|
|
|
The Paula Jones Scandal and
why its important
|
Paula Jones - haven't heard of her! Well, don't worry. You soon
will. For Paula Jones is taking President William J. Clinton to
court.
Jones is taking Clinton to court on charges of sexual harassment.
Her civil suit accuses Clinton of summoning her to his hotel room
during a state conference in May of 1991, where he disrobed and
requested certain favors (he was governor of Arkansas and she was
a state employee). Jones refused and left. Embarrassed, she immediately
relayed the event to two friends and a number of family members;
these testimonies along with those of the Arkansas State Trooper
that escorted her, solidify the circumstantial evidence surrounding
the case.
When Jones came forward with her story two-and-a-half years after
the incident, the response was extremely negative. Many believed
it was another trumped up charge by the religious right. Others
ignored Jones thinking she was another attention seeking flake.
Newsweek admitted this in a special story on the case (Jan. 13,
1997). They said that there was an "elitist attitude"
in the press toward Jones, whom they referred to as "some sleazy
woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks."
This attitude lasted until the story - and Jones - were investigated
and found to be quite legitimate.
It is at this point most will admit that Jones has the right
to sue Clinton (which she is, for a $700,000 sum - that she says
will go to charity). The current debate, and the issue before the
Supreme Court, is whether or not this case will take place during
Clinton's term, or after he leaves office.
The Democrats contend that allowing a case, which they consider
a frivolous bipartisan tactic, to proceed amounts to an attack on
the office of the president and will open up a floodgate for future
attacks on the president.
These attacks are harmful as evidenced by the close to $1.5 million
Clinton has spent on his defense, and the time and energy that it
has sapped from him and his job as president.
The Republicans counter that no one is above the law, even the
president; therefore, the case should proceed according to the law.
After all, justice can't be served only when it is convenient.
Regardless of whether the Supreme Court allows the case to continue
in 1997 or freeze it until 2001, it will go to court.
If the case does proceed this year, the worst that could happen
to Clinton is the $700,000 in damages and public embarrassment.
He would not be impeached from office because of this suit. But
the public, as a whole, has already decided one way or another about
his character.
|
|
|
