Timehost: Welcome to the TIME auditorium this evening. We'll be talking about the dismissal of Jones' lawsuit
against the President on the grounds of insufficient evidence. Our guest tonight is TIME correspondent, Jay Branegan,
who's been reporting the Paula Jones case for the magazine, closely covering the activities of the Jones camp. What does
this ruling mean, if anything, for Ken Starr's investigation of the
President? Does this sound the death bell for public accusations of sexual
misdoings by the President?
Jay Branegan: Hardly. Kenneth Starr will pursue his case involving
Monica Lewinsky. And there's no doubt the Kathleen Willey 60 Minutes interview and
other recent revelations will provoke more confessions and allegations
concerning other women.
Kp75 asks: Where do thou goeth now, Ken Starr?
Jay Branegan: (Laughs.) The first place Ken Starr goes is the grand jury
room with Monica Lewinsky. The judge in that case is expected
to rule soon on whether Ken Starr gave her immunity back in January as her lawyer,
Mr. Ginsberg, contends. One way or the other, she will testify as to whether
she had sex with the President. Then the next stop for Mr. Starr is the U.S. House
of Representatives, where he will deliver a report about the President's "high
crimes and misdemeanors." From there, Ken Starr sits back and leaves it up
to the politicians.
Cayobo asks: Is there any recompense our government can retrieve for
the colossal waist of time and money in this case?
Jay Branegan: Absolutely none.
Willhester asks: Will this deter others allegedly sexually victimized
by prominent figures from coming forward?
Jay Branegan: Good question. In one sense, this case has, like the Anita Hill versus
Clarence Thomas case, raised the profile of sexual harassment, and it could
likely lead to many more filings. On the other hand, Paula's defeat will
probably deter frivolous suits.
Sassysoftansweet asks: Why do we give the time of day to these women
who come out years later? If it's a problem at all, why isn't it one in the
first place? BEFORE the man becomes President.
Jay Branegan: In fact, many people, particularly the President's
enemies, tried to make these women an issue beforehand. But at that time,
there were certain standards and conventions within the journalistic
community that prevented most reputable publications and broadcast outlets
from publishing the charges. But, thanks to Paula's persistence, and the revelation of
the Lewinsky affair, as well as the internet, the increased respectability of the tabloids, and other
factors, many of the President's accusers were given more prominence and subsequently, more
credibility, and just like after Gary Hart, we can expect that the next time
journalists will be more likely to publish first and ask questions later.
stanguest_5bc10752 asks: Hey Branegan, will the TIME Washington
Bureau have to find real sources now instead of taking *&%$#@ from the
Jones' lawyers table?
Jay Branegan: (Laughs.) We'll have to go back to the business of covering
real news.
Willhester asks: Have the changes in these "standards and conventions
within the journalistic community" cheapened the word of the mass media?
Will the public be as ready to climb on the next "bimbo bandwagon"?
Jay Branegan: Good question again. I think that what has been driving the journalistic frenzy
has been in part--though not exclusively--the public's enjoyment of riding
on the "bandwagon". I think that in the future, there will be much more dogged
investigation of any allegation of impropriety, and much less deference
given to the officeholder or candidate.
Adrienne_ asks: Mr. Branegan, do you buy the right-wing
conspiracy theory?
Jay Branegan: If you take away the word "conspiracy", then I do. Clearly
there has been a massive effort by different members of the right wing, not
necessarily acting in concert, to smear Bill Clinton. It was revealed this
week that the original investigation by David Brock of the American
Spectator, who first mentioned Paula's name, was funded by a right-wing
businessman from Chicago who is a big supporter of Newt Gingrich's GOPAC.
Also, it has been alleged that one of the chief Whitewater witnesses, David
Hale, has received funds through the "Arkansas Project" funded by right wing
financier, Richard Mellon Scaife. Many of the charges leveled against Clinton in the Paula
Jones suit were brought to her lawyer's attention by Clinton enemies So there has been, even before one considers the
conservative leanings of Ken Starr, a lot of effort by the right in
promoting these allegations against Clinton.
Timehost: Do you agree with James Carville's statement tonight that
the dismissal of the case will bring the right-wing money trail fully to
light?
Jay Branegan: The "right wing money trail" has been coming to light
anyway, and I don't think that it will affect that process.
Primus2h asks: I just got in here so I do not know if this question
was asked. Do you think she will really appeal, and does she have a snow
ball's chance?
Jay Branegan: Of course she will appeal. And she has a chance. How much better than a snowball's remains to be seen.
Timehost: What would influence those chances?
Jay Branegan: Her lawyers can expect a slightly better hearing from the
appeals court because this case never went to trial and never had a full airing
before a jury. The appeals court could reverse on the basis of the law --
Jones's lawyers had some very different legal interpretations than the judge
-- and they could appeal on the basis that there are some important facts in
dispute which are only for a jury to decide, not Judge Wright.
Willhester asks: Will this affect all future lawsuits against sitting
Presidents?
Jay Branegan: Yes. It is widely agreed that the Supreme Court erred when it
said a sitting president should not be affected by this suit. One suspects
that at the first available opportunity, the Supreme Court will back down
from that position and allow a President some freedom from harassment --
especially from suits filed against him in his private capacity.
One_sexy_man asks: Did Kenneth Starr have anything to do with the
dismissal of the Paula Jones case?
Jay Branegan: No.
Man42proud asks: Will the gag order now be an inhibitor for
Clinton to tell his side of the story?
Jay Branegan: As a practical matter, no. Clinton has already said that
the deposition that was initially leaked would stand as his answer to most
of the allegations. The gag order would be very unlikely to prohibit Clinton
from speaking out more fully on the Lewinsky charges when he thinks the
timing is right -- but of course he can cite the gag order as a reason not
to talk until he's ready.
Matt_98_ asks: If she is granted an appeal, will it be heard before
the end of the president's term? How can the American public expect to see
those up for re-election react to the events of today?
Jay Branegan: The appeal itself will almost certainly be heard by the
end of the year. And a ruling should come down sometime next year. Once that
happens, should Paula win, it would only take another few months to prepare
for a trial. So if she wins, the President will have to face this prospect
again, while in office.
Wildwoman_laloba asks: What took so long to dismiss this case anyway?
Jay Branegan: Another good question. Basically, Paula made some
allegations about the impact of this alleged incident on her and on her job. The judge said last year, okay, if you can prove those
allegations then maybe we have a case here. But after five months of
discovery, and interviewing witnesses and citing case law, Paula's attorneys
were unable to produce enough facts to show that she had suffered any real
harm, even if Clinton had done what she claimed. She could show neither harm on the job--she got raises,
got promotions, got favorable evaluations-- nor could she show any
psychological distress.
Bughugger asks: What does Mrs. Clinton think about all this?
Jay Branegan: That's the $64 question. Like Tammy Wynette, in
public she stands by her man, and it is widely believed that she was among
the strongest advocates of not settling the Paula Jones suit, and fighting
it out in court. Clinton's marriage is as mysterious as anyone else's, but
one has to believe that in some way she believes that she and the President
are in this together.
Willhester asks: Is Kenneth Starr using this as a stepping stone to
future political ambitions? C'mon Jay, will we be having an online
Presidential debate between Gore and Starr anytime soon?
Jay Branegan: Hardly. I think any political ambitions that Ken Starr
might have harbored are dashed. Even worse, his aspiration to get to the U.S.
Supreme Court is now surely doomed, no matter what happens.
Aware46 asks: Why, Do you guys attack people instead of trying to
find the facts. Does it matter who gives money to whom? What happened? Did
Paula go to the room or not? What has that to do with who paid for what?
Jay Branegan: The issue of payment goes in large part to the credibility
of the person who's being paid. Obviously a trooper or a state clerk is not
going to be able to get much money from a Clinton-hating millionaire if he
or she says that Clinton is a nice guy. Likewise, the motivations of people
who write about Clinton can be suspect if their funding comes from people
with a strong anti-Clinton agenda. Any journalist has to make a number of
judgment calls in producing an investigative story based on questionable
sources, and those judgments could be affected if the journalist can expect a
bigger payoff if makes them against Clinton.
Enigmight asks: Would Paula Jones have pursued this if she hadn't had
the support of conservative sources?
Jay Branegan: Surely not. Conservative forces initially found Paula her attorneys and gave her moral support.
Jay Branegan: When the first settlement broke down, new conservative
forces, represented by the Rutherford Institute and her Dallas attorneys,
picked up the baton. Likewise, her chief advisor, Susan Carpenter-McMillan has
provided her with a platform and considerable media expertise to keep the
case alive.
Timehost: What has the Jones camp been telling you today? Are they in
despair or will the fight continue?
Jay Branegan: Paula's attorneys were stunned by the decision. They have
spent most of the past five months on this case, the Rutherford Institute
has spent close to $300,000. They thought that Judge Wright might have thrown out
part of the case, but they felt they had enough fallback positions to allow
the case to go forward. In particular, their ace in the hole was the so-called
"tort of outrage". Under Arkansas law they felt confident that the governor
of a state, dropping his pants, and asking for sex, would qualify as an
outrage anywhere, not just in Arkansas. But even though an appeal will cost money, the Rutherford
Institute has pledged to keep spending whatever it takes to pursue the case
to the bitter end.
Timehost: What do we know about Judge Susan Webber Wright? What are
her political leanings and what's her professional reputation? I seem to
remember speculation that she would rule this way because the Jones
attorneys were constantly nagging her on the phone for a decision.
Jay Branegan: Judge Wright took a law school course from none other than
Bill Clinton. So today, the President obviously feels that she was a good
student. In fact, she is a Republican and was appointed to the bench by
George Bush. Many people in Arkansas had speculated that she would rule
on the facts and the law and not be swayed by the publicity and the
politics. We pundits in Washington largely disagreed, but we were wrong.
Jay Branegan: As far as the phone calls, most all of them were
conference calls in which Clinton's lawyers also took part. In fact, the
most recent filing yesterday by Jones attorneys called for a delay in the
case to allow Ken Starr to finish up with Monica Lewinsky.
Timehost: OK. We have time for just a few more questions....
Aperfectstranger asks: Does this decision breakdown the WhiteWater
investigation?
Jay Branegan: No, this has virtually no impact on Whitewater, except the
political atmosphere surrounding it.
User_only asks: will Paula benefit from this financially after it's all over, and if so how?
Jay Branegan: Paula stands less of a chance now because, first, she has
lost, and second, because Monica has become the queen bee of the saga. There
probably still is a book in this for Paula but it will make much less money
than if she had won.
Timehost: And our last question...
Willhester asks: Will this whole rigmarole do anything to solidify
the blurry line between boorish conduct and actual harassment?
Jay Branegan: One hopes that it will, but there is also a fear based on
a recent Gloria Steinem column in the New York Times that this might be a
license for every man to be boorish once.
Timehost: All right. Before we close, Jay, do you have any closing
comments?
Jay Branegan: I think two things that have escaped notice are: first, in many ways this is a Pyrrhic victory for Clinton,
because through the lawsuit an awful lot of dirty laundry has been aired,
and the mainstream press has been emboldened to print charges it previously
had not published. Second, I think that after Robert Bennett, the President's
lawyer, had endured so much criticism for not settling the case, and for
making inflammatory comments, that seemed to hurt the President' s position,
it is now time to ask whether Paula's lawyers, in their zeal to smear the
President with allegations of other women, forgot the basic blocking and
tackling of proving their core case of harassment against Paula.
Timehost: Thanks very much for joining us tonight, Jay. And a big
thanks to our audience for their questions!
Jay Branegan: Thanks, it was a treat.
