You’re quite correct, JDM, when you point out that Judge Wright ultimately ruled that the Lewinsky testimony was irrelevant, and thus inadmissible, in the Paula Jones case.
However, that ruling did not exist at the time of the deposition. And during sepositions in any event, the thershold for questions is different than at trial. At trial, a question must elict a relevant piece of evidence. At a deposition, questions must only be “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
No witness is permitted to lie because he ultimately believes the question will be inadmissible. Nor is that a defense against perjury. A witness may refuse to answer a question that he believes improper, and continue that refusal until the judge has ruled on the issue. He may even seek leave to make an interlocutory appeal of an adverse ruling in that situation. He may not, however, decide on his own that the question is improper and that he is therefore entitled to provide false testimony.
Finally, Judge Wright’s finding that the Lewinsky material was inadmissible was subject to review by an appellate court. Paula Jones’ team claimed this was an error on Wright’s part - which they had every right to do. Prior to the question being brought to a final decision by an appeals court, Clinton settled out of court.
You cannot, then, point at Judge Wright’s decision as the settled, final word on the subject of the admissibility of Lewinsky’s testimony.
I grant that this is not an egregious error on your part, and that the odds are that this ruling would have been upheld. Appeals courts review evidentiary rulings on an “abuse of discretion” standard. They do not ask themselves, “What would we decide in these circumstances,” but rather, “Is this judge’s decision one that a reasonable judge would make, a reasonable exercise of her discretion?”
Under that standard of review, it’s probable - but by no means certain - that the exclusion of the Lewinsky material would have stuck. But it’s wrong for you to paint the picture as black-and-white; it’s far from it.
Finally, subsequent to the Jones case’s dismissal at summary judgement, but before the withdrawal of her appeal when Clinton settled, the Supreme Court decided Burlington Industries Inc. v. Ellerth. In Ellerth, the Supreme Court ruled that employees have a sexual harassment cause of action even if the incident is not reported and their careers are never damaged.
It may be that the cases are distinguishable - this is not my area of law. But as I read it, Ellerth stands for the proposition that you don’t need to show career damage to win a sexual harrassment suit.
If someone knows more detail on this, I’d appreciate it. Because I may be missing something that makes Ellerth inapplicable to Jones v. Clinton, I’m offering this as a question, not a additional ding against Clinton’s case.
I’m not thrilled about this. I can see many circumstances why twelve years would not be enough for some documents, and I question our credible need to documents that are purely personal.
Most of the ways of handling this have problems. A one person veto doesn’t seem the way to go, though.
That’s all too painfully clear, themoon; I was going to point that out, myself. Conservatives can’t stand to admit that their man, a Reagan-era throwback if there ever was one, is actually a really lousy president who doesn’t care about subverting the law. However, presidential accountability has been conveniently decimated by Ken Starr and company’s politically expedient attacks on the relationship between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky—quite possibly the most irrelevant investigation in American history.
What’s truly sad about all this is that since these conservative “activists” have in effect diminished the value of anyone’s attempt to hold a president accountable for spitting on the laws of the land by dragging Clinton’s personal life through the mud, it’s much more difficult for people to get whipped up in a fury over actual issues, like Bush’s recent abuse of executive powers concerning the Presidential Records Act of 1978. Ever since the Starr scandals began, I’ve been saying that the attention given to such a trivial issue will wind up hurting the country much more than it will hurt Bill Clinton. And now those chickens are coming home to roost.
Congratulations, Starr warriors. You’ve added a whole new dimension to the apathy of Americans toward politics. Bush wouldn’t have been able to sign such an order without your help.
Here’s the text. Looks to this layman like the decision was that a hostile work environment can itself be sexually harassing, and that psychological damage therefore can be as valid a basis for a suit as tangible damage. Kimberley Ellerth was the target of a constant series of crude come-ons from a company officer, who threatened career consequences but never followed through.
But Scaife’s lawyers (er, excuse me, “poor Paula who deserved her day in court”) weren’t making that claim, either. Seems clear who was harassing whom.
Can anyone at all argue that the GWB executive order is a good idea? It’s my understanding that issues of national security are already protected, so what official purpose can it serve?
It’s not paranoid to assume this is a self-serving maneuver, if it is literally the only possible reason. There has to be good reason for me to support something that makes the gov’t more secret, and so far I haven’t even heard a bad reason.
My guess is that it was done to protect his father’s role in Iran-Contra. Being former head of the CIA, he seems the logical choice to have been the driving force behind the operation.
SterlingNorth, I suggest you ask the mods the change the title of this thread. I came within a hair of starting my own thread about this subject, not realizing what this one is about. No doubt, lots of others who might have contibuted have passed it by not knowing what the subject of this thread is.
One of the problems of debating issues of secrecy is that BY DEFINITION we don’t have any information on which to base a judgement.
One reason why it’s important to elect a president you can trust is that he is privy to all kinds of information that we are never privy to. They have to make decisions on subjects we are not aware of.
I’ve always wondered if the U.S. government is aware of a missile threat that we aren’t being told about. Because every president since Reagan has come out supporting Missile Defense. Even Clinton, who was at best cool towards the idea before he became president, and did a 90 degree turn as soon as he got his presidential national security briefing.
So it’s always possible that there is some information in those presidential papers that would be extremely damaging to U.S. national security if it got out. And we’ll never know.
That said, I think the real motivation behind this is Bush’s distaste of making private information public. Reading interviews with people who know him, this comes out loud and clear. He’s an old-school gentleman who believes that there are lots of things that just shouldn’t be public knowledge without the permission of the people involved. That’s one reason why he was absent from the continual Clinton bashing when Clinton was President - he thought it was distasteful.
I certainly don’t agree with the decision given the information we have - and if there IS stuff in there that would hurt U.S. security there might be an argument for moving the sunset period back from 12 years to maybe 25 or 50 years like we do with other sensitive documents. But I’d need some evidence to convince me of that.
If there is anything that would hurt US security, then it is already protected and won’t be released; Bush’s executive order is not needed, the sunset period need not be changed.
No, what I am saying is that the lawyers on both sides worked out the definition during the preparation for the depo. Clinton’s lawyers got the tightest definition, and succeeded in getting the paragraph about “objects” thrown out. Clinton did not have to analyze it “on the spot.” I would think that the final definition was based more on Clinton’s lawyer’s desires than Starr’s. The definition was not set up with “great wads of lawyerly jargon,” it was agreed upon beforehand. Here it is:
"For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes:
Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person."
In other words, if Clinton had been asked “did Monica Lewinsky have sexual relations with you?” the true answer would have been “yes,” since performing oral sex on “any person” is clearly “Contact with the genitalia”“with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.” OTOH, when he was asked “did you have sexual relations with her?” he could truthfully answer “no” according to the above definition. This definition is very specific in terms of the sucker and the suckee. The sucker has sexual relations, the suckee does not. Now I have to say that the Jones lawyers blew it (heh) by accepting this definition. But I can see no reason whatever for Clinton to have said “Hey wait a minute folks, this definition doesn’t cover what Monica and I did.”
originally posted by Bricker
**
Would this apply in civil court?
originally posted by Bricker
**
Here is what Judge Wright said in her dismissal:
**
This comes after a few paragraphs detailing Jones’ allegations re: “tangible job detriment” including those points that were “contradictory to the record” Would the case have gotten heard at all if Jones had not made those “contradictory to the record” allegations?
The full dismissal can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/order040198.htm
along with many other documents from the trial.
I will repeat my question: Why is there no outcry about the Jones allegations, by definition material, which are “contradictory to the record?”
originally posted by Bricker
**
OTOneH that’s fair enough, but OTOtherH consider this: If OJ had been convicted, we can say with almost complete certainty that he would have appealed, perhaps all the way to the SCOTUS. During the term of his appeals, would you have criticized anyone who said “convicted killer OJ Simpson?”
originally posted by Bricker
**
As I said, I am creating this and that was yesterday’s version. Thanks for helping me improve it. What do you think about Clinton’s answer with respect to the actual definition of sexual relations in the depo?
*originally posted by NaSultainne
*
[quote]
**
I just couldn’t let this pass. Let’s see what Bill C. himself had to say in his consent decree which fined him $25,000 and revoked his law license for 5 years, and this in addition to his civil contempt charge by Judge Wright:
I acknowledge having knowingly violated Judge Wright’s discovery orders in my deposition in that case. I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false.
Bolding mine.
[quote]
**
Plea Bargain. The Easy Way Out- end the case finally, by signing a statement that may or may not be true, but which will do very little further damage. If Clinton had kept fighting, even a complete victory would have cost much more, and would not have vindicated him in the public eye.
JDM
Because the “allegations” referred to were made in the context of a pleading - that is, Jones alleged, as she had to in this kind of suit, that she had suffered specific and tangible job detriments after refuse the then-Governor’s advances.
The court found that, following discovery, there was nothing in the record to support that conclusion - even granting that everything Jones said happened to her did happen to her, it didn’t constitute a tangible job detriment.
This isn’t perjury, or lying under oath, in the same vein as Clinton has been accused of. It is Jones, claiming that a particular set of events constitutes tangible job detriment, and the court looking at the same set of events and saying it does not.
As a specific example, Jones said that one of the tangible job detriments she suffered was singling her out as the only female employee not to be given flowers on Secretary’s Day. According to her, this was evidence that she was no longer “in favor” and that, “…reading between the lines…” she was suffering retaliation from Clinton for refusing his sexual advances.
Judge Wright found:
Jones claimed she was discouraged from applying for more attractive jobs and seeking reclassification at a higher pay grade. However:
You see? Jones takes the position that she was discouraged from applying for better jobs. The judge found that those events which she sees as “discouraging” her are insufficient to actually conclude any pattern of official misconduct.
Accepting every single thing Jones said as true, the record (her deposition testimony) doesn’t support the allegations (her claim that she suffered tangible job detriments).
The Judge didn’t - and couldn’t, at that stage - find that she lied… merely that her perception of “tangible job detriment” was not the same as the law’s version.
A similar example: suppose I sue you because you sold me a car which subsequently breaks down. I allege, in my suit, that you represented the car as being in perfect shape. But when it comes time to take testimony, I testify that you told me, “I love this car, and I hate to part with it.”
To me, it’s clear what you meant: this car has no problems! Otherwise, I reason, why would you say such a thing? But from a legal perspective, that statement doesn’t support any kind of claim of fraud. In this case, my allegations would be unsupported by the record. But I haven’t lied; I’ve merely alleged something which I cannot prove.
I hope this clears that up.
**
Of course not - because “convicted” is exactly what he would have been. But a responsible journalist would certainly also note that his case was pending appeal. And when a judge makes an evidentiary ruling, and dismisses a case even before trial, this does not carry with it the same impression of finality that a jury verdict following a trial does.
Still, as I said before, since the standard of review is “abuse of discretion,” it’s a fair bet that the evidentiary ruling would have been upheld. But it’s not something that can be said with certainty. “Convicted” can be said with certainty after a conviction.
In my view, Clinton committed perjury. While he denies that his conduct transgressed the deposition’s definition of sex, according to Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony, she performed oral sex on the President on nine occasions. On all nine of those occasions, the President fondled and kissed her bare breasts. He touched her genitals, both through her underwear and directly, bringing her to orgasm on two occasions. On one occasion, the President inserted a cigar into her vagina. On another occasion, she and the President had brief genital-to-genital contact.
Under the deposition’s definition:
It’s true that if Ms. Lewinsky performed oral sex on Mr. Clinton, while he sat passively and did not touch her, this would not fall under the deposition’s definition of “sex.” But Ms. Lewinsky claims he did touch her breasts and genitals.
Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony is more credible for several reasons. Beyond insisting that his conduct did not fall within the deposition’s definition of sex, Mr. Clinton refused to answer questions about the nature of his physical contact with Ms. Lewinsky. On the other hand, Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony was detailed, specific, and consistent, which tends to bolster her credibility. The fact that Mr. Clinton’s story changed from a “nothing happened at all” version, told during the Jones deposition, to a story which would explain the semen deposits on Ms. Lewinsky’s dress but still leave him safe, does not speak well for his credibility.
Finally, speaking from a common-sense perspective, it’s much more credible to me that if someone is giving you oral sex, you are more likely to touch her breasts than to sit passively by and do nothing.
Accordingly, since you ask me what I think - I resolve the conflicts in the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky and Mr. Clinton in Ms. Lewinsky’s favor, and conclude that the President had sex with her, within the meaning of the Jones deposition definition of sex.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by JDM * originally posted by Bricker
**
I may be missing something- or at least we may be talking about two different things. In the dismissal, in a part that you snipped, Judge Wright says that in Jones’s Depo, Jones:
**
This is a statement by Jones of concrete events, which the Judge says is false. Jones also states that she
**
which the Judge also says was false:
**
Those two statements, that she applied for different jobs when she did not, and that her position was downgraded when it in reality was upgraded, are lies. Those statements are different from the
**
statements about no flowers and having her desk moved. Even if the Judge at this stage of the trial can do nothing other than throw out the case in response to Jones’s statements that were
,
why would Jones’s lying under oath in her Depo not be actionable in some fashion after the trial?
And I have a tendency to think that if those concrete claims had not been in the original complaint (and thus leaving only “perception” claims), it is at least possible that Judge Wright would have thrown out the case much earlier, or refused to hear it in the first place. She did throw out several related issues, after all, and she cites
**
If the “material fact(s) regarding denial of economic benefits” are removed from Jones’s complaint, the complaint very closely resembles that from Splunge v. Shoney’s. The Judge would have been following precedent if she refused to hear the case from the beginning.
.
And even if there is nothing illegal about lying in order to bring a suit, why are all the people who have condemned Clinton for lying under oath not condemned Paula Jones for lying under oath?
Maybe this discussion, if it continues, should go to its own thread? JDM
Start a thread! Lots of folks are lurking, and others don’t realize this discussion is occuring, but would enjoy reading or participating if they knew.