Judicial Triple-Header
Decisions and comments by jurists make headlines
Friday, June 26, 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- So far, the only major headlines to come out of President Clinton's trip to China are reports that a decision by both nations to "de-target" ICBMs will be announced over the weekend. The GOP made a lot of hay out of somewhere between 11 and 18 ICBMs "pointed at American cities" -- but somehow forgot to mention that the US has had its own nuclear-tipped missiles pointed at mainland Chinese targets for at least well over three decades. The decision to de-target is a clear win for Clinton, though it remains to be seen if it will be tied to promises by China to stop selling weapons technology to other nations (especially Pakistan and some Arab states).
The major domestic headlines that appealed to political junkies today all have to do with the words of or decisions by judges -- and there are three big stand-outs.
Topping the list is a Supreme Court decision which makes it easier for women to bring lawsuits in sexual harrassment cases.
The justices ruled 7 to 2 that Kimberly Ellerth and other women harassed by their supervisors can sue employers even if there was no negative impact on pay or employment status as a result of standing up to the alleged harassment.
This clear and just decision is a victory for women who have been harassed, making it easier to bring legal charges against employers whose workplace is sexually hostile. But it looks to be cold comfort to Paula Jones, whose own sexual harassment suit against Bill Clinton was given the old heave-ho. Jones is considering an appeal, but the specifics of the Ellerth case are far different from that of the Jones case, and a number of legal commentators have stated that use of the Ellerth decision by Jones' lawyers would be a stretch.
Jones faces a serious problem on another front -- in his forthcoming book Anatomy of a Scandal, author James Retter reconstructed the events of May 8, 1991 and discovered a little "problem" with Jones' claim that she had an encounter with Clinton in a hotel room at 2:30 that day. Clinton apparently arrived at the hotel shortly before a speech at 8 AM and was gone by 9:30 AM; at around 2:30, he was meeting with a group of European industrialists, none named Paula Jones. Clinton's lawyers were sitting on this explosive evidence in the event the case got to trial knowing that it would not only devastate Jones' case (to say the least) but discredit and humiliate her cadre of Rutherford lawyers and Ken Starr.
Meanwhile, a three-judge appeals panel heard arguments today from Ken Starr himself and lawyers for the Justice Department in the matter of whether Secret Service employees must testify in the seemingly unending "investigation" of President Bill Clinton.
Starr may have an advantage in this particular arena, in that as a former solicitor general he was once a member of the very same appeals court considering the case.
The Justice Department found themselves being hammered with tough questions by Appeals Court Judges Raymond Randolph, Stephen Williams and Douglas Ginsburg -- that's right, former Supreme Court nominee Douglas "Doobie" Ginsburg, the one who didn't make it because he (shock! horror!!) smoked dope.
Among Starr's choice lines: "Isn't it odd the Secret Service is willing to testify if it helps a president because they won't be pushed farther away, but that if it's something that may hurt a president, they won't testify."
Um, Ken, if these agents had seen the President doing something illegal, they are duty-bound to report it. You would have known about any illegality performed by the President in the presence of a Secret Service agent by now. We can only wonder what you're smoking, Ken -- did you get it from Ginsburg or from one of your private corporate tobacco clients?
Ken shouldn't expect to receive the sort of deferential treatment in the courtroom of US District Judge James Robertson. Robertson is hearing arguments on motions to dismiss an indictment of presidential pal Webster Hubbell.
Robertson gave prosecutors and even tougher time than the afore-mentioned three-judge panel gave Justice Department attorneys, in the form of tough questions about their handling of the tax evasion indictment against Hubbell, his wife Suzy, his accountant Michael C. Schaufele, and tax lawyer Charles C. Owen (Starr did not issue indictments against Hubbell's dog).
Prosecutor Stephen Binhak made a disturbing concession during the course of Judge Robertson questions -- that the indictment had been based on records Hubbell was compelled to produce under a grant of limited immunity.
Robertson's reaction: "That's really scary."
Scary, hell. It's worse than that -- it means "immunity from prosecution" is a myth in the hands of a prosecutor whose powers are going unchecked.
This surprisingly candid shot across the bow of Starr has not gone unnoticed by the few members of the press who have managed not to become bored with the incessant Lewinskyization of national news. It's also a clear signal to Starr that one judge hearing a case involving his handiwork feels Starr has likely crossed a dangerous line and is disinclined to put up with Starr's sort of abusive conduct.
And while Starr may be anticipating a "victory" on the issue of Secret Service privilege -- a victory which will likely yield nothing to bolster his case and serve only to undermine the President's security -- he's been slapped down in a series of high-profile judicial setbacks: a Supreme Court decision that notes taken by a lawyer for White House aide Vincent Foster are subject to attorney-client privilege and cannot be handed over to his office; Susan McDougal's release from prison for medical reasons; and the Supreme Court throwing out Starr's request for an "emergency" hearing to force testimony from three Secret Service agents and White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey.
Starr is hoping that testimony by Linda Tripp next Tuesday will breathe some life back into his obsessive, Javert-like pursuit of something to charge President Clinton with. But with the emergence of new and serious questions surrounding the authenticity of the so-called Lewinsky-Tripp "talking points," Tripp's clear violation of Maryland law in taping conversations with Lewinsky, and her openly hostile attitude toward the White House and its staff (on one of the tapes she claims to have made she is heard describing Clinton's personal secretary Betty Currie as a "friggin' bitch"), Tripp herself may turn out to be another liability for Starr.
Search American Politics Provided by Hot Bot |
