The copyright laws of the United States (Title 17, U.S. Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. If a user makes a request for, or later uses a photocopy or reproduction (including handwritten copies) for purposes in excess of fair use, that user may be liable for copyright infringement. Users are advised to obtain permission from the copyright owner before any re-use of this material. Use of this material is for private, non-commercial, and educational purposes; additional reprints and further distribution is prohibited. Copies are not for resale. All other rights reserved. For further information, contact Director, Hoover Institution Library and Archives, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-6010 Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University. 0 FIRlnGLlne HOST: GUESTS: SUBJECT: WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR. SHANA ALEXANDER, MARK GREEN "THE CLINTON MESS" FIRING LINE is produced and directed by WARREN STEIBEL. This is a transcript of the fjrjng Ljne program (#1009/2338) taped in New York City on May 16, 1994 and telecast later on public television stations. copyright 1994 NATIONAL REVIEW
The reference to "The Clinton Mess" is, of course, the sex harassment suit. On it and its implications we need some perspective. In the summer of 1992, when her husband was campaigning for president, Mrs. Clinton gave a speech in which she encouraged those women who had complaints on this score to press them. "Only that way will men learn," she was saying. One of the things we need to clear up is: Is there a difference between the lawsuit of Paula Jones and the lawsuit encouraged by Mrs. Clinton, the prototype of which one must assume is the complaint of Anita Hill against Clarence Thomas? To discuss the question we have two guests well-known to our audiences for their charm and perversity. Shana Alexander was editor of McCall's, senior editor and columnist for Life magazine, regular commentator for 60 Minutes, author of numerous best-selling books. Mark Green is now the public advocate for New York City, which places him next in line, should the mayor be impeached for sexual harassment, for that high office. [laughter] He is a graduate of Cornell and of the Harvard Law School, a veteran of 10 years with Ralph Nader, a Democratic candidate for senator of New York, and author of a dozen books of which the common denominator has been bad advice for America. [laughter] Welcome back, Mr. Green. I think it would be worthwhile to ask whether there is a difference in what Anita Hill undertook and what Paula Jones has undertaken, on the understanding that we will not need to mention the obvious differences. Is the sense of shock experienced by the public one that, retroactively, governs the Hill case? Can you enlighten us on that, Ms. Alexander? Well, I am not sure what you mean by the obvious differences. The differences-- Well, one is a lawsuit, one is a character complaint--that kind of thing. attempting to named for the material that was doing. Well, yes, one was a character witness who, in describe the character of the person who was Supreme Court, had to get into the same kind of this other woman now charges that the president Had to or chose to? Well, she was invited to come there, and I suppose she didn't have to-- I'm not that familiar with-- I suppose you could turn down an invitation to tell what you 1
know, even though you may know something extremely egregious about the person. Now in your judgment, to do that, would that defy the idealism of sexual harassment complaints, as encouraged by Mrs. Clinton? I don't see sexual harassment complaints as a matter of idealism. I'm probably the only person on this panel--in fact, I am quite sure of it--who remembers the old days when sexual harassment was quite commonplace and it was degrading, disgusting, and there was nothing that could be done about it. Well, but-- Now I hear that those days have changed. Well, without touching on the matter of whether they have changed, is it agreed that when there is an offense of that nature, one should speak out against it and, if necessary, prefer charge against the offender? Is it agreed by me? Yes. Sure. Yes, it is, but in this instance, it happened three years before, and where was this young woman-- Oh, so-- --three years ago? Well, does the statute-- I think the timing is a problem. Do you want to talk about that? Well, both are about charges by women of alleged sexual harassment. That's where the similarity ends, in my view. A charge is not a fact. Anita Hill was a reluctant witness. She turned out to be-- I don't know what happened, obviously, between her and Clarence Thomas. She is a credible person. She is a law professor; she's a Republican criticizing then Clarence Thomas, a Republican, so it seemed not to be partisan. And Bill, it seemed to be a timely complaint. Here was a man up for a lifetime appointment, and if anyone had a complaint, like at the beginning of a wedding, that was the time. Nor did she attack Clarence Thomas at an ACLU or Americans for Democratic Action meeting. It didn't seem 2
partisan. Of course, I don't know what happened with Paula Jones and Bill Clinton, but here is a woman whose own sister and brother-in-law said was in it for the money and-- Could we pause-- Could we just pause for a second? Sure. He was up for a lifetime appointment when he was appointed to the circuit court of appeals and she didn't testify. Well, that's correct. I said she was a reluctant witness. I am not saying she should-- But if you are saying that because he was coming up on a lifetime term, why didn't she go after him the first time he was up for a lifetime term? I don't know, but we are comparing her to Paula Jones, and if Paula Jones really had a grievance, why didn't she speak out when it mattered, when he was up for a four-year term in 1992? And she, Bill--I don't know how credible what she said ultimately will prove to be. She announced her complaint at a conservative meeting. And there is a network of people like Jerry Falwell and Floyd Brown, who have accused President Clinton, in order, of murder in Arkansas--and Floyd Brown is the one who did the Willie Horton ad--that are so outrageous, even by historic standards, that one has to wonder whether Paula Jones is shaking down the president for ideological and commercial reasons, none of which could credibly be charged to Anita Hill. Well, this presupposes that it was established that Anita Hill was sympathetic with conservative jurisprudence. It is absolutely plain that she was not--i.e., if there was any deception practiced by Anita Hill, that was it. I'm only talking about how partisan is someone. And if a Republican says it about a Democrat, it means it could be true, but it could be partisan. But in this instance, Anita Hill was of the same party as Clarence Thomas, was an immediate subordinate of Clarence Thomas, neither of which was true in the Paula Jones situation. Well, I'll tell you what. Why don't we agree not to discuss whether Clarence Thomas did it, because I am anxious to hear both of you on this subject. Is there a point at which partisanship to one's own country becomes the--ought to be--the primary focus? So that here you have Paula Jones who three 3
years ago was or was not propositioned by somebody who was then governor--and ought she to be told by you, you, me, and Hillary, "Forget it," because to go after somebody who is president of the United States is to imperil the smooth functioning of institutional procedures in which we have an enormous interest? Absolutely not. Of course she is not suing for sexual harassment, because as Shana said, the statute-- She is suing for something else. --of limitations for that has run. She is suing for emotional distress. The burden is still on her. This is an extremely serious charge; she should have her day in court and she will have her day in court. No one should say she shouldn't do it because he happens to be the president who was then a governor. I would. You would say what, Bill? You think like William Bennett he should be legally free of all tort claims before he became president? No. I'm not saying I want a law that protects him. I would say that I would join people who urge her not to do it, simply on grounds of simple patriotism. A lot of people slept around with JFK and a lot of them kept quiet about it during the summer of 1960. I think that was probably the right thing to do. comparable-- I'm not sure that those two examples are Well, they have to do with character. --sleeping around with JFK-- It had to do with character. He was married. He was committing adultery. If it had been exposed and put on 60 Minutes that he had done so, it might-- It almost certainly would have affected the election-- Oh, certainly. --since he only won by three votes. And it would have affected the Clinton election as well if Paula Jones had-- 4
So therefore I am saying-- --in a timely fashion brought her charges. --there is a sense of abstinence here to which one adheres because one is putting other goals ahead of our own private satisfactions. Isn't that right? Well, I would put it a different way, of course, but I would think-- You always would. Yes, of course. [laughter] And better. Sometimes. I think while he's president he shouldn't be distracted from serving the people he is supposed to be serving--namely, all of us--with these kinds of antique charges. Okay. I agree with Mark that if she has a case she should be enabled to bring it, but I think, having waited three years, she could wait another couple of years. What difference does it make? Well, but I am asking, would you be impelled- If you had been around 10 days ago and she had asked your advice, would you be impelled to say, "Don't do it. Just sublimate your silence in deference to the best interest of America." Well, actually, when I first heard about it, it was perhaps 10 days ago and I heard it on the car radio in a very small--in a truncated form--and I admired her. If it were true, I admired what some woman had done. When I learned more about it, namely that she had offered to take money not to bring the charges, which I read somewhere, when I read that she hadn't suffered financially, she hadn't been penalized, she hadn't lost her job--in fact, I think she was the most highly paid individual in her department of Arkansas government--i felt differently. Hold it. Let's postulate that it's true. Now, having postulated that it's true-- All right. 5
bring suit? you about it do it. Give --would you then nevertheless urge her not to She's your best friend, your sister, and she told that night weeping. Would you still say, "Don't it up. Make a sacrifice for your country." No, I don't think so. I would say don't do it while he's president. [laughter] Well, the statute is going to run-- What happened to the three years? The two statutes are going to run out. Your hypothetical is getting too hypothetical. Well, I am talking about 10 days ago. She stalled. And 10 days ago she is deciding, "Will I or won't I?" What advice do you give her, based on what ideals? Well, I think I answered that. I don't think she should do it while he is president. I don't think the president-- She is suing the presidency, she is not suing the man. That's the way it appears to me. She is suing the man. Because he wasn't president at the time. This is the hardest question, Bill, you have ever asked, in all the shows I've been on. President Nixon during Watergate said privately, "If the president does it, it's not illegal." And that was roundly repudiated by conservative scholars. The president is not above the law. And so, does she have a right to go forward? Yes. He had a narrower context than this, by the way. It was John Ehrlichman, a lawyer, who told him that action taken within that particular range could not be illegal because it issues from executive authority. He had a narrower view of executive authority than of course--i'm sorry, a broader view of executive authority-- Yes. --and immunity than the Supreme Court eventually had. Because a governor does it, who happens to end up being a president, it doesn't mean he should be immune from lawsuits. Of course not. The problem here, though, is-- Here is my value system. I would tell her, you know, if this is something 6
connected to his public duty, if it was at a time that it was timely during the election, if it was repeated and outrageous, and if you have the courage to withstand the attacks on your own character, Ms. Jones, which have to happen in a contested civil suit, not pretty as it may be, then it is up to you. You can go ahead. I would not tell her you can't go ahead. Now I am trying to do this irrespective of whether it's President Clinton, a man I know and like, but whether Richard Nixon or Gerald Ford were the president. Does it hurt the presidency? Yes. My worry is that this could frighten off women and men from seeking such off ices because if someone were a serial bigamist privately and before, that has relevance to their public life, but it preempts all other issues of character, about tenacity, of policy, of fighting special interests. There are 100 other ways to judge character. But I am worried, given this tabloid-driven media, that the sex stuff preempts the substantive stuff. Well, look, if you are worried about it, I am worried about it, and you're worried about it, why can't we agree that it would have been the patriotic thing for her to do not to bring the suit? distress. I'll tell Bill you have this point of view on his [laughter] Law is above politics. No, no, look. I am in favor of distressing him as frequently as possible. [laughter] As a matter of fact, to the extent that he is concerned with defending himself against sex suits, he is doing me a favor by not turning his attention on public policy. Which is among the motives, I believe-- Yes. --that some people are challenging him in this way. My problem is, I think part of the motives, when I watch Jerry Falwell and Floyd Brown and Pat Mahoney and this network of haters go after Clinton, is to reverse the '92 election, stop his legislative program, and defeat him in '96. Who did they hate before Clinton? Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR [laughter]--not themselves, but if you are an activist president, apparently you draw this kind of animus and media focus-- What made them haters? The decade of greed? You didn't watch. I was on with Jerry Falwell on a show not nearly as vaunted as this one, where for 10 minutes he 7
described how he was distributing a tape where a man says, "Boy, a lot of people have been murdered in Arkansas after the Clintons." And Falwell said, "Well, I am not ascribing to that view, but the Clintons should answer it if it's not true." This is sick stuff, Bill, and nothing you or I have ever done to the other party even comes remotely close-- Sort of Oliver Stone stuff? --to what they are trying to do. Beyond grassy knoll stuff. Charge without evidence, and then the burden, said Reverend Falwell, was on Clinton to deny it. And I said, "Well, what if I had charged you with being a child molester? The burden now is on you to deny it." That's not the way the system should operate. Well, you know, I made a concrete suggestion a couple of days ago--it obviously hasn't taken the world by fire--and that is that a bipartisan committee be formed to raise $700,000 and give it to Paula Jones, because she has specified that that's the amount of damage that would compensate her for what she went through--i.e., if she gets $700,000, she will call it quits. Now it seems to me that-- And then stand back for the deluge of other Paula Joneses to come out of the woodwork. That's why that wouldn't work. Well, we would like to hope, would we not, that such circumstances aren't that often repeated? We've been, what, 250 years with only one sex lawsuit of that kind. Now it may have been-- Yes, but we've never paid anybody-- --that the feminine population was too passive through the preceding 41 presidents. [laughter] But wouldn't this a) satisfy her materially along terms she has specified as appropriate, and b) leave the matter moot whether it happened or not, and c) defend the president of the United States from having to drop his pants in front of a jury? I second your idea. My guess is it will not satisfy her or the people who are looking to cash in on the book and movie deals, the people who are trying to bleed the president financially, emotionally, and politically. But how could they avoid it? How could they avoid it? If you were an attorney for Mr. Clinton, couldn't you go to her and say, "Okay, we'll settle. Here is 100 percent what you asked for.'' You are a lawyer. Tell me. Could she turn it down? 8
with that, to pay her conf inn-- Oh, sure, she can change her mind. The problem of course, Bill, is President Clinton is not about all that she asks, because that would imply or No, this isn't the president. --his guilt. This is somebody else who gave you the money-- Oh, if it's somebody else, well, then-- --on his behalf. --Bill Clinton the defendant would have no ability to say yea or nay. _It would be up to her. I love your hypothetical, but based on my guess, it wouldn't satisfy people whose motive is not-- No, it wouldn't satisfy people-- --vindication, but political vindication. --who want him to lose. That's right. And it wouldn't satisfy people who want to prove that she is really a tramp and made the whole thing up. They would be unsatisfied. But aren't there, we hope, a few people in between for whom the business of government ought to take priority? Well, you know, you are one of the only--among we three--who has the means to start the fund [laughter), so I hope this is not just a journalistic conceit. Kick in the first amount of money and let's see where it goes. Does that mean you make less than $475 per hour, which is what Clinton's lawyer makes? [laughter) underpaid. I am a public official. My wife will confinn I'm Well, that must mean you are so rich you can afford to be. [laughter) I wish. Anyway, you will make a token contribution? I will make a token contribution. How about you? 9
Well, I think-- I am not sure that I would make a token contribution. Just to be ornery and nasty, I would like to have-- Because of epistemological curiosity? No, I really think it's a terrible idea, because there are plenty of people who will come forward with more lawsuits that--you don't need $700,000, they'll do it for $700 or less. And it will just open-- It will give a precedent--i am not a lawyer--to an intolerable-- officials. Okay-- --kind of possibility of blackmailing public Okay, let's freeze on that point and ask this lawyer. It was reported in The New York Times by a plaintiff attorney that the court would not have accepted the case unless there were ''a reasonable grounds to proceed with it." Now one attorney said all that means is that a lawyer agreed to represent her and he himself thinks that the grounds are reasonable. My question to you: Can anybody bring a lawsuit with zero grounds, the way Ms. Alexander suggests? Anybody can bring a lawsuit. Anybody can have a press conference and get as far as Paula Jones has gotten. A court, Bill, has not yet accepted this lawsuit. All it is, it's an accord of the media. There will come a moment where a sitting judge will entertain a motion to summarily dismiss the case filed by President Clinton's lawyer, Bob Bennett, because there is no grounds, there's no facts, it's beyond the statute of limitations, whatever his argument is. If the case is thrown out, that's the end. Have you read the plaintiff's brief? No. I've read a lot about the case. But you know that in the plaintiff's brief she talks about a particular guard of the president, who brought her in. Correct. Now, that's a human being, and presumably somebody reading the paper said, well, presumably he's around and could be-- Then it is alleged that she observed "a distinguishing characteristic" of an area that is normally covered--another ground--on the basis of which falsification 10
would quickly be assured. So shouldn't you distinguish between her brief and just any brief in which anybody alleges anything? All I was saying-- "I'm Napoleon and I allege this." You asked me a question, has a court accepted this? No, a court has not yet accepted it. A judge may dismiss it because on its face it's frivolous or there is no action alleged that would warrant compensation, or-- No. Do you predict that will happen? Why? For the reasons you said. That there are grounds. There is another person, the security guard who allegedly brought her to the room-- Yes. --and there are facts like-- If Bill Clinton could show he was in another town on that day--i'm making this up- then it would be dismissed as frivolous. sure. Anyone-- Anita Hill was asked about it, and she said, "We don't know whether it's true or not. It has to go to trial," which means-- Of this case. Yes. --that in her judgment it was by no means obvious either that he was guilty or that he was not guilty. Right. I agree. Okay, so therefore, when next do we hear from the court, as things now go? 11
My guess is there will be settlement discussions, some of which have gone on. It's hard to see a common ground here without the president doing something that's politically ruinous by admitting what he has denied. And also, you don't want to encourage potential gold-diggers, people filing cases just for the notoriety and cashing in on it. -- types? [laughter] That's correct. This could happen. Her own sister alleged this. And so I would guess within a couple of months there will be a motion to dismiss, and if it goes forward, then people like President Clinton or the security guard could be deposed, could be put under oath and asked questions. All right, now, if you were attorney for the defense, would you seek to invoke the immunities that were given by the Supreme Court in the Fitzgerald v. Nixon case in 1982 as applicable here? You cited the Fitzgerald v. Nixon case, so why don't you tell us what it is. Well, somebody sued Nixon in 1982 on the grounds that as a result of the Vietnam War, x-y-z had happened. So this was a civil lawsuit. And the court ruled that no action taken by the president while he is in the White House can make him the object of a civil lawsuit. I see. Now it is rumored that Mr. Bennett will attempt to take that reasoning and apply it retroactively to before he was president. So I was just asking you whether, in your judgment, that will fly. Since I haven't studied it, let me do the unlawyer-like thing--i'm not getting paid--and speculate. Most of us would agree that a sitting president who makes a policy decision, right or wrong, should not be responsible for every person who may have a relative who died in the Vietnam War because President Nixon didn't end it early enough. That's ridiculous. You reward or penalize presidents at the polling place or by impeachment. That's about it. Here, however, it's a civil act--or incivil act, allegedly--before Bill Clinton was president, and he should not be immune to the normal legal actions for tort and liability because he later became president. So therefore you would not-- I mean, as a technician you might ask the court to do this, but-- 12
This is my opinion-- --as a public figure you would not endorse that. This is my opinion as a commentator. Were I the president's lawyer-- You'd try everything. --you know, you try everything. And maybe this precedent could be stretched to cover your client. It would at least give Paula Jones and her lawyers something to think about. Well, have you got a happy solution, Ms. Alexander, to-- I mean a happy solution short of Paula Jones saying, "I'm sorry"? Well, my idea would be that it should be put on hold until after he is out of office, and-- Can you do that? No, it's up to her. I mean, ideally, for the country, I would agree with that. Because this is, I think intentionally, keeping him from seeking the kind of-- Right. --welfare reform, health reform, and campaign finance reform that, like it or not, a plurality of Americans elected him to do. They thought he was an activist, Bush wasn't; let's give the other party and him a chance. And he is an extraordinary president, I think. You know, a lot of people, Bill, under this pressure, would get vindictive and angry--i saw Richard Nixon do it under comparable, if not greater, pressure. I am impressed with the president's character, showing his resilience and dedication and focus, notwithstanding this pressure. Well, that's because your perspective leans you-- I'm objective. That's the difference. --in that direction. Other people might say it is a sign of insouciance. insouciance. No, it's a sign of strength of character. I say other people might say it's a sign of 13
- ' Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University. water. Other people may say that's a banana, it's not People say anything, yes. But at the moment that is what I am saying. And I admire his character-- I am saying behavior that strikes you as valiant might strike others as nonchalant. Fine. Correct? That's what insouciance means, and that is possible. But context, again, counts. And look at this man over his entire public life--losing for governor, corning back, being ridiculed for sexual infidelity, and making an admission that he was not a perfect husband, he ran and got elected president, not saint. And so my political view is the public knows that something like this may have happened--whether it's this woman or not, I obviously don't know--they elected him notwithstanding, because sexual indiscretions count less than the economic and political health of the country. And he won with the public knowing this. If he had hid this and then it had come out, then he could be accused of inauthenticity and hypocrisy, which he can't be. You mean because he says he didn't inhale, people are prepared to believe that he didn't. Well, you are really stretching it to a different point. In fact, because he has asthma, ridiculous as it sounded, he may not have inhaled. [laughter] Thank you. But we are talking about something more serious. Thank you very much, Mr. Green; thank you, Ms. Alexander; thank you, ladies and gentlemen. 14