Clinton...what's your beef?

Great Debates
121

Why is the president not exempt from a lawsuit while serving? I can think of one reason why he’s not. It’s only been since 1951 with the ratification of the 22nd amendment that the president has really had to leave office prior to death. Before the adoption of this amendment, a president could conceivably avoid a trial altogether with continuous re-elections. By this he then avoids the guarantee, to the accused and the accusers, of a timely trial.

Let me ask you, if there were no presidential term limit and Bill had been re-elected last fall, how many years do you think his accusers should have to wait to get their day in court? The possibility of a trial of sitting president merely makes him more accountable to the people.

And just what protections are those? I can’t find them stated factually and substantiated anywhere in this thread either. I’m assuming, though, that you are speaking of the use of courts-martial. In which case, I’d be happy to hold Clinton to those standards. Let’s take a look shall we?

On May 8, 1965, Executive Order 11222 was issued "To provide a guide on ethical standards of conduct for both military and civilian personnel.’’ This executive order was followed by the Department of Defense Directives 5500.7 and AR 600-50, which prescribe standards of conduct for present and former military and civilian personnel of the Department of Defense including retired personnel of all the armed forces.

In the military, adultery carries a maximum sentence of dishonorable discharge and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. You’ll note that Mr. Clinton is now ostensibly retired; the UCMJ still applies to him. He can’t even commit adultery now without forfeiture of of his presidential pension.

In addition, UCMJ §814, Article 14 says:

So, if you wish to hold the president to the UCMJ standards, is appears an interested civil authority could request he’s turned over to them for a civilian trial.

And finally, from the Manual for Courts-Martial - http://jaglink.jag.af.mil/manual.htm

and

So, we have military standards that are more rigorous than civilian standards, we have a provision that allows a military tribunal to deliver the accused to a civilian authority at their request and finally, the accused must be brought to trial within 120 days of charges being preferred against him. Yep. I’m all for it. Let’s hold Clinton to the same standards as we hold our military.

122

Well, speaking of unaddressed issues, I’ll assume you now accept that the Supreme Court decision was correct since you haven’t answered my separation of powers question.

Your statement that the issue of why the president isn’t protected hasn’t been addressed is factually and provably false. Numerous posters have given reasons. The fact that you might not agree with the reasons does not mean the issue is unaddressed. However, I will repeat my points (and leave the other posters to repeat their points if they wish.)

You have claimed repeatedly that having to defend against a lawsuit will distract the president to the detriment of the country. Therefore, you feel there should be a law granting a sitting president the right to delay any civil suits against him.

However, aside from your statement that it distracts the president, you’ve shown me nothing that shows that (a) a suit would be any more distracting than a president’s duties to campaign, raise funds for his party, meet with constitutents to boost his polls, or any other of the many non-executive tasks every president undertakes, or (b) that the distraction would be to the detriment of the country. The only example we have is the Jones case, but you haven’t explained the damage done to the country aside from hurt feelings. Given the purely speculative nature of your claims, there is no need for legislation. It is unwise to fashion a “remedy” to a “problem” that hasn’t even been identified – or might not even exist.

The president is a citizen like all other citizens. Yes, he has responsibilities, but since I haven’t seen any evidence that a lawsuit will render a president derelict in his duties there is no compelling reason to pass a law putting him above others.

If a person is wronged, the law gives that person a right to seek redress. The law sets out the means by which that person can seek redress, and makes every attempt to make sure that person’s right to seek redress is a swift as possible. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, it is unfair to make somebody wait too long. Often, in the case of severe injury, the damages sought are necessary for mere existence. But the law also realizes that if people have to wait too long, memories start to fade, witnesses die or move away not to be heard from again, physical evidence spoils, documents get lost or destroyed, etc. If a president can delay suit while in office, a plaintiff is faced with a minimum four year delay, and possibly eight years. Let’s use an example: Say the president had driven recklessly and ran into a child who was brain-damaged as a result. The cost of therapy is going to be incredibly high, and only the wealthiest person could afford to front the money. Furthermore, you’re asking for physical evidence of the accident and witness memory to stay fresh and available for four to eight years. In effect, that family will be denied justice if their suit is delayed. Given that your counterargument is based purely on speculation, it does not outweigh a citizen’s right to be made whole. And, lest you think my example is merely speculative, I’ll tell you that one of the reasons we have statutes of limitations is because of the concern that delays lead to miscarriages of justice. These statutes of limitation are based on experiences in the legal system, not speculation.

These are realities of the legal system. The fact that the president might get harrassed by suits or might be distracted don’t outweigh our rights. I simply don’t see how the Jones suit demonstrates how horrible a lawsuit against the president is. I think the call for this new presidential power is an overreaction to a perceived problem. If a time comes when a president gets so distracted from his duties due to enormous amounts of lawsuits, then perhaps delaying a suit will make sense. But these claims that the country is suffering and the future of the presidency is at stake because of one lawsuit in the history of the Republic is a bit Chicken Little-ish.

And a final little note. My understanding of the reason “General Butthead” gets protection is because Congress was concerned that soldiers serving overseas would be sued in the US. The fact that the servicemember is overseas would seriously hamper his or her ability to defend against a lawsuit. So the situations aren’t analagous.

123

**

I’m not up on the Uniform Code of Military Justice but perhaps someone here could help us out. I wonder if such immunity only applies during certain tours of duty or under certain conditions. Without some sort of criteria to determine postponment then people could just stay in the military for years and years which would end up making them immune.

I think that it would be reasonable to postpone civil trials during a war or some other national emergency. But if the country is doing fine then I fail to see any reason the president should be immune.

Marc

124

I’ve been referring to the statute allowing servicemembers to delay suit as the “Soldier and Seamans Act” but that’s not the real name. It is the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act of 1940. This link provides a brief history of the Act and the purposes behind the statute. I think it clearly shows that the analogy between president and soldier is specious. This Act was passed to protect poorly paid soldiers during wartime. The rationale behind the Act does not extend to the president.

125

Sorry for the bad link. Here’s the fixed link.

126

Yes, that’s what I meant. What does “equal protection under the law” mean if you’re defining the law as narrowly as possible? That confounds the principle; it doesn’t support it. Now this is important - the principle is what matters. Just as “The Devil can quote Scripture for his own purposes”, so can the letter of the law be used to do violence to the spirit of the law. The system can be and often has been abused, and that’s true even if the letter of the law has been strictly followed. No one is above the law, but no one should be beneath it either. That protection should start before the first piece of paper has been filed, or else it has been violated.

You stated up front that your focus is very narrow. I would suggest that it’s so narrow it misses and even violates the underlying principles altogether.

I think the entire history of Larry Klayman and his organizations over the past 9 years, of which the Jones case is only a part, shows me to be correct on that point. The collaboration between the Klayman and Starr staffs has been reported and is another example of how the power to sue frivolously can be used in parallel with the power to prosecute frivolously to paralyze its target. I don’t understand how you can say it “hasn’t been abused”.

I don’t disagree with that. The Jones case WAS dismissed because it WAS frivolous and WAS patently politically motivated (ref. Klayman comments above), but the damage to the defendant’s reputation and bank balance, not to mention to the country as a whole. The dismissal didn’t really matter - the damage had already been done, and that was the purpose.

As I just pointed out. Glad you agree now. There is no consistent answer, I agree, except for all of us, including the courts and the political opposition, to recognize such motivations when they occur. I think most of us did, but that ultimately didn’t matter.

{fixed code. --Gaudere}

[Edited by Gaudere on 03-20-2001 at 12:35 PM]

127

Maybe I wasn’t clear, so let me clarify. When I said my focus was narrow, I meant my original focus which was to show that the Supreme Court decision wasn’t “bogus”. My focus was narrow because I didn’t want to get into the facts of the case and whether Jones was a scum, or Clinton was a scum, etc. I still don’t want to get into that, by the way.

My definition of “equal protection” is not narrow. It is the legal definition and the only workable one. There can never be “equal protection” if you insert politics into the process. I’ll address that below.

I’m not exactly sure I’m reading you right, so I’m going to lay out what I think you’re saying. Let me know if I’m wrong.

First, I wasn’t referring to the Jones suit as the political Pandora’s box. I was referring to the problems that would arise if we allowed some sort of political purity test to be applied before allowing somebody to sue.

You’ve said, in a previous post, that you are uncomfortable with a new rule delaying suits. You’ve also said that you have a problem with the president being treated like any other litigant. It seems like you’re choosing option 3 which is delaying political or harassing suits against a sitting president.

You’ve identified what you believe is a problem. But the potential solutions are much worse. Despite your view (shared by many) that the Jones suit was meant just to harass and embarrass, that is by no means a fact, it’s just an opinion. But you want a new system based on a sense of “equal protection” and “fairness” that includes looking at whether the suit is political. That determination is so subjective and, well, political that it simply can’t be expected to lead to just results. You think the suit was frivolous. But a neutral judge decided otherwise. The suit wasn’t dismissed as frivolous, it was dismissed because Jones couldn’t prove Clinton’s actions, even if proven, gave Jones the right to recover under her legal theory. You can’t subvert the judicial process by making political decisions about the litigants. And how would that decision be made anyway? Public vote? Polls? That would make the rule of law the rule of passions. If your answer is “the judges” that’s the most dangerous scenario. Nothing good will come from judges making political decisions. It’s not their job – separation of powers again.

You’ve also said that the Klayman/Starr cooperation proves the abuse. Even if we assume this is abuse of the right to sue (rather than zealous advocacy) it still doesn’t cry out for reform. We’ve had one suit in history. What was the damage? The fact that it hurt Clinton’s reputation or checking account isn’t a reason for reform. Only if you accept, a priori, that the suit was frivolous (belied by Judge Wright) can you say a legal debt and reputation damage show the need for reform. As for damage to the country, there were no general strikes, the economy didn’t screech to a halt, we didn’t have to beat off an invasion. America dealt with it. We’re a strong country.

The Jones episode made a lot of people angry, no doubt. When high profile cases happen like this, it’s human nature to call for change. But in highly charged cases, what we truly need is the judicial system that, with all its flaws, comes much closer to judging on the merits rather than by political opinion.

128

Findlaw on frivolous “lacking in any arguable basis or merit in either law or fact”

So, the judge found that even if A was correct about B’s actions, there was no right to recovery in the case, right? that would make it “lacking in any arguable basis or merit in law”. IOW frivolous.

129

Not necessarily. Every person who files suit has to do so in good faith. Generally, “frivolous” suits or motions are those that are determined to not be made in good faith or merely to harass (which, I know, begs the question). The fact that a party loses as a matter of law does not necessarily mean their complaint was frivolous.

130

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zoff *
**

No recovery possible, even if the facts were assumed to be true (according to the judge, who from her subsequent actions, it’s clear that she was not pleased w/Clinton) and you still don’t see it as being frivolous?

Especially considering the order of depositions (ie, attempting to prove the underlying facts). Generally, wouldn’t one attempt to prove first that there was a potential recovery before spending the time, effort and $$ on proving the underlying facts?

131

It doesn’t matter if I see it as frivolous. I’ve deliberately tried to avoid discussing the merits of the Jones case as much as possible because my views on it aren’t relevant. I’ve only used the case since it is the only example of this supposed evil we need to combat.

Ok. Now let’s assume that the Jones case was frivolous. It got dismissed early on, as future frivolous suits will be dismissed – and could be accompnied by a monetary sanction and a stain on the attorney’s reputation. I don’t see this case as an example of the horror that lies ahead. In fact, it’s an example of how the current rules show that we don’t need drastic action.

I’m simply not interested in the Jones case. If you think the president got screwed, fine. If somebody thinks Jones got screwed, fine. My point is that I don’t think Congress should allow a president to delay lawsuits.

132

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zoff *
**

I thought that the testimony reflected that neither the President nor Ms. Jones got screwed…

I see where you are coming from, but feel that the ‘lesson’ here learned was that politically motivated frivolous suits though they may be dismissed early will still result in problems. I agree that in this case many of the problems were brought on by Clinton’s attempting to delay and drag out the case (hindsight being what it is, a very foolish decision). we’ll just disagree about the rest of it.

133

Stoid said back there a ways:

**

Were the Paula Jones allegations isolated, I might be more inclined to dismiss them as negligible, as far as sexual harassment goes.

It’s less easily dismissed for many, however, when viewed in light of the allegations by Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick.

Of the four, Clinton finishes fourth in believability, IMO.

“It’s all circumstantial evidence. You can’t prove anything.”

As good of words to sum up the Clinton legacy as any, I guess.

134

In case I wasn’t clear, keeping the focus deliberately narrow risks missing the point altogether. If you’re entirely comfortable you haven’t done so, there’s no more to discuss.

Are you actually saying that a prosecutor’s decision about which allegations to investigate, or what lawsuits see the light of day, are not part of the legal process, and not subject to the principle of “equal protection” ? That doesn’t even get into political aspects of it.

I do think that’s the least messy option among several such. Your worry about injecting politics into the process, when suits against an elected official are involved, is simply too late - I think that has to be the presumption, based on experience. I freely admit there’s no perfect solution to the problem, but I insist there IS a problem.

If a case lacks a coherent legal basis, or facts, or both, why would you not think that’s describable as “frivolous” ? Ooops, sorry, I see that’s been discussed already. Well, what kind of case WOULD you describe as frivolous?

[quote]
You’ve also said that the Klayman/Starr cooperation proves the abuse. Even if we assume this is abuse of the right to sue (rather than zealous advocacy) it still doesn’t cry out for reform. We’ve had one suit in history.

[quote]

Excuse me, but where the hell have you been the last few years? Here for example is a list of Judicial Watch’s own current case list. Add the Southeastern Legal Foundation and the Landmark Legal Foundation, which manufactured the Jones suit and the Clinton disbarment suit, the Broaddrick suit, the Willey suit, dabbling in the Elian Gonzalez case, and dozens of others, and tell me there hasn’t been a pattern of abuse of the lawsuit system there, directed at Clinton and his cabinet. Each of these has required time spent in discovery, PERSONAL funds spent on lawyers, and the constant risk of saying or doing anything that would lead to another suit or perjury allegation.

Klayman and his organizations, aided by Scaife financing, have spent years and millions doing something that you deny exists and therefore doesn’t need reform. “Zealous advocacy” you say? We have a political system for that. Klayman has continually abused the legal system for political ends. I think you’re out on a very weak limb in maintaining that it’s not a problem and it doesn’t need to be reformed.

Those are examples of how a citizen can be abused by the legal process when it is misused. If that isn’t a reason for reform, what is?

It takes, again, a too-narrow focus to say that there was no damage to the country. This point is probably fruitless to discuss further, though.

135

As an aside, a classmate of mine made a statement about Clinton which I think is perfect:
“Clinton’s like the visiting uncle who used to buy you beer. You thought he was great, but you eventually realized it wasn’t such a good idea.”

136

Just some thoughts from someone in the Free World, of whom your Presidents are supposed to be Leaders Of …

I liked Clinton. He had presence as your president. He acted like he was in charge, and responsible for, your nation’s policies and their implementation. Okay, so he was a bad boy from Arkansas. He didn’t screw a first cousin while in office, but he engaged in extra-marital activity. The Republicans were out to nail him right from the get-go, and Clinton fell into their lap.

And the lap of your media, ever-hungry for the prurient. Y’know, for a country with the reputation for having commercials censored when they get just that little bit too racy, you folk sure have a media system that salivates over the lewd. The president isn’t exempt from the laws of your country, as we’ve seen. But like anyone else in the limelight, he is subject to trial by media. That’s culture, not law. Your president is subject to special rules based on your culture, your nation’s experience. And not all of 'em are healthy.

You now have a president who looks – well, pathetic. After Clinton, Bush snr., Reagan even – the guy you have there in the White House is a pale shadow, a generic politician. He’ll do some kind of job – either for you, or on you – but he will be a footnote to history. Unless he starts a war somewhere and bloodies his copybook.

There’s been some damn good posts in this thread. Stoid, you have impressed me again with your arguments and your graciousness in recognising any wrongs in your side of the debate.

BTW, if I was American, I would have voted for Clinton both times.

137

Well, gosh darn, ma’am… I dunno what to say. Except that it shore is nice having someone actually read and understand me for once! And appreciate me, too? My cup runneth over!

:smiley:

stoid

138

Well, that’s typical. Respond to the blandishments, ignore the opposing arguments.

139

You’re mixing issues here. A prosecutor has no role in a civil lawsuit. The government owes the citizens equal protection. Treating everybody the same in a lawsuit is equal protection.

You want some unnamed body to decide if a suit is non-political. What are the criteria? If NOW had supported Jones would the suit be OK? If a conservative democrat supported her? If a liberal republican?

If Pres. Bush assaults Molly Ivins and Rush Limbaugh, is only Limbaugh’s suit legitimate because he’s not liberal? Would you deny Ivins the right because she is a critic of Bush?

What you’re suggesting is that we base rights on political leanings. Talk about a big, heaping plateful of equal protection violation.

You still haven’t answered a key question: How are you going to run this new system? Who decides political purity? The courts? Sorry, they’re barred from deciding political questions? Congress? Nope. Separation of powers – they are the legislative branch, not the judicial branch. A Gallup Poll? Internet voting?

You keep repeating your opinion. I respect that you feel strongly. But you haven’t addressed any of my issues. You can’t just ignore an argument and say “well, I still think there’s a problem and here’s my unconstitutional solution.”

Now we have multiple constitutional problems with your scheme. You need to discuss these.

Well, Judicial Watch certainly has been busy, haven’t they? But you’re confusing issues again. Almost every one of those lawsuits involves an action against an official act. Government employees, including the president, have immunity from personal liability for official actions. When Judicial Watch sues the Justice Department government attorneys deal with it. The Attorney General isn’t personally liable and doesn’t have to hire an attorney. If your beef is with them wanting independent counsel appointments, I’ve already said I don’t like the IC statute. But none of this has anything to do with whether a sitting president should be able to delay a lawsuit.

It certainly is fruitless if your argument is that you can’t point to any damage, but trust me, it’s there.

So much of so many posts by so many people have been completely irrelevant to this debate. This issue isn’t about whether Clinton was a good president or Klayman is a jerk or Bush was worse or Reagan sucked. It’s about the constitution. And there are numerous outstanding constitutional questions that neither you nor Stoid have answered.

A lot of your argument seems based on your dislike of Larry Klayman. I’ve never argued he’s not a jerk. But don’t let him bait you into a constitution shredding party.

140

I would like to see you answer the question straightly, instead of lawyerishly. I am indeed keeping civil vs. criminal issues separate, while still recognizing that they are both legal issues and still subject to equal protection. I don’t know how to be clearer - any “mixing” is in your own mind, friend.

Hardly - but there has to be a presumption, and presumptions can be overridden by facts. In the case of lawsuits conveniently timed at an elected official, painful recent experience tells us what the best presumption is.

We do indeed. We can start by recognizing that the Constitution is a living document, with frequent amendments following a process created by the Founding Fathers who recognized that they would frequently be necessary. It is not, as you and many right-wingers seem to think, a set of stone tablets handed down by God Almighty, immune to changes in the real world.

Again, you’re addressing only one side aspect of what I’m telling you in a lawyerish way to pretend you’re addressing the central point. I’m glad you’re now somewhat aware of the sheer number and harassing value of Klayman’s suits, which do demonstrate that the problem is not only possible but real. Yes, some of these are against departments and not persons, but many are against persons and require personal funds. All of them take time by the named officials to respond to, and even the “official” ones therefore work against all of us.

But at least you’re now off that “only one such suit in history” kick. Can I now take it that you recognize a problem now, and that it does require reform?
{fixed code. --Gaudere}

[Edited by Gaudere on 03-21-2001 at 05:27 PM]