"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Women have their faults. Men have only two.
Everything they say. Everything they do.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Los Angeles Times]
> Friday, April 3, 1998
>
> PERSPECTIVES ON THE PAULA JONES CASE
>
> For Clinton, facing accusations in an Arkansas
> courtroom is better than before a grand jury or Congress.
>
> [T] here are times when the only thing worse than losing is
> winning. Such may be the case with Paula Corbin Jones vs.
> William Jefferson Clinton. The news of the dismissal of the Jones
> case was met with a feeling of divine deliverance among White
> House staffers who never thought a trial could be avoided.
> Upon sober reflection, however, there may be reason to
> question the good fortune wrought by the summary judgment of Judge
> Susan Webber Wright. The greatest costs of the Jones case were
> never the trial but in the discovery period leading to the trial.
> With its various related appeals, the Jones case served as starter
> fuel for what is now a raging blaze before the grand jury and
> Congress.
> When it was first filed, the case was the central threat to
> the White House, and White House lawyers fought to delay the trial
> at all costs. In the past few weeks, however, the White House
> suddenly switched positions and fought to schedule the trial at
> the soonest possible date. In changing its strategy, the White
> House correctly concluded that the Jones case was fairly anemic
> and unlikely to persuade a jury.
> More important, a Jones trial offered a convenient avenue to
> respond to allegations without appearing before either the grand
> jury or a congressional committee. Under this strategy, the Jones
> case could be used as a type of suppression fire. When faced with
> large blazes, firefighters will often use a smaller fire in the
> path of the larger fire to exhaust the fuel needed to sustain the
> blaze. The larger fire then dies out on its own accord.
> While administration officials did not start the Jones fire,
> they certainly realized its value in a suppression strategy.
> Unwilling to testify before the grand jury or Congress, the
> president could have testified in the Jones case and eliminated
> the political support for calling him for successive testimony in
> the other forums.
> The Arkansas courtroom offered the best of the three forums
> for the president. Unlike the grand jury or the congressional
> committee, Clinton would be protected by the limitations of rules
> of evidence; represented by an aggressive defense counsel;
> supervised by a fairly sympathetic judge; and opposed by a less
> than popular plaintiff. Once he testified, the president could
> adopt a Rose Garden strategy and refer any questions to the
> transcript in the case.
> Ironically, the White House's greatest advocates in such a
> scenario could be found in the House Republican leadership. The
> Republican leaders would dearly love this impeachment cup to pass
> from their lips. An impeachment hearing would cost the Republicans
> an almost certain public backlash. Even a successful impeachment
> would only engineer an early Gore administration.
> Had the president testified in the protective environs of
> Wright's courtroom, the demands for the president's testimony
> before the grand jury or Congress would have fallen on deaf ears.
> Without Jones, the White House now will have to recalibrate
> its strategy to directly confront the dangers looming in the grand
> jury room and the congressional committee. Neither option is an
> enticing prospect for the president.
> His lawyers are likely to advise against his testimony before
> the grand jury. As a grand jury witness, the president would be
> left in the loving hands of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr
> without the protection of the rules of evidence or the assistance
> of counsel.
> But if the president does not testify before the grand jury,
> there would be increased pressure for Congress to hold hearings
> and call him to answer these allegations.
> Starr is likely to issue a report detailing alleged crimes by
> the president and his aides. Without the president's prior
> testimony in some forum, the allegations involving Clinton in the
> Starr report would be largely uncontradicted. It would be near
> impossible to avoid hearings in such a circumstance.
> This is why a loss can sometimes be more valuable than a
> victory in litigation. In truth, Jones may have been the best
> friend the president could have had in these circumstances. As is
> often the case, people rarely miss you until you're gone.
> - - -
>
> Jonathan Turley Is a Professor of Law at George Washington
> University Law School
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
