Bob Levey Dan Murano for The Washington Post

Tuesday, January 13, 1998

Good afternoon and welcome to Levey Live. I’m your host, Washington Post columnist Bob Levey. We meet here each Tuesday, from noon until 1 p.m. Eastern time, to discuss major news stories and issues from Washington and elsewhere.

Today, we take a look at the sexual harassment case brought by Paula Corbin Jones against President Clinton. On Saturday, Jones’s lawyers are scheduled to interrogate the president at the White House. Jones has announced her intention to be there at the time -- which she has the legal right to do. The meeting (and the trial, scheduled for May 26 in Arkansas) would be certain to touch off a cascade of negative publicity about the president.

The issues we will explore today include: Does Jones have a solid legal case, or is she trying to embarrass the president? Will the case damage the president’s ability to do his job? Is Jones after money, or merely the restoration of her good name? Why haven’t American women defended Jones more often and more fully? Will the case have any effect on the 1998 or 2000 elections? Why doesn’t the president simply apologize and be done with the case? What about the inquiry into Jones’s tax returns that was begun recently by the Internal Revenue Service?

Your questions are welcome throughout the show, as always. Apologies for the late start today; we'll be live until 1:30 EST due to the delay.

Springfield, Va.: I'm perfectly willing to believe a politician would abuse his power, and willing to believe Clinton in particular has done so. All that aside, hasn't it been too long since the Jones incident? She can't help but come across as a gold digger.

Bob Levey: It certainly seems suspicious that she waited until Clinton was president to file the action. However, the law does clank slowly, and this case isn't clanking much more slowly than many others. So you can't really blame Jones for the fact that it takes four years for all the legal yammering to quiet down and for a trial date to be set.

Fairfax, Va.: If this case went to court, would/could Janet Reno defend Clinton or would he have to get independent counsel?

Bob Levey: Reno would defend the president only if he were sued in his role as president. Since Jones's allegations have to do with a time when he wasn't yet president, he'd have to get his own lawyer. But that, too, raises uncomfortable questions, for this president and any other. What kind of a president will we have if all he does is defend himself against lawsuits? And who will pay the legal bills? Already, that's a huge controversy with Clinton. What if we had a president who couldn't (or didn't) raise money from among the public for his legal defense fund? Is it really proper for a president to become a pauper as he defends himself against every legal action anyone can think of?

Alexandria, Va.: Why are the American people so seemingly unconcerned about the lack of moral fiber in a president? In your opinion, is this simply due to the fact that "times are good" or does it say something about our own lack of character?

Bob Levey: Excellent question. Perhaps only in the confused times of 1998 could we come up with these twin statistics: 72 percent of polled Americans believe that something happened in that hotel room in Arkansas in 1991. But 57 percent believe Clinton is doing a good job as president. So the short answer is: People are willing to overlook Clinton's escapades. But the longer answer may be that people recognize how common extramarital affairs are in every walk of life. If you don't sue or embarrass a plumber for having an affair, why a president?

Wheaton, Md.: This is really going slow . . . are you still having technical problems, or is this your usual speed?

Bob Levey: Hey, we're pedaling as fast as we can! I'll try to type faster. The techno-types tell me that you may be used to reading unmoderated discussions. I believe this is about as fast as it gets in this form. Don't forget, the questions don't appear until my answers appear with them.

Herndon, Va.: Do you believe the president should be held above the law? Should civil cases be held after they have left office? Has any other president been taken to court during their term in office? Thanx, Bob.

Bob Levey: No president has ever appeared live in a courtroom while president. As for the larger issue, I absolutely feel that presidents should not be above the law. That's why we fought the British. But as a practical matter, it poses large national security issues if the president spends all his time defending himself against lawsuits. Do you want him to run the country or sit in discovery hearings all the time? The best compromise I see is to delay everything until he leaves office. However, that certainly isn't a perfect answer.

Waynesboro, Va.: Will President Clinton submit to a physical exam?

Bob Levey: You're referring to the famous "distinguishing characteristic" that Jones claims to have seen on Clinton's private parts. He won't have to submit to a physical exam if this issue is never raised -- and it now looks as if it won't be. Clinton's lawyers have hinted (not too subtly) that if Jones plays the "distinguishing characteristic" card, they will trot out her previous sexual history. It could get spectacularly ugly. But the threat of that may cause both sides to pull back from this line of questioning.

Reston, Va.: You ask: Is it really proper for a president to become a pauper as he defends himself against every legal action anyone can think of?

The president should be allowed to be sued while in office *if* the crime affects his ability to be president.

Obviously this issue can wait.

Bob Levey: I think you say it well. But I can see gray areas. Couldn't Jones argue that her suit DOES bear on Clinton's ability (or fitness) to be president? Couldn't she say the man lied and cheated, and therefore he shouldn't be president? I agree with Clinton's attorneys that this amounts to an attempt to rewrite the election results, and I think the vote totals should always speak loudest. But I can see at least a little justification for Jones to argue that this is all about Clinton's suitability for the job he holds.

Wheaton, Md.: The moral fiber of an American president is not necessarily measured in his relationships but in his execution of service to the American public. If Nixon had been a "woman chaser" as JFK and Clinton are alleged [to be], perhaps he would have completed his eight years as president, with honor!

Bob Levey: Good point. By the way, Nixon did hit the bottle pretty hard during his last six months in office (see Woodward and Bernstein's books). Should he have been tossed out for that reason? A toughie.

Inglenook, Calif.: The American Spectator printed the "infamous" article, Jones supplied her own identity, the president has not said ONE word concerning her character, so: Why is she suing the president instead of the magazine, to "get her good name back?" Hmmmm?

Bob Levey: Right on the button. The biggest problem I have with Jones's suit is that she says nothing happened in that hotel room; HE says nothing happened either. So where is the damage to her reputation?

Alexandria, Va.: Why did Jones wait to file her suit? Why didn't she do it while the president was governor?

Who's backing this lawsuit?

Besides money and notoriety, what does she hope to gain?

Bob Levey: She says she didn't do it while he was governor because she thought it was all done with. But then the American Spectator piece was published, and she felt "out-ed," and she decided to press on. The case is being supported (you may choose another verb if you like) by a conservative organization called the Rutherford Institute. [It is] blatantly political, which has caused a lot of the controversy in the case. Jones hasn't said lately what she hopes to gain. Early, she said she just wanted to scrub her reputation. But now her attorneys have bumped the asking price of a settlement from $700,000 to $2 million. You can draw your own conclusions.

Baltimore, Md.: How did President Clinton commit a crime by propositioning Jones?

Bob Levey: He later threatened to talk to her immediate supervisor. Remember at the time ... Jones worked for the state government and Clinton was governor. That means he was in a direct position to force her to trade sex for continuing employment. That's often the basis for a finding of sexual harassment.

Falls Church, Va.: How do you think Hillary will react to all of this hoopla? Will she defend the president? Keep quiet?

Bob Levey: When Mrs. Clinton appeared beside her husband on CBS, during the 1992 campaign, and watched him in effect admit that he had cheated on her, I think you got your answer. She is determined to defend him and to keep quiet. That's what she has always done.

Reston, Va.: You state: But I can see at least a little justification for Jones to argue that this is all about Clinton's suitability for the job he holds.

We all know that Clinton is a liar. The people re-elected him knowing this. In fact, there is no way to become elected if you are honest and truthful. So Jones needs more than the fact that Clinton is a dishonest person to say that her issue directly impacts Clinton's ability to be president.

Bob Levey: I don't agree that only the dishonest and phony can be elected president. But I agree that Jones will need far more than a lie to collect any damages. I'm especially puzzled by the defamation part of her argument. In her complaint, she claims that Clinton accused her of lying. But how does that defame her? He says they never met. Does that drag Jones's name through the mud? Quite the contrary. Again, I think the worthiest part of her complaint has to do with the implied threat to her continuing employment. However, Clinton never said (or even hinted) any such thing, based on what we know now.

McLean, Va.: What is the statute of limitations on something like this? Do I remember correctly that Jones waited until the last possible minute to file this suit?

Bob Levey: Don't know statute of limitations. Yes, she waited until the very end. But that may or may not mean anything. Remember that she says she planned to file nothing until the American Spectator piece came out. After it did, she moved rather quickly.

Reston, Va.: You write: CBS, during the 1992 campaign, and watched him in effect admit that he had cheated on her, I think you got your answer.

Well said. [Hillary] knew then what he had done. However, she got what she wanted: She is now the first lady. Ah, the deals we make to get ahead in life.

Bob Levey: Amen, and thanks.

Chevy Chase, Md.: And sexual harassment should be the key issue here. Jones has not done a lot for her cause, what with changing defensive teams, and confusing the issue with words pertaining to "her good name." Make it straight and to the point (no pun), sue for sexual harassment and request damages. Clinton should be required to defend hmself, just as I would be required to in my job as a manager. Does it mean he is less capable of being president? No. Does it mean he is guilty of sexual harassment? Let the court decide.

Bob Levey: Jones has absolutely no sense of public relations -- how to build public support. She has turned herself over to a woman in California who seems to think this is some sort of holy crusade. The woman actually compared Jones to Joan of Arc. So, yes, Jones has looked hesitant and fumbling throughout. But that doesn't mean she lacks a case. Obviously, the White House is very, very worried about what might happen in Little Rock on May 26.

Alexandria, Va.: Wouldn't Clinton's settling this matter monetarily -- for ANY sum -- presume his guilt? Why not try his luck in court, where it is the opinion of the president of the United States vs. an individual with dubious claims?

Bob Levey: Settling would NOT suggest guilt. You know how it goes: I pay this money to settle the case, but there's no official finding. Same as a consent decree: I never did it and I won't do it any more. I strongly agree that he would be a powerful witness in court -- and she would be a weak one. Also, the president's strategists may feel that he has nothing to lose at this point by going ahead with a trial. She has already gotten the charges "into play," so what more can happen to him? Remember one key fact, too: There is still absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing by Clinton -- just claims by Jones that are not corroborated, either by anyone who was around that day, or by any other woman.

Arlington, Va.: I'm beginning to think some folks are putting a lot of hopes and dreams for divine retribution in Jones's civil suit: Finally the man will pay for his sins! Not only him, but that mean ol' wife of his, too. What do you think?

Bob Levey: The country is chock full of Clinton-haters who can't wait to see him squirm. But as I said in my last comment, he has already squirmed. If he was elected president twice by a country that knew all about Gennifer Flowers, what can Jones possibly do to him? Yes, the answer could be that she wrecks his effectiveness as president. But I don't really think she can. He will testify, a verdict will be reached, and he will still be president. In many ways, he has ALWAYS been an ineffective president. She won't be the first to make him so.

Bob Levey: There are 25 minutes to go in our discussion. Keep the questions coming.

Mclean, Va.: Has she filed anything against the American Spectator? Just the president?

Bob Levey: I believe she has filed just against the president. Remember that the American Spectator piece didn't use her full name -- only "Paula." She'd have a heck of a time collecting anything from the magazine, I'd bet.

Springfield, Va.: Regarding the events in Iraq, wouldn't this take away from President Clinton being able to completely focus on the seriousness of the situation at hand?

Bob Levey: Sure, that's precisely the worry. But one of Clinton's strengths, I think, is that he can still focus and make decisions even when the fur is flying, and even when his reputation is in tatters. This man is very used to performing under pressure. So I don't think the world is at risk of war because of a woman named Jones.

Mclean, Va.: Whatever happened to the Arkansas state troopers who changed their story?

Bob Levey: Jones dropped charges against Danny Ferguson (the trooper who supposedly went and invited her to Clinton's room). I don't know for sure about the other troopers. I don't believe they were ever formally charged.

Alexandria, Va.: I believe you're correct when you say that payment of a settlement is not an admission of guilt, but don't you think the American people will convict him in their own minds (regardless of their love or hatred of Clinton)? I can't believe that would sit well with a man obsessed with his place in presidential history.

Bob Levey: Unquestionably, this case will harm Clinton's stature in the history books. But either we believe in our legal system or we don't. And if lawyers and a judge agree that paying dough is not an admission of guilt, who are we to say we know (or think) otherwise? Sure, it will look very, very bad. But it may be a tactical decision only -- a way to stop the rivers of publicity by paying Jones to shut up. I can easily see the Clinton camp ponying up the money for that reason.

Alexandria, Va.: To what extent is Clinton bullet proof? Rather -- if this were the only controversy he faced, would it not have much more severe consequences? As it stands now, people are very used to the various acusations and are now seemingly numb to them. Do you agree?

Bob Levey: That's excellent analysis. Clinton has been a master at getting ... his own way. I think the country knows what it thinks of this man and has for a long time. Either they love him or hate him, but they will never change him -- and I think they know it. So, yes, I suspect that most Americans are greeting the Jones story with a sigh. Just more of same from Old Bill.

Mclean, Va.: This [has] all [been] handled so well by everyone involved. I hope it's not setting a precedent for cases of women who have real problems.

Bob Levey: Good point. Not every woman who is sexually harassed has the benefit of sharp lawyers and missionary zeal support. In one way, the Jones case will invite more women to come forward and cry ouch. In another way, it will dissuade women who have legitimate complaints, but don't want to go through a huge circus to have them aired.

Alexandria , Va.: Your answer to a previous question hinted a "nothing to lose" by going to trial. I think the risks are quite large. Remember there is a possibility of impeachment if convicted. Agree?

Bob Levey: Don't forget that the Jones case will be heard in federal court, and impeachment would be heard in the House of Representatives. The two actions have nothing to do with one another, legally. If anyone wanted to impeach Clinton, they could have tried it long ago, irrespective of Jones. In fact, some congressman named Barr has been trying to impeach him for months, for reasons I can't remember. Will a conviction in the Jones case make it more likely that Clinton will be impeached? I doubt it.

Arlington, Va.: Any ramifications for [Vice President Al] Gore in 2000?

Bob Levey: I can't see any. He has never been accused of so much as looking at another woman. And he will surely distance himself from Clinton as soon as he can, anyway -- on this issue and many others.

McLean, Va.: How is it possible that a person can press charges after so long? I know President Clinton is not without faults, but there should be some kind of law to prevent this kind of [stuff].

Bob Levey: A judge has the right to toss out a suit that's too old. But most judges will err on the other side, to be sure everyone gets a day in court.

Chantilly, Va.: Just a comment about Clinton's ineffectiveness as the president: He does NOT run the country. The real power in our democracy lies with the Congress; the president is little more than a figure head who represents our country to the rest of the world. Shouldn't we have someone with the utmost moral character representing all of us to be head of state?

Bob Levey: Was Roosevelt a figurehead? Lincoln? Jefferson? The best presidents lead the country without being chief executive officers of every piece of public business. That takes fiber, and Clinton clearly lacks it, in several ways. I wish Congress would lead more aggressively, but there are 535 of them, and only one guy running the show at 1600 Pennsylvania.

Washington, D.C.: We seem to have a case of she said, he denies. Why do they allow cases to consume taxpayer dollars, when it's easy to see --- she's trying to get paid?!

Bob Levey: She sure punched holes in her credibility by upping the ante from $700,000 to $2 million. She looks the goldest of golddiggers.

Washington, D.C.: Please give more info on the IRS looking into Jones. Can Clinton "order" such a thing?

Bob Levey: Clinton cannot order an audit for strictly political purposes. However, he can ask to see tax returns for a number of reasons -- national security, chiefly. If Clinton sicked the feds on Jones as an attempt at retaliation, he is a) stupid and b) richly deserving of impeachment.

Reston, Va.: You write: Settling would NOT suggest guilt .... the president's strategists may feel that he has nothing to lose at this point by going ahead with a trial.

Absolutely correct. He should not settle, as he has nothing to lose by going to trial. On the contrary, he is a loser if he settles, as he deprives himself of an aquital. BTW, the news media, networks, etc., just LOVE this sort of story: It makes tons of money for them.

Bob Levey: If he settles, he is wide open to the question of why he waited so long and spent so much of everyone's money prolonging the case this far.

Fairfax, Va.: Jones should be forced to wait until Clinton leaves office. The American public re-elected Clinton knowing that he committed adultery. As the nature of his crime is such, this matter can wait. By the way, I can't stand Clinton. However, the office of the presidency is to be respected.

Bob Levey: Many people feel the same way as you about the office of the presidency. I just can't imagine we want to see a president hectored and hassled by everyone with a grievance. Let's say one of his campaign buses bashes into some guy's parked car. Do we really want the president to keep England and France waiting while he testifies in some fender-damage case in small claims court? At the same time, I think the doctrine of executive privilege is wildly overused -- notably by Nixon, but also by every other president.

Reston, Va.: How long until the questions and answers of Saturday's "event" are released to the public? Do we have to wait until the trial, or will all the news networks have inside info before then?

Bob Levey: There are few sure things in this world, but here's one of them: There will be an OCEAN of publicity about the events of Saturday. You won't have to wait a second. You'll be drinking coffee on Sunday and lapping up every word.