Clinton Defenders, Listen Up! by DOUGLAS BARRICKLOW September 18, 1998 DALLAS, TX President Clinton's defenders are almost unanimous in their belief that the Monica Lewinsky story is an unfair peek at the president's private life and that we shouldn't blame anyone in his situation for lying about a consensual affair between two adults. What this argument neglects to consider is that the president chose to lie about Lewinsky, because it might have put him on shakier ground in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. Since Monica Lewinsky worked in the White House, the president's office if you will, as an intern, his choice to become sexually involved with her, and then to find employment for her, immediately throws this story into the public domain. In short, she gave him an orgasm, he gave her a full-time job. A boss who rewards sexual favors with full-time employment or promotions isn't going to have too much luck convincing anyone that such habits are protected by a right to privacy during a sexual harassment deposition.

EXPLORE CST... Bad Poetry -- submissions welcome Toonage -- cyber toons Ask Jay Crew... -- an advice column Coffee Talk -- complete CST archive Total Linkage!!! -- perfect newsie homepage E-mail CST -- comments, complaints?     .

And so it's a pity the defenders of the president are whining about his private life being made public in the Starr report. This shows a considerable lack of appreciation for one of the more important issues of our times. Unfortunately, even though sexual harassment has received serious scrutiny on the national stage within the last decade, it remains a nebulous subject legally. Many cast a cynical eye on specific sexual harassment claims, because they are so easily abused from both ends. The truth is that sexual harassment is as much the realm of good ol' boys and fat cats as it is the realm of vendictive employees, and that's unsettling. But even though a calloused public readily questions the motives on both sides of any given sexual harassment suit, we should all agree that the defendant NEVER has the option to lie under oath about sexual relationships he or she has pursued within the work environment. Such relationships will ALWAYS be relevant, regardless of whether they tilt the verdict of the case in either direction! In fact, Judge Susan Webber Wright "readily" acknowledged that "evidence of the Lewinsky matter might have been relevant" to Paula Jones' case and "might possibly have helped [Jones] establish, among other things, intent, absence of mistake, motive, and habit on the part of the President." But, in the end, Judge Wright decided Lewinsky just wasn't "essential to the core issues in the case." This doesn't sound at all like Judge Wright is saying the Lewinsky-Clinton relationship was off-limits to Paula Jones' lawyers. Rather, Judge Wright is quite sympathetic with Jones' lawyers attempts to make Lewinsky a part of their case. The trick, of course, is figuring out why President Clinton decided to lie under oath to Paula Jones' lawyers. Was he merely embarrassed by an extramarital affair, as many, including himself, argue? Or was he intentionally withholding relevant information that might jeapardize him legally during a sexual harassment case? Thankfully, Kenneth Starr's report sheds quite a bit of light on this issue. In the report, we find very useful excerpts from the president's testimony before Starr's grand jury. While under oath, the president agreed with prosecutors that "contact with Ms. Lewinsky's breasts or genitalia" would indeed fall within the definition of "sexual relations" as laid out in the Paula Jones case. The president went on to deny "having had any such contact." Monica Lewinsky, however, testified that, while she and the president never had intercourse, her breasts and genitalia were often touched by President Clinton during their sexual encounters. She also testified that she was brought to orgasm twice. This, I would think, constitutes a sexual relationship by any standard, but, more importantly, it falls well within the definition of a sexual relationship as outlined in the Paula Jones case. Since President Clinton, after making it clear that he was in agreement on at least part of the Jones definition of "sexual relations," specifically denied the types of contact that Monica Lewinsky described, we are left with conflicting testimony. The Congress, as jury in this case, must choose to believe one version of events over the other. Needless to say, the president's public statements and squirmings on this issue have left him much less credible than Lewinsky. In any case, if the president has given up on denying the relationship to the American people, then what's the point in painstakingly tip-toeing through Starr's grand jury? The obvious answer is that he would expose himself to perjury charges in the Paula Jones case. To be intellectually honest with ourselves, we can only conclude that the president gave calculated, false answers in key parts of his grand jury testimony, and thus willingly and intentionally lied. The choice to continue lying once before Starr's grand jury lays bare the president's true intentions all along. He was never worried about covering up an embarrassing affair. He only meant to remove himself from legal jeapardy by lying under oath. The key concern behind this entire dispute, though,is the extent to which President Clinton's lies under oath have the potential to weaken the sacred separation of powers in the Constitution. Remember, the Supreme Court's unanimous decision to allow the Paula Jones case to go forward was a monumental ruling. It represents an instance in which one branch of government exercises its Constitutional jurisdiction over another. In this case, the message was clear: the president would be required to legally acknowledge the Paula Jones lawsuit. Lying under oath is far from an appropriate response to this Supreme Court ruling. Effectively, with his lies, the president is in brash defiance of the will of the Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, it is fitting that the House of Representatives may embark upon an impeachment inquiry soon. This puts the third branch of government, the Legislative Branch, in a position to prevent an unacceptable precedent from being set -- the subversion of the Judicial Branch's constitutional powers by the Executive Branch. The dubious motive and intent behind the president's false answers while under oath are inexcusable Constitutionally and thus impeachable. The House and the Senate, together representing the third branch of government, both beholden to the Constitution, should act accordingly.

Send your comments to Coffee Shop Times editor Douglas Barricklow.