted by permission.