House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde blocked the dramatic appearance of a witness in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case who was set to provide new evidence that President Clinton committed additional counts of perjury in his testimony about their relationship.
Dolly Kyle Browning, an attorney from Texas, has known Clinton since he was 12 and she was 11. She was called as a witness for Jones, and testified, despite what she describes as pressure from the White House.
Browning was called to make an appearance before the committee yesterday during majority counsel David L. Schippers’ presentation — an appearance that was, according to sources, nixed by Hyde.
Browning was to offer evidence demonstrating that Clinton lied under oath in a three-page memorandum he drafted in his own handwriting about her and their relationship as part of the Jones’ case.
“On November 30, 1998, I was brought to Washington by investigators for the Judiciary Committee, at their request and expense,” Browning said in a sworn declaration for the committee submitted today. “After questioning me extensively, they went to Hot Springs, Arkansas and obtained affidavits in support of my testimony from a randomly chosen list of impartial witnesses. These affidavits clearly support the testimony I gave under oath in the Jones case, and they expose in part the lies told by the Honorable President under oath in the Jones case. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of other witnesses who could have provided similar testimony.”
Browning expressed frustration at being called to Washington and then being denied an opportunity to testify. She has been sitting in Washington since Wednesday.
“The ‘leadership’ of the Judiciary Committee apparently decided that my testimony was not necessary for their purposes,” she said in her declaration. “In the meantime, I have watched the Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings on television and have listened to many members (say) that there is no live witness to testify about the lies and obstruction of justice, and no ‘proof’ upon which they could base a vote for impeachment.”
To that she states: “I am a live witness, and I have incontrovertible proof that the Honorable President William Jefferson Clinton lied under oath and obstructed justice in an attempt to deny an American citizen, Paula Corbin Jones, of her day in court. Although the Jones case has now been settled, I have asked my attorneys to file a motion to hold the Honorable President William Jefferson Clinton in criminal contempt for the lies that he told under oath, and for the fraud that he perpetrated upon a federal court.”
Browning is represented by Larry Klayman’s Judicial Watch, which has focused much attention on Clinton administration corruption. On Monday, Judicial Watch is scheduled to depose witness Linda Tripp.
“As members of the Legislative Branch, you are in a unique position of righting this wrong,” Browning continued in her declaration to the committee. “I believe that many of you truly want to ‘vote your conscience.’ But many of you have been deprived of vital information that would make it an ‘informed’ vote. You have been deprived of information about the FBI files. You have been deprived of information about campaign funds from China. You have been deprived of information from me that is incontrovertible proof of obstruction of justice.
“You are left with testimony about Monica Lewinsky — a girl younger than my own three daughters — who was blatantly used by the Honorable President William Jefferson Clinton, and then discarded when she became a political liability. What you have seen, read, and heard about this should be enough to impeach, but many of you have demanded more. Here it is. Many of you have a vague, uneasy feeling that you are being used for political purposes. You are right. Many of you are frustrated because you know that there is more ‘proof’ that is being officially withheld from you. Right again.”
The declaration of Browning signals a split between Schippers and Hyde over strategy. Schippers would like to take a much more aggressive and open-ended approach in the impeachment inquiry. Hyde is more cautious.
