| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/4 |
| 2007/3/9-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:45922 Activity:kinda low |
3/9 My memory sucks.
Was there a big debate years ago about whether a special
prosecutor is able to call a sitting president to testify?
How did Kenneth Starr manage to get Clinton on the stand
to testify in his investigation of Whitewater, then ask him
non related Whitewater questions like "Have you inserted
a cigar in the vagina of a woman not your wife?" and "Please
list the names and SSNs of every woman you have had an affair
with in the last 10 years, ok tnx". I would think that if
a special prosecutor tried to get Bush on the stand now
holy hell would break loose.
\_ The original Lewinsky testimony had nothing to do with
Whitewater or Starr. Clinton was testifying in a civil case
for sexual harassment brought by Paula Jones.
\_ Really? Starr was able to force the sitting president,
Clinton, to come on down and testify in a pretty minor
sounding civil case? Not to demean sexual harrasment
cases, ok fine I am demeaning them, who cares right now.
Can you imagine any prosecutor trying to force gwbush
or Cheney to do such a thing? I think Cheney would
blow a valve laughing. I'm not saying you're wrong,
I just don't remember the details anymore.
\_ Read again. Starr (nor any other prosecutor) had nothing
to do with it at that point. It was a civil case.
\_ which, should be noted, was thrown out for lack of merit.
\_ As the Plame leak should have been as well.
\_ I think it became a case of "I am prosecuting
you for lying to various branches of the
government and giving me some bullshit story that
you didn't know Plame was an agent when we are all
adults and we know full well Cheney is sending you out
to tell reporters this little tidbit", instead of
OH NO YOU HAVE REVEALED AN UNDERCOVER AGENT! I
admit it's really hard to keep it all in your head,
a mighty river of bullshit has been spread. I'm more
pissed off about the fact that any undercover ops
that Plame was involved with now had to be dismantled,
and no one seems to care.
\_ Funny, I don't remember that and can't find anything to
verify that.
\_ Are you daft? Google("paula jones" merit)
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/06/jones.appeal
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/03/jones.opinion
\_ Are YOU daft? She was appealing that decision when
Clinton settled with her.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/jones111498.htm
http://csua.org/u/i7g
\_ FYI, Ken Starr was an Indepedent Counsel and the law that
authorized his appointment was not renewed by Congress in
1999.
\_ FYI, the Indepedent Counsel law that Ken Starr was appointed
under lapsed in 1999. |
| 4/4 |
|
| www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/06/jones.appeal -> www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/06/jones.appeal/ Help Paula Jones' Lawyers Are Eager For The OK To Appeal campbell WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, April 6) -- The chief lawyers for Paula Jones said Sunday they believe Jones could win an appeal of her dismissed sexual harassment suit against President Bill Clinton if she files one. But Donovan Campbell, who heads the Jones legal team, said his client has not yet decided on appealing. "Obviously, there is a chance of success on appeal or we would not recommend any type of appeal," Campbell said on ABC's "This Week." Her lawyers have given her the pros and cons of what might be involved. The decision factors now are human factors, not legal factors," he said. Last week, a federal judge in Arkansas threw out Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit, saying Jones' attorneys did not present sufficient evidence of sexual harassment and economic or psychological damage to merit a jury's hearing the case. Another member of the legal team, the Rutherford Institute's John Whitehead, said his organization, which has helped finance the case for Jones, has urged an appeal. "The Rutherford Institute really wants to appeal this case," Whitehead said on "FOX News Sunday." "I think there's a good chance she will appeal the case." Appearing later Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition" and asked if he would bet on Jones filing an appeal, Whitehead said she had "true grit." whitehead "I think that she's had a lot of stamina since 1994 and there's a good chance that she will decide to appeal and we can move forward," he said. Both Whitehead and Campbell rebutted suggestions that money would be a factor in whether Jones appeals because his firm is working on a contingency basis. White House advisor Rahm Emanuel, appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," said the case was over and an appeal would not be worthwhile. "The judge said this case was without merit, it was baseless. And in that sense, it is time to move on," said Emanuel. |
| www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/03/jones.opinion -> www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/03/jones.opinion/ Help Text Of Judge's Opinion In Paula Jones' Lawsuit Against Clinton By The Associated Press Text of US District Judge Susan Webber Wright's opinion dismissing Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit: Note : Ellipses are used where citations of court documents or footnotes appear in the original; text is otherwise complete The plaintiff in this lawsuit, Paula Corbin Jones, seeks civil damages from William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States, and Danny Ferguson, a former Arkansas state police officer, for alleged actions beginning with an incident in a hotel suite in Little Rock, Arkansas. This case was previously before the Supreme Court of the United States to resolve the issue of presidential immunity but was remanded to this court following the Supreme Court's determination that there is no constitutional impediment to allowing plaintiff's case to proceed while the president is in office. Following remand, the president filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 22, 1997, this court granted in part and denied in part the president's motion. The court dismissed plaintiff's defamation claim against the president, dismissed her due process claim for deprivation of a property interest in her state employment, and dismissed her due process claims for deprivation of a liberty interest based on false imprisonment and injury to reputation, but concluded that the remaining claims in plaintiff's complaint stated viable causes of action. Plaintiff subsequently obtained new counsel and filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, which the court granted, albeit with several qualifications. The matter is now before the court on motion of both the president and Ferguson for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has responded in opposition to these motions, and the president and Ferguson have each filed a reply to plaintiff's response to their motions. For the reasons that follow, the court finds that the president's and Ferguson's motions for summary judgment should both be and hereby are granted. I This lawsuit is based on an incident that is said to have taken place on the afternoon of May 8, 1991, in a suite at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas. President Clinton was governor of the state of Arkansas at the time, and plaintiff was a state employee with the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission (AIDC), having begun her state employment on March 11, 1991. Ferguson was an Arkansas state police officer assigned to the governor's security detail. According to the record, then-Governor Clinton was at the Excelsior Hotel on the day in question delivering a speech at an official conference being sponsored by the AIDC. Plaintiff states that she and another AIDC employee, Pamela Blackard, were working at a registration desk for the AIDC when a man approached the desk and informed her and Blackard that he was Trooper Danny Ferguson, the governor's bodyguard. She states that Ferguson made small talk with her and Blackard and that they asked him if he had a gun as he was in street clothes and they "wanted to know." Ferguson acknowledged that he did and, after being asked to show the gun to them, left the registration desk to return to the governor. The conversation between plaintiff, Blackard, and Ferguson lasted approximately five minutes and consisted of light, friendly banter; there was nothing intimidating, threatening, or coercive about it. Upon leaving the registration desk, Ferguson apparently had a conversation with the governor about the possibility of meeting with plaintiff, during which Ferguson states the governor remarked that plaintiff had "that come-hither look," ie "a sort of (sexually) suggestive appearance from the look or dress." He states that "some time later" the governor asked him to "get him a room, that he was expecting a call from the White House and ... had several phone calls that he needed to make," and asked him to go to the car and get his briefcase containing the phone messages. Ferguson states that upon obtaining the room, the governor told him that if plaintiff wanted to meet him, she could come up." Plaintiff states that Ferguson later reappeared at the registration desk, delivered a piece of paper to her with a four-digit number written on it, and said that the governor would like to meet with her in this suite number. She states that she, Blackard, and Ferguson talked about what the governor could want and that Ferguson stated, among other things, "We do this all the time." Thinking that it was an honor to be asked to meet the governor and that it might lead to an enhanced employment opportunity, plaintiff states that she agreed to the meeting and that Ferguson escorted her to the floor of the hotel upon which the governor's suite was located. Plaintiff states that upon arriving at the suite and announcing herself, the governor shook her hand, invited her in, and closed the door. She states that a few minutes of small talk ensued, which included the governor asking her about her job and him mentioning that Dave Harrington, plaintiff's ultimate superior within the AIDC and a Clinton appointee, was his "good friend." Plaintiff states that the governor then "unexpectedly reached over to (her), took her hand, and pulled her toward him, so that their bodies were close to each other." She states she removed her hand from his and retreated several feet, but that the governor approached her again and, while saying, "I love the way your hair flows down your back" and "I love your curves," put his hand on her leg, started sliding it toward her pelvic area, and bent down to attempt to kiss her on the neck, all without her consent. Plaintiff states that she exclaimed, "What are you doing?" told the governor that she was "not that kind of girl," and "escaped" from the governor's reach "by walking away from him." She states she was extremely upset and confused and, not knowing what to do, attempted to distract the governor by chatting about his wife. She states that she was "horrified" by this and that she "jumped up from the couch" and told the governor that she had to go, saying something to the effect that she had to get back to the registration desk. Plaintiff states that the governor, "while fondling his penis," said, "Well, I don't want to make you do anything you don't want to do," and then pulled up his pants and said, "If you get in trouble for leaving work, have Dave call me immediately and I'll take care of it." She states that as she left the room (the door of which was not locked), the governor "detained" her momentarily, "looked sternly" at her, and said, "You are smart. Plaintiff states that the governor's advances to her were unwelcome, that she never said or did anything to suggest to the governor that she was willing to have sex with him, and that during the time they were together in the hotel suite, she resisted his advances although she was "stunned by them and intimidated by who he was." She states that when the governor referred to Dave Harrington, she "understood that he was telling her that he had control over Mr Harrington and over her job, and that he was willing to use that power." She states that from that point on, she was "very fearful" that her refusal to submit to the governor's advances could damage her career and even jeopardize her employment. Plaintiff states that when she left the hotel suite, she was in shock and upset but tried to maintain her composure. She states she saw Ferguson waiting outside the suite but that he did not escort her back to the registration desk and nothing was said between them. Ferguson states that five or ten minutes after plaintiff exited the suite he joined the governor for their return to the governor's mansion and that the governor, who was working on some papers that he had spread out on the desk, said, "She came up here, and nothing happened." Plaintiff states she returned to the registration desk and told Blackard some of what had h... |
| www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/jones111498.htm Full Coverage: Clinton Accused By Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, November 14, 1998; Page A1 President Clinton reached an out-of-court settlement with Paula Jones yesterday, agreeing to pay her $850,000 to drop the sexual harassment lawsuit that led to the worst political crisis of his career and only the third presidential impeachment inquiry in American history. After more than 4 1/2 years of scorched-earth legal warfare, Clinton and Jones brought a sudden end to the case with a four-page deal in which he acknowledged no wrongdoing and offered no apology. The agreement, which will be filed with a federal appeals court considering whether the lawsuit should go forward, requires the president to pay within 60 days. Robert S Bennett, Clinton's chief attorney in the case, said the president still insists Jones's allegations of a crude proposition in a Little Rock hotel suite seven years ago "are baseless" but agreed to make the payment in the interest of finally putting the matter behind him. "The president has decided he is not prepared to spend one more hour on this matter," Bennett said. "It is clear that the American people want their president and Congress to focus on the problems that they were elected to solve. The settlement foreclosed the possibility that Clinton's personal life would be reopened for public inspection at a sensational trial had the lawsuit dismissed in April been reinstated, as many lawyers involved believed it would be. It also may help the president's allies defend him against independent counsel Kenneth W Starr's allegations that he lied and obstructed justice during the case, while providing a new opportunity for the White House to cut a separate deal with Congress to drop impeachment proceedings. Just hours before the settlement was inked yesterday, Starr sent new evidence to the House Judiciary Committee stemming from a witness in the Jones case, Kathleen E Willey, who also accused Clinton of an unwelcome sexual advance. Jones made no public comment, but her husband, Steve, told reporters outside their California condominium that the payment amounts to an apology on its own. "Paying a substantial amount of money makes a statement on its own. This has nothing to do with an ax to grind with Bill Clinton." John W Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, which financed her lawsuit, called the deal "justice for Paula" and said it would draw attention to "the importance of protecting powerless women from workplace harassment and the role of the rule of law in our highest offices." The extraordinary case came to an extraordinary finale, with the defendant agreeing to pay $850,000 even though the plaintiff originally only asked for $700,000 when she filed suit -- and even though the case was dismissed without a trial. The document signed late yesterday afternoon made no mention of how Clinton would pay for the settlement, but sources said it likely would come from both his legal defense fund and a separate deal with one of his insurance companies. Sources said the president's lawyers have reached a tentative agreement with Chubb Group Insurance to buy out the personal liability policy that had covered some of his legal expenses for close to half of the settlement. "When all is said and done, not a penny will come out of his pocket," said one person close to the situation. The Jones camp, which has struggled with bitter internal divisions in recent weeks, has yet to determine how it will divide the money among the many lawyers who have staked a claim on it. Although lawyers involved believe Jones will get a decent share of the settlement, it remains to be determined how much. Even as both sides celebrated yesterday, they were cognizant of the enormous toll the lawsuit has taken on everyone involved. For Clinton, even though the case was dismissed by a federal judge, the Jones suit will forever mar his chapter in the history books, cementing an image as a leader whose reckless personal life endangered an otherwise remarkable political career. The case opened a Pandora's box of allegations about his past sex life and made him the first president ever interrogated under oath as a defendant in a civil lawsuit or before a grand jury as a possible criminal target. Jones v Clinton also yielded a historic decision by the Supreme Court, which ruled 9 to 0 last year that even the chief executive can be sued. And it was the resulting search for evidence that led Jones's lawyers to Monica S Lewinsky and the chain of events that prompted Starr's report to Congress alleging that Clinton committed 11 impeachable offenses. Jones filed her suit in May 1994, accusing Clinton of luring her to a suite at the Excelsior Hotel during a May 8, 1991, conference when he was governor of Arkansas and she was a state clerk. During that brief encounter, she said he touched her, tried to kiss her and dropped his pants and asked for oral sex. Clinton has denied that steadfastly, maintaining he does not even remember meeting her. US District Judge Susan Webber Wright dismissed the case last spring, ruling that even if Jones's allegations were true, such "boorish and offensive" behavior would not be severe enough to constitute sexual harassment under the law. Jones then asked the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the decision and, after Starr's report came out, argued that Clinton's alleged misconduct during the case justified a reversal. Two members of the three-judge panel appeared sympathetic during oral arguments last month and on Tuesday the court asked for the full transcript of Clinton's Jan. To short-circuit the appeal, the two sides came together yesterday after two months of fitful negotiations that often appeared on the verge of collapse and nearly unraveled because of the unsolicited intrusion of a New York tycoon who offered $1 million of his own money to persuade Jones to drop the case in the national interest. While previous attempts to settle had repeatedly failed, Jones's lawyers approached Bennett in September with a $1 million proposal that abandoned her long-standing demand for an apology from the president, a condition that had been a deal-killer for Clinton. Bennett countered with a $500,000 offer, then upped it to $700,000, but Jones held out for the full $1 million and insisted on taking the other $1 million from businessman Abe Hirschfeld as well. Hirschfeld's involvement spooked the White House, if for no other reason than the mercurial real estate mogul has been indicted on state tax evasion charges in New York. Frustrated by their client's unyielding stance and convinced that Hirschfeld was too erratic to deal with, Jones's lawyers informed her they planned to quit, which appeared to shake her into agreeing to break ties with her would-be benefactor. William N McMillan III, a California attorney and husband of Jones's friend, Susan Carpenter-McMillan, took over negotiating this week and assured Bennett that Hirschfeld was out of the picture, according to sources close to the case. Bennett insisted on a written commitment and McMillan faxed a letter that said, "I further represent to you that the money from Mr Abraham Hirschfeld is no longer on the table and that there will be no payment from Mr Hirschfeld as part of the settlement with your client." Bennett spoke with the president three times Thursday even as he was consulting with advisers about whether to attack Iraq and finally Clinton authorized his legal team to settle, one source said. Yesterday afternoon the agreement was signed by Bennett, McMillan, Jones lawyer Donovan Campbell Jr. and Bill W Bristow, the lawyer for co-defendant Danny Ferguson, the state trooper who escorted Jones to meet with Clinton. "Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to be an admission of liability or wrongdoing by any party," the document said. At the White House, aides were relieved to finally have the matter behind them. "The feeling here was unanimous and universal -- it's over!" "Those two words have so much power, because nothing is ever over here. With the case settled, the president has a chance to end the distractions of scandal for... |
| csua.org/u/i7g -> www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/jones111498.htm Full Coverage: Clinton Accused By Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, November 14, 1998; Page A1 President Clinton reached an out-of-court settlement with Paula Jones yesterday, agreeing to pay her $850,000 to drop the sexual harassment lawsuit that led to the worst political crisis of his career and only the third presidential impeachment inquiry in American history. After more than 4 1/2 years of scorched-earth legal warfare, Clinton and Jones brought a sudden end to the case with a four-page deal in which he acknowledged no wrongdoing and offered no apology. The agreement, which will be filed with a federal appeals court considering whether the lawsuit should go forward, requires the president to pay within 60 days. Robert S Bennett, Clinton's chief attorney in the case, said the president still insists Jones's allegations of a crude proposition in a Little Rock hotel suite seven years ago "are baseless" but agreed to make the payment in the interest of finally putting the matter behind him. "The president has decided he is not prepared to spend one more hour on this matter," Bennett said. "It is clear that the American people want their president and Congress to focus on the problems that they were elected to solve. The settlement foreclosed the possibility that Clinton's personal life would be reopened for public inspection at a sensational trial had the lawsuit dismissed in April been reinstated, as many lawyers involved believed it would be. It also may help the president's allies defend him against independent counsel Kenneth W Starr's allegations that he lied and obstructed justice during the case, while providing a new opportunity for the White House to cut a separate deal with Congress to drop impeachment proceedings. Just hours before the settlement was inked yesterday, Starr sent new evidence to the House Judiciary Committee stemming from a witness in the Jones case, Kathleen E Willey, who also accused Clinton of an unwelcome sexual advance. Jones made no public comment, but her husband, Steve, told reporters outside their California condominium that the payment amounts to an apology on its own. "Paying a substantial amount of money makes a statement on its own. This has nothing to do with an ax to grind with Bill Clinton." John W Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, which financed her lawsuit, called the deal "justice for Paula" and said it would draw attention to "the importance of protecting powerless women from workplace harassment and the role of the rule of law in our highest offices." The extraordinary case came to an extraordinary finale, with the defendant agreeing to pay $850,000 even though the plaintiff originally only asked for $700,000 when she filed suit -- and even though the case was dismissed without a trial. The document signed late yesterday afternoon made no mention of how Clinton would pay for the settlement, but sources said it likely would come from both his legal defense fund and a separate deal with one of his insurance companies. Sources said the president's lawyers have reached a tentative agreement with Chubb Group Insurance to buy out the personal liability policy that had covered some of his legal expenses for close to half of the settlement. "When all is said and done, not a penny will come out of his pocket," said one person close to the situation. The Jones camp, which has struggled with bitter internal divisions in recent weeks, has yet to determine how it will divide the money among the many lawyers who have staked a claim on it. Although lawyers involved believe Jones will get a decent share of the settlement, it remains to be determined how much. Even as both sides celebrated yesterday, they were cognizant of the enormous toll the lawsuit has taken on everyone involved. For Clinton, even though the case was dismissed by a federal judge, the Jones suit will forever mar his chapter in the history books, cementing an image as a leader whose reckless personal life endangered an otherwise remarkable political career. The case opened a Pandora's box of allegations about his past sex life and made him the first president ever interrogated under oath as a defendant in a civil lawsuit or before a grand jury as a possible criminal target. Jones v Clinton also yielded a historic decision by the Supreme Court, which ruled 9 to 0 last year that even the chief executive can be sued. And it was the resulting search for evidence that led Jones's lawyers to Monica S Lewinsky and the chain of events that prompted Starr's report to Congress alleging that Clinton committed 11 impeachable offenses. Jones filed her suit in May 1994, accusing Clinton of luring her to a suite at the Excelsior Hotel during a May 8, 1991, conference when he was governor of Arkansas and she was a state clerk. During that brief encounter, she said he touched her, tried to kiss her and dropped his pants and asked for oral sex. Clinton has denied that steadfastly, maintaining he does not even remember meeting her. US District Judge Susan Webber Wright dismissed the case last spring, ruling that even if Jones's allegations were true, such "boorish and offensive" behavior would not be severe enough to constitute sexual harassment under the law. Jones then asked the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the decision and, after Starr's report came out, argued that Clinton's alleged misconduct during the case justified a reversal. Two members of the three-judge panel appeared sympathetic during oral arguments last month and on Tuesday the court asked for the full transcript of Clinton's Jan. To short-circuit the appeal, the two sides came together yesterday after two months of fitful negotiations that often appeared on the verge of collapse and nearly unraveled because of the unsolicited intrusion of a New York tycoon who offered $1 million of his own money to persuade Jones to drop the case in the national interest. While previous attempts to settle had repeatedly failed, Jones's lawyers approached Bennett in September with a $1 million proposal that abandoned her long-standing demand for an apology from the president, a condition that had been a deal-killer for Clinton. Bennett countered with a $500,000 offer, then upped it to $700,000, but Jones held out for the full $1 million and insisted on taking the other $1 million from businessman Abe Hirschfeld as well. Hirschfeld's involvement spooked the White House, if for no other reason than the mercurial real estate mogul has been indicted on state tax evasion charges in New York. Frustrated by their client's unyielding stance and convinced that Hirschfeld was too erratic to deal with, Jones's lawyers informed her they planned to quit, which appeared to shake her into agreeing to break ties with her would-be benefactor. William N McMillan III, a California attorney and husband of Jones's friend, Susan Carpenter-McMillan, took over negotiating this week and assured Bennett that Hirschfeld was out of the picture, according to sources close to the case. Bennett insisted on a written commitment and McMillan faxed a letter that said, "I further represent to you that the money from Mr Abraham Hirschfeld is no longer on the table and that there will be no payment from Mr Hirschfeld as part of the settlement with your client." Bennett spoke with the president three times Thursday even as he was consulting with advisers about whether to attack Iraq and finally Clinton authorized his legal team to settle, one source said. Yesterday afternoon the agreement was signed by Bennett, McMillan, Jones lawyer Donovan Campbell Jr. and Bill W Bristow, the lawyer for co-defendant Danny Ferguson, the state trooper who escorted Jones to meet with Clinton. "Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to be an admission of liability or wrongdoing by any party," the document said. At the White House, aides were relieved to finally have the matter behind them. "The feeling here was unanimous and universal -- it's over!" "Those two words have so much power, because nothing is ever over here. With the case settled, the president has a chance to end the distractions of scandal for... |