Timehost: The President and Paula Jones have settled her sexual harassment case. The President's lawyer, Robert Bennett, said the President "did not want to spend another hour on this matter." But that's just what we 're going to be doing...and we're joined right now by COURT TV anchor and former prosecutor Beth Karas. Welcome.

COURT TV Anchor Beth Karas: Thank you. I'm glad to be here.

Timehost: Let's take our first question...

quinty3898 asks: What was her settlement?

Beth Karas: The President agreed to pay $850,000 for Jones to withdraw her case. Originally, Paula Jones wanted the President to apologize. She was adamant about that for any settlement. She withdrew that condition in recent weeks, and demanded a $1 million settlement. The President counter-offered with a $750,000 offer, but the negotiations reached a stalemate at that point. Her case, which had been dismissed by the district judge, was appealed to an appellate or circuit court. An oral argument was heard by the appellate court a few weeks ago. The settlement negotiations were heated just before oral argument was scheduled but fell apart. Then the lawyers went into court and argued why the decision should be heeded or not. That decision is pending before the appellate court. So this settlement means the appellate court will not have to decide this case.

betyaso asks: What took so long?

Timehost: Why did the settlement come now?

Beth Karas: Negotiating settlements in cases is never easy. I have seen cases settled while the jury is deliberating on the verdict. Negotiations continue throughout the pendancy of a case and even into the trial. The fact that it took this long to settle isn't unusual. It's the history of the case that's perhaps so unusual. That after so much discovery, the judge ultimately dismissed it. Saying that she didn't see a cause for sexual harassment. So this is not unusual in a civil case in terms of the negotiation time.

Timehost: But do we know why the settlement came now -- after the election which seemed to strengthen the President -- and AFTER the Jones case did so much damage to the President?

Beth Karas: Yes. I agree, but also, we have to consider what is scheduled to happen next week. Ken Starr is scheduled to testify before the judiciary committee and explain his investigation into Lewinsky, which started with the Paula Jones case. Clinton feels, at least in part, that he is doing some damage control by getting rid of this case now, and not risk it coming back and being reinstated, and perhaps, admit to wrongdoing on the part of Paula Jones.

haley92 asks: So who pays the $850,000?

Beth Karas: Well, the public doesn't. This will be from private money. This is something that's a private matter -- it's not related to his job as a public officer. And $850,000 is in large part the cost of Jones's legal fees.

randpert asks: Is that settlement including attorney's fees?

dkgrothkathyrn asks: Will she have enough to pay her lawyers

Beth Karas: It's unclear whether or not the $850,000 will cover all of her lawyers, but her previous lawyers claim their outstanding bill is $800,000, so in all likelihood this payment will cover her fees. And that's a major concern at this point.

Timehost: There was other news of the scandal today: Kenneth Starr's grand jury indicted Webster Hubbell, friend of the Clintons and former associate attorney general, again, on fifteen counts of perjury and related charges. What does this mean for the President and the impeachment inquiry?

Beth Karas: First of all, the impeachment inquiry is of the President, and not his associates. However, to the extent that Hubbell's previous association with the President is further tarnished by this next indictment, it doesn't help the President. The judiciary committee passed a resolution to inquire broadly into acts of the President while in office, not to be limited to the referral, the Starr report. So, one could look at Starr's move, in both the Hubbell indictment and sending to the Hill possible impeachable offenses related to Kathleen Willey, as an attempt to get as much into the court of public opinion before he is examined. Examined, that is, by the Judiciary Committee next week.

Timehost: Will that examination be public?

Beth Karas: Yes. Ken Starr's testimony will be public. At this point, it 's scheduled for next Thursday. Court TV plans to air it in its entirety at that time. In the past, many congressional committee hearings were not open to the public in the way we're seeing now, and it's part of the change that we're seeing in courts and judiciary proceedings, to give the public more access to how the system works.

TahitianGuy asks: Do you think Jones was so traumatized by what Clinton did that she deserved any large sum of money?

Beth Karas: Judge Susan Webber Wright, who presided over, and then dismissed the Jones case, certainly didn't believe that there was trauma of the type required under sexual harassment, and thus, she dismissed it. However, since that dismissal, the Supreme Court has come down with a decision that the Jones lawyers used in arguing that the case should be reinstated. That decision said that to find sexual harassment, a plaintiff need not have a tangible job loss. I haven't given you my opinion yet, but I'm saying that the law on harassment is changing and what may not have been harassment under the old law may be now. Personally, I have not seen or I'm not convinced that she suffered the trauma that other people have suffered. It doesn't seem that she outwardly was exhibiting it. Of course, I can't speak for what was going on in her mind.

SilkTheshocker007 asks: Do you think Clinton is happy with the decision?

Beth Karas: Yes. I do think he's happy with the decision because he doesn't know how the appellate court was going to rule. And if his case was reinstated, he was facing a trial in a public court where he was going to have to answer to these allegations. In the settlement, basically , everyone wins. And that's why parties settle. Because the risks are high for both sides. And the settlement assures everyone that the case will go away. But, personally, I think that the President regrets not being able to settle this suit long ago. If he had, there would have been no Monica Lewinsky scandal, at least not in the way it was discovered.

Timehost: Here's a follow-up to the question about whatever injury Paula Jones might have suffered...

CivPro1 asks: Would "pain" suffered by a plaintiff be a question of law or question of fact?

Beth Karas: Good question. The existence of the pain, or some job loss, under the law that Judge Wright was following, was a legal requirement. But the extent of it, and whether it was believable, and whether or not she should be paid for it, is a question of fact. In sum, the judge had to find that there was something there. Taking Jones's evidence at its word, she will find whether there's even enough evidence to go to a jury. The jury will decide whether there was enough pain or loss for compensation.

Timehost: Right now, we've just gotten the broad outlines of the settlement...

haley92 asks: Are any details of the settlement available?

Timehost: How much will we learn about the specifics of the settlement?

Beth Karas: Settlements are often not disclosed, the details, that is. However, as a matter of public policy, when a municipality or state or government is settling a case, those details are disclosed because the settlement money comes from the taxpayers. In this case, we may never hear the details. Sometimes, it's a condition of settlement that the settlement remain sealed. But I don't know yet whether because of who the President is the deal will be disclosed.

TahitianGuy asks: Why is Jones so adamant in pursuing this case?

Beth Karas: There are several possibilities of what has motivated her to bring the suit and stick with it. She may have felt pressured at the beginning to bring it once a journalist learned about her allegations. And it just had a snowball effect. There was no turning back. She had to demand an apology to vindicate herself. She withdrew that apology request after the Lewinsky scandal was public, saying she felt vindicated once the public knew about Lewinsky because it gave credence to her claims. But motive is not something that has to be proven in a case, it's not something that has to be known for sure. But I am unaware of any other motive other than that she felt wronged and wanted to come forward.

Timehost: Here's a question about Web Hubbell...

documentdevourer asks: Why these new charges against Webster Hubbell? Is he being harassed by Ken Starr? Will they be dismissed again?

Beth Karas: I haven't seen the indictment yet. But clearly, Starr has new evidence about new incidents. The question about whether Starr is harassing Hubbell is a good one. One could argue that he's not letting it alone. Because he's determined to see his investigation through to the end, especially that of the President. On the other hand, when a prosecutor has evidence of serious crimes, the prosecutor has a duty to charge the wrongdoer and let the matter be decided in a court of law.

whatsYOUwant asks: Do you think Clinton will be impeached over his inconsistencies in testifying under oath?

Beth Karas: Clearly, the President's inconsistencies are a basis for some of the impeachable offenses Starr referred to Congress. It is quite possible he will be impeached, but impeached does not mean removed from office. The House could vote articles of impeachment, which are similar to a grand jury voting an indictment, and then the Senate sits like a jury and decides whether to remove him from office. Impeachment is the process; removal is the result. He may be impeached but I think it's unlikely he'll be removed. And many are now saying he's not likely to be impeached.

documentdevourer asks: What's the new evidence that Kenneth Starr turned over to the House about Kathleen Willey?

Beth Karas: One of the reasons that Kathleen Willey's incident is important is that it bolsters the prosecution's position that the President was having extramarital affairs, or problems with women, and Willey's position is that it was almost assaultive conduct. It seems to add credence certainly to Jones's allegations. I've been on the air for a good part of the day, so I don't have all the details yet of the Willey evidence but I'm working on it. My understanding is that the evidence includes testimony from before the grand jury. This is evidence that was not part of Starr's initial submission of evidence to Congress.

Timehost: We're talking about a pretty amazing day -- a President settling a sexual harassment case. And here's a question about the historic nature of today's events...

mustknow345 asks: Did you ever think a modern President would actually pay money to settle a sexual harassment case?

Beth Karas: No. I did not think that a modern president would. However, the sexual harassment laws and the enforcement of them are relatively new. And dalliances on the part of our presidents, historically, are not unheard of. So , I suppose it's not surprising, given that the allegations against Clinton are not so different from reports we read about other presidents, and for those other presidents, the harassment laws didn't exist.

Elliot_Ermac99 asks: Do you think the Republicans pushed it too far and that's why they lost the seats in the House?

Beth Karas: My personal opinion is that it may be the result of the Republicans' cockiness about Starr's evidence against Clinton, but the Republicans have at least in part blamed the media for giving it so much play and for keeping the issues so alive. And that the media was the messenger and that it is as much to blame for the Democratic gain. However, the media is just doing its job and the Republicans should have thought of that before going before the press. I think it's clear that there was a backlash to the Republicans.

Stamm444 asks: If Starr colluded with the Jones team, that is, if they exchanged information, could he (Starr) be disbarred?

Beth Karas: First of all, there's evidence that Starr had contact with the Jones team before he was the independent counsel. There's no evidence of collusion once he was appointed, but if he failed to disclose the full extent of his contact with the Jones team as the decision to appoint him was being made, he could be sanctioned. Disbarrment for an attorney is the ultimate sanction, and I doubt that it would go that far.

Timehost: We've got a follow-up...

Stamm444 asks: Since the Jones group is associated with far right wing political operatives, why didn't the court see it for the legal harassment vehicle it was?

Beth Karas: Initially, she wasn't aligned, or her lawyers were not aligned, with this far right "political operative" scheme, or whatever you're calling it. Her new lawyers, the Rutherford Institute, clearly have an agenda, but the court's job is to look at the facts before it to decide the law, and in the case of Judge Wright to make sure there was a proper case to go forward, regardless of the background of the parties.

mustknow345 asks: So, what does today's settlement mean for the impeachment proceedings?

Beth Karas: It's not going to have any effect on the evidence before Congress, but looking at the bigger picture, Clinton can consider this a victory. He has gotten rid of the Jones case. If he can make it through these hearings and impeachment, then he won't have any further proceedings to deal with unless he gets prosecuted for crimes made during the Lewinsky investigation.

REALrepublican asks: Did you think it was unique and unusual for a lawyer to ask for a specific definition of sex before you testify?

Beth Karas: No. It's not unusual that critical terms in a case be defined so that everyone understands when they use a term exactly what it means. Of course, that definition Clinton was able to use to his benefit because he did not technically lie when he answered the questions based on his interpretation of that definition many people think it's a lot of hogwash.

Beth Karas: Back to our earlier question on Willey, Starr has sent two boxes on her to the Judiciary committee to help them determine whether her allegations of misconduct should be included in the impeachment inquiry, but Starr did not file new charges against the President. He's leaving that up to Congress if they want to.

thebreadlady asks: If Paula Jones wasn't after money, and only wanted Clinton to apologize, then why did she settle?

Beth Karas: Because she owed her original attorneys a lot of money. They were not doing this for nothing. So it's unlikely that any of this money will go to her. She had to do it because she needed almost a million dollars to pay her lawyers.

Zodiac_Killer_ asks: What will he do when his term is up?

Timehost: I suppose this question can mean legally? Politically? Historically?

Beth Karas: Clinton could face criminal charges arising out of the Lewinsky matter. It's an unsettled question whether a president can be charged while in office, but there's no question that he can be charged out of office, assuming that the statute of limitation has not run. In this case we're talking about a statute of felonies with five years of limitation, so he could face criminal charges, or he could be pardoned by the next president, just as Ford did pardon Nixon. Politically, I don't know whether he would hold any major office again, but he's doing pretty well holding his own right now with the scandal surrounding him, and it wouldn't be a first for him to be re-elected to some lesser office. We've seen politicians convicted of some crime be re-elected.

Timehost: And looking at this from the other side, from Paula Jones' perspective...

Lady_Jazz_2000 asks: After paying the taxes, attorney fees, court cost, being demeaned by the public, trashed by the Media...slandered.....WAS IT WORTH IT????

Beth Karas: It's a good question. I suppose if she gets a book deal out of this, or some lucrative offer, ultimately, it will be worth it. Because after all, who was Paula Jones? Who knew who she was? And to the extent that some people like fame, it may be good for her. I don't know whether it'll be worth it. It depends on how she measures that. She'll probably make more money than she would otherwise, but I don't know whether it'll make it all worth it for her.

Timehost: We're going to have to wrap up...but let's take one last question...maybe the one all of us want to know the answer to...

ozzie5938 asks: Will this really be put to rest now?

Beth Karas: This settlement will legally put the case to rest. Will the public or Congress continue to hold on to it? Could she be a witness in another proceeding? That remains to be seen. But it clearly means the case is out of the courts, and that's a good thing for everybody. I can tell you I've enjoyed chatting with everyone and would love to come back.

Timehost: Great...we'd love to have you back! Thank you very much Beth Karas, for joining us tonight.

Beth Karas: Thank you for having me! I really enjoyed it.

WRITE TO US