Salon | Newsreal: Bugliosi the bomb thrower

T A B L E+T A L K
Will Willey trip up "Willie"? Discuss the most recent chapter in the presidential crises in Politics
D A I L Y+Q U O T E
Getting naked in Moscow

A L S O+T O D A Y
The road to Hale
Jonathan Broder and Murray Waas
A Salon investigative report reveals that key Whitewater witness David Hale received cash payments from anti-Clinton billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife

R E C E N T L Y
Clinton's ghost
By Gene Lyons
Jim McDougal's quest for revenge finally killed him, but not before embroiling the country in the six-year torture known as Whitewater
(03/16/98)
Rethinking Rodney King
By Lori Leibovich
A new book suggests that the beating that shook America may not have been as black-and-white a case as it appeared
(03/13/98)
Salon exclusive: Paula Jones' funny money
By Jonathan Broder and Murray Waas
Is Paula Jones fleecing the public -- and why is one of her big benefactors trying to be secret?
(03/12/98)
Paula Jones' Mysterious Benefactor
By Jonathan Broder and Murray Waas
Who's behind a secret $50,000 donation to the legal fund of Clinton's accuser?
(03/12/98)
The Falwell connection
By Murray Waas
How the Rev. Jerry Falwell and a California political organization helped finance and orchestrate an extensive anti-Clinton propaganda campaign
(03/11/98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

Bugliosi the bomb thrower

Book cover

The last angry lawyer says the stupidity of the Supreme Court's Paula Jones ruling is rivaled only by the outrageous bias of Kenneth Starr's out-of-control investigation.
BY LORI LEIBOVICH | Attorneys for Paula Jones filed a 700-page document Friday detailing Jones' charges of sexual misconduct against President Clinton, including affidavits and depositions from other women who claim to have had sexual encounters with the president. Legal experts have said the filing is substantial enough that Jones' case will probably go to trial, rather than being thrown out of court by summary judgment, as the president's lawyers had hoped.
This means that in a matter of months, the leader of the free world may have to publicly answer questions about his sexual behavior and even his genitalia -- while at the same time trying to conduct the business of the country.
How did the Paula Jones case, which most legal experts agree is tenuous at best, get to the Supreme Court in the first place? According to attorney and author Vincent Bugliosi, the case should never have seen the light of day -- at least not until President Clinton had left office.
Bugliosi has weighed in on some of the most notorious trials of the last 30 years. As Los Angeles district attorney, he successfully prosecuted the Charles Manson case -- which he chronicled in his bestselling "Helter Skelter" -- and last year tore the prosecutors in the O.J. Simpson case to shreds in "Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder." Now, in "No Island of Sanity: Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton" (The Library of Contemporary Thought), Bugliosi takes the Supreme Court to task for deciding in favor of Jones.
In passionate, at times vitriolic prose, Bugliosi writes that the Supreme Court ruling is "so shallow that anyone using even an ounce of common sense could navigate its weak currents" and calls it "an incomprehensible and terribly flawed decision against the nation's most powerful and important citizen, one that has injurious ramifications for all of us."
Salon talked to Bugliosi yesterday about Kenneth Starr's "out of control" tactics, Bob Bennett's sloppy legal work on behalf of the president and how the Supreme Court should have put the country's best interests before those of Jones.
How does the 700-page document filed on Friday by Paula Jones' lawyers change the case against the president?
She is just opposing the motion of summary judgment. In my book, I point out that she did not file a sexual harassment lawsuit because the statute of limitations had already run out. So with her lawsuit she now has to prove not only that the president did what she claims he did, and that she turned him down, but as a result of her rebuffing him, she suffered in the workplace. She must prove that her rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment were violated. The defense filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that she has not suffered, even assuming that everything took place in the room that she says did. They point out that she got merit raises, cost of living wages, etc.
The language in the documents released Friday is a lot harsher than before -- her lawyers are now using words like "assault."
That indicates that her lawyers feel the real cause of action, the 14th Amendment, is weak. They are trying to beef up the other stuff -- what took place in the room. She was not alleging this before, she was just talking about sexual harassment. Now she is apparently indicating that an assault took place. The problem with that argument is that she waited three years to file her lawsuit.
Even though her case is not rock-solid, what if she goes in front of a jury? Won't they feel sympathy for this woman who claims she was victimized?
If they believe what she said, that may make them more amenable to finding sexual discrimination in the workplace. That would be improper on their part. Because the judge will instruct them: You have to find discrimination in the workplace, not find him guilty for what may have happened in that room. But you can instruct from now until doomsday -- if the jury is sympathetic to your cause, they can come back with a ruling that is helpful to you.
Is it rare that a case gets thrown out on summary judgment?
Yeah. There was already a motion by the president to dismiss a long time ago, but those aren't as likely to be granted. With the motion for summary judgment, there is a greater likelihood because at that point, you submit affidavits, depositions and everything that you didn't have at the earlier level -- it is almost a mini-trial. The judge now has access to depositions on both sides and affidavits on both sides. Her [Judge Susan Wright] position will have to be: Is it possible that a reasonable jury could come back with a favorable judgment for the plaintiff? If she determines that a reasonable jury could not, then she may grant the motion. My guess is that she won't grant the motion -- she is a human being, and this being such an extremely high visibility case, she may be inclined to let this thing be heard by a jury. If no one knew who the president was, and it was a weak case, there'd be a greater likelihood of her throwing it out.
You say that the Supreme Court's decision to hear the Paula Jones case in the first place was "fatally defective." Why did the Supreme Court rule the way it did?
The Supreme Court came down with a ruling that was devoid of all common sense, in my opinion. Also, more curiously, they violated their own fundamental legal principles. The reviewer who reviewed my book for the Washington Post said, "The U.S. Supreme Court disgraced itself with a ruling that may yet rank with the Dred Scott case and Plessy vs. Ferguson in judicial shallowness." Now, those two cases are perhaps the most infamous in the court's history. Here you have the Washington Post -- after I have savaged them in my book, by the way -- coming back and saying that the court disgraced itself.
What exactly did they do wrong?
Here is what they did wrong. Whenever any court in the land -- and it makes no difference whether it is a small claims court, the U.S. Supreme Court or a court in East Texas -- is confronted with two interests that are both valid but competing, the court must, unless it wants to flip a coin, balance the interests and decide which interest is entitled to the most protection, which is the more important. In this case, for whatever reason, you could say, mysteriously, the court failed to balance the interest. If they had balanced the interest, what valid argument under the moon could be made for the proposition that Paula Jones' individual interest is more important than the rights of 260 million Americans to have a full-time president be undistracted and undiverted from his duties? I don't think anyone has come up yet with a valid argument that would say that in our democracy, one citizen's right is more important than the conflicting rights of millions of Americans. The president, be he a Democrat or Republican, works every day on national and international problems that affect all of our lives. We simply cannot afford to have his time, his energy and his attention be substantially diverted by private lawsuits and inquiries into his private sexual life. That would not happen in any other nation of the world. That is insane.
The second public interest here, which we should not forget, is that the president, no matter his party, represents this nation and its image in the world community more than anyone else in the world. Everyone in the world knows our president. Anything that diminishes a president automatically diminishes the entire country. We have a situation now where people around the world are laughing at us, telling jokes about our president, we have become the laughingstock of the world. In May, Paula Jones may take the witness stand in Little Rock, right in the middle of the president's term, and she is going to be talking about the character of the president's genitalia, and about the distinguishing characteristics of his private parts. Absolutely outrageous! Any American citizen who is concerned about the dignity and the stature of the office of the presidency, which is bigger than the person who occupies it, has got to be very upset about it. The Supreme Court decided that Paula Jones' individual interests, come hell or high water, took precedence over all other considerations affecting this nation and its millions of citizens. It was a terrible decision by the court.
Do you think the court's decision was politically motivated?
I won't ascribe any dishonorable motive to the court. We are getting into speculation. I would reject out of hand that there was any political motivation. I just think things like this happen. Their minds were on sabbatical when the president asked for temporary immunity.
N E X T+P A G E+| Clinton's lawyers goofed too

T A B L E+T A L K Will Willey trip up "Willie"? Discuss the most recent chapter in the presidential crises in Politics D A I L Y+Q U O T E Getting naked in Moscow A L S O+T O D A Y The road to Hale Jonathan Broder and Murray Waas A Salon investigative report reveals that key Whitewater witness David Hale received cash payments from anti-Clinton billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife R E C E N T L Y Clinton's ghost By Gene Lyons Jim McDougal's quest for revenge finally killed him, but not before embroiling the country in the six-year torture known as Whitewater (03/16/98) Rethinking Rodney King By Lori Leibovich A new book suggests that the beating that shook America may not have been as black-and-white a case as it appeared (03/13/98) Salon exclusive: Paula Jones' funny money By Jonathan Broder and Murray Waas Is Paula Jones fleecing the public -- and why is one of her big benefactors trying to be secret? (03/12/98) Paula Jones' Mysterious Benefactor By Jonathan Broder and Murray Waas Who's behind a secret $50,000 donation to the legal fund of Clinton's accuser? (03/12/98) The Falwell connection By Murray Waas How the Rev. Jerry Falwell and a California political organization helped finance and orchestrate an extensive anti-Clinton propaganda campaign (03/11/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		Bugliosi the bomb thrower The last angry lawyer says the stupidity of the Supreme Court's Paula Jones ruling is rivaled only by the outrageous bias of Kenneth Starr's out-of-control investigation. BY LORI LEIBOVICH \| Attorneys for Paula Jones filed a 700-page document Friday detailing Jones' charges of sexual misconduct against President Clinton, including affidavits and depositions from other women who claim to have had sexual encounters with the president. Legal experts have said the filing is substantial enough that Jones' case will probably go to trial, rather than being thrown out of court by summary judgment, as the president's lawyers had hoped. This means that in a matter of months, the leader of the free world may have to publicly answer questions about his sexual behavior and even his genitalia -- while at the same time trying to conduct the business of the country. How did the Paula Jones case, which most legal experts agree is tenuous at best, get to the Supreme Court in the first place? According to attorney and author Vincent Bugliosi, the case should never have seen the light of day -- at least not until President Clinton had left office. Bugliosi has weighed in on some of the most notorious trials of the last 30 years. As Los Angeles district attorney, he successfully prosecuted the Charles Manson case -- which he chronicled in his bestselling "Helter Skelter" -- and last year tore the prosecutors in the O.J. Simpson case to shreds in "Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder." Now, in "No Island of Sanity: Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton" (The Library of Contemporary Thought), Bugliosi takes the Supreme Court to task for deciding in favor of Jones. In passionate, at times vitriolic prose, Bugliosi writes that the Supreme Court ruling is "so shallow that anyone using even an ounce of common sense could navigate its weak currents" and calls it "an incomprehensible and terribly flawed decision against the nation's most powerful and important citizen, one that has injurious ramifications for all of us." Salon talked to Bugliosi yesterday about Kenneth Starr's "out of control" tactics, Bob Bennett's sloppy legal work on behalf of the president and how the Supreme Court should have put the country's best interests before those of Jones. How does the 700-page document filed on Friday by Paula Jones' lawyers change the case against the president? She is just opposing the motion of summary judgment. In my book, I point out that she did not file a sexual harassment lawsuit because the statute of limitations had already run out. So with her lawsuit she now has to prove not only that the president did what she claims he did, and that she turned him down, but as a result of her rebuffing him, she suffered in the workplace. She must prove that her rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment were violated. The defense filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that she has not suffered, even assuming that everything took place in the room that she says did. They point out that she got merit raises, cost of living wages, etc. The language in the documents released Friday is a lot harsher than before -- her lawyers are now using words like "assault." That indicates that her lawyers feel the real cause of action, the 14th Amendment, is weak. They are trying to beef up the other stuff -- what took place in the room. She was not alleging this before, she was just talking about sexual harassment. Now she is apparently indicating that an assault took place. The problem with that argument is that she waited three years to file her lawsuit. Even though her case is not rock-solid, what if she goes in front of a jury? Won't they feel sympathy for this woman who claims she was victimized? If they believe what she said, that may make them more amenable to finding sexual discrimination in the workplace. That would be improper on their part. Because the judge will instruct them: You have to find discrimination in the workplace, not find him guilty for what may have happened in that room. But you can instruct from now until doomsday -- if the jury is sympathetic to your cause, they can come back with a ruling that is helpful to you. Is it rare that a case gets thrown out on summary judgment? Yeah. There was already a motion by the president to dismiss a long time ago, but those aren't as likely to be granted. With the motion for summary judgment, there is a greater likelihood because at that point, you submit affidavits, depositions and everything that you didn't have at the earlier level -- it is almost a mini-trial. The judge now has access to depositions on both sides and affidavits on both sides. Her [Judge Susan Wright] position will have to be: Is it possible that a reasonable jury could come back with a favorable judgment for the plaintiff? If she determines that a reasonable jury could not, then she may grant the motion. My guess is that she won't grant the motion -- she is a human being, and this being such an extremely high visibility case, she may be inclined to let this thing be heard by a jury. If no one knew who the president was, and it was a weak case, there'd be a greater likelihood of her throwing it out. You say that the Supreme Court's decision to hear the Paula Jones case in the first place was "fatally defective." Why did the Supreme Court rule the way it did? The Supreme Court came down with a ruling that was devoid of all common sense, in my opinion. Also, more curiously, they violated their own fundamental legal principles. The reviewer who reviewed my book for the Washington Post said, "The U.S. Supreme Court disgraced itself with a ruling that may yet rank with the Dred Scott case and Plessy vs. Ferguson in judicial shallowness." Now, those two cases are perhaps the most infamous in the court's history. Here you have the Washington Post -- after I have savaged them in my book, by the way -- coming back and saying that the court disgraced itself. What exactly did they do wrong? Here is what they did wrong. Whenever any court in the land -- and it makes no difference whether it is a small claims court, the U.S. Supreme Court or a court in East Texas -- is confronted with two interests that are both valid but competing, the court must, unless it wants to flip a coin, balance the interests and decide which interest is entitled to the most protection, which is the more important. In this case, for whatever reason, you could say, mysteriously, the court failed to balance the interest. If they had balanced the interest, what valid argument under the moon could be made for the proposition that Paula Jones' individual interest is more important than the rights of 260 million Americans to have a full-time president be undistracted and undiverted from his duties? I don't think anyone has come up yet with a valid argument that would say that in our democracy, one citizen's right is more important than the conflicting rights of millions of Americans. The president, be he a Democrat or Republican, works every day on national and international problems that affect all of our lives. We simply cannot afford to have his time, his energy and his attention be substantially diverted by private lawsuits and inquiries into his private sexual life. That would not happen in any other nation of the world. That is insane. The second public interest here, which we should not forget, is that the president, no matter his party, represents this nation and its image in the world community more than anyone else in the world. Everyone in the world knows our president. Anything that diminishes a president automatically diminishes the entire country. We have a situation now where people around the world are laughing at us, telling jokes about our president, we have become the laughingstock of the world. In May, Paula Jones may take the witness stand in Little Rock, right in the middle of the president's term, and she is going to be talking about the character of the president's genitalia, and about the distinguishing characteristics of his private parts. Absolutely outrageous! Any American citizen who is concerned about the dignity and the stature of the office of the presidency, which is bigger than the person who occupies it, has got to be very upset about it. The Supreme Court decided that Paula Jones' individual interests, come hell or high water, took precedence over all other considerations affecting this nation and its millions of citizens. It was a terrible decision by the court. Do you think the court's decision was politically motivated? I won't ascribe any dishonorable motive to the court. We are getting into speculation. I would reject out of hand that there was any political motivation. I just think things like this happen. Their minds were on sabbatical when the president asked for temporary immunity. N E X T+P A G E+\| Clinton's lawyers goofed too