Remember when Paula Jones filed that sexual harrassment claim against Bill Clinton? It was based on her allegations that then Governor Clinton had asked Jones for a blow job while in an Arkansas hotel room. Remember that this was the lawsuit that led to the whole Monica Lewinski perjury impeachment thing.
Something always did strike me as fishy about her claim. In my opinion, Jones DID have sex with Clinton. Either regular sex or a blowjob. Dont ask me why I think this, maybe it’s because Jones looks like the type of woman who would probable enjoy giving B.Js to powerful men. Maybe because it seems like she only filed suit for the money. Maybe it’s because of her Penhouse photo spread. I dont know.
(But, mind you, I didn’t follow it closely)
Someone writing a story about Clinton’s pecadilloes in Razorback country included an anecdote about a relationship that Slick Willie had with a girl named “Paula.”
From the descriptions, that person pointed to one Paula Jones, who was not too happy about the whole thing. The writer, whose name I do not recall, said that there was an ongoing relationship–something with which Ms Jones disagreed. Later came the stories about sexual harrassment.
Personally, I’m more inclined to believe the writer. Young gal meets the Big Kingpin, gets stars in the eyes, etc.
Well, look at Gary Condit & Chandra Levy. This must go on a lot, I guess. But it gets ugly when someone claims sexual harassment. I just never followed any of those liaisons closely. Search engines could probably give more details.
Not for IMHO, and probably destined for the BBQ Pit, so I’m sending it there.
My understanding was that the writer only mentioned a “Paula”, and didn’t name Paula Jones or imply it was her. Ms. Jones took it upon herself to claim it was her. That’s what always bothered me about her protests – that she claimed to be defamed because an article mentioned her by first name only. How did she know it was her? How did she even know it wasn’t a “names changed” case? (Although I suppose that if you had actually had sex with the Gov you might be a little less skeptical and analytical about this.) That’s why the prosecution always looked like a put-up job, at least to me.
The Jones suit was not about sex as such, but a claim that she had suffered from job discrimination. She claimed that was a result of retaliation from Governor Clinton when she didn’t put out. The most substantive claim in that regard that she could put forth was that she had not received flowers on Secretaries’ Day. The state trooper who had corroborated her claim about the sex demand later recanted.
I’m using “her” and “she” advisedly. The suit was filed on her behalf by one of Larry Klayman’s organizations (I’m not doing your research for you; but he has devoted his life to suing Clinton and his supporters for anything he could think of, clearly for simple harassment value). It was filed on the last day before the statute of limitations ran out. The presiding judge gave Jones every possible chance to show she had a case, however tenuous, before it became inescapably clear she did not, and the judge thereby dismissed it. But not until after giving Klayman’s people a license to ask questions under oath of the defendant that had no plausible connection to a claim of job discrimination.
And on that basis rested the entire results of Kenneth Starr’s years of work, and a nearly-successful attempt to overturn 2 democratic elections.
The writer was David Brock and the magazine was the right-wing American Spectator. Brock also wrote a devastating attack on Anita Hill, called IIRC The Real Anita Hill.
Subsequently, Brock, who happens to be gay, converted his politics to virulantly anti-conservative. He now disavows his earlier work.
I know that David Brock “disavowed” his earlier work. But that does’nt mean his earlier work was’nt true.
Also, I believe Paula Jones did put out. Which makes her whole claim against Clinton fraudulent.