19. U.S. Const., art. I, § 2, cl. 5; art. I, § 3, cl. 6.
  20. 28 U.S.C. § 594(a).
  21. Before the grand jury, the President refused to answer certain questions about his conduct with Ms. Lewinsky on the ground that he believed the inquiries were unnecessary "and . . . I think, frankly, go too far in trying to criminalize my private life." Clinton 8/17/98 GJ at 94.
Others have argued that alleged "lies about sex" have nothing to do with the President's performance in office, and thus, are inconsequential. Former White House Counsel Jack Quinn articulated this view:
This is a matter of sex between consenting adults, and the question of whether or not one or the other was truthful about it. . . . This doesn't go to the question of his conduct in office. And, in that sense, it's trivial.
John F. Harris, "In Political Washington, A Confession Consensus," Washington Post, Aug. 4, 1998, at A1 (quoting Quinn's statement on CBS's "Face the Nation").
The President echoed this theme in his address to the Nation on August 17, 1998, following his grand jury testimony:
. . . I intend to reclaim my family life for my family. It's nobody's business but ours. Even Presidents have private lives. It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life.
Testing of a President: In His Own Words, Last Night's Address, The New York Times, Aug. 18, 1998, at A12.
  22. Clinton 1/17/98 Depo. at 9. As two commentators have noted: "[T]o the extent that discovery is permitted with respect to the sexual activities of either the complainant or the alleged harasser, courts likely will freely entertain motions to limit the availability of such information to the parties and their counsel and to prohibit general dissemination of such sensitive data to third parties." See Barbara Lindeman & David D. Kadue, Sexual Harassment in Employment Law 563 (1992).
  23. A sexual harassment case can sometimes boil down to a credibility battle between the parties, in which "the existence of corroborative evidence or the lack thereof is likely to be crucial." Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 912 n.25 (11th Cir. 1982). If there are no eyewitnesses, it can be critical for a plaintiff to learn in discovery whether the defendant has committed the same kind of acts before or since. Thus, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission explained in a 1990 policy statement that the plaintiff's allegations of an incident of sexual harassment "would be further buttressed if other employees testified that the supervisor propositioned them as well." EEOC Policy Guidance (1990). The rules of evidence establish that such corroboration may be used to show the defendant's "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident." Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). In short, a defendant's sexual history, at least with respect to other employees, is ordinarily discoverable in a sexual harassment suit.
  24. United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564, 576 (1975) (plurality opinion).
  25. ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. NLRB, 510 U.S. 317, 323 (1994).
  26. United States v. Norris, 300 U.S. 564, 574 (1937). There is occasional misunderstanding to the effect that perjury is somehow distinct from "obstruction of justice." While the crimes are distinct, they are in fact variations on a single theme: preventing a court, the parties, and the public from discovering the truth. Perjury, subornation of perjury, concealment of subpoenaed documents, and witness tampering are all forms of obstruction of justice.
  27. See Eugene Lyons, Herbert Hoover: A Biography 337 (1964) (quoting Hoover).
  28. U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 8.
  29. U.S. Const., art. II, § 3; see also George Washington, Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1793:
Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.
Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, H.R. Doc. No. 82-540, at 4 (1954).