Very Ashamed of Jewish Clintonites!
j...@inxpress.net
David Goldman wrote:
>
> There are many of us Jews who are extremely ashamed and disgusted at
> the circle of Liberal Jewish fatcats trying to make hay with Clinton
> and rescue him. Maybe Starr will make us feel a little better soon.
>
> Mickey Cantor should be ashamed of himself!!
> Monica Lewinsky is a disgrace to the Jewish People!
She's no more a representative of Jews than Bill Clinton
is a representative of professors of constitutional law.
My poet friend lev (also a Jew, BTW) puts it this way:
>Holy hot Riadi's
>It takes a village
>to donate a star struck virgin.
>...and she called him "schmucko" on tape.
j...@inxpress.net
David Goldman wrote:
>
> >Speaking as a "liberal Jew" I'd like to go on record
> >that I'm ashamed of any Jew sp[reading malicious allegations
> >as if they are *truth*. And I am no fatcat,
> >just a lowly grad student who believes that a man is innocent
> >until proved guilty. You've certainly shown yourself guily of
> >vicius nastiness. Why is it that it's usually you "defenders
> >of the faith" who act this way?
>
> No, you aren't a fatcat, you just support them, like all of our
> addicted Jewish living room liberals!! Who is nasty? The lowlifes
> ignoring morality and values rooted in our Torah??
What the fuck is the matter with you?
Who elected Monica Lewinsky a representative of *anything*?
If you want to continue this insanity, take it off the
whitewater newsgroup.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Prediction of the decade: "The public will never believe the
innocence of the Clintons & their loyal staff." -- author unknown
Stephen Abbott
j...@inxpress.net wrote:
>
> David Goldman wrote:
> >
> > There are many of us Jews who are extremely ashamed and disgusted at
> > the circle of Liberal Jewish fatcats trying to make hay with Clinton
> > and rescue him. Maybe Starr will make us feel a little better soon.
> >
> > Mickey Cantor should be ashamed of himself!!
> > Monica Lewinsky is a disgrace to the Jewish People!
people in America for people to make such broad generalizations.
> She's no more a representative of Jews than Bill Clinton
> is a representative of professors of constitutional law.
sexually harrass younger employees.
j...@inxpress.net
Stephen Abbott wrote:
>
>
> > She's no more a representative of Jews than Bill Clinton
> > is a representative of professors of constitutional law.
> ...or representative of aging, pot-smoking draft-dodging hippies who
> sexually harrass younger employees.
He is quite well representative of "aging, pot-smoking draft-dodging
hippies who sexually harrass younger employees," I think.
David Goldman
Gwen A Orel
Speaking as a "liberal Jew" I'd like to go on record
that I'm ashamed of any Jew sp[reading malicious allegations
as if they are *truth*. And I am no fatcat,
just a lowly grad student who believes that a man is innocent
until proved guilty. You've certainly shown yourself guily of
vicius nastiness. Why is it that it's usually you "defenders
of the faith" who act this way?
Gwen
David Goldman (da...@erols.com) wrote:
: There are many of us Jews who are extremely ashamed and disgusted at
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde
David Goldman
>Speaking as a "liberal Jew" I'd like to go on record
>that I'm ashamed of any Jew sp[reading malicious allegations
>as if they are *truth*. And I am no fatcat,
>just a lowly grad student who believes that a man is innocent
>until proved guilty. You've certainly shown yourself guily of
>vicius nastiness. Why is it that it's usually you "defenders
>of the faith" who act this way?
No, you aren't a fatcat, you just support them, like all of our
pa...@telerama.com
da...@erols.com (David Goldman) writes:
> There are many of us Jews who are extremely ashamed and disgusted at
> the circle of Liberal Jewish fatcats trying to make hay with Clinton
> and rescue him. Maybe Starr will make us feel a little better soon.
>
> Mickey Cantor should be ashamed of himself!!
> Monica Lewinsky is a disgrace to the Jewish People!
Let me see now, I guess George Stephanopolus is a hero to the Greek
people, 'cause he knew when to quit. Ms. Albright is a disgrace to all
Catholics or is she also a disgrace to Jews? Come on David that's
nonsense.
UltraZ
da...@erols.com (David Goldman) wrote:
>There are many of us Jews who are extremely ashamed and disgusted at
>the circle of Liberal Jewish fatcats trying to make hay with Clinton
>and rescue him. Maybe Starr will make us feel a little better soon.
>Mickey Cantor should be ashamed of himself!!
>Monica Lewinsky is a disgrace to the Jewish People!
I would not sectarianize this at all..people around the
president right now...are involved because others in
power or conected to power feel this weekend may be a
defining moment in the fall of a president.
Whatever stories about Clinton in the past were kept
out of the media ..this story is an avalanche which is
now out on the street, irretractable and diminishes him
in the eyes of the world...
The persons with him now who understand fully the
meaning of presidential semen on a dress have to
surrender to the game being over..In that regard these
people are most important to him if they urge him to
end..the lies and consider the country..and resign
after or during the SOTU address.
UZ
pa...@telerama.com
da...@erols.com (David Goldman) writes:
> There are many of us Jews who are extremely ashamed and disgusted at
> the circle of Liberal Jewish fatcats trying to make hay with Clinton
> and rescue him. Maybe Starr will make us feel a little better soon.
>
> Mickey Cantor should be ashamed of himself!!
> Monica Lewinsky is a disgrace to the Jewish People!
Clinton's latest sex scandal may trigger anti-Semitism
By Yerah Tal, Ha'aretz Correspondent
WASHINGTON - Charges of sexual misconduct and perjury against
Clinton's latest sex scandal may trigger anti-Semitism
By Yerah Tal, Ha'aretz Correspondent
WASHINGTON - Charges of sexual misconduct and perjury against
president Clinton may trigger a wave of anti-Semitism in the
United States, an official of the Anti-Defamation League of
B'nai B'rith warned on Friday.
The fact that the fate of the administration hangs on the word
of a 24-year-old Jewish woman, Monica Lewinsky, was liable to
be exploited by anti-Semitic elements, as was the involvement
of other Jews in the scandal, the official said.
One such figure is Lucianne Goldberg, the literary agent who
encouraged Linda Tripp to secretly record Lewinsky's story of
her sexual relationship with Clinton and the pressure the
president allegedly placed on her to deny that relationship in
her sworn testimony. Goldberg was reportedly planning to
translate that story into a multi-million dollar book deal.
The ADL official reported that the scandal has already prompted
accusations of a "Jewish conspiracy" against the American
people, as evidenced on Internet sites operated by radical
right-wing and white supremist organizations. The sites
evinced Lewinsky and Goldberg as proof that Jews secretly
controlled the political and economic institutions of the
United States, and that the Clinton administration, in
particular, is dominated by Jews.
© copyright 1998 Ha'aretz. All Rights Reserved
Well I guess if it's made it to the net then the concentration camps
are just around the corner. I just wish that Jews would mind their
own business and just stay home and daven. I hope that the anti-Semites
that the ADL is so concerned about see David's apology and realize that
it's not all Jews you can blame for Clinton's peccadillos cuming forth.
Gwen A Orel
No, but people like you asserting as *fact* that which is mere
allegation, and insulting everyone who objects. How DARE you
post antisemitic babble here, I don't care if you *are* Jewish.
My opinions on this matter have to do with *politics* not religion
and you are way out of line suggesting that having one political
belief or other is more *Jewish*.
Gwen
David Goldman (da...@erols.com) wrote:
: >Speaking as a "liberal Jew" I'd like to go on record
--
j...@inxpress.net
pa...@telerama.com wrote:
>
> da...@erols.com (David Goldman) writes:
> > There are many of us Jews who are extremely ashamed and disgusted at
> > the circle of Liberal Jewish fatcats trying to make hay with Clinton
> > and rescue him. Maybe Starr will make us feel a little better soon.
> >
> > Mickey Cantor should be ashamed of himself!!
> > Monica Lewinsky is a disgrace to the Jewish People!
>
> Clinton's latest sex scandal may trigger anti-Semitism
>
Right. See, the Extreme Christian Right Wing talked this
liberal Jewish girl into forcing Bill Clinton to submit
to blow jobs ....
Bill Clinton is a disgrace to America.
David Goldman
We have had Bernie Nussbaum, and Mickey Kantor. There are all the
others. They are a shame to the Jewish people.
pa...@telerama.com
da...@erols.com (David Goldman) writes:
> We have had Bernie Nussbaum, and Mickey Kantor. There are all the
> others. They are a shame to the Jewish people.
And then there is Woody Allen,
j...@inxpress.net
David Goldman wrote:
>
> We have had Bernie Nussbaum, and Mickey Kantor. There are all the
> others. They are a shame to the Jewish people.
Is Bill Clinton a shame to all Christians, because he is
a Christian? Is he a shame to all men, because he is
a man? Is he a shame to all white people, because he
is white?
Please try to engage the left side of your brain, and take
this fucked up thread off the whitewater newsgroup. Your
racism is disgusting.
j...@inxpress.net
> > others. They are a shame to the Jewish people.
>
And then there is Sandy Koufax.
Go fuck yourself.
The Reverend Badass Prez
David Goldman wrote:
>
> There are many of us Jews who are extremely ashamed and disgusted at
> the circle of Liberal Jewish fatcats trying to make hay with Clinton
> and rescue him. Maybe Starr will make us feel a little better soon.
>
> Mickey Cantor should be ashamed of himself!!
> Monica Lewinsky is a disgrace to the Jewish People!
And you wonder why people despise you, David. Zealous, baseless,
and puerile posts such as these reak of trollish design.
-The Reverend Prez
David Goldman
I forgot to add the shame we feel about that other big mouth Jewish
liberal, Rom Manuel. Sheesh. I am glad some of us "other" Jews are
speaking up.......
David Goldman
>Is Bill Clinton a shame to all Christians, because he is
>a Christian? Is he a shame to all men, because he is
>a man? Is he a shame to all white people, because he
>is white?
Yes, if the beliefs of his religion mean anything to his
co-religionists. Imagine, this character going to CHURCH!!!!!!
Alanirving
These Clintonistas have no shame. No they're blaming the
Jews! What a bunch of sorry-assed losers the Clintons and
Gores have amassed.
al
Alanirving
I'm ashamed of all Democrats that continue to support
Clinton and his besmirched Administration.
al
da...@taic.net
In soc.culture.jewish Gwen A Orel <gao...@pitt.edu> wrote:
: Speaking as a "liberal Jew" I'd like to go on record
: that I'm ashamed of any Jew sp[reading malicious allegations
: as if they are *truth*. And I am no fatcat,
: just a lowly grad student who believes that a man is innocent
: until proved guilty.
For 5 years, since his 60 Minutes interview, President Clinton
and her husband, Bill, maintained that Gennifer Flowers was full of shit,
and that none of what she said was true.
Last Saturday, Clinton admitted that he had had an affair with
Flowers.
In what year will we receive an admission with respect to Monica?
Ron Schwarz -- see sig to reply
The same year sufficient evidence surfaces to convict him of perjury if he
denies it. Presuming he spends some quality time on the witness stand, of
course.
--
(reply to usenet at clubvb.com)
Albert Reingewirtz
In article <6ae65h$b...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A
Orel) wrote:
>
> Gwen
> David Goldman (da...@erols.com) wrote:
> : There are many of us Jews who are extremely ashamed and disgusted at
> : the circle of Liberal Jewish fatcats trying to make hay with Clinton
> : and rescue him. Maybe Starr will make us feel a little better soon.
>
> : Mickey Cantor should be ashamed of himself!!
> : Monica Lewinsky is a disgrace to the Jewish People!
>
> Speaking as a "liberal Jew" I'd like to go on record
> that I'm ashamed of any Jew sp[reading malicious allegations
> as if they are *truth*. And I am no fatcat,
> just a lowly grad student who believes that a man is innocent
> until proved guilty. You've certainly shown yourself guily of
> vicius nastiness. Why is it that it's usually you "defenders
> of the faith" who act this way?
Isn't it lovely that they approve of a "friend" recording the bragging of
this immature Monica and of Starr who will go to below the mud to destroy
the President? It is all as an effort to erase their great shame of having
helped elect the only President who had to resign in shame and avoided a
trial with a last minute deal with his succesor Ford.
--
God can't be dead, it never existed
Albert Reingewirtz
In article <34CABC...@metro2000.net>, stab...@SPamFreemetro2000.net wrote:
> j...@inxpress.net wrote:
> >
> > David Goldman wrote:
> > >
> > > There are many of us Jews who are extremely ashamed and disgusted at
> > > the circle of Liberal Jewish fatcats trying to make hay with Clinton
> > > and rescue him. Maybe Starr will make us feel a little better soon.
> > >
> > > Mickey Cantor should be ashamed of himself!!
> > > Monica Lewinsky is a disgrace to the Jewish People!
> Your point is well taken, but there are too many moral, decent Jewish
> people in America for people to make such broad generalizations.
>
> > She's no more a representative of Jews than Bill Clinton
> > is a representative of professors of constitutional law.
> ...or representative of aging, pot-smoking draft-dodging hippies who
> sexually harrass younger employees.
You've got it backward! "Sexually harrassing younger employees is the
domain of Republicans. Democrats get in the pants of willing people. Their
is a big difference bozzo!
Albert Reingewirtz
In article <6aedfm$a...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, wyl...@ix.netcom.com (
UltraZ) wrote:
> da...@erols.com (David Goldman) wrote:
>
> >There are many of us Jews who are extremely ashamed and disgusted at
> >the circle of Liberal Jewish fatcats trying to make hay with Clinton
> >and rescue him. Maybe Starr will make us feel a little better soon.
>
> >Mickey Cantor should be ashamed of himself!!
> >Monica Lewinsky is a disgrace to the Jewish People!
>
> I would not sectarianize this at all..people around the
> president right now...are involved because others in
> power or conected to power feel this weekend may be a
> defining moment in the fall of a president.
>
> Whatever stories about Clinton in the past were kept
> out of the media ..this story is an avalanche which is
> now out on the street, irretractable and diminishes him
> in the eyes of the world...
>
> The persons with him now who understand fully the
> meaning of presidential semen on a dress have to
> surrender to the game being over..In that regard these
> people are most important to him if they urge him to
> end..the lies and consider the country..and resign
> after or during the SOTU address.
The only person that has the right to complain is Hillary Clinton and she
isn't. What consenting adults do in bedrooms is their business and their
business only. This, like it or not, is also pertaining to gay people. As
far as I am concern, Monica sounds like a satisfied customer and willing
participant. Yet, we do not have the full story yet. I am waiting to see
the face of Starr when all this will explode in his face and he will be
covered with the shit he mixed and cooked so well.
Toni Howard
Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
> snip<
> The only person that has the right to complain is Hillary Clinton and she
> isn't.
Hillary Clinton is laboring under the her belief in the lies her husband
has told her, that "nothing ever happened," this is not informed
consent. Hillary Clinton has stated her 'confidence' in her husbands
ability to keep their mutually agreed upon promises of fidelity.
Toni
> Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
> The only person that has the right to complain is Hillary Clinton and she
> isn't. What consenting adults do in bedrooms is their business and their
> business only. This, like it or not, is also pertaining to gay people. As
> far as I am concern, Monica sounds like a satisfied customer and willing
> participant. Yet, we do not have the full story yet. I am waiting to see
> the face of Starr when all this will explode in his face and he will be
> covered with the shit he mixed and cooked so well.
mailto:Antoni...@Worldnet.att.net
John P Reber
employer, who then promotes that employee. It's a crime against the
employees that wouldn't engage in sex, and don't get promoted. It's
called sexual harrasment in the workplace...
Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
> The only person that has the right to complain is Hillary Clinton and she
> isn't. What consenting adults do in bedrooms is their business and their
> business only. This, like it or not, is also pertaining to gay people. As
> far as I am concern, Monica sounds like a satisfied customer and willing
> participant. Yet, we do not have the full story yet. I am waiting to see
> the face of Starr when all this will explode in his face and he will be
> covered with the shit he mixed and cooked so well.
>
j...@inxpress.net
Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
>
> You've got it backward! "Sexually harrassing younger employees is the
> domain of Republicans. Democrats get in the pants of willing people. Their
> is a big difference bozzo!
If Clinton had not lied under oath, there would be no case.
The reason that Clinton was put under oath is because he
attempted to have sex with someone who *did* *not* *consent*,
and he would not apologize, and he had "his people" smear
the person who did not consent.
Let me hear you defend Clinton's right to have sex with whoever
he likes, whenever he likes, however he likes, and to punish
those who object, because he is the president. I dare you.
Miriam Wolfe
In article <6ai8je$o...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
Antoni...@Worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
> > snip<
> > The only person that has the right to complain is Hillary Clinton and she
> > isn't.
> >snip<
>
> Hillary Clinton is laboring under the her belief in the lies her husband
> has told her, that "nothing ever happened," this is not informed
> consent. Hillary Clinton has stated her 'confidence' in her husbands
> ability to keep their mutually agreed upon promises of fidelity.
>
> Toni
How, nice. but what did she actually mean:
"keep their mutually agreed upon promises
of fidelity"?
Does that mean clinton can have oral
sex with others under their agreement
and this is still considered "fidelity"?
These Clintons are slippery characters.
You can only take them at their word, if
you know what their words mean.
--
Your faithful correspondent,
Miriam Wolfe
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
May your act of goodness and kindness
help bring Moshiach Now
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Simcha Streltsov
: > the circle of Liberal Jewish fatcats trying to make hay with Clinton
: > and rescue him. Maybe Starr will make us feel a little better soon.
: Let me see now, I guess George Stephanopolus is a hero to the Greek
: people, 'cause he knew when to quit. Ms. Albright is a disgrace to all
: Catholics or is she also a disgrace to Jews? Come on David that's
: nonsense.
for one, Mr Clinton is a disgrace to all Americans who voted for him,
and it is a sign that ideologies that reject importance of morals got
a good following.
It is interesting that suddenly so many people feel _good_ about what is
a pretty despicable event. IMHO, it follows Hans Andersen tale on a kid
saying that "the king is naked" - and suddenly it is OK for everyone to
simply _state the truth_. It is irrelevant to everyone how important these
constant lies were, but everyone felt bad inside while being conditioned
to hearing for several years that something that smells like lie, but
was not proven to be a lie yet should be viewed as truth.
As Emet/truth is one of the most fundamental Jewish values, it should be
a really happy religious experience for everyone.
Btw, there is an interesting part in the discussions of Xian Linda with
liberal Jewish Monica - the first says "deep down, we both feel that it is
better not to lie", and the latter responds "I was raised among lies, that is
how you get along ...". IMVVHO, it is an illustration of some of the problems
that exist in the Jewish community - and maybe more so than in the Xian.
what do you tihnk?
Simcha
This is an environmentally clean post -
100% devoid of any substance, please recycle.
This sig is endorsed by
Mar Michael Shimshoni, Rabbi Jay La-pidus, Dr. Amitai Halevi
and a modemjunkie Leonard Grossman
Albert Reingewirtz
In article <34CAC...@inxpress.net>, j...@inxpress.net wrote:
> Stephen Abbott wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > > She's no more a representative of Jews than Bill Clinton
> > > is a representative of professors of constitutional law.
> > ...or representative of aging, pot-smoking draft-dodging hippies who
> > sexually harrass younger employees.
>
>
> He is quite well representative of "aging, pot-smoking draft-dodging
> hippies who sexually harrass younger employees," I think.
And you are both representing well the far right/Christian Coalition
subordinates who can't hold into a marriage nor support their own children
yet demand strict sexual standards from other.
Albert Reingewirtz
In article <6aelf5$c...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A
Orel) wrote:
> David Goldman (da...@erols.com) wrote:
> : >Speaking as a "liberal Jew" I'd like to go on record
> : >that I'm ashamed of any Jew sp[reading malicious allegations
> : >as if they are *truth*. And I am no fatcat,
> : >just a lowly grad student who believes that a man is innocent
> : >until proved guilty. You've certainly shown yourself guily of
> : >vicius nastiness. Why is it that it's usually you "defenders
> : >of the faith" who act this way?
>
> : No, you aren't a fatcat, you just support them, like all of our
> : addicted Jewish living room liberals!! Who is nasty? The lowlifes
> : ignoring morality and values rooted in our Torah??
>
> No, but people like you asserting as *fact* that which is mere
> allegation, and insulting everyone who objects. How DARE you
> post antisemitic babble here, I don't care if you *are* Jewish.
> My opinions on this matter have to do with *politics* not religion
> and you are way out of line suggesting that having one political
> belief or other is more *Jewish*.
Don't worry about it. Look from where does the crap come from!
David Fiedler
Amazing how anyone who sees that the emperor has no clothes (or took them off)
is now "far-right", "Christian coalition", and any other names you can think
of for discreditation purposes. How come Lt. Flinn had to lose her job because
of adultery, while it's perfectly OK for her Commander-in-Chief to diddle who
he wants to? How come it's OK for the Boss to perform actions -- regarding
sexual harassment -- which are illegal anywhere else in the country?
Only if you think of the President as a king, can he get away with anything.
--
David (Dragon) Fiedler, Infobahn Warrior, Bf.D, CRS, ONS
Find me at http://www.innercite.com/~dragon/
Please change "nospam" in my header address to "david" in order to reply.
** Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, §227,
** any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
** is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
** US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Toni Howard
Miriam Wolfe wrote:
> snip<
> > Does that mean clinton can have oral
> sex with others under their agreement
> and this is still considered "fidelity"?
>
> These Clintons are slippery characters.
> You can only take them at their word, if
> you know what their words mean.
> snip<
Exactly. This is why voting for Clinton was like buying the car with a
hole in the radiator on the off chance that it wouldn't matter, because
you really liked the way it looked.
Clinton & his wife have been playing with words to the extent of
complete dishonesty from the beginning of their campaign for pubic
office. Everyone who listened to those Genifer flowers tapes knew that
they were real, and to have to sit there a view the two Clintons denying
the whole thing, topped off with Hillary's insipid comment about Tammy
W's "Stand by Your Man" when you knew that was exactly what Hillary was
doing was enough to make you toss your cookies. The timing of this whole
fiasco demonstrates the vulnerability one exposes ones self to when
hitching your wagon to a train without a leader, but a bunch of liars
instead.
To return to the first analogy; I realize that this country didn't have
a choice between a Mercedes (who? There was none) and an old Gremlin(aka
Clinton) but we would have been much better off choosing a used Ford
then the Gremlin. So we are having to deal with the previously know
problems at a most inconvenient time (consider foreign affairs) instead
of having avoided the obvious possible problems at the voting booths.
Toni
--
j...@inxpress.net
pa...@telerama.com wrote:
>
> gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) writes:
> > Nonsense. Paula Jones *said* that's what happened but I for one
> > do not believe her. If he had a pattern of harassing young women
> > then some other young woman would have come forward by now. The only
> > other women we hear about consented, and again, that's a matter for
> > adults to decide on their own.
> >
> > Gwen
> > j...@inxpress.net wrote:
> >
>
> As Commander-in-Chief he should accept the same punishment as Kelly Flyn
> for the same crime
Kelly Flynn didn't perjure herself.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Prediction of the decade: "The public will never believe the
innocence of the Clintons & their loyal staff." -- author unknown
pa...@telerama.com
Gwen A Orel
Wy don't you read up a little bit about American law, Clinton is
not considered to be in or of the military!
Gwen
j...@inxpress.net wrote:
: pa...@telerama.com wrote:
: >
: Kelly Flynn didn't perjure herself.
:
: ------------------------------------------------------------------
: Prediction of the decade: "The public will never believe the
: innocence of the Clintons & their loyal staff." -- author unknown
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde
Matt Daly
Hey Gwen: is your proposal that the president of the United States
should be held to a lower standard of conduct than that of the
average military person?
--
Matt Daly
Jacob Love
In article <matlanta-270...@user-38lcpf6.dialup.mindspring.com>,
Matt Daly <matl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Hey Gwen: is your proposal that the president of the United States
>should be held to a lower standard of conduct than that of the
>average military person?
No, that's the military's position. Always has been.
--
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
David Goldman
>Wy don't you read up a little bit about American law, Clinton is
>not considered to be in or of the military!
>Gwen
Poor Gwen, do you know the meaning of Commander in Chief?
Gwen A Orel
If the military has idiotic rulings about how people can conduct
their marriages, then yes.
Gwen
Matt Daly (matl...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Hey Gwen: is your proposal that the president of the United States
: should be held to a lower standard of conduct than that of the
: average military person?
: --
: Matt Daly
: In article <6ajv6k$2...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) wrote:
: >Wy don't you read up a little bit about American law, Clinton is
: >not considered to be in or of the military!
: >
: >Gwen
: >
Gwen A Orel
Do YOU? it does NOT mean he's subject to military law. Duh.
Gwen
David Goldman (da...@erols.com) wrote:
: >Wy don't you read up a little bit about American law, Clinton is
: >not considered to be in or of the military!
: >Gwen
: Poor Gwen, do you know the meaning of Commander in Chief?
David Goldman
>If the military has idiotic rulings about how people can conduct
>their marriages, then yes.
>Gwen
Aren't we lucky to have Gwen as our resident expert on the code of
military conduct?? Gwen, why don't you promote yourself as the next
Secretary of Defense, or are Communists not allowed to serve in
Capitalist regimes?? Of course, there are many in Clinton's who behave
like Communists, even with southern accents!
David Goldman
>Do YOU? it does NOT mean he's subject to military law. Duh.
>Gwen
And of course, he has no responsibility to set a moral example for the
boys (and girls) he sends into war....... But of course, social
handholding engineering in the military is of primary importance...
David Goldman
>f the military has idiotic rulings about how people can conduct
>their marriages, then yes.
>Gwen
Isn't a shame that the Founders of the Constitution didn't have Gwen
to teach them? Not to mention those who set up the Uniform Code of
Military Justice for the US??
Matt Daly
<headers trimmed>
In article <34ce1261...@news.erols.com>, da...@erols.com (David Goldman) wrote:
>>f the military has idiotic rulings about how people can conduct
>>their marriages, then yes.
>
>>Gwen
>
I'd like to hear Gwen answer this question:
"Who gets to decide if the military has idiotic rulings?"
>Isn't a shame that the Founders of the Constitution didn't have Gwen
>to teach them? Not to mention those who set up the Uniform Code of
>Military Justice for the US??
--
Matt Daly
Susan Cohen
David Goldman wrote:
> >Speaking as a "liberal Jew" I'd like to go on record
> >that I'm ashamed of any Jew sp[reading malicious allegations
> >as if they are *truth*. And I am no fatcat,
> >just a lowly grad student who believes that a man is innocent
> >until proved guilty. You've certainly shown yourself guily of
> >vicius nastiness. Why is it that it's usually you "defenders
> >of the faith" who act this way?
>
> No, you aren't a fatcat, you just support them, like all of our
> addicted Jewish living room liberals!! Who is nasty? The lowlifes
> ignoring morality and values rooted in our Torah??
Just like YOU!
Susan Cohen
David Goldman wrote:
> There are many of us Jews who are extremely ashamed and disgusted at
> the circle of Liberal Jewish fatcats trying to make hay with Clinton
> and rescue him.
Considering that he hasn't even been charged, much less convicted, you
are showing your prejudices here. There is nothing from which to rescue
him but the ill-will of Reoublicans & their minions.
There are, I assure you, more Jews who are ashamed at those who refuse
to await due process before slandering/convisting the President.
> Maybe Starr will make us feel a little better soon.
When he is fully exposed for the tool that he is? Sure, I'll buy that.
> Mickey Cantor should be ashamed of himself!!
> Monica Lewinsky is a disgrace to the Jewish People!
Much like yourself.
David Goldman
>Much like yourself.
No, much like Mickey Kantor, Dick Morris, Ram Emanuel, Bernie Nussbaum
and the other apologists for their feudal masters on the Liberal
estate....... Disgraces to the Jewish people!!
David Goldman
>Just like YOU!
No, I believe in the divine origin of the Torah given to Moses on Mt.
Sinai.
Albert Reingewirtz
> Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
> > snip<
> > The only person that has the right to complain is Hillary Clinton and she
> > isn't.
> >snip<
>
> Hillary Clinton is laboring under the her belief in the lies her husband
> has told her, that "nothing ever happened," this is not informed
> consent. Hillary Clinton has stated her 'confidence' in her husbands
> ability to keep their mutually agreed upon promises of fidelity.
First, you do not know that. Second, it is her business and not ours at
all. What adults do with other consenting adults is their business and
their business only.
--
Albert Reingewirtz
The reason all this happening is because Republicans are desperate to bring
down a very successful President and they need to erase Watergate they
mention every opportunity they get. By the way, under the American justice
system, the President is innocent intil shown guilty. But this never
bothered Republicans.
If the President had an affair, do not be affraid to talk about Republicans
who it is known that they did the same while married. Senator Dole was
shaking up with a air hostess in Miami while still married. Gingritch the
same and divorced his wife while recovering from cancer surgery. Then a
church had to support his children because he didn't! Senator Dole and his
child were total strangers intil his campaign for President and probably
strangers again. Compare with the picture of a family man like Clinton. Do
you see many Republicans like him? Get a life!
Albert Reingewirtz
In article <headmistress-2...@digi1-024.wwa.com>,
headmi...@bhp.edu (Miriam Wolfe) wrote:
> In article <6ai8je$o...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> Antoni...@Worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
> > > snip<
> > > The only person that has the right to complain is Hillary Clinton and she
> > > isn't.
> > >snip<
> >
> > Hillary Clinton is laboring under the her belief in the lies her husband
> > has told her, that "nothing ever happened," this is not informed
> > consent. Hillary Clinton has stated her 'confidence' in her husbands
> > ability to keep their mutually agreed upon promises of fidelity.
> >
> > Toni
>
>
> How, nice. but what did she actually mean:
> "keep their mutually agreed upon promises
> of fidelity"?
>
> Does that mean clinton can have oral
> sex with others under their agreement
> and this is still considered "fidelity"?
>
> These Clintons are slippery characters.
> You can only take them at their word, if
> you know what their words mean.
>
> --
>
>
> Your faithful correspondent,
>
> Miriam Wolfe
>
>
You should be so lucky to get anyone to do it with you! With your lashon hara!
j...@inxpress.net
Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
>
> In article <34CCA6...@inxpress.net>, j...@inxpress.net wrote:
>
> > Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > You've got it backward! "Sexually harrassing younger employees is the
> > > domain of Republicans. Democrats get in the pants of willing people. Their
> > > is a big difference bozzo!
> >
> > If Clinton had not lied under oath, there would be no case.
> >
> > The reason that Clinton was put under oath is because he
> > attempted to have sex with someone who *did* *not* *consent*,
> > and he would not apologize, and he had "his people" smear
> > the person who did not consent.
> >
> > Let me hear you defend Clinton's right to have sex with whoever
> > he likes, whenever he likes, however he likes, and to punish
> > those who object, because he is the president. I dare you.
>
> The reason all this happening is because Republicans are desperate to bring
> down a very successful President
... so they can get Al Gore.
Are you psychotic *all* the time?
j...@inxpress.net
Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
>
> In article <6ai8je$o...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> Antoni...@Worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
> > > snip<
> > > The only person that has the right to complain is Hillary Clinton and she
> > > isn't.
> > >snip<
> >
> > Hillary Clinton is laboring under the her belief in the lies her husband
> > has told her, that "nothing ever happened," this is not informed
> > consent. Hillary Clinton has stated her 'confidence' in her husbands
> > ability to keep their mutually agreed upon promises of fidelity.
>
> all. What adults do with other consenting adults
Paula Jones did not consent.
Clinton lied under oath.
j...@inxpress.net
Gwen A Orel wrote:
>
<Vapid cheerleading snipped>
> Albert Reingewirtz (albertre...@access1.net) wrote:
> : In article <34CCA6...@inxpress.net>, j...@inxpress.net wrote:
>
>
> : If the President had an affair,
That is not the issue. The President, while he
was Governor of Arkansas, had a uniformed and armed State Trooper
request a female state employee to accompany him to the Governor's hotel
room, where he stood guard, while the Governor stuck his erect
penis in her face and implored her to "kiss it", and then refused
to apologize for it after her name was besmirched in the press.
When the President was called to depose himself under oath,
he lied about his relationship with another woman, in an
effort to escape the building of a case that the type of
behavior that he had exhibited with Paula Jones was habitual and
frequent. And, in fact, it is habitual and frequent, and that
fact has been corroborated by many witnesses, from procurers
to victims.
Bill Clinton is not just a liar; he is a sexual predator and a
perjurer. A lying sexual predator may be just what you want in a
President, but the perjury ought to get him removed from office,
despite your wishes, under the rule of law.
Albert Reingewirtz
In article <6aik4k$cfa$1...@usenet48.supernews.com>, nos...@infopro.com (David
Fiedler) wrote:
That's the very minimum of freedom we should all agree on: Sex between
consenting adults is nobody's business.
Albert Reingewirtz
In article <6airo9$q...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A
Orel) wrote:
> Nonsense. Paula Jones *said* that's what happened but I for one
> do not believe her. If he had a pattern of harassing young women
> then some other young woman would have come forward by now. The only
> other women we hear about consented, and again, that's a matter for
> adults to decide on their own.
>
> Gwen
> j...@inxpress.net wrote:
> : Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
> : >
>
> : > You've got it backward! "Sexually harrassing younger employees is the
> : > domain of Republicans. Democrats get in the pants of willing people. Their
> : > is a big difference bozzo!
>
> : If Clinton had not lied under oath, there would be no case.
>
> : The reason that Clinton was put under oath is because he
> : attempted to have sex with someone who *did* *not* *consent*,
> : and he would not apologize, and he had "his people" smear
> : the person who did not consent.
>
> : Let me hear you defend Clinton's right to have sex with whoever
> : he likes, whenever he likes, however he likes, and to punish
> : those who object, because he is the president. I dare you.
>
By this, you have shown yourself a total idiot and a Republican to booth.
Where did ytou get this strange idea that anyone wants what you think we
want?
j...@inxpress.net
Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
>
> In article <6airo9$q...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A
> Orel) wrote:
>
> > Nonsense. Paula Jones *said* that's what happened but I for one
> > do not believe her.
How convenient. Do you have a shred of integrity?
> > If he had a pattern of harassing young women
> > then some other young woman would have come forward by now.
Read the Willey deposition. Check out Sally Perdue's story.
Go back and read the interviews with various Troopers.
There are many, many others.
> > The only
> > other women we hear about consented, and again, that's a matter for
> > adults to decide on their own.
Amazing. All except *one* consented?
Did you hear about the guy who threatened Clinton's life, if he
ever came after his wife again?
> >
> > Gwen
> > j...@inxpress.net wrote:
> > : Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
> > : >
> >
> > : > You've got it backward! "Sexually harrassing younger employees is the
> > : > domain of Republicans. Democrats get in the pants of willing people. Their
> > : > is a big difference bozzo!
> >
> > : If Clinton had not lied under oath, there would be no case.
> >
> > : The reason that Clinton was put under oath is because he
> > : attempted to have sex with someone who *did* *not* *consent*,
> > : and he would not apologize, and he had "his people" smear
> > : the person who did not consent.
> >
> > : Let me hear you defend Clinton's right to have sex with whoever
> > : he likes, whenever he likes, however he likes, and to punish
> > : those who object, because he is the president. I dare you.
> >
> By this, you have shown yourself a total idiot and a Republican to booth.
> Where did ytou get this strange idea that anyone wants what you think we
> want?
Then you concur that Paula Jones ought to be compensated?
j...@inxpress.net
Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
>
>
> That's the very minimum of freedom we should all agree on: Sex between
> consenting adults is nobody's business.
>
That is not the issue.
Perjury is one issue; national security malfeasance is another.
j...@inxpress.net
Gwen A Orel wrote:
>
> j...@inxpress.net wrote:
>
> : Paula Jones did not consent.
>
> To what? All we have is her story.
No, you also have the original lie, later retracted, about how
Ferguson never brought her to the room.
I suggest you read Stuart Taylor's seminal Paula Jones articles.
>
> : Clinton lied under oath.
>
> Unproven and unlikely.
Sez you. You appear to embrace whatever tale fits in with
your political agenda. Bill Clinton is a monumentally profuse
liar, and has a history of sexual predation. Paula Jones
hasn't changed her story.
I'm thinking of selling some Presidential Knee Pads, with
the Presidential Seal on them, for $10 a pair. Want to
place an order?
j...@inxpress.net
> : was Governor of Arkansas, had a uniformed and armed State Trooper
> : request a female state employee to accompany him to the Governor's hotel
> : room, where he stood guard, while the Governor stuck his erect
> : penis in her face and implored her to "kiss it", and then refused
> : to apologize for it after her name was besmirched in the press.
>
Here comes the Clintooniac's Creed:
> I don't
> believe it, and there is no proof.
But you do believe Bill Clinton, a pathological liar with
a rich history of sexual predation. Makes sense.
> And Monica Lewinsky has nothing
> to do with it!
See below.
> : When the President was called to depose himself under oath,
> : he lied about his relationship with another woman, in an
> : effort to escape the building of a case that the type of
> : behavior that he had exhibited with Paula Jones was habitual and
> : frequent. And, in fact, it is habitual and frequent, and that
> : fact has been corroborated by many witnesses, from procurers
> : to victims.
>
> No, there's no proof he lied under oath at all.
Will you change your mind if Lewinsky testifies that she blew
him? Or will you choose to believe the lying misogynist Bill
Clinton, because it fits in with your political agenda, just like
your hyperhypocritical sisters in NOW?
> And noone has suggested
> he harassed Lewinsky, which doesn't make any alleged harassment of
> Jones habitual.
His sexual predation is habitual. His use of women as sexual objects
is habitual. The use of government power to keep things quiet
("Bimbo eruptions") is what they called it is infamous. Just ask
Sally Perdue. And there's no way to know how many haven't come forward,
out of fear, or because they were paid off to keep quiet.
>
> : Bill Clinton is not just a liar; he is a sexual predator and a
> : perjurer. A lying sexual predator may be just what you want in a
> : President, but the perjury ought to get him removed from office,
> : despite your wishes, under the rule of law.
>
> There's no proof of any perjury despite your wishes.
If Monica Lewinsky performed fellatio upon Bill Clinton,
he perjured himself. Given the circumstantial evidence
and Clinton's history of lying, it's a good bet. If and when
Lewinsky testifies to it, it'll be an even better bet. But
you won't care; you'll still pretend to believe Clinton,
because it fits your political agenda.
>
> There's
> no proof of any sexual predatoriness, despite your slander.
That's a lie, pure and simple. It's a lie in service to a
political agenda.
Plai...@reality.com
da...@erols.com (David Goldman) wrote:
>>Much like yourself.
Let's not forget another soiled Jew, more than worthy to join your
list of infamy.
Larry Lawrence who contributed over $200,000 to Bill Klinton's 1992
presidential campaign. So, Bill appoints Mr. Lawrence to be an
Ambassador to Switzerland. He conjures up a sham of a story that he
served on a Merchant Marine ship that had been torpedoed off the
frigid coast of Russia in 1945, ( when actually at the time, he was a
student at Chicago's Wilbur Wright Junior College). I quote Steve
Myers of Exegesis, "For his gallantry he was buried in the choicest
part of Arlington National Cemetery, adjacent to the Tomb of the
Unknown Soldier under a large polished brown marble tombstone ablaze
with the Star of David, creating a sharp contrast with the surrounding
modest white headstones of real heroes."
On December 11, 1997 Larry Lawrence's corpse was exhumed and removed
in disgrace from Arlington Cemetery. This is one story that the
*jewsmedia* buried deep.
The icing on the cake; Rumour has it, that the very attractive widow
of the late Swiss Ambassador Larry Lawrence has also had an affair
with guess who?
~
' '
O
Gwen A Orel
Is this an attack on me because you don't have any arguments of
substance? Why am I not surprised?
And where on earth do you get the idea that I am a communist?
More lashon hara?
Gwen
David Goldman (da...@erols.com) wrote:
: >If the military has idiotic rulings about how people can conduct
: >their marriages, then yes.
: >Gwen
: Aren't we lucky to have Gwen as our resident expert on the code of
: military conduct?? Gwen, why don't you promote yourself as the next
: Secretary of Defense, or are Communists not allowed to serve in
: Capitalist regimes?? Of course, there are many in Clinton's who behave
: like Communists, even with southern accents!
--
Gwen A Orel
David Goldman (da...@erols.com) wrote:
: >Do YOU? it does NOT mean he's subject to military law. Duh.
: >Gwen
No, actually, he does not have that responsibility. Find me
one place where "moral example" is listed as part of the duties of
office. Of course, someone who stamps his foot and calls his opponents
"communist" is really not worth arguing with... what a fine, fine
example of Orthodox tolerance you set. Of course, by your definition,
democrats and communists are bad Jews, right?
Gwen
Gwen A Orel
It's a shame that you haven't actually read anything by the founders
of the constitution, David. Once again: the president is not
subject to military law. You can blame me for it, but I didn't
write the law.
Gwen
David Goldman (da...@erols.com) wrote:
: >f the military has idiotic rulings about how people can conduct
: >their marriages, then yes.
: >Gwen
: Isn't a shame that the Founders of the Constitution didn't have Gwen
: to teach them? Not to mention those who set up the Uniform Code of
: Military Justice for the US??
--
Gwen A Orel
And that is why you feel it your privelege to slander other Jews,
to attack the president on mere allegations? Why don't you practice
a little of what you preach, you hypocritical, self-satisfied,
ignorant liar.
Gwen
David Goldman (da...@erols.com) wrote:
: >Just like YOU!
: No, I believe in the divine origin of the Torah given to Moses on Mt.
: Sinai.
--
Gwen A Orel
Hear, hear! Right on!
Why on earth should anything concocted by one of Nixon's dirty tricksters
be trusted for one instant?
Gwen
Albert Reingewirtz (albertre...@access1.net) wrote:
: In article <34CCA6...@inxpress.net>, j...@inxpress.net wrote:
: > Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
: > >
: >
: > > You've got it backward! "Sexually harrassing younger employees is the
: > > domain of Republicans. Democrats get in the pants of willing people. Their
: > > is a big difference bozzo!
: >
: > If Clinton had not lied under oath, there would be no case.
: >
: > The reason that Clinton was put under oath is because he
: > attempted to have sex with someone who *did* *not* *consent*,
: > and he would not apologize, and he had "his people" smear
: > the person who did not consent.
: >
: > Let me hear you defend Clinton's right to have sex with whoever
: > he likes, whenever he likes, however he likes, and to punish
: > those who object, because he is the president. I dare you.
: The reason all this happening is because Republicans are desperate to bring
: down a very successful President and they need to erase Watergate they
: mention every opportunity they get. By the way, under the American justice
: system, the President is innocent intil shown guilty. But this never
: bothered Republicans.
: If the President had an affair, do not be affraid to talk about Republicans
: who it is known that they did the same while married. Senator Dole was
: shaking up with a air hostess in Miami while still married. Gingritch the
: same and divorced his wife while recovering from cancer surgery. Then a
: church had to support his children because he didn't! Senator Dole and his
: child were total strangers intil his campaign for President and probably
: strangers again. Compare with the picture of a family man like Clinton. Do
: you see many Republicans like him? Get a life!
: --
: God can't be dead, it never existed
--
Gwen A Orel
j...@inxpress.net wrote:
: Paula Jones did not consent.
To what? All we have is her story.
: Clinton lied under oath.
Unproven and unlikely.
Gwen A Orel
j...@inxpress.net wrote:
: That is not the issue. The President, while he
: was Governor of Arkansas, had a uniformed and armed State Trooper
: request a female state employee to accompany him to the Governor's hotel
: room, where he stood guard, while the Governor stuck his erect
: penis in her face and implored her to "kiss it", and then refused
: to apologize for it after her name was besmirched in the press.
No, actually, that' just what Paula Jones said happened. I don't
believe it, and there is no proof. And Monica Lewinsky has nothing
to do with it!
: When the President was called to depose himself under oath,
: he lied about his relationship with another woman, in an
: effort to escape the building of a case that the type of
: behavior that he had exhibited with Paula Jones was habitual and
: frequent. And, in fact, it is habitual and frequent, and that
: fact has been corroborated by many witnesses, from procurers
: to victims.
No, there's no proof he lied under oath at all. And noone has suggested
he harassed Lewinsky, which doesn't make any alleged harassment of
Jones habitual.
: Bill Clinton is not just a liar; he is a sexual predator and a
: perjurer. A lying sexual predator may be just what you want in a
: President, but the perjury ought to get him removed from office,
: despite your wishes, under the rule of law.
There's no proof of any perjury despite your wishes. There's
no proof of any sexual predatoriness, despite your slander.
Gwen
Ron Schwarz -- see sig to reply
>That's the very minimum of freedom we should all agree on: Sex between
>consenting adults is nobody's business.
Define the concept of "consent" when the parties consist of a 21 year old
girl and her 50 year old employer.
Please supply real-world (i.e., non-governmental) examples. Please back it
up with case law.
Thank you very much.
--
(reply to usenet at clubvb.com)
M Soja
On 28 Jan 1998 02:47:37 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) posted:
>David Goldman (da...@erols.com) wrote:
>: And of course, he has no responsibility to set a moral example for the
>: boys (and girls) he sends into war....... But of course, social
>: handholding engineering in the military is of primary importance...
>No, actually, he does not have that responsibility. Find me
>one place where "moral example" is listed as part of the duties of
>office.
<snip>
Would you *prefer* to have a president that offered a "moral example"
or would you *prefer* one that did not?
Does this President's morality (sic) affect others who might be
looking to him as a mentor? What example does Bill Clinton set? If
he's willing to cheat in his marriage, where else will he cheat? Who
is he willing to compromise himself with? How far will he go to
satisfy his personal peccadilloes? Would he let you suck him off for
national security reasons?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Join the fight against junk e-mail
Some handy addresses:
abuse@localhost, admin@localhost, fraud@localhost, postmaster@localhost, root@localhost, ab...@fbi.gov , u...@ftc.gov, pyr...@ftc.gov, cust...@email.usps.gov postal, net-...@nocs.insp.irs.gov, WE...@FDADR.CDRH.FDA.GOV, frau...@psinet.com, ab...@earthlink.net, fr...@earthlink.net, sp...@earthlink.net, ab...@hotmail.com, j...@mailloop.com, jo...@mailloop.com, ro...@mailloop.com, ab...@netcom.com, webm...@netcom.com
M Soja
On 28 Jan 1998 02:50:22 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) posted:
>Why on earth should anything concocted by one of Nixon's dirty tricksters
>be trusted for one instant?
DON'T trust her. Look at the corroborating evidence. Clinton and his
synchophants are hypocrites of the highest order. He was on TV
tonight (with his party) taking credit for welfare reform. It's like
M Lewinski thinking Bill was in love.
M Soja
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:35:32 -0800, albertre...@access1.net
(Albert Reingewirtz) posted:
>> Hillary Clinton is laboring under the her belief in the lies her husband
>> has told her, that "nothing ever happened," this is not informed
>> consent. Hillary Clinton has stated her 'confidence' in her husbands
>> ability to keep their mutually agreed upon promises of fidelity.
>First, you do not know that. Second, it is her business and not ours at
>all. What adults do with other consenting adults is their business and
>their business only.
It isn't private when there is an indicated pattern of abuse from
employer to subordinate, at least not according to modern law, thank
the democrats. It is only in the course of Paula Jones attempting to
establish this pattern of abuse that the alleged actions re Lewinski
have come to light. It is a legal dispute, and if participants in
that legal dispute have perjured themselves or suggested that others
perjure themselves, then the OLD laws will be quite sufficient.
"Consenting adults" don't mean shit.
Gwen A Orel
: > Orel) wrote:
: >
: > > Nonsense. Paula Jones *said* that's what happened but I for one
: > > do not believe her.
: How convenient. Do you have a shred of integrity?
What? My integrity is an issue now too? There is no evidence to support
her claim. It's *her* integrity that's at issue.
: > > If he had a pattern of harassing young women
: > > then some other young woman would have come forward by now.
: Read the Willey deposition. Check out Sally Perdue's story.
: Go back and read the interviews with various Troopers.
: There are many, many others.
All of whom had very clear agendas.
: Amazing. All except *one* consented?
Apparently. The one who hoped to extort several million dollars.
: Did you hear about the guy who threatened Clinton's life, if he
: ever came after his wife again?
No, probably just more gossip you're presenting as fact.
Bet you believe Elvis is alive, too.
Gwen
Gwen A Orel
He should take credit for it.
And as for Lewinski-- this is not the first time she's boasted
of an affair that never happened; her high school teacher suffered
the same fate. And she's on tape saying "I've lied all my life!"
What corroborating evidence? The non-existent dress? The secret
service agent who doesn't exist? (Boy, is the Dalls News' face red!)
Gwen
M Soja (ms...@javanet.com) wrote:
: On 28 Jan 1998 02:50:22 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) posted:
: >Why on earth should anything concocted by one of Nixon's dirty tricksters
: >be trusted for one instant?
: DON'T trust her. Look at the corroborating evidence. Clinton and his
: synchophants are hypocrites of the highest order. He was on TV
: tonight (with his party) taking credit for welfare reform. It's like
: M Lewinski thinking Bill was in love.
: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
: Join the fight against junk e-mail
: Some handy addresses:
: abuse@localhost, admin@localhost, fraud@localhost, postmaster@localhost, root@localhost, ab...@fbi.gov , u...@ftc.gov, pyr...@ftc.gov, cust...@email.usps.gov postal, net-...@nocs.insp.irs.gov, WE...@FDADR.CDRH.FDA.GOV, frau...@psinet.com, ab...@earthlink.net, fr...@earthlink.net, sp...@earthlink.net, ab...@hotmail.com, j...@mailloop.com, jo...@mailloop.com, ro...@mailloop.com, ab...@netcom.com, webm...@netcom.com
Gwen A Orel
M Soja (ms...@javanet.com) wrote:
: >First, you do not know that. Second, it is her business and not ours at
: >all. What adults do with other consenting adults is their business and
: >their business only.
: It isn't private when there is an indicated pattern of abuse from
: employer to subordinate, at least not according to modern law, thank
do you not understand the phrase "consenting adults?" Break it down:
consent. adults.
: the democrats. It is only in the course of Paula Jones attempting to
: establish this pattern of abuse that the alleged actions re Lewinski
: have come to light. It is a legal dispute, and if participants in
: that legal dispute have perjured themselves or suggested that others
: perjure themselves, then the OLD laws will be quite sufficient.
: "Consenting adults" don't mean shit.
Nonsense, dumdum. Harassment does not equal consent. Doh!
Gwen
Gwen A Orel
M Soja (ms...@javanet.com) wrote:
: Would you *prefer* to have a president that offered a "moral example"
: or would you *prefer* one that did not?
I couldn't care less. I'm happy with a president setting policies
on health care, taxes, economic reform, NATO. I look to my religious
leaders for morality, not my president.
: Does this President's morality (sic) affect others who might be
: looking to him as a mentor? What example does Bill Clinton set? If
A person unwilling to bend to extortionist demands by a lying greedy
woman, Ms. Paula Jones.
: he's willing to cheat in his marriage, where else will he cheat? Who
That's plain silly. MLK cheated on his wife, so did JFK. They
were great men with weaknesses. There is no correlation ever found
between sexual infidelity and say, embezzlement.
: is he willing to compromise himself with? How far will he go to
: satisfy his personal peccadilloes? Would he let you suck him off for
: national security reasons?
The last question is just blathering insult.
Gwen
Gwen A Orel
j...@inxpress.net wrote:
: No, you also have the original lie, later retracted, about how
: Ferguson never brought her to the room.
: I suggest you read Stuart Taylor's seminal Paula Jones articles.
Who is Stuart Taylor, and what gives his articles any credibility?
: >
: > : Clinton lied under oath.
: >
: > Unproven and unlikely.
: Sez you. You appear to embrace whatever tale fits in with
: your political agenda. Bill Clinton is a monumentally profuse
: liar, and has a history of sexual predation. Paula Jones
: hasn't changed her story.
He hasn't changed his, either. 76% of the American public agrees
with me, according to ABC. I have no agenda-- but I believe the
Republicans do.
: I'm thinking of selling some Presidential Knee Pads, with
: the Presidential Seal on them, for $10 a pair. Want to
: place an order?
Argument by insult. How convincing. Yawn.
Gwen
--
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater: 28-Jan-98
Re: Very Ashamed of Jewish .. by Gwen A Or...@pitt.edu
> : I'm thinking of selling some Presidential Knee Pads, with
> : the Presidential Seal on them, for $10 a pair. Want to
> : place an order?
>
> Argument by insult. How convincing. Yawn.
Yeah. Irritating, isn't it?--i mean, it's just like attempting to
besmear one's political opposition as a "vast, right wing conspiracy,"
or defame ken starr for doing what special prosecutors are supposed to
do, or refer to paula corbin jones as "trailer trash" (bennett), oh, and
isn't this ironic?--if bennett hadn't attacked linda tripp in the press,
calling her a politcally motivated liar etc., she never would have taped
lewinski in order to "shore up" her own credibility. Fascinating, eh
what?
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
L'il Bear
> Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > That's the very minimum of freedom we should all agree on: Sex between
> > consenting adults is nobody's business.
> >
>
> That is not the issue.
>
> Perjury is one issue; national security malfeasance is another.
I live in Canada. I always thought that the USA was like Canada in holding
a man innocent until proven guilty. I guess you are the court and jury
that held Clinton to trial and held him guilty, hunh?
This circus is a concoction of a powerful group that is bending the media
to railroad the President of the United States.
Who suffers? The whole country, and the shame will be on all those who
forego the basic rules of law. Don't hold him guilty until it is proven.
L'il Bear
In article <34d7b788...@n2.supernews.com>, dev...@clubvb.com (Ron
Schwarz -- see sig to reply) wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 20:18:13 -0800, albertre...@access1.net (Albert
> Reingewirtz) wrote:
>
> >That's the very minimum of freedom we should all agree on: Sex between
> >consenting adults is nobody's business.
>
> Define the concept of "consent" when the parties consist of a 21 year old
> girl and her 50 year old employer.
Firstly, you define holding someone guilty until proven innocent.
Secondly, a 21-year old is a consenting adult.
L'il Bear
> On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:35:32 -0800, albertre...@access1.net
> >First, you do not know that. Second, it is her business and not ours at
> >all. What adults do with other consenting adults is their business and
> >their business only.
>
> It isn't private when there is an indicated pattern of abuse from
> employer to subordinate, at least not according to modern law, thank
> the democrats. It is only in the course of Paula Jones attempting to
> establish this pattern of abuse that the alleged actions re Lewinski
> have come to light. It is a legal dispute, and if participants in
> that legal dispute have perjured themselves or suggested that others
> perjure themselves, then the OLD laws will be quite sufficient.
WRONG!! It is in the course of clever manipulation by a powerful political
group with an evil agenda that is costing the United States dearly.
> "Consenting adults" don't mean shit.
Perhaps in your little mind...
L'il Bear
> Sez you. You appear to embrace whatever tale fits in with
> your political agenda. Bill Clinton is a monumentally profuse
> liar, and has a history of sexual predation. Paula Jones
> hasn't changed her story.
Why should she? The Rutherford Institute pays her handsomely to front
their libelling actions. And you appear to be part of the gang that
ignores all basic rules of law in their zeal to carry out their evil
agendas.
>
> I'm thinking of selling some Presidential Knee Pads, with
> the Presidential Seal on them, for $10 a pair. Want to
> place an order?
Your incessant libelling of the President indicates YOUR agenda. I guess
you are part of the jackboot crowd, too?
Maybe the groups trying these pressure tactics are also part of the
right-wing fanatics that blew up the Oklahoma FBI building?
Could we be witnessing a fascist powergrab in its infancy? Hmmm....
dingicat
Yes Gwen, "doh" is right.
You really don't get it; it isn't a matter of harrassment nor consent,
this is a matter of sleaze, lack of trust, and sexual activity with a
young woman a few years older than his daughter. The man is
behaving like the white trash he is.
You're wasting your time here, Ms Orel (or is that also a typo)
Gwen A Orel <gao...@pitt.edu> wrote in article >
dingicat
Gwen A Orel <gao...@pitt.edu> wrote in article
>
> A person unwilling to bend to extortionist demands by a lying greedy
> woman, Ms. Paula Jones.
Hmmm, what do you know that we don't?
>
> That's plain silly. MLK cheated on his wife, so did JFK. They
> were great men with weaknesses. There is no correlation ever found
> between sexual infidelity and say, embezzlement.
>
Great men in *your* mind, maybe--and that makes it alright, since
others have done it. Embezzlement likely to come later when the
rest of the crimes are disclosed, but nice of you to mention.
>
> The last question is just blathering insult.
(re oral sex) well, Gwen, others do it, why not you?
>
> Gwen
>
If you find yourself "special" among those defending Mr KissIt, forget it,
as you're among the group of "the dime a dozen gang".
"Doh!" That was funny, almost as funny as Linz' "opps"
j...@inxpress.net
L'il Bear wrote:
>
> In article <34CEBF...@inxpress.net>, j...@inxpress.net wrote:
>
> > Sez you. You appear to embrace whatever tale fits in with
> > your political agenda. Bill Clinton is a monumentally profuse
> > liar, and has a history of sexual predation. Paula Jones
> > hasn't changed her story.
>
> Why should she?
She shouldn't. And either should he and Ferguson, but they
already have.
> And you appear to be part of the gang that
> ignores all basic rules of law in their zeal to carry out their evil
> agendas.
One rule of law is that it is a crime to commit perjury.
> Your incessant libelling of the President indicates YOUR agenda.
I guess
> you are part of the jackboot crowd, too?
>
> Maybe the groups trying these pressure tactics are also part of the
> right-wing fanatics that blew up the Oklahoma FBI building?
>
> Could we be witnessing a fascist powergrab in its infancy? Hmmm....
Eh? So that "we" can have *Al Gore* at the helm? How psychotic
are you?
So, what we have here is a man who is infamous for his sexual
predation and his lying, defending himself against a woman
who wanted an apology, very likely committing perjury
during a sworn deposition. And you conclude that those who
have had enough of the sick bastard probably conspired to blow up
the Murrah Building.
Beautiful. I knew you could soil yourself.
Canada, O! Canada. Please keep your dingbats home.
j...@inxpress.net
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > That's the very minimum of freedom we should all agree on: Sex between
> > > consenting adults is nobody's business.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Perjury is one issue; national security malfeasance is another.
>
> I live in Canada. I always thought that the USA was like Canada in holding
> a man innocent until proven guilty. I guess you are the court and jury
> that held Clinton to trial and held him guilty, hunh?
The national security malfeasance is a fact; it has been an ongoing
feature of the Clinton reign and the placement of Monica Lewinsky
at the Pentagon in a TS/SCI classified position is just the latest
example.
If the "affair" with Lewinsky turns out to be false, I'll retract
my charge that Clinton perjured himself. However, since there is
a mountain of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Clinton
and Lewinsky had some kind of sexual relationship.
>
> This circus is a concoction of a powerful group that is bending the media
> to railroad the President of the United States.
Right. Because they want Al Gore to be President.
It must be something in the socialist water up there. Why don't you
get a bunch of Canadians together to sponsor a Homeland for
Bill Clinton, when he leaves office?
M Soja
On 28 Jan 1998 06:44:51 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) posted:
>He should take credit for it.
Welfare reform? Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to the
table where he signed welfare reform. The immediate spin was that he
and Hillary would "Fix" it when they could. Now he takes credit for
the whole shooting match.
>And as for Lewinski-- this is not the first time she's boasted
>of an affair that never happened; her high school teacher suffered
>the same fate.
Yer in serious denial. Her high school teacher corroborates both his
affair with her and Bill Clinton's.
>And she's on tape saying "I've lied all my life!"
She found a kindred spirit in Bill Clinton!!! But I think Linda Tripp
wiped that stupid smile right off her face, don't you?
>What corroborating evidence?
20 hours of tape. Clinton's haggard denials. Desperation for
immunity. Her resulting testimony.
> The non-existent dress? The secret
>service agent who doesn't exist? (Boy, is the Dalls News' face red!)
And your face is purple. The boy is going down!!
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
M Soja
On 28 Jan 1998 06:46:08 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) posted:
>M Soja (ms...@javanet.com) wrote:
>: >First, you do not know that. Second, it is her business and not ours at
>: >all. What adults do with other consenting adults is their business and
>: >their business only.
>: It isn't private when there is an indicated pattern of abuse from
>: employer to subordinate, at least not according to modern law, thank
>do you not understand the phrase "consenting adults?" Break it down:
>consent. adults.
Paula Jones didn't consent. I suppose you'll blame Paula Jones for
not consenting? Paula is attempting to establish a pattern of abuse.
The very existence of Ms Lewinksy corroborates Jones's claims. Bill
lied under oath just like he's lied to the American people since '92
and the Arkansas people before that.
>: the democrats. It is only in the course of Paula Jones attempting to
>: establish this pattern of abuse that the alleged actions re Lewinski
>: have come to light. It is a legal dispute, and if participants in
>: that legal dispute have perjured themselves or suggested that others
>: perjure themselves, then the OLD laws will be quite sufficient.
>: "Consenting adults" don't mean shit.
>Nonsense, dumdum. Harassment does not equal consent. Doh!
That's the problem with harassment. When the boss does it, it's very
difficult to just say no. Think of the character it took for Paula
Jones to tell the governor of Arkansas "no", after being escorted to
his hotel room by an armed and uniformed state trooper. How many 21
year old females do you suppose would find within themselves the same
resolve when confronted with the President of the United States'
"persuasion"? Whether Monica consented or not, Bill Clinton is guilty
of abuse of power.
M Soja
On 28 Jan 1998 06:48:14 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) posted:
>M Soja (ms...@javanet.com) wrote:
>: Would you *prefer* to have a president that offered a "moral example"
>: or would you *prefer* one that did not?
>I couldn't care less.
That is plain.
>I'm happy with a president setting policies
>on health care, taxes, economic reform, NATO. I look to my religious
>leaders for morality, not my president.
Does lying under oath in order to escape possible legal repercussions
fall within what you'll accept from your political leaders? How did
you feel about Ollie North? George Bush?
>: Does this President's morality (sic) affect others who might be
>: looking to him as a mentor? What example does Bill Clinton set? If
>A person unwilling to bend to extortionist demands by a lying greedy
>woman, Ms. Paula Jones.
Bill Clinton opened himself to extortion when he had the Arkansas
State Trooper escort Paula Jones to his hotel room. Don't you get
that yet? Bill Clinton's pattern of reckless and abusive behavior
screams out for compromising scenarios, including blackmail,
extortion, and stupid political "crisis".
>: he's willing to cheat in his marriage, where else will he cheat? Who
>That's plain silly. MLK cheated on his wife, so did JFK. They
>were great men with weaknesses. There is no correlation ever found
>between sexual infidelity and say, embezzlement.
Some might disagree whether these men were "great" or not. And your
"no correlation" has no corroboration.
>: is he willing to compromise himself with? How far will he go to
>: satisfy his personal peccadilloes? Would he let you suck him off for
>: national security reasons?
>The last question is just blathering insult.
Nope. Would you suck off the President of the United States if he
asked you to? Would it bother you to just say no?
j...@inxpress.net
j...@inxpress.net wrote:
>
> L'il Bear wrote:
> >
> > In article <34CEB4...@inxpress.net>, j...@inxpress.net wrote:
> >
> > > Albert Reingewirtz wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > That's the very minimum of freedom we should all agree on: Sex between
> > > > consenting adults is nobody's business.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is not the issue.
> > >
> > > Perjury is one issue; national security malfeasance is another.
> >
> > I live in Canada. I always thought that the USA was like Canada in holding
> > a man innocent until proven guilty. I guess you are the court and jury
> > that held Clinton to trial and held him guilty, hunh?
>
> The national security malfeasance is a fact; it has been an ongoing
> feature of the Clinton reign and the placement of Monica Lewinsky
> at the Pentagon in a TS/SCI classified position is just the latest
> example.
>
> If the "affair" with Lewinsky turns out to be false, I'll retract
> my charge that Clinton perjured himself. However, since there is
> a mountain of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Clinton
it appears that Bill Clinton did, in fact, lie under
oath.
>
> >
> > This circus is a concoction of a powerful group that is bending the media
> > to railroad the President of the United States.
>
> Right. Because they want Al Gore to be President.
>
> It must be something in the socialist water up there. Why don't you
> get a bunch of Canadians together to sponsor a Homeland for
> Bill Clinton, when he leaves office?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Prediction of the decade: "The public will never believe the
innocence of the Clintons & their loyal staff." -- author unknown
M Soja
On 28 Jan 1998 06:49:40 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) posted:
>Who is Stuart Taylor, and what gives his articles any credibility?
Been following the story long? Quite the authority you are.
HER CASE AGAINST CLINTON
by Stuart Taylor, Jr.
THE AMERICAN LAWYER,
NOVEMBER 1996
When William Jefferson Clinton v. Paula Corbin Jones comes before
the U.S. Supreme Court -- as expected -- in January, all eyes
will be on Justice Clarence Thomas. Will a flicker of emotion
crease his usually impassive glare as he ponders a she-said, he-
said fact pattern so hauntingly reminiscent of his own ordeal
five years ago? Will he think of how -- in the words that spill
like a raging torrent from Thomas's close friend (and sometime
self-appointed spokesman) Armstrong Williams -- "Mrs. Clinton
went out to San Francisco to present Anita Hill with the woman of
the year award"? Williams adds: "I wonder when she's going to
present an award to Paula Jones? And where is NOW? People need to
see the hypocrisy here."
It was actually an American Bar Association commission on women
that presented an award to Hill. But Williams has a point.
Hillary Clinton spoke at the August 1992 award luncheon,
celebrating Hill for having "transformed consciousness and
changed history with her courageous testimony" against Thomas.
Both women were hailed as heroines at that ABA convention, by a
host of women lawyers and others who have shunned Jones as a
pariah.
Generally overlooked, meanwhile, has been the fact that the
evidence supporting Paula Jones's allegations of predatory, if
not depraved, behavior by Bill Clinton is far stronger than the
evidence supporting Anita Hill's allegations of far less serious
conduct by Clarence Thomas.
Jones's evidence includes clear proof, scattered through the
public record, that then-governor Clinton's state trooper-
bodyguard interrupted the then-24-year-old state employee on the
job on May 8, 1991, and took her to meet Clinton -- the boss of
Jones's boss -- alone in an upstairs suite at Little Rock's
Excelsior Hotel, for the apparent purpose of sexual dalliance.
The evidence also includes strongly corroborative statements made
to me by two of Jones's friends, complete with tellingly
detailed, seamy specifics -- some never published until now --
that are remarkably consistent with Jones's allegations about
what happened inside that suite. The friends relate how an
extremely upset Jones had told one of them within ten minutes of
the event, and the other within 90 minutes, that Clinton had
suddenly exposed himself and demanded oral sex after Jones had
rebuffed his efforts to grope her. One of these women, Pamela
Blackard, also witnessed the trooper's approach to Jones and her
departure to and return from Clinton's hotel room. Both told me
that, on the basis of Jones's detailed descriptions and
distraught demeanor that day, they are convinced that she was,
and is, telling the truth. They both signed sworn, generally
worded affidavits for Jones in 1994.
Blackard and the other woman, Debra Ballentine, first told their
stories in February 1994 in exclusive interviews to reporter
Michael Isikoff, then of The Washington Post. But to Isikoff's
chagrin, the Post printed only sketchy fragments of their
accounts, 11 weeks later. Blackard's and Ballentine's detailed,
previously unpublished stories provide far stronger corroboration
for Jones's allegations than anyone could know from reports by
the Post or any other major news organization.
There is, of course, other evidence that warrants skepticism
about Jones's account, including the claim by Jones's trooper
escort that she happily volunteered to be Clinton's "girlfriend"
just after leaving his hotel room. Yet while the ultimate truth
remains elusive, this article will show that there are only three
logically possible scenarios: that Jones lied in a most
convincing manner, and in stunning, Technicolor detail, to both
Blackard and Ballentine, on May 8, 1991, and to her sisters soon
thereafter; that Blackard, Ballentine, and both sisters later
conspired with Jones to concoct a monstrous lie about the
president; or that Jones's allegations are substantially true.
My guess is that she's lying, at least about the more lurid
details," I wrote of Jones in the July/August 1994 issue of The
American Lawyer. After interviewing Blackard and Ballentine and
studying other evidence detailed below, I'm not so sure of that.
And I'm all but convinced that whatever Clinton did was worse
than anything Thomas was even accused of doing.
I say this as one who voted for President Clinton in 1992 and who
may do so again (with multiple misgivings), and as one who
lamented Justice Thomas's confirmation to the Supreme Court, and
who disagrees deeply with much of his archconservative
jurisprudence. I don't want to believe that the president is a
reckless sexual harasser, and I'll never know for sure exactly
what happened when Clinton was alone with Jones.
But Jones's evidence is highly persuasive.
So, too, is the absence of evidence where one might expect to
find it. President Clinton has carefully avoided making any
statement whatever -- sworn or unsworn -- about what, if
anything, happened between him and Paula Jones. He has never
personally, publicly denied that (for example) he had Jones
delivered to his hotel room by his trooper-bodyguard. Moreover,
the president's personal lawyer, Robert Bennett, has never denied
with specificity this or many other particulars of Jones's
factual allegations, either in court or in his countless media
appearances. Bennett has said that the president "did not engage
in any inappropriate or sexual conduct with this woman," and that
he "has no recollection of ever meeting this woman." But he has
never denied that a meeting took place. Rather, he has uttered
many ambiguous nondenial denials, like "nothing happened in that
hotel."
Since the Jones lawsuit was filed, the president and his lawyers
have also exploited every delaying tactic at their command,
including the pending Supreme Court appeal, to avoid confronting
the evidence. Their sweeping and unprecedented claim that the
Constitution bars all proceedings in all "personal damages
litigation against an incumbent president" was rejected by the
federal district and appellate courts -- the latter in a decision
stressing that "the Constitution . . . did not create a
monarchy."
But they have won by losing. While taking their claim of immunity
to the Supreme Court, the president and his lawyers have won
interim orders blocking Jones from taking discovery from anyone:
not from Clinton, not from the trooper who has said he escorted
Jones to Clinton's room at Clinton's direction, not from anyone
else. They have also deferred even the filing of an answer by
Clinton admitting or denying each of the specific factual
allegations of the complaint. Even if -- as seems likely -- the
Supreme Court rejects the president's arguments for stopping all
proceedings cold until he leaves office, Clinton and Bennett have
already achieved their main goal: The very pendency of Clinton's
appeal has stalled -- until well after the last election he will
ever face -- all inquiry into whether he behaved with
extraordinary depravity.
The Clinton-Bennett defense strategy has been a success in the
media as well as the courts. The president's surrogates and
supporters have diverted attention from the most relevant
evidence by orchestrating a media blitz depicting Jones as a
promiscuous, flirtatious, gold-digging, fame-seeking slut,
unworthy of belief. They have characterized her allegations as
"tabloid trash," in Bennett's famous phrase, that are being
cynically used by Clinton-haters to promote a right-wing agenda.
While supporters of Clarence Thomas famously used similar tactics
to demonize Hill, they had a far less receptive media audience.
All mainstream news reports and commentaries about Jones (that
I've seen) have ignored or downplayed the strength of her
corroborating witnesses and other evidence. Many have radiated
suspicion of her motives (but not of Anita Hill's); of her nearly
three-year delay in making her allegations public (but not of
Hill's ten-year delay, or of Hill's decision to follow Thomas to
a new job after the alleged harassment had started); and of the
uncritical joy with which her claims were predictably greeted by
Clinton-haters and right-wingers (as Hill's were by Thomas-haters
and left-wingers). Many rest on two shaky premises, the first
illogical and the second unproven: that Jones's motives must be
pure for her allegations to be true, and that her motives are in
fact impure.
Meanwhile, not a single one of the feminist groups that clamored
first for a Senate hearing for Anita Hill, and then for Clarence
Thomas's head, has lifted a finger on behalf of Paula Jones.
There is some symmetry here: Many conservatives who reflexively
trashed Hill, an apparently demure, dignified law professor, have
given the benefit of the doubt to Jones, who projects neither
demureness nor dignity. What the Hill-Thomas and Jones-Clinton
episodes have in common is that each of them prompted a rush to
judgment by people on both sides of the ideological divide whose
conclusions were derived not from evidence, but from ideological
bias. And most striking, in my view, is the hypocrisy (or
ignorance) and class bias of feminists and liberals -- who
proclaimed during the Hill-Thomas uproar that "women don't make
these things up," and that "you just don't get it" if you
presumed Thomas innocent until proven guilty -- only to spurn
Jones's allegations of far more serious (indeed, criminal)
conduct as unworthy of belief and legally frivolous.
So maybe it's time -- or past time -- for an in-depth analysis of
the evidence for and against Jones's claims, and how it stacks up
against the evidence for and against Anita Hill's. Of course, we
don't have all the evidence. But we have a lot of it. And because
it is the president himself who has assiduously kept the rest of
it from us, it's hardly unfair to him to do a tentative analysis,
based on what we know now, of what (if anything) happened between
him and Jones on May 8, 1991. Such an analysis follows,
interwoven with a chronological account of the tortured process
by which Jones's story emerged in early 1994, amid disbelief and
derision, and the subsequent course of the lawsuit.
The account will begin with events shedding light on her motives
and then focus on more directly relevant evidence. Starting with
the magazine article that spurred Jones in early 1994 to break
her silence about Clinton's alleged harassment of her -- because
it implied that she had been one of Clinton's lovers -- it will
relate the bungled efforts by Jones's first lawyer to get some
kind of redress from the president; the fiasco-cum-press
conference at which Jones went public at a Clinton-bashing right-
wing conclave; her retention of two litigators who call
themselves "country lawyers," Gilbert Davis and Joseph Cammarata,
of Fairfax, Virginia; the eleventh-hour bid by Bob Bennett to
head off her $700,000 sexual harassment lawsuit through long-
distance telephone negotiations, with the president apparently
sitting in; the allegations of the May 6, 1994 complaint, and the
detailed evidence supporting and countering them; and Bennett's
multimedia lawyering since the complaint was filed, from his
repeated appearances on Larry King Live to his orchestration of
the president's Supreme Court appeal.
Such lawyering does not come cheap. The accrued fees and costs of
Bennett -- who has spent more of his own time defending Clinton
on television than in courtrooms -- and his mega-firm, Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, have probably mounted above $2
million already, triple the $700,000 in damages sought by the
Paula Jones complaint. That would bring the total accrued fees
and costs of Clinton's four private law firms to about $5 million
[see "Fees: $5 Million And Counting," page 61]. But to the
miraculous good fortune of the president and his lawyers, two big
insurance companies have come to the rescue, generously assuming
responsibility for Skadden's fees.
You should be so lucky, if anyone ever sues you for sexual
harassment.
A WOMAN NAMED "PAULA"
Paula Corbin Jones's life changed dramatically in early 1994, in
a chain of events that began when she was mentioned as one of
Bill Clinton's apparently compliant conquests, in an article by
conservative journalist David Brock. In a story that detailed
allegations by four of Clinton's former state trooper-bodyguards,
Brock reported that as governor of Arkansas, Clinton had used the
troopers both to procure women who caught his eye -- including
one named "Paula," who was delivered to Clinton in a room at the
Excelsior Hotel -- and to facilitate and conceal long-term
extramarital affairs with Gennifer Flowers and others.
This was the same David Brock who had written the best-selling
1993 book The Real Anita Hill. In a one-sided but semicogent
dissection of old and new evidence about Hill and her charges
against Clarence Thomas, Brock had savaged the demure professor
as a liar. Among other things, Brock had stressed Hill's apparent
(but carefully camouflaged) liberal ideological animus against
Thomas and her ten-year delay in going public. For this, Brock
himself was widely savaged by liberals (like New York Times
columnist Frank Rich) as a right-wing smear artist.
"His Cheatin' Heart," which appeared in the January 1994 issue of
the Clinton-bashing The American Spectator, began circulating in
Washington about December 17, 1993, and in Little Rock soon
afterward. It was followed by a long, December 21 investigative
piece in the Los Angeles Times, reporting the same four troopers'
allegations about Clinton's sex life, while stressing a series of
efforts made in 1993 by the Clinton camp to dissuade the troopers
from speaking out -- including phone calls from the president
himself to trooper Danny Lee Ferguson. Ferguson -- the one who
has said Clinton had him deliver Paula Jones to his hotel room --
claimed that the president dangled possible federal jobs for him
and another trooper [see "A Trooper's Tales," page 63].
According to her complaint, Jones had heard nothing about the
Brock article, or its hint of a quick Clinton tryst with "Paula"
at the Excelsior Hotel. Having sworn her friends and sisters to
silence after the Excelsior encounter in 1991, Jones had been
urged to reconsider during the 1992 campaign publicity about
Clinton's extramarital adventures with Gennifer Flowers and
others. "I called [Paula] and told her she ought to do
something," recalls Jones's friend Debra Ballentine. But Jones
did nothing, because, she has said, she feared nobody would
believe her, and because she was still working under a Clinton
appointee. Meanwhile, she got on with her life. She and her
husband Stephen had a baby in 1992, and moved to Long Beach,
California, in mid-1993. In January 1994 she had returned to
Arkansas to visit her friends and family. That's when Debra
Ballentine read the key paragraph to Jones over the phone while
scheduling a lunch:
One of the troopers told the story of how Clinton had eyed a
woman at a reception in the Excelsior Hotel in downtown Little
Rock. . . . Clinton asked him to approach the woman, whom the
trooper remembered only as Paula, tell her how attractive the
governor thought she was, and take her to a room in the hotel
where Clinton would be waiting. As the troopers explained it, the
standard procedure in a case like this was for one of them to
inform the hotel that the governor needed a room for a short time
because he was expecting an important call from the White
House. . . . [A]fter her encounter with Clinton, which lasted no
more than an hour as the trooper stood by in the hall, the trooper
said Paula told him she was available to be Clinton's regular
girlfriend if he so desired.
Jones was mortified, according to her complaint. She recognized
herself instantly as the "Paula" whom the trooper had delivered
to the hotel room. So did Debra Ballentine. And so would Pamela
Blackard, who had been with Jones at the Excelsior that day, and
Jones's two sisters, and her husband. Jones had told all of them
that she had rebuffed sexual advances by Clinton that day. What
would they believe now? Little Rock is an incubator of gossip,
especially about sex. Pretty soon people all over town would hear
about how "Paula" had apparently been one of Clinton's conquests,
and which Paula it had been.
"When people say something like that, it pisses you off," says
Jones's friend Pamela Blackard. "You get mad." Mad at the
magazine. Mad at trooper Ferguson, the Clinton bodyguard who had
taken Jones to Clinton's hotel room that day, and who was
obviously Brock's source. And mad at Bill Clinton -- who, as
Jones saw it, was responsible for the whole ugly business.
As it happens, Jones ran into Ferguson on January 8, 1994, a day
or two after learning of the Brock article, at the Golden Corral
Steakhouse in North Little Rock. He was having lunch with his
wife while Jones lunched with Ballentine. According to her
complaint, Jones confronted Ferguson about the article, and he
became apologetic, saying that " 'Clinton told me you wouldn't do
anything anyway, Paula,' " and observing that " 'if you decide to
go public with this, the [National] Enquirer will pay you a
million dollars.' "
"He apologized over and over again," recalls Ballentine, who
witnessed the conversation. "He was acting like he didn't like
Clinton at all. . . . He talked to us for a long time." She adds:
"It was just crystal clear to me, if I had had any doubt [she had
told me the truth]."
Ferguson, on the other hand, denied this and claimed in his June
1994 answer to Jones's lawsuit that Jones had "inquired as to how
much money [he] thought that she could make for herself by coming
forward with her allegations."
A CHARGE OF EXTORTION
Five days later Ballentine put Jones in touch with her close
friend Daniel Traylor, a small-time solo practitioner in Little
Rock who does real estate law and other work. Jones wanted him to
try to get some sort of redress from Clinton.
What sort of redress? Jones claims that her only purpose was to
get the president to make some kind of public statement clearing
her name, and that she has never been in it for money or fame.
But Clinton surrogates have fanned suspicions about her motives
by filling the airwaves with comments like this one by Clinton
counsel Bob Bennett on CNN this January: "Look, this is a lawsuit
where the initial fee agreement with her lawyer, Mr. Traylor,
says he gets a cut of the action of any movies, any book
contracts. This is an action which was announced after an
extortion threat was turned down. Do the Republicans really want
to ride this horse?"
Bennett's mention of an extortion threat apparently refers to an
effort Traylor made in January 1994 to send a message to Clinton
through George Cook, a politically active Little Rock businessman
whom Traylor believed to be close to Clinton. Exactly what was
said between them is in dispute. Paula Jones was not present.
Cook, who has said he refused at the time even to convey
Traylor's message to the White House, later signed an affidavit
about his meeting with Traylor, apparently prepared by a Clinton
lawyer in Little Rock: "Traylor . . . said [Jones] had a claim
against President Clinton and, if she did not get money for it,
she would embarrass him publicly. . . . He said he knew his case
was weak, but he needed the client and he needed the money. . . .
Traylor said it would help if President Clinton would get Paula a
job out in California. I told Traylor that would be illegal."
Traylor told The Washington Post in May 1994 that Jones had never
suggested that he seek a job or money from the president. He told
me that Cook's affidavit "doesn't fairly reflect what was
proposed or discussed" in their 90-minute meeting, and denied
proposing anything improper. But he turned aside my detailed
questions. What's clear is that Traylor was way, way over his
head trying to deal with the president. His mishandling of the
Paula Jones matter in early 1994 has a lot to do with her
difficulty getting people to look at her allegations and evidence
seriously ever since.
Traylor had Jones sign the (now terminated) contingent fee
contract on which Bennett has cast aspersions. It gave Traylor
one-third of any amounts paid to Jones for any news articles or
"television, radio, or movie contracts." Jones has said she
assumed this was standard language.
According to her current lawyers, Jones turned down an offer of
$700,000 in mid-May 1994 to tell her story on television. She has
pledged to give to charity any damage award that may be left over
after paying her lawyers.
Jones's promise is unenforceable, of course. So, by the way, is
the letter in which President and Mrs. Clinton promised to give
to charity (or the government) any money that may be left over
from their Presidential Legal Expense Trust, after payment of
their own attorneys' fees.
An academic point now, perhaps, since the trust's liabilities
dwarf its assets.
A RIGHT-WING PLOT?
After getting nowhere with George Cook, Traylor -- a self-
described "yellow-dog Democrat" -- called Cliff Jackson, a Little
Rock lawyer and longtime Clinton critic with contacts in the
national press. Jackson had been retained by two of the troopers
to help them peddle their stories about their roles in Clinton's
alleged sexcapades. He met with Jones "and was very much
persuaded that she was telling the truth," Jackson says. He
suggested that one way to get "national exposure" for Jones's
story would be to piggyback on a press conference that his
trooper clients were already planning, at the upcoming
Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington.
"I discussed the downside to that," recalls Jackson, "which was
that it would be with me, that I was already demonized as the
Bill Clinton nemesis, archenemy -- which is a White House
creation, I'm not that. . . . And I knew [CPAC] was a right-wing
organization and that that would be viewed by the mainstream
press and media, and spun by the White House, as something
suspect."
Despite such warnings, Traylor and his client (oblivious to
politics, by all accounts) decided to announce her allegations --
and her demand for a presidential apology -- at a press
conference on February 11, 1994, in conjunction with the CPAC
conference. She and her husband appeared on the same stage with
Jackson and his trooper clients, who were touting a "Troopergate
Whistle-Blowers Fund." Jones told the reporters that Clinton had
tried to kiss her, reached under her clothing, and asked her to
perform an unspecified "type of sex." But Traylor did most of the
talking, providing few details and severely limiting reporters'
questioning of Jones. As a result, says Jackson, "she wasn't
allowed to be forthcoming and tell her story." That only enhanced
the suspicions generated by Cliff Jackson's sponsorship and the
choice of a Clinton-bashing, right-wing conference as a forum.
The press conference was a fiasco, and Jones's vague claims were
widely ignored or dismissed as a salacious sideshow. Three days
later, six paragraphs deep in a Washington Post Style Section
color piece, Lloyd Grove made elegant fun of the whole CPAC
affair, ridiculing Jones's press conference as "yet another
ascension of Mount Bimbo" played out in front of a "tittering and
chuckling" crowd.
The New York Times published four short, sober, skeptical
paragraphs the day after the Jones press conference, deep in the
paper, ending with a statement for the president by Mark Gearan,
then the White House communications director: "It is not true. He
does not recall meeting her. He was never alone in a hotel with
her." Curiously, Gearan -- a careful man who must have checked
with the president -- omitted the word "room." Jones had not, of
course, claimed that she and Clinton had been the only two people
in the entire Excelsior Hotel that day. A nondenial denial,
perhaps? Meanwhile, Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos dismissed
Jones's press conference as "a cheap political fund-raising
trick."
XXXXXX
When the press conference flopped, Jackson says, he convinced
Traylor to try persuading a national, establishment newspaper of
the strength of Jones's allegations and evidence, by "giving them
an exclusive, working with them only." Jackson recommended
Michael Isikoff, a widely respected investigative reporter, then
with The Washington Post and now with its affiliate, Newsweek.
Isikoff immediately interviewed Jones (at length, on tape), her
husband, Pamela Blackard, Debra Ballentine, Jones's two sisters,
her mother, and others, including White House officials and
Clinton aides in Little Rock, where he did some of his research.
In February, he drafted a story stressing the strength of their
evidence. But the Post's editors held it up, amid multiple
requests for more reporting, redrafts, and revisions. "The
editors involved felt that more work had to be done right up
until the day it was finished and put in the paper," says Robert
Kaiser, the Post's managing editor. "We were extremely careful in
light of the nature of the accusation." Isikoff, on the other
hand, later told the American Journalism Review: "Having done the
reporting, I felt to not publish the story was withholding
information from the readers."
Frustrated with the Post, Jones and her husband wandered into the
welcoming arms of conservative activists and the Christian right,
which was beating a path to their door. They agreed to be
videotaped by producers for far-right televangelist Jerry Falwell
for what turned out to be a scurrilous video called The Clinton
Chronicles; Jones also appeared on Pat Robertson's 700 Club show
on the Christian Broadcasting Network and was interviewed by
conservative media critic Reed Irvine on his cable television
show. Meanwhile, Irvine's Accuracy in Media took out full-page
ads in the Post and other newspapers accusing them of suppressing
an important story.
Were Jones (or Traylor, or other people advising her) seeking
something more than to clear her good name? They did, after all,
create a national scandal to rebut a single paragraph buried deep
in a long story in a right-wing journal -- a journal that had not
even mentioned "Paula's" last name. Jones and Traylor have said
their purpose was to bring pressure on Clinton to make a public
apology. But the predictable effect has been to generate a huge
wave of publicity far more damaging to Jones's reputation than
one small paragraph in The American Spectator could possibly have
been.
"Maybe," says Jones's friend Pam Blackard, "she bit off more than
she could chew."
THE $475-AN-HOUR MAN
What really put Paula Jones's name in the headlines was not her
initial press conference, or even the filing of her lawsuit, but
rather the decision by President Clinton to retain Bob Bennett to
defend the case, which hit the papers on May 3, 1994. Suddenly,
it seemed like this must mean real trouble for the president. He
already had David Kendall of Williams & Connolly working full-
tilt to defend him in the Whitewater investigation; now he was
hiring an even more expensive lawyer -- the $475-an-hour man who
would be king of the white-collar defense bar -- to take on Paula
Jones and her hapless solo practitioner from Arkansas.
Bennett, the older brother of conservative luminary William
Bennett, had been recommended to the president and Hillary
Clinton months before, by Harold Ickes, a top White House
official whom Bennett had represented in connection with the
Whitewater investigation. According to two sources with indirect
knowledge of the discussions, Bennett had initially met with one
or both Clintons in late March or early April 1994, not about
Paula Jones but about some of their multifarious other legal
problems, including the "troopergate" allegations. As it became
apparent that Jones was preparing to sue by May 8, 1994, when the
statute of limitations would run out, some Clinton insiders
thought the best way to keep her case out of the news was to
assign it to some obscure lawyer in Arkansas. But then-White
House counsel Lloyd Cutler recommended Bennett, according to
Cutler. He reasoned that the lawsuit, once filed, would be a big
story in any event, and that Bennett was especially skilled at
dealing with the media.
Indeed, unlike Kendall -- a tight-lipped, old-school lawyer --
Bennett had made a name for himself as being especially good at
crafting television sound bites and schmoozing with reporters in
his office, and was a capable courtroom advocate as well. He was
on a roll, after a succession of high-profile engagements,
including the Senate's televised "Keating Five" hearings, in
which Bennett had served as special counsel; the defense of aging
superlawyer Clark Clifford; and the securing of a presidential
pardon for Caspar Weinberger, the former Defense secretary,
wiping out his indictment for alleged Iran-contra crimes. As May
1994 began, Bennett was going into sensitive talks with federal
prosecutors on behalf of powerhouse then-representative Dan
Rostenkowski (D-Illinois), in a criminal investigation that was
to culminate in an indictment on May 31, amidst a falling-out
between Bennett and Rostenkowski that ended their relationship
two days later.
Bennett, who in the past has spent hours talking with me (as he
has with many other reporters), spurned a written request I sent
him for an interview for this article. Nor did Bennett respond to
any of the 31 questions I addressed to White House counsel Jack
Quinn on September 24, with a copy to Bennett. Nor did Quinn.
Neither man gave a reason, but it may relate to Bennett's
complaint that I treated him unfairly in an article in the
July/August 1994 issue of The American Lawyer. The article, "One
Client Too Many," contended that he had failed to consult
adequately with Rostenkowski before taking on the Paula Jones
matter.
THE COUNTRY LAWYERS
Meanwhile, Daniel Traylor, Jones's Little Rock lawyer, had come
to realize that he needed some real litigators to mount a real
lawsuit. But he had trouble finding any who would take on the
case. Traylor asked around Little Rock; talked to some big
plaintiffs firms; and was put in touch -- by Patrick Mahoney, an
antiabortion activist, oddly enough -- with Patricia Ireland,
head of the pro-choice, ultra liberal National Organization for
Women.
All in vain. Finally, in late April, the conservative legal
grapevine put Traylor in touch with two self-described "country
lawyers" with substantial litigation experience, Gilbert Davis
and Joseph Cammarata of Fairfax, Virginia. They agreed to take a
look at the case, and soon discovered that they would have to
work fast: The 180-day statute of limitations for a suit under
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act had expired, and the
statute of limitations for most other causes of action was about
to expire, on May 8.
Davis and Cammarata worked furiously through the first few days
and nights of May to beat the statute of limitations. They talked
to Jones and Traylor by phone and redrafted and expanded
Traylor's skimpy draft complaint while running across the street
periodically to get coffee at a 7-Eleven store. That's where, in
the wee hours of May 4, they also picked up an early edition of
The Washington Post. The Post, prompted by the news that the
president had retained Bob Bennett, had finally gone ahead with
two long articles by Michael Isikoff (who shared a byline on one
of the stories with two other Post reporters). The stories,
starting on page 1 and filling up an entire inside page,
constitute the most complete account of the evidence concerning
Jones's allegations that has been published until now. It had
arrived just in time for Davis and Cammarata to add to the
complaint allegedly defamatory statements (about Jones) made by
Bennett and White House officials to the Post. Later that
morning, Jones's attorneys flew to Little Rock to do what Davis
calls "our due diligence."
They met that day with Traylor, Jones, her husband, and their
witnesses, and made sure that Jones had "the fortitude," and her
story the plausibility, to withstand the pressures of a
contentious lawsuit against the president, says Davis, who found
Jones to be "a warm and sincere human being." Using Traylor's
office, they continued to rework the complaint, let an expectant
throng of reporters know that it would be filed the next day, and
got a little sleep.
Their four-count complaint included federal sexual harassment
claims premised on two Reconstruction-era civil rights statutes
(naming trooper Ferguson as a co-conspirator under one of them),
and state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional
distress and defamation. Cammarata says they had carefully
considered adding another defamation claim, against The American
Spectator. But they decided it would not "pass the legal laugh
test": The magazine had merely quoted what trooper Ferguson, whom
it had no apparent reason to believe was lying, had said about a
woman identified only as "Paula."
THE PRESIDENT IS "IN THE ROOM"
Davis and Cammarata recall the next day's eleventh-hour
negotiations with Bennett in a joint interview in the cramped
conference room of the modest Fairfax, Virginia, Law Offices of
Gilbert K. Davis and Associates. The big, beefy, jovial Davis,
who says he's tried cases all over Virginia and in some 20
states, chuckles when asked what it's like litigating against
superlawyer Bob Bennett and his mega-firm. Citing a news report
that Bennett charges $450 (not $475) an hour, Davis quips, "We
charge less than half that, and I like to think we're half as
good as they are."
Both lawyers say that political animus against Clinton was not
their reason for taking the case. Davis, who is seeking the 1997
Republican nomination for attorney general of Virginia, describes
himself as a "conservative libertarian populist Republican";
Cammarata says he leans to the Republican side, but once worked
for Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign and is "not just a
Republican partisan here." In addition to being of counsel to
Davis, in the spring of 1994 Cammarata had been working as trial
counsel with Besozzi, Gavin & Craven, a Clinton-connected
Washington, D.C., law firm, which would soon thereafter dismiss
Cammarata for taking Jones as a client.
On the morning of May 5, Davis recalls he called Bob Bennett in
response to a phone message that Bennett had left for Traylor.
Davis informed Bennett that he and Cammarata were now taking over
the case (while keeping Traylor as local counsel), and were
planning to file the complaint by 3 p.m. that day. Recalls Davis:
"[Bennett] said something to the effect that, 'Your client has no
case. I've talked to the president for a long time, and he
completely denies that any of this happened. I've grilled him for
hours and hours, and this didn't happen.'. . ."
Davis continues: "And he said, 'Are you aware there are nude
pictures of her? I've not seen them.' And I said, 'Well, no, if
there are, I'd like to see them.' So they had some knowledge of
that already. . . .
"And I said, 'Well, let me tell you this: My client contends
[that] she can identify distinguishing characteristics in his
genital area; so when your client says that he wasn't even there,
that's to the contrary.' . . . And when I told him that, that
quieted him down a little bit. . . . And Bob Bennett said
something like, 'Well, it sure is different from a regular old
personal injury case.' "
The conversation, and several others that day, turned from what
Cammarata calls "Bennett's bluster" to an intensive, last-ditch
effort to work out a settlement, the linchpin of which would be
some kind of statement by the president to rehabilitate Jones's
reputation. "She wanted an apology," recalls Cammarata. "She
wanted her name cleared. So we weren't looking for any money."
Jones, her husband, and Traylor were with Davis and Cammarata
during these Davis-Bennett phone calls.
After some preliminary negotiations, Bennett said he needed to
consult with his client before proceeding further. For his part,
Davis wanted an assurance that any preliminary agreement worked
out by the lawyers would have the approval of the president.
Early in the afternoon, there was another phone conversation.
"I'm on the telephone talking to Bob Bennett," Davis recalls,
"and I said, 'Have you been able to find your client?' and he
said, 'Yes, he's in the room.' And I looked at the others, and
put my hand over the phone, and said, 'He's in the room.' "
"When he said that," adds Cammarata, "it gave me some chills,
because here we are, negotiating directly with the president of
the United States."
Minutes later, when Bennett suggested that any agreed-upon
statement be read by a White House press spokesman, Davis and
Cammarata conferred and insisted that it be publicly recited by
the president himself. "Bob said, 'I don't know, hold on,' "
Davis recalls, "and then maybe five or ten seconds after that, he
said, 'All right, that's acceptable. ' " Davis and Cammarata took
this to mean that Bennett had just cleared it with the president.
At Bennett's request, Jones held off filing suit that day -- much
to the frustration of the horde of news reporters waiting
expectantly at the courthouse. According to Davis and Cammarata,
Bennett's most specific proposal, which came later that day,
included statements to be issued by the president and Jones,
which Bennett and Davis had worked out by phone; at Davis's
request, Bennett had the statements typed up and faxed to Davis
in Little Rock that evening. Davis and Cammarata released the
statements, together with a facsimile transmission sheet on
Skadden's letterhead bearing Bennett's name, on October 1, 1994,
with a press release detailing the negotiations. Bennett has
never questioned the authenticity of the documents or
contradicted the specifics of the Davis/Cammarata account.
The president was to say: "I have no recollection of meeting
Paula Jones on May 8, 1991, in a room at the Excelsior Hotel.
However, I do not challenge her claim that we met there and I may
very well have met her in the past. She did not engage in any
improper or sexual conduct. I regret any untrue assertions which
have been made about her conduct which may have adversely
challenged her character and good name. I have no further comment
on my previous statements about my own conduct. Neither I nor my
staff will have any further comment on this matter."
Bennett had also faxed a proposed statement by Jones: "I am
grateful that the president has acknowledged the possibility that
he and I may have met at the Excelsior Hotel on May 8, 1991, and
has acknowledged my good name and disagrees with assertions to
the contrary. However, I stand by my prior statement of the
events."
Davis and Cammarata had asked for a provision tolling the statute
of limitations for six months, so that Jones could still sue if
the president or his staff violated the agreement. Davis says
Bennett had firmly rejected any tolling agreement as "a deal-
breaker." And while it appeared to Davis that the language faxed
by Bennett was "acceptable to Mr. Clinton," Davis says it "was
not completely acceptable to Mrs. Jones." Still, he says, "I
thought we were fairly close," and might be able to reach
agreement the next day.
Then, that night, CNN broadcast claims by unnamed White House
sources that the reason Jones had not filed that day was that she
realized she didn't have a case and her family opposed the
lawsuit. "It was a lie," says Davis; the White House knew that
the reason for the delay was Bennett's request for more time to
work out a settlement. (Davis does not blame this on Bennett,
whom he praises as "a terrific lawyer who keeps his word.")
The CNN report (and others) prompted Davis to break off
negotiations the next morning, in a handwritten, faxed "Dear Bob"
letter saying that "the complaint will be filed today" because
"further efforts to resolve these matters seem fruitless."
Davis's letter cited the news reports as evidence "that the 'no
comment' provisions are very difficult to rely upon" without a
tolling agreement. He added: "Other problems exist, including
your client's refusal to make a direct acknowledgment that he was
in the hotel suite with Paula, and that he definitely knows her."
Davis and Cammarata issued their October 1, 1994, press release
detailing these negotiations (but not Bennett's statement about
the president being "in the room") in response to what they
viewed as inaccurate comments by Bennett to reporter Ruth Shalit,
writing for The New York Times Magazine, on why the negotiations
had failed. Bennett had said that Jones's lawyers "would not
agree to any language that included an adamant denial" by the
president "that this incident occurred." In fact, according to
Davis, the Bennett-Clinton settlement proposal included no such
"adamant denial." The documents seem to bear him out.
That same day, October 1, Bennett told CNN: "I want to make it
clear that these were discussions between lawyers. The president
didn't agree or not agree to anything. I wasn't going to present
anything to the president of the United States unless it first
passed my test." Closely read, Bennett's statement does not
contradict any of the specifics of the Davis/Cammarata account of
the negotiations. Davis never claimed that the president had
"agreed" in any final, legally binding sense. (Bennett and White
House counsel Jack Quinn have not responded to letters in which I
asked them to point out any inaccuracies in the foregoing Davis-
Cammarata account of the May 5, 1994, settlement talks.)
Davis and Cammarata filed the complaint against Clinton and
Ferguson on May 6, in the U.S. courthouse in Little Rock, amid a
crush of reporters so chaotic that both men still laugh when they
recall the scene. "This case is about the powerful taking
advantage of the weak," Jones said in a prepared statement. Later
that day Bennett entertained another throng of reporters at a
press conference, dismissing the lawsuit with what instantly
became his most famous sound bite: "tabloid trash with a legal
caption on it."
SHE SAID: THE PROPOSITION
Tabloid trash or no, Paula Jones's complaint contains a detailed
narrative account of her allegations, which are interspersed
below with available evidence supporting and detracting from her
claims.
First, a word about who Paula Corbin Jones (then Paula Corbin)
was on May 8, 1991. She was 24 years old, and hailed from the
hamlet of Lonoke, 30 miles from Little Rock, where she had barely
made it through high school. After coming to the state capital,
she had bounced through several office and sales jobs before
landing a $6.35-per-hour clerical position at the Arkansas
Industrial Development Commission (AIDC), headed by a Clinton
appointee. She was engaged to an airline ticket agent and
aspiring actor named Stephen Jones.
She was also a curvaceous, big-haired, outgoing, eye-catching
woman who sometimes dressed provocatively, was regarded by many
as a flirt, and had posed almost nude about four years earlier
for a boyfriend who sold the photos to Penthouse in 1994, after
Jones had become famous.
The May 8 encounter began in the conference room area of Little
Rock's 19-story Excelsior Hotel, where the AIDC was hosting the
"Governor's Quality Management Conference." The record is clear
that Clinton stopped in and made a speech. Jones was at the
registration desk, handing out name tags and literature with her
co-worker and close friend Pamela Blackard.
Jones claims that she and Blackard both noticed Clinton staring
intently at Jones while he was standing nearby, fielding
questions from television reporters. (Blackard said the same to
me in an interview.) A few minutes later, according to the
published report of Jones's 1994 account to Michael Isikoff of
The Washington Post, trooper Danny Lee Ferguson -- who had
previously introduced himself by name as a member of the
governor's security detail -- approached Jones and said, "The
governor said you make his knees knock."
According to Jones's complaint, Ferguson returned to the
registration table later, about 2:30 p.m., handed Jones a piece
of paper with a four-digit suite number written on it, and said
the governor would like to meet with her there. "A three-way
conversation followed between Ferguson, Blackard, and Jones about
what the governor could want," the complaint says. "Ferguson
stated during the conversation: 'It's okay, we do this all the
time for the governor.' " Blackard told me she generally recalls
such a conversation. The Post quoted her in 1994 as having told
Isikoff: "I did say to her . . . 'Find out what he wants and come
right back. . . . If you're that curious, go ahead.' "
The complaint says that Ferguson escorted Jones to the upstairs
floor and pointed out Clinton's suite to her. (Ferguson's answer
to Jones's complaint confirms this.) Jones says she knocked and
entered, and found herself alone with the governor.
Why did she go? "I was very excited the governor wanted to see
me," Jones said in an interview with Sam Donaldson that was aired
on June 16, 1994, on ABC's Primetime Live. "[W]hen me and my
friend [Blackard] had talked about it, we thought we might --
could get a job. . . . That's the only reason why I would think
that he would want me up there. . . . I did not know him or any
of his past before that day." Pamela Blackard also appeared
briefly on the program confirming Jones's account of the
approach.
Trooper Ferguson's various accounts of these events -- to David
Brock, to William Rempel of the Los Angeles Times, to fellow
troopers, and in his answer to the complaint -- lend strong
support to Jones's allegations as to how she ended up alone in a
room with Clinton, while suggesting that she had eagerly courted
and welcomed any sexual advances by the governor. Here's what
Ferguson told the Los Angeles Times in 1993, according to
articles published on May 23 and June 11, 1994, in interviews
that were initially off the record:
"Ferguson recalled that Clinton had directed him to approach a
woman who was working behind the registration desk at a seminar
of the Arkansas Industrial Development Corp. at the Excelsior
Hotel in Little Rock. Ferguson said the governor told him that
the woman had 'that come-hither look' and that he wanted to meet
her privately.
"Acting on Clinton's orders, Ferguson said, he first secured a
room by telling the hotel manager that the governor was expecting
an important call from the White House and needed a private
room. . . . 'He gave us a room and Clinton sent me down' to invite
Jones to the room, Ferguson said." Ferguson also told the Times
that afterwards Clinton had said, " 'We only talked.' "
It is possible that Ferguson in fact sought out Jones and
delivered her to Clinton on his own initiative, for his own
purposes, and was lying to the reporters. Possible, but not
likely.
Ferguson told what superficially seemed a very different story in
his cryptic, carefully lawyered, June 10, 1994, answer to the
complaint, which seeks $700,000 in total damages from him and
Clinton. By that time (Ferguson has told reporters), he had been
leaned on by Clinton operatives and had gotten several phone
calls from the president himself, all in 1993.
Ferguson's answer made no mention of what he had said to Jones,
or what Clinton had said to him. Rather, he claimed that before
following Ferguson up to the room, Jones had made "several
comments to . . . Ferguson about how she found Governor Clinton
to be 'good-looking' and about how she thought his hair was
sexy," and had asked him to relay these comments to the governor.
(Jones denies this.) But closely read, Ferguson's answer said
nothing inconsistent with his statements to reporters that
"Clinton had directed him to approach" Jones before Jones had
said anything to Ferguson. And it confirmed a critical element of
Jones's account by admitting "traveling in an elevator with
plaintiff Paula Jones and pointing out a particular room of the
hotel."
All this amounts to clear and convincing proof of Jones's
allegation -- which has never been specifically denied by the
president personally or by his lawyer Bennett -- that then-
governor Clinton, the boss of Jones's boss, sent a state trooper
to interrupt the 24-year-old state employee's performance of her
job and bring her to his hotel room.
For what purpose? If -- as Jones claims she naively hoped at the
time -- what Clinton had had in mind had been getting her a
better job or something like that, the president could have said
so by now. The evidence -- and the absence of any other plausible
explanation -- strongly supports Jones's allegation that the
purpose of this exercise was to give Clinton an opportunity to
make some kind of sexual overture. And that seems pretty shabby
no matter what, exactly, happened in that hotel room. Shabbier
than anything Clarence Thomas was ever even accused of doing by
the not-exactly-unimpeachable Anita Hill.
Hill said that Thomas as her boss had persistently pestered her
in late 1981 and 1982 to date him and talked dirty to her about
pornographic movies involving big-breasted women and animals, his
own sexual prowess, "Long Dong Silver," "pubic hair on my Coke,"
and the like. Hill did not accuse Thomas of a single overt
request for sex or a single unwelcome touching. Indeed, she
initially stopped short of alleging that she had been a victim of
"sexual harassment" at all. And while Hill recalled objecting to
this conduct, she was not too horrified to follow Thomas's rising
star, after the allegedly offensive conduct had started (and, she
claimed, stopped for awhile), from the Education Department to
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Nor was Hill
too horrified to keep in touch with Thomas in subsequent years --
getting him to write a letter of recommendation that helped her
land a law teaching job at Oral Roberts University in 1983,
phoning him repeatedly after she went there, inviting him to make
an appearance there, and more.
Indulging for the moment the assumption that Paula Jones is lying
about what happened inside the hotel room, and the further
assumption that Anita Hill was telling the whole truth, which
would be worse: What Hill says Thomas did? Or what then-governor
Clinton almost certainly did in having his trooper fetch him a
24-year-old, star-struck, low-level state worker whom he had
never met?
INSIDE THE HOTEL ROOM
Here's what Jones alleges in her complaint -- with paragraph
numbers and some paragraph breaks omitted -- and with a caution
that this gets pretty raunchy:
Clinton shook Jones's hand, invited her in, and closed the door.
A few minutes of small talk ensued, which included asking Jones
about her job. Clinton told Jones that Dave Harrington is 'my
good friend.' [He] was [the Clinton-appointed] director of the
AIDC [and] Jones's ultimate superior within the AIDC.
Clinton then took Jones's hand and pulled her toward him, so that
their bodies were in close proximity. Jones removed her hand from
his and retreated several feet. However, Clinton approached Jones
again. He said: 'I love the way your hair flows down your back'
and 'I love your curves.' While saying these things, Clinton put
his hand on plaintiff's leg and started sliding it toward the hem
of plaintiff's culottes. Clinton also bent down to attempt to
kiss Jones on the neck.
Jones exclaimed, 'What are you doing?' and escaped from Clinton's
physical proximity by walking away from him. Jones tried to
distract Clinton by chatting with him about his wife.
Asked by reporters in 1994 why she had not simply left the room
at that point, Jones said she had always been intimidated by
important people and had not wanted to do anything that might
upset the governor. She also noted (according to The Washington
Post): "I will never forget the look on his face. His face was
just red, beet red." The complaint continues:
Jones later took a seat at the end of the sofa nearest the door.
Clinton asked Jones: 'Are you married?' She responded that she
had a regular boyfriend.
Clinton then approached the sofa and as he sat down he lowered
his trousers and underwear exposing his erect penis and asked
Jones to 'kiss it.' There were distinguishing characteristics in
Clinton's genital area that were obvious to Jones.
Jones became horrified, jumped up from the couch, stated that she
'was not that kind of girl' and said: 'Look, I've got to go.' She
attempted to explain that she would get in trouble for being away
from the registration desk. Clinton, while fondling his penis,
said: 'Well, I don't want to make you do anything you don't want
to do.' Clinton then stood up and pulled up his pants and said:
'If you get in trouble for leaving work, have Dave call me
immediately and I'll take care of it.' As Jones left the room
Clinton looked sternly at Jones and said: 'You are smart. Let's
keep this between ourselves.'. . .
Jones left the hotel suite and came into the presence of trooper
Ferguson in the hallway. . . . Jones said nothing to Ferguson and
he said nothing to her during her departure from the suite. Jones
was visibly shaken and upset when she returned to the
registration desk.
Ferguson, in his answer to the complaint, has painted a very
different picture of Jones's demeanor when he saw her "some 20 to
30 minutes" after she had entered Clinton's room: She "did not
appear to be upset in any way," and "asked if the governor had a
girlfriend and Danny Ferguson answered negatively, and she then
responded that she would be the governor's girlfriend." In this
respect, Ferguson's answer was consistent with his 1993 comments
to reporters and other troopers. (It was inconsistent in another
respect: Ferguson reportedly told David Brock in 1993 that he had
"stood by in the hall" while Jones was with Clinton; in his June
1994 answer, he denied this, saying he had gone back downstairs
and had next seen Jones there.)
Ferguson also claimed in his answer that when he encountered
Jones a week or two later, she asked if Clinton had said anything
about her, and wrote down her home phone number for him to give
Clinton. "She said to tell him that she was living with her
boyfriend," Ferguson added, "and that if the boyfriend answered,
Governor Clinton should either hang up or say that he had a wrong
number." Jones, on the other hand, says in her complaint that
while she was delivering some documents from the AIDC to the
governor's office, Ferguson spotted her and said, "Bill wants
your phone number. Hillary's out of town often and Bill would
like to see you." Jones said she refused. On later occasions, the
complaint says, Ferguson asked, "How's Steve?" and made a comment
about the Jones's new baby, which "frightened [her] and made her
feel that her activities were being monitored."
The complaint says Jones was accosted by Clinton sometime after
the May 8, 1991, incident, when he spotted her in the Rotunda of
the Arkansas State Capitol: "Clinton draped his arm over
plaintiff, pulled her close and tightly to his body, and said:
'Don't we make a beautiful couple -- beauty and the beast?'
Clinton directed this remark to his bodyguard, trooper Larry
Patterson." Trooper Patterson confirmed this in an interview with
The Washington Post.
"I KNOW HE GRABBED HER"
The most impressive evidence supporting Paula Jones's allegations
comes from six witnesses -- including Pamela Blackard and Debra
Ballentine, whom I interviewed separately on October 1, by
phone -- who have confirmed that she told each of them that same
day (or soon thereafter, in three cases) that she had rebuffed
sexual advances by Clinton. These witnesses include Jones's two
sisters, her husband, and her mother. All six -- including a sister
who has impugned Jones's motives -- have said they believe her
account of Clinton's conduct.
None of these witnesses has yet testified, due to the president's
success in blocking discovery. All six gave their first media
interviews in February 1994 under the exclusive-access agreement
Jones's lawyer Traylor had made with Michael Isikoff of The
Washington Post. Since then, as far as I know, neither Blackard
nor Ballentine had spoken to any other reporter in much detail
until they spoke with me.
Blackard, now a homemaker, is married, with a 5-year-old son. She
lives in Lonoke, Arkansas, where she and Jones had been friends
"since we were 2," forging what she says is "a special bond." As
an eyewitness to some of the events in the hotel, Blackard
provides especially strong corroboration. She not only confirms
every important aspect of Jones's account of the Ferguson
approach, but gives a vivid description -- more detailed than in
her affidavit or any previously published article -- of what
Jones said on her return from Clinton's hotel room.
"I could see her shaking," as she came walking back to the
registration desk, Blackard says. "I could see real far away
something was wrong. . . . It took her a while to tell me about
it. She was upset, kind of shaky, and had to get her breath."
After "five or ten minutes," Blackard recalls, Jones related what
had happened. Blackard says she has difficulty remembering the
details offhand now -- more than five years later -- but that "I
know he grabbed her. She said he just kept on moving close to her
and putting his hand on her knee, and every time she stopped him
he did something else." I asked Blackard if she recalled Jones
describing something dramatic happening just before Jones had
left Clinton. "He dropped his pants," she responded, "and I don't
remember his exact words, but you knew what he wanted." She
seemed hesitant to elaborate. Had Jones indicated that Clinton
had wanted something that Jones could do without undressing?
Blackard said yes.
Blackard added, "It's true. I believe her. If someone goes up,
and comes back in ten minutes, and is shaking -- she didn't have
time to make all that stuff up. And I'm like her best friend [at
the time]. Why would she tell me something like that?. . . And
she said, 'I don't want you ever to tell anybody.' " Why not? I
asked. "He's a governor," Blackard responded. "He's powerful. And
we both had state jobs. I was pregnant. I was 24. We were, like,
two young girls. . . . We didn't know what we could do, so we're
like -- we're not telling anybody." Blackard said she had spoken
to no reporters in detail other than Isikoff and me. "I'm so
scared of the press, that they would turn things around . . . and
twist my words around," she explained.
Debra Ballentine swore in her February 1994 affidavit that Jones
had come to her office -- a large Little Rock engineering firm
where Ballentine was (and is) the marketing coordinator -- around
4 p.m. that day. After describing the Ferguson approach and other
preliminaries, the affidavit says, "Ms. Jones stated that . . .
she rebuffed three separate unwelcomed sexual advances by the
governor. Ms. Jones described in detail the nature of the sexual
advances which I will not now recount."
Ballentine, now 34 (Jones is 30), gave a fuller recounting to me
on October 1. While Jones was one of her closest friends, she
said, it had been highly unusual for Jones to drop in unannounced
at work as she had that day, and that "I could tell just by
looking at her that something was wrong." Jones had started,
Ballentine recalls, by saying, "You're not going to believe what
just happened to me," and had then gone through the whole
encounter.
Ballentine has confirmed Jones's essential allegations: "She said
he was putting his hands on her legs and he was trying to put his
hands up her dress. . . . She said, 'Debbie, he pulled his pants
down to his knees and he asked me to [perform oral sex] right
then.' . . . Before she left, he told her, 'I don't want to make
you do anything you don't want to do.' " Ballentine adds: "He
also told her he knew she was a smart girl and her boss -- what's
his name? Dave Harrington? -- 'is a good friend of mine,' and he
told her, 'I know you're a smart girl and you're going to do the
right thing.' "
Ballentine recalls that Jones also told her that day about the
mysterious so-called "distinguishing mark" that Jones's complaint
says she saw on Clinton, and on which Jones's lawyers say they
are relying to corroborate her account. She added: "I said [to
Jones], 'You need to go to your boss right away.' She said, 'I
can't -- they're good friends.' I said, 'You need to go to the
police.' She said, 'I can't -- they took me up there.' She just
felt there was nothing she could do. . . . People just don't
understand why she waited so long. She wouldn't ever have done
anything if that cop [trooper Ferguson] hadn't told that
story [to The American Spectator]."
Ballentine also recalls that Jones was extremely worried that day
about how Stephen Jones, then her fiancŽ and now her husband,
would react if he ever found out the lurid details of what had
happened.
Is it possible that Jones did something in that hotel room that
she feared would get out to Steve Jones or others, and lied to
her friends as a cover story that day? Or that they all concocted
a big lie in January 1994 after David Brock's article came out?
It's possible. But Blackard and Ballentine don't come across as
false accusers. Neither has courted publicity, and both --
Blackard in particular -- at first evinced reluctance to talk to
me. Moreover, Blackard's husband still worked for the AIDC,
Jones's former employer, when Blackard first signed the affidavit
in February 1994.
Some other evidence: Both Blackard and Ballentine told me that
they had given similar, perhaps more detailed accounts to Michael
Isikoff of the Post in 1994 -- at a time when their memories were
fresher, when Jones's detailed complaint (which their
recollections track so well) had not been drafted, and when these
witnesses had had less time to be coached by lawyers than they
have now.
Isikoff confirms this. He was quoted in a book by Larry Sabato
and S. Robert Lichter, When Should the Watchdogs Bark?, as saying
of Blackard and Ballentine: "[They] are enormously impressive and
influenced me greatly in pushing for this. . . . They struck me
as highly credible, as people who did not have axes to grind in
this. They were spontaneous, they were highly detailed, and they
were very up-front. And they're not out seeking publicity. You
can accuse Jones of that, but not these two. . . . To the extent
the story could be checked out, it did check out."
This hardly comes across in the May 4, 1994, article that the
Post finally published. It noted that Blackard and Ballentine had
signed affidavits "supporting Jones's account after conferences
in the office of Jones's attorney, Traylor," and Blackard's
account of the Ferguson approach and Jones's departure to meet
with Clinton. But all the Post reported about Blackard's account
of Jones's return was this: "Jones was 'walking fast' and 'shaking.'
She said that Jones had told her that Clinton had made
unwanted advances and Jones implored her to tell no one. 'We were
both kind of scared. We weren't thinking straight. I thought I
could lose my job. She thought she could lose her job.' "
And all that the Post reported from Ballentine's detailed
interviews with Isikoff was that she had observed Jones
"breathing really hard" when she came to see Ballentine that day,
and that "Ballentine said Jones 'couldn't believe she was so
stupid for going upstairs.' " When I read this to Ballentine, she
offered a correction: "That is what I said to her. I said, 'I
couldn't believe you were so stupid. You know how he [Clinton]
is.' But she didn't know, and she probably didn't think it was
stupid then."
Paula Jones also gave detailed accounts of Clinton's conduct to
her two older sisters, according to the sisters. Lydia Cathey,
who is about two years older, confirms that she had "ushered her
sister into her bedroom, shut the door, and comforted her sister
as she cried on the bed," as reported by the Post.
In an October 9 telephone interview, Cathey added this: "She came
over here. She wanted to talk to me. She was very upset. She was
bawling. She was shaking. And I'm 100 percent for her. It's all
true." Had Jones described what Clinton had done? "Down to the
very last detail," says Cathey. "Dropped his drawers and tell [sic]
her to 'kiss it.' " Cathey added: "I tried to comfort her.
She felt ashamed, even though she hadn't done anything wrong. She
felt awful. . . . She was afraid she was going to lose her job,
that he was going to get her fired, because she ran out
of [Clinton's hotel room]. He was the governor. Every day at
work, she was on pins and needles."
I could not reach Jones's husband -- to whom Jones did not tell
the lurid details at the time for fear of wrecking their
relationship, according to her complaint. Nor have I been able to
reach her mother or her sister Charlotte Brown.
Here's what the Post published from their interviews with
Isikoff: Stephen Jones said Paula told him at the time that
Clinton had made a pass at her. Delmar Corbin, Jones's extremely
religious, churchgoing mother, said that Jones told her within a
couple of days that Clinton had "wanted to put his hands on her
and kiss her," but she "didn't tell me near as much as she told
her sisters I think because she knows how much it would hurt me."
Charlotte Brown, who is about six years older than Jones, said
she had said in a " 'matter-of-fact' way that Clinton had
propositioned her" that day.
Brown has drawn more publicity than all of the other five Jones
witnesses combined, because she has aggressively trashed Jones's
motives in going public -- and caused a major rift in the
family -- by asserting that Jones did not seem upset on May 8,
1991, and that Jones had said in early 1994 that "whichever way it
went, it smelled money." Her husband, Mark Brown, has said that he
thinks Jones made the whole thing up; early on, he sought out the
Clinton defense team to volunteer his help.
Nonetheless, in a February 1994 interview with Isikoff, Charlotte
Brown provided rather strong confirmation for the essence of
Jones's story. Most of it was left out of his May 4 article. More
was mentioned in his May 6 article reporting on a May 5
television appearance in which Charlotte Brown trashed her sister
and said Jones had been "thrilled" on May 8, 1991. Isikoff noted
that in his interview with Brown in February 1991 Brown had said
that on the day of Jones's alleged harassment, Jones told her:
"'This guard came up to [Jones] and told her that Bill Clinton
wanted to see her. She told me when she met him, he asked her to
have oral sex and she refused.'. . . Asked if she believed her
sister's story, she said she did because she had never known
Jones to lie."
Taken together, these six witnesses, all of whom have said Jones
told them contemporaneously about Clinton's unwelcome advances,
provide far stronger corroboration than has ever been mustered on
behalf of Anita Hill. While four witnesses testified that Hill
had told them in vague, general terms of being sexually harassed,
only one of them (Hill's friend Susan Hoerchner) said Hill had
identified Thomas as the harasser. The other three said Hill had
complained (much later) of harassment by an unnamed "supervisor."
And there is at least some evidence suggesting that Hill could
have been referring to someone other than Thomas in her
complaints to all four witnesses.
Hoerchner -- who had pressed Hill after Thomas's nomination to go
public with her charges -- confidently asserted in her initial
media interviews and Senate staff deposition that Hill's
complaints of having been sexually harassed by her boss had come
in phone calls before Hoerchner had moved from Washington to the
West Coast in September 1981. But Hill claimed Thomas's offensive
behavior had started some three months after that. When this
contradiction was pointed out, Hoerchner revised her testimony,
saying, "I don't know for sure" when Hill first spoke of sexual
harassment. In addition, when asked by a Senate Republican
whether she had ever filed a sexual harassment charge herself,
Hoerchner said no; when confronted with a record showing that in
fact she had filed such a charge, against a fellow workman's
compensation judge, she responded, "I cannot say that I didn't."
Despite the relative weakness of Hill's corroborating witnesses,
every scintilla of seeming corroboration that has been offered
for Hill's story has been eagerly scooped up by, among others,
The Washington Post, even while it was deep-sixing the far more
compelling accounts of Pamela Blackard and Debra Ballentine. The
leading example was the Post's October 9, 1994, story rehashing
three-year old allegations by former Thomas subordinate Angela
Wright. At over 6,000 words, it was longer than all Post articles
focusing on the evidence in the Paula Jones case combined. "Her
Testimony Might Have Changed History," the headline announced.
"Angela Wright remembers thinking: I believe her because he did
it to me," the nut paragraph declared.
Did what? The punchlines, deep in the article, were a bit
suspect: "Clarence Thomas did consistently pressure me to date
him," Wright told the Post, and had once showed up unannounced at
her apartment. Once, the article said, he had "commented on the
dress I was wearing" and asked her breast size. And: "I remember
him specifically saying that one woman had a big ass." But lost
in the depths of this article were the facts that Wright had been
fired by Thomas (and at least two other employers) for poor job
performance, including being rude and disruptive to colleagues;
that three witnesses said they had heard her vow to get Thomas
back; and that Wright did not even claim that Thomas's alleged
conduct amounted to sexual harassment.
The Post's takeout on Angela Wright proved to be only the opening
salvo in a huge wave of publicity in the fall of 1994 revisiting
the Hill-Thomas episode -- most of it palpably slanted to
overstate the quality of the evidence against Thomas. The
centerpiece was Strange Justice, a best-seller by Jane Mayer and
Jill Abramson of The Wall Street Journal, which published a long
excerpt leading with a claim by a woman of extremely doubtful
credibility (who has since suggested that Mayer and Abramson
distorted her account) that in the summer of 1982, Thomas's
apartment had in it "a huge, compulsively organized stack of
Playboy magazines," and walls "adorned with nude centerfolds."
The smoothly tendentious Mayer-Abramson book was greeted with
uncritical hosannas by news organs ranging from The New Yorker to
Newsweek to ABC's Nightline, Turning Point, and Good Morning
America. Meanwhile, all of the same news organs were ignoring
Paula Jones and her far stronger, far more current evidence of
far more odious alleged conduct by a far more powerful man -- the
incumbent President of the United States.
HE SAID: NONDENIAL DENIALS
What says the accused?
President Clinton's only public comment about Jones's allegations
(unless I've missed one) came at a photo session the day her suit
was filed: "Bob Bennett spoke for me. . . . I'm not going to
dignify this by commenting on it." That's it. Clinton has never
personally confirmed or denied any of the particulars of her
allegations. Bennett has persuaded the courts to let him defer
even a formal answer to the complaint. And the media have barely
noticed that Clinton has taken the moral equivalent of the Fifth
Amendment.
Meanwhile, the Clinton legal and public relations teams seem long
ago to have abandoned the statement that Clinton "was never alone
in a hotel with her," issued by then-White House communications
director Mark Gearan the day Jones went public. One indication
that this line of defense has become inoperative was the alleged
May 5, 1994, Clinton-Bennett proposal to settle the matter by
offering to have the president read in public a statement
conceding the possibility that he had met with Jones "in a room
at the Excelsior Hotel," and asserting that "she did not engage
in any improper or sexual conduct." Now, the operative defense
seems to be Bennett's assertion that Clinton has "no
recollection" of meeting Jones. It reminds me of what President
Nixon said (on tape) to three top aides on March 21, 1973:
"Perjury is an awful hard rap to prove. . . . Be damned sure you
say, 'I don't remember, . . . I can't recall.' "
Compare Clarence Thomas. He angrily denied Anita Hill's
allegations under oath in Senate Judiciary Committee testimony.
Of course, he, unlike Clinton, really didn't have the option of
similarly ducking by refusing to "dignify" Hill's allegations and
having aides and lawyers issue nondenial denials -- not if he
wanted to get to the Supreme Court.
Defenders of President Clinton (like those of Clarence Thomas)
stress with some cogency that the conduct of which he stands
accused by Paula Jones is so far out of character that the woman
must be lying. "What she [Jones] alleges is simply inconceivable
as Clinton behavior," was the 1994 reaction of Betsey Wright, who
had been Clinton's chief of staff in Arkansas and helped his 1992
campaign combat allegations of extramarital affairs -- "bimbo
eruptions," in Wright's now-famous phrase. The same Betsey Wright
has also said, however, that she was convinced that state
troopers in Clinton's security detail were soliciting women for
him and he for them, as four of them have alleged. Wright said so
both in late 1993, to David Gergen, then a top White House
official (according to James Stewart's 1996 book, Blood Sport),
and in interviews with reporter David Maraniss of The Washington
Post (according to his 1995 Clinton biography, First in His
Class).
After receiving a phone call from the president in which the
Maraniss book was discussed, Wright, who now is executive vice-
president of the Wexler Group, a Washington lobbying firm, issued
a statement through her lawyer denying Maraniss's account of
these interviews. Maraniss responded that he had double-checked
every detail with Wright, and she had confirmed them all, before
publication. (Neither Wright nor Gergen returned my phone calls
seeking comment before press time.)
All in all, there is strong evidence that Clinton had a pattern
and practice of using state troopers to hustle women. That alone
is not sexual harassment (though when the governor does so with
reason to know that the woman is a state employee busy doing her
job, it's getting close). But in the end it comes down to this:
Either Clinton harassed Paula Jones on May 8, 1994, in a fashion
that seems out of character, or she lied most compellingly to her
friends Blackard and Ballentine immediately afterwards, or they
are all lying now.
Let's not forget that just as nobody but Jones has publicly
accused Clinton of sexual harassment or similarly reckless sexual
advances, nobody but Anita Hill has publicly accused Clarence
Thomas of talking as dirty as Hill said he talked. Indeed, the
Clarence Thomas behavior alleged by Anita Hill seemed as
inconceivable to many of his friends and colleagues as does the
Bill Clinton behavior alleged by Paula Jones. A parade of female
current and former colleagues and subordinates of Thomas came
forward as character witnesses for him in 1991. They said that he
unfailingly treated women with respect, nurtured their careers,
and was proper to the point of prudishness in his demeanor in the
workplace.
Some acquaintances of questionable credibility (such as Angela
Wright) did suggest that Thomas sometimes spoke crudely, or
peremptorily announced things like "you're going to be dating
me." Others have recalled, more credibly, that Thomas had a taste
for pornography, and for talking and laughing about it, at least
while he was at Yale Law School, years before meeting Hill. Many
Thomas foes took this as confirmation that he must have talked
about pornography to Hill. But any interest Thomas may once have
had in talking about dirty pictures with people who did not
object is no better proof that he harassed Hill than Clinton's
widely reported interest in extramarital adventures is proof that
he harassed Jones.
A QUESTION OF CHARACTER
Probably Jones's biggest problem is that she is generally
regarded as a loose woman unworthy of belief. Indeed, many
people -- especially lawyers and others of the intellectual and
monied classes -- need only see a newspaper photograph of Jones,
with her big hair and overdone makeup, to discount her claims.
(That was my first reaction, at least.) "Tabloid trash" --
Bennett's phrase -- resonates.
And then there are the almost-nude photos of Jones frolicking in
bed that were taken by a faithless former lover in about 1987,
sold by him to Penthouse in 1994, and published in its January
1995 issue, after Jones had unsuccessfully sued to enjoin
publication. The existence of such photos of Jones was, as noted
above, one of the first things that Bennett mentioned, in his
first conversation with her lawyer Gilbert Davis, according to
Davis.
The class bias that helps explain why Anita Hill received so much
warmer a reception in elite circles than Paula Jones may be a
healthy thing, to the extent that it evidences the (relatively)
declining significance of race as a source of prejudice and
stereotyping. But it has not yet been proven that
unsophisticated, big-haired, makeup-caked women from small
hamlets in Arkansas -- even ones who pose topless for sleazeball
boyfriends -- are any less likely to tell the truth than Yale-
educated law professors like Anita Hill. To the contrary, lawyers
are trained in devising clever ways of distorting the truth.
It's true, and relevant, that Jones's brother-in-law Mark Brown
has called her a teaser and manipulator of men who would do
anything for money or fame, and a sexual exhibitionist who had
proudly displayed nude photos of herself to family members. But
Brown -- whom Jones and her sister Lydia have both dismissed as
"crazy" -- may not himself be the most credible of characters.
According to the Post, in his home of Cabot, Arkansas, "he was
led out of a town council meeting [in 1993] for shouting
vulgarities at the mayor," who "says the . . . Marine Corps
dropout is known around town for 'blowing off' in restaurants."
Friends like Debra Ballentine have described Jones as friendly,
open, honest, naive, and totally apolitical. And Jones, unlike
Hill, has not been caught in any significant lies of much
relevance to the alleged harassment. (In fact, her lawyers, like
Hill's, claim that she has passed a polygraph test; the examiner,
James Wilt, of Vienna, Virginia, provided me with a copy of a
letter he sent Davis stating that "it is my opinion Mrs. Jones
was truthful in her responses" to questions about whether she had
lied in describing her most graphic allegations against Clinton
during a May 24, 1994, polygraph examination.)
While Hill's specific allegations about Thomas cannot
definitively be proved or disproved, some of her other statements
appear to have been deliberately misleading. In sworn testimony
one morning, for example, Hill denied -- five times -- any
recollection of having been told that she might be able to spur
Thomas to withdraw merely by making a confidential statement
detailing her allegations, without ever going public. But that
afternoon, after conferring with her lawyers, Hill corrected
herself, volunteering that "there was some indication [by a key
Democratic staffer] that [Thomas] might not wish to continue the
process" if confronted with her statement.
Hill's explanations of some other matters were patently
incredible, such as her suggestions that the main reason she had
followed her alleged harasser from the Education Department to
the EEOC was that she feared she might otherwise find herself
jobless. The overall pattern, detailed by Suzanne Garment in "Why
Anita Hill Lost" in the January 1992 Commentary, was a
"disquieting quality that she displayed . . . as [being] more
ambitious and calculating than she let on. Her testimony on this
subject seemed to show a lack of candor, and this fact alone may
have been a basis for mistrusting her." She also had far stronger
ideological disagreements with Thomas than she let on.
In addition, while Hill was praised by many friends and
colleagues, others, like former EEOC colleague Phyllis Berry (who
had been fired by Thomas), told the Senate that Hill was
"untrustworthy, selfish, and extremely bitter," after Thomas had
given someone else a promotion Hill had wanted.
Much of the disbelief with which Jones has been received is
attributable to her reputation (as of 1994) for flirtatiousness,
provocative dress, and having slept around, as detailed in
publications including People and Penthouse. It's reasonable, and
legally relevant, to speculate that Jones's appearance, demeanor,
and willingness to meet with Clinton alone for no apparent
purpose may have emboldened him to think that sexual overtures
would be welcome. But "that doesn't mean that she had bad
character or should be considered a target for some predator," in
the words of her lawyer Gilbert Davis. And it's odd to hear such
traits held against Jones by feminists who would ordinarily go
ballistic at any suggestion that a flashy-looking woman was
"asking for it."
When Anita Hill came forward with legally dubious, ten-year-old
claims long after any and all relevant statutes of limitations
had run, you didn't hear many of them dismissing her claims as
legally frivolous. Jones, it seems, is different. "I read the
complaint," said Lynne Bernabei, a plaintiffs sexual harassment
lawyer in Washington, on a CNN talk show, "and from a legal
perspective, it seems like the worst she describes is womanizing,
unwelcomed sexual advances, which may be morally or otherwise
politically repugnant to people, but is simply not illegal."
Wow. This is a feminist?
It's true that Paula Jones's legal claims have their weaknesses,
especially her rather vague and implausible allegations that her
supervisors at the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission
discriminated against her on the job in retaliation for having
displeased the governor by refusing to submit to his advances.
But her legal theories are hardly frivolous. A single, extremely
outrageous act of sexual harassment, without much more, can
arguably support a "hostile working environment" claim, both
under Title VII and under the older civil rights statutes cited
by Jones.
"THE TRUTH WILL OUT HERE"
The president's choice of a legal strategy is hardly what one
might expect from a falsely accused person victimized by a
complete fabrication. If "nothing happened in that hotel," as
Bennett says, why not simply reveal all relevant facts, cooperate
in discovery, seek summary judgment, and get rid of the case? Why
spend $2 million in lawyering, desperately seeking to prevent the
evidence from coming out? And if nothing really happened, why did
then-White House special counsel Lloyd Cutler go on television on
May 24, 1994, and warn: "The entire presidency could turn on the
occurrence of a trial like this"?
Jones's lawyers have visions of putting the president between the
rock of damaging admissions and the hard place of possible
perjury; of troopers testifying about a pattern and practice of
Clintonian predation; of grilling alleged former lovers of the
president to ask them if they noticed a "distinguishing mark"; of
compelling a physicial examination of the president and getting
his medical records (much sought after by the Dole campaign) to
find any such mark, or any evidence that one has been removed.
But Bennett has shut them out, so far, by losing on the
presidential immunity claim in the district court and appealing,
and then losing in the Eighth Circuit and appealing again, first
for en banc review, then for Supreme Court review. Meanwhile,
there has been no factual answer for Clinton to file. No
depositions. No interrogatories. No discovery into whether there
is, in fact, a distinguishing mark. No trial.
Assuming Clinton's reelection, most handicappers think that the
Supreme Court will reject at least the broadest aspects of
Clinton's claim and send the case back to lower courts for
further proceedings. Bennett has a wave of other motions to
dismiss up his sleeve -- for failure to state a claim on which
relief can be granted and for excessive delay before filing suit,
at least. But there could well be discovery, and possibly even a
trial, during a Clinton second term. "The truth will out here,"
says Jones attorney Gil Davis, optimistically. "If she's not
telling the truth, well, shame on her."
But given that Paula Jones's claims against Bill Clinton are both
more serious by far than Anita Hill's against Clarence Thomas,
and supported by much stronger corroborating evidence, why have
the media and a lot of other people acted as though the opposite
were true?
Several reasons. Most obviously, Anita Hill's charges were spread
before the public precisely at the time when Thomas was under the
white-hot spotlight of a Supreme Court confirmation proceeding.
She was a superficially impressive accuser, far more so than
Jones. The subsequent televised hearings that transfixed the
nation made it impossible to ignore her charges. And many people
-- not just liberals -- had already been so put off by Thomas's
evasive performance and lack of candor about his views on issues,
in his initial hearing, that they were hardly prepared to give
him the benefit of the doubt when he swore passionately that not
one particle of Hill's detailed account was true.
Jones's allegations, on the other hand, were so seamy, and
charged Clinton with such incredibly depraved conduct, and first
came to light in such a suspect way, that a lot of people didn't
want to think about them. One reason was scandal fatigue: With so
many allegations of fraud, perjury, and other wrongdoing swirling
around the Clintons, most people had little interest in thinking
about what many news organizations dismissed as just another "sex
scandal" -- especially one in which there can never be
dispositive proof of exactly what happened. And they didn't have
to think about it, partly because neither Paula Jones nor Bill
Clinton was testifying at any televised hearing, and partly
because the media didn't publish the evidence.
The disparate treatment of the two episodes also has something to
do with the difference between justices and presidents. If we
don't like a Supreme Court nominee, can we always hope that if
he's defeated, we'll like the next one better; if Clinton's
defeated, we know who we'll get: Bob Dole. Moreover, we expect
our justices to be wise, pure, honest, moral, reflective oracles
in black robes, thinking deep thoughts in their marble temple and
saving us from our baser selves. Presidents are different. If
Bill Clinton's political success has taught us anything, it is
that a president can win strong public approval despite broad and
deep public doubts as to his moral character and truthfulness.
There also seems to be a widespread assumption that whatever it
takes to clamber that high on the slippery pole of political
success, and then to do the messier aspects of the job, can only
be found in a person driven by an almost superhuman lust for
power and other gargantuan appetites.
But ultimately, an inescapable part of the disparate treatment of
Thomas and Clinton is simple political orientation. One of the
most striking things about the Hill-Thomas battle was how many
people seemed confident that they knew that he (or she) was
telling the truth, before the evidence was in, and how almost
everyone who believed her happened to be on the liberal side, and
almost everyone who believed him on the conservative side. Now,
with Paula Jones, there's been something of an ideological
inversion.
How to explain the mainstream media's manifest disdain for Paula
Jones and Clarence Thomas, and admiration for Anita Hill? Part of
it is class bias against what one Washington bureau chief called
"some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer
parks." But that's not all of it. Not, that is, unless you
believe that the press would have given similar coverage to a
similar accuser, making similar allegations, supported by similar
evidence, against Newt Gingrich, or Jesse Helms, or George Bush,
or Steve Forbes.
That's not what I believe. I think that the political
orientations of most reporters, editors, and producers are at
work here. It's no accident that in a survey by The Freedom Forum
and the Roper Center of 139 Washington, D.C., bureau chiefs and
congressional correspondents, 89 percent of respondents said they
had voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 7 percent for then-
President Bush. Mickey Kaus, then of The New Republic, was more
honest than most of his colleagues when he wrote after Jones's
February 1994 press conference: "I thought it wasn't a big story,
but not because I didn't believe it. . . . How can reporters
justify ignoring Jones while paying so much attention to Anita
Hill or the accusers of Senator Packwood? . . . Clinton is . . .
the best president we've had in a long time. That is the unspoken
reason that the sex charges haven't received as much play as you
might expect. . . . Few journalists want to see the president
crippled."
Not this president, anyway.
If nothing else, these two episodes illustrate how hard it is for
any of us to see clearly through the fog of preconception in
which we all live to a greater or lesser degree. I would suggest,
however, that those who have made Anita Hill a heroine, Clarence
Thomas a goat, and Paula Jones a pariah, need to try harder to
overcome their prejudices. They need to look the facts in the
face..
SIDEBAR:
FEES: $5 MILLION AND COUNTING
If Paula Jones's sexual harassment suit against President Clinton
is "tabloid trash," as Clinton counsel Bob Bennett says, it is
proving to be rather expensive trash to dispose of. But
fortunately for the president and his lawyers, two big insurance
companies, State Farm and Pacific Indemnity, have agreed to pick
up the tab.
Bennett, a partner in the Washington office of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom whose standard billing rate was $475 an
hour in mid-1994 (he refused to tell me what he's charging the
president), has deployed a squadron of lawyers since May 1994,
and, this year, a couple of law professors who are helping with
the president's pending U.S. Supreme Court appeal. Even with no
discovery and no trial (so far), Skadden's accrued fees and costs
for the Paula Jones case may well have mounted above $2 million
already, by my estimate. And the fees could soar much higher if
the Supreme Court tears down the presidential immunity stonewall
that Bennett has so far used to shield the president from any
factual development on the merits of Jones's claims.
This estimate is extrapolated from public reports by the
Presidential Legal Expense Trust, which the Clintons created in
June 1994, after the filing of the Paula Jones suit, to take in
contributions to help pay their crushing legal expenses. The most
recent reports state that in December 1995, the insurers paid
Skadden $891,880 on total billings of $1,048,707 for services
rendered from May 1994 through September 30, 1995. (The $156,827
that had not been paid, according to the trust's reports,
apparently included some or all of Bennett's billings for his
many hours defending the president on television and in
interviews with reporters.)
That averages to a little over $60,000 a month for services
rendered through September 1995. Since no public disclosures of
Skadden's billings have been made since then, and since Bennett
has not responded to letters from me inquiring into those
billings, any estimate of the accrued Skadden fees to date must
be based on outdated numbers. But, assuming that Skadden's fees
and expenses have continued to mount at the same $60,000-per-
month rate, this would bring the total estimate above $1.8
million as of October 31. And that total would rise to nearly
$2.1 million if one assumes (less conservatively) that the
monthly legal costs have averaged $80,000 over the past 13
months, due to the extraordinary costs of seeking rehearing en
banc after the January 9 rejection of the immunity claim by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit; of petitioning for
Supreme Court review; and of briefing the case on the merits.
All of which brings the fees and costs of the Clintons' four
private law firms put together to about $5 million, adding
Skadden's fees to the estimated $3 million accrued by
Washington's Williams & Connolly, the Clintons' main law firm,
and $77,000 accrued by two Little Rock firms that have helped out
in the Whitewater, Paula Jones, and other matters.
The Williams & Connolly estimate is computed as follows: The
trust's most recent public report shows the firm's billings came
to $2,352,266 (as of June 30) for services rendered through April
30, 1996. The trust's reports show that the firm's average for
services rendered for the six months ending April 30 were about
$120,000 per month. If the fees and costs have continued accruing
at the same rate for the six months ending October 31, that would
bring the total above $3 million. Assuming a more conservative
$100,000 a month for the past six months -- in light of the
windup of the Senate Whitewater investigation this spring --
would bring Williams & Connolly down to between $2.9 million and
$3 million.
To date, the languishing trust -- colloquially known as the
Clintons' legal defense fund -- has reported making payments of
only $691,134 on the First Family's huge legal debt, with a cash
balance of only $141,932 as of June 30. The trust has had
difficulty raising money -- in part because it chose to limit
donors to a maximum of $1,000 a year, but also because it has
yielded to the opinion of the Office of Government Ethics that it
could not actively solicit contributions and has stopped
accepting money from lobbyists after the president drew criticism
for doing so.
Does this mean the Clintons will have to come up with more than
$4 million -- perhaps much more -- to pay their lawyers?
Not quite. To the great good fortune of the president and his
lawyers, Pacific Indemnity and State Farm have bailed them out in
the Paula Jones case. Someone (it's unclear who) discovered in
June 1995 some facts that had apparently escaped the attention of
all the president's lawyers during the first 13 months of the
Paula Jones case. This was that each insurer arguably had a duty
to defend the president against Paula Jones's claims under
standard personal liability umbrella policies (covering different
time periods), which the Clintons had bought for a trifle in the
early 1990s. Even better, the two insurers have obligingly paid
(or agreed to pay) the bulk of Skadden's ever-mounting fees after
reaching a deal in private negotiations.
Such a deal: You hire one of world's most expensive law firms,
and it runs up legal expenses dwarfing the total damages sought
by the plaintiff, and then you notify your insurance company a
year late that you expect them to pay for it all, and to keep
paying as the fees soar through the $2 million mark.
And the insurance payments are benefiting the law firms as well
as the Clintons. Skadden, which would otherwise be holding a very
large bag due to the inability of the Clintons and the trust to
pay more than a fraction of the fees, is now getting paid by the
insurers. That takes the Skadden burden (at least for the time
being) off the trust, freeing up its limited funds to pay more to
Williams & Connolly. The Clintons are still indebted to Williams &
Connolly for well over $2 million, extrapolating from
the $1,732,266 outstanding balance reported by the trust for
services rendered through April 30. As of June 30, the trust had
paid Williams & Connolly a total of only $620,000 --
including $200,000 that the trust took back from Skadden in
February, after Skadden had hit paydirt with the insurers -- on
billings of $2,352,266.
Paula Jones's lawyers, Gilbert Davis and Joseph Cammarata, have
run up "hundreds of thousands of dollars in time" working on the
case, according to Davis. Some of those debts (the rest remain
outstanding) have been paid by the Paula Jones Legal Fund, which
was set up to receive donations and has taken in something under
$200,000, according to Cindy Hays, a Washington public relations
agent who runs the fund. This includes half of the $50,000 that
Jones earned in a No Excuses Jeans promotion. (Jones gave the
other $25,000 to a women's shelter in Virginia.) Hays refuses to
disclose names of contributors, saying they were promised
confidentiality. A few who have identified themselves as
contributors are associated with conservative causes. But Hays
says the average donation was $19 "last time I checked."
"We get tired of reading in the newspapers that it's being funded
by the Christian right or by the Republican Party or by the right
wing of the Republican Party," adds Hays. "I keep looking for
those right-wingers. Where are they? Where is the money from the
Christian right?" -- S.T..
SIDEBAR:
A TROOPER'S TALES
Arkansas state trooper Danny Lee Ferguson -- a crucial witness in
any trial of Paula Jones's lawsuit against President Clinton --
has already told some tangled tales of Clinton damage control
efforts on the female front. Ferguson was one of four former
members of Clinton's security detail who provided detailed
accounts to William Rempel of the Los Angeles Times, starting in
August 1993, of how Clinton had used the troopers to facilitate
extramarital activities and conceal them from his wife and the
public. The same troopers later spoke to David Brock of The
American Spectator. This account is based on reports in the
Times.
Before the troopers had agreed to speak for the record in 1993,
President Clinton got wind of what was going on. He asked Raymond
("Buddy") Young -- a Clinton loyalist and former head of the
security detail who had been rewarded with a federal job in
Texas -- about the matter; Young in turn called Ferguson and
trooper Roger Perry, according to Young. Perry told the Times's
Rempel that "he felt threatened when Young warned him that he and
the other troopers would see their reputations 'totally destroyed'
if they spoke out."
Young, who denied making any threat, told Rempel that he later
met with the president in Washington to report what he'd learned.
Clinton then telephoned Ferguson, who later told the Times's
Rempel that "he received a series of telephone calls from the
president seeking to 'shut down' the story by persuading the
troopers not to talk. During those telephone conversations,
Ferguson said, Clinton offered him a choice of federal jobs," as
well as dangling possible jobs for Perry.
The Times reported all this in a long article by Rempel and
Douglas Frantz on December 21, 1993, quoting Perry and trooper
Larry Patterson by name and Ferguson and a fourth trooper
anonymously. The article also quoted a response by Bruce Lindsey,
President Clinton's closest White House aide. Dismissing the sex
allegations as "ridiculous," he stressed that "any suggestion
that the president offered anyone a job in return for silence is
a lie." But Lindsey conceded that Clinton had called Ferguson --
out of concern about "false stories being spread" -- and did not
explicitly deny that job possibilities had been discussed.
The December 21 article in the Times, and Brock's in The American
Spectator, which had started circulating a few days before,
prompted a new flurry of damage control, especially by Betsey
Wright, a close Clinton associate from Arkansas who was (and is)
working as a Washington lobbyist. She flew to Arkansas and helped
publicize trooper Patterson's and Perry's false reports about a
1990 incident in which Patterson had wrecked a state police car
and seriously injured Perry, after they had been out drinking
together.
Wright also visited Ferguson and his wife, who were both still
members of the security detail, serving then-governor Jim Guy
Tucker. After intense discussions, Ferguson issued a carefully
worded statement through his lawyer, on December 22, 1993:
"President Clinton never offered or indicated a willingness to
give any trooper a job in exchange for silence or help in shaping
their stories." Later that day, however, Ferguson told Rempel he
stood by his earlier account that Clinton had asked if he wanted
specific federal jobs. The Times reported: "Asked if Clinton
expressly said that jobs would be offered if the troopers
remained silent, Ferguson said: 'He didn't say those words.' "
Ferguson did not return my phone calls. Two people who have
discussed the matter with him say they came away strongly
suspecting that he had recorded the Clinton calls, and is holding
the tapes in reserve in case he ever needs them. -- S.T..
Jacob Love
In article <01bd2bf0$bb0a4600$c176...@katzen.erinet.com>,
dingicat <ding...@erinet.com> wrote:
>You really don't get it; it isn't a matter of harrassment nor consent,
>this is a matter of sleaze, lack of trust, and sexual activity with a
>young woman a few years older than his daughter. The man is
>behaving like the white trash he is.
Obviously there is a pure political motive to responses such as this,
no factual considerations need obstruct the fray. But I don't think the
poster should get away with silly claims such as the attempt to mix up
the alleged affair with pedophilia. From the words we see above, one
would think that the accusation is that Mr. Clinton was having an
affair with an underaged girl. As I hope everyone knows, the woman was
21 at the earliest time of the alleged incidents. Or is the poster
going to engage in hate-mongering for every person who becomes involved
with a younger person? Any chance we'll see the same language used to
condemn the other politicians, not a few of whom are on the Republican
right, who either dumped their wives as part of their mid-life crises
or keep the Washington escort services humming? There's more than one
reason why many of these paragons of moral behavior are laying low
at the moment.
--
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
Jacob Love
In article <34d7b788...@n2.supernews.com>,
Ron Schwarz -- see sig to reply <dev...@clubvb.com> wrote:
>Define the concept of "consent" when the parties consist of a 21 year old
>girl and her 50 year old employer.
Please produce a law valid in any US jurisdiction which prohibits a
consensual sexual relationship between a 21 year old of either sex and
an employer of any age or sex.
Plai...@reality.com
gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) wrote:
>And that is why you feel it your privelege to slander other Jews,
>to attack the president on mere allegations? Why don't you practice
>a little of what you preach, you hypocritical, self-satisfied,
>ignorant liar.
>Gwen
>David Goldman (da...@erols.com) wrote:
>: >Just like YOU!
>: No, I believe in the divine origin of the Torah given to Moses on Mt.
>: Sinai.
Let us now return to the Subject of this thread:
All the defenders of Bill Clinton in this thread (and it is rather
interesting how many of them are of the Jewish persuasion) fail to
note one important fact. For YEARS Bill Klinton denied any sexual
relations with Gennifer Flowers, then in a recent deposition, he
admits to a 12 YR. AFFAIR. This clearly shows that Bill has a history
of lying to cover his adulterous relationships.
But not to worry, all of you Klinton supporters, according to todays
jewscast (sic.); Dick "The Toe-sucker Jew" Morris is back on the
presidential staff.
PS. It is encouraging to find that at least one Jew i.e., David
Goldman, that still possesses a moral compass based on the Ten
Commandments (two of which are: Thou shalt not commit adultery and
Thou shalt not bear false witness.) and that he has the fortitude to
criticize his own sects' moral ambiguities.
PlainTalk
~~
' '
O
Gwen A Orel
dingicat (ding...@erinet.com) wrote:
: Yes Gwen, "doh" is right.
: You really don't get it; it isn't a matter of harrassment nor consent,
: this is a matter of sleaze, lack of trust, and sexual activity with a
: young woman a few years older than his daughter. The man is
: behaving like the white trash he is.
None of those allegations are proved or much substantiated.
And as for "white trash"-- do you think somehow class is of some
relevance here? I don't care if he eats fast food etc., the man
is a good president, an educated man and fit for office.
: You're wasting your time here, Ms Orel (or is that also a typo)
Oh, argument by juvenile making fun of names. Impressive.
Gwen
: Gwen A Orel <gao...@pitt.edu> wrote in article >
: > Nonsense, dumdum. Harassment does not equal consent. Doh!
: >
: > Gwen
Gwen A Orel
M Soja (ms...@javanet.com) wrote:
: On 28 Jan 1998 06:44:51 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) posted:
: >He should take credit for it.
: Welfare reform? Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to the
: table where he signed welfare reform. The immediate spin was that he
: and Hillary would "Fix" it when they could. Now he takes credit for
: the whole shooting match.
: >And as for Lewinski-- this is not the first time she's boasted
: >of an affair that never happened; her high school teacher suffered
: >the same fate.
: Yer in serious denial. Her high school teacher corroborates both his
: affair with her and Bill Clinton's.
Not at all, he's denied it vociferously at the time and now to
the press.
: >And she's on tape saying "I've lied all my life!"
: She found a kindred spirit in Bill Clinton!!! But I think Linda Tripp
: wiped that stupid smile right off her face, don't you?
No, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if Tripp faces charges eventually.
: >What corroborating evidence?
: 20 hours of tape. Clinton's haggard denials. Desperation for
: immunity. Her resulting testimony.
Denials equals proff to you? She's desparte for immunity because
they're witch-hunting her! Clinton is not on tape, and she hasn't
even given any testimony since!
: > The non-existent dress? The secret
: >service agent who doesn't exist? (Boy, is the Dalls News' face red!)
: And your face is purple. The boy is going down!!
Keep insulting me, but it doesn't prove your point.
Almost all of the "proof" reported has disappeared-- because there
never was any.
Gwen A Orel
M Soja (ms...@javanet.com) wrote:
: Does lying under oath in order to escape possible legal repercussions
: fall within what you'll accept from your political leaders? How did
: you feel about Ollie North? George Bush?
The things they lied about were public issues. But in any case, Clinton
didn't lie. Nothing has been proved.
: Bill Clinton opened himself to extortion when he had the Arkansas
: State Trooper escort Paula Jones to his hotel room. Don't you get
: that yet? Bill Clinton's pattern of reckless and abusive behavior
: screams out for compromising scenarios, including blackmail,
: extortion, and stupid political "crisis".
Those are her claims, and the trial hasn't been settled yet. I don't
think these things ever happened.
: Some might disagree whether these men were "great" or not. And your
: "no correlation" has no corroboration.
Of course it has! MLK roused the conscience of this nation-- that's
just plain history. And some might disagree, but historians dojn't
: Nope. Would you suck off the President of the United States if he
: asked you to? Would it bother you to just say no?
In what way do you think the personal decisions of your opponents
are relevant to your argument? Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Do you think you could keep a civil tongue in your head? If I were
a man, you wouldn't be pushing hypothetical prornographic situations
at me. That you do it because I'm a woman shows your fundamental lack of
respect for women.