[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
>>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
HI Ron,
It seems clear from the comments by the Republican leaders, including
Specter, Lott and Gingerich that unless Starr can present an open and
shut case (he can't) then impeachment will not happen. Oh sure, they may
go ahead with a sham hearing to satisfy the hard core constituents, but
nothing will come of it.
I DO agree with the comments about the real damage of the Paula Jones
case being the discovery phase and all the leaks to the press. Which we
knew already. Why else would the right wing conpirators pursue a case
that had no legal standing to begin with. Surely you don't think they
would have pumped so much money into something that would not yield any
returns to them, do you?
Bill
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
