Harassment Case May Dog Clinton in ’96

Although the episode occurred three years ago and there were no direct witnesses, legal experts who have examined the sexual harassment complaint filed against President Clinton say it is likely to provoke a long legal struggle and possibly open the door to testimony about other accusations of sexual misconduct.

In the next few weeks, Robert S. Bennett, Clinton’s attorney, will move to have the suit dismissed on the grounds that the President is immune from damage suits while in office.

If that tactic fails--and many lawyers predict that it will--attorneys for Paula Corbin Jones are likely to subpoena Arkansas state troopers and other women to testify under oath about their knowledge of other alleged sexual encounters involving Clinton while he was Arkansas governor.

Even though Clinton’s lawyer has dismissed the suit as “tabloid trash,” the case is likely to pose some very unpleasant scenarios for the White House.

The President’s defense team can seek evidence to erode Jones’ credibility and raise doubts about her political or financial motives. But they will face very real prospects that allegations about past sexual episodes involving Clinton will begin appearing in court depositions and that the case will stretch into 1996 and the presidential reelection campaign.

And, unlike a private defendant faced with a sexual harassment complaint, a high public official has relatively little room to negotiate a settlement. For the President to do so could suggest that he was guilty.

“If Clinton can’t win a motion to dismiss, this lawsuit is likely to be around for a long time,” said USC law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, a specialist in constitutional damage suits. “And given the nature of the allegations, it will get enormous national attention.”

Washington attorney Zachary Fasman, who has represented management in sexual harassment cases, said the lawsuit looks “like a well-pleaded complaint. It should survive a motion to dismiss.”

The lawsuit focuses on one brief, alleged encounter at the Excelsior Hotel on May 8, 1991. Paula Corbin, then 24, was a $6.35-an-hour state employee assigned to work at a conference site.

According to her complaint, state trooper Danny Ferguson escorted her upstairs to meet then-Gov. Clinton. After a bit of small talk, the governor tried to kiss her and moments later lowered his pants, she has said, and asked her to perform a sex act. She refused and left the room, she says.

Bennett said Clinton has “no recollection” of meeting Jones and he flatly denied that the incident occurred.

Although the suit has been characterized as a “he said, she said” dispute, her complaint names several people who could corroborate part of her story.

Pamela Blackard, a fellow state employee, was sitting with Jones when trooper Ferguson approached and asked her to come to the governor’s room, the suit says. She was also there, it says, when a shaken Jones returned a few minutes later.

Ferguson also looms as a central figure. The lawsuit seeks damages from him, as well as from Clinton, and the trooper will have to respond separately.

“He could be the linchpin,” said attorney Fasman, since Ferguson’s testimony could confirm or rebut the allegation that Clinton invited Jones to his hotel room.

In addition, her attorneys almost certainly will be empowered to take depositions from other troopers or other women who might have been seen with Clinton.

“Under the federal rules of civil procedure, you are entitled to very broad discovery,” said Deborah Ellis, executive director of the NOW Legal Defense Fund in New York.

Usually, these potential witnesses are compelled to answer under oath. Barring a judge’s order sealing the statements, they would be available as court documents.

“At that stage, discovery is not limited to what is admissible in court,” Chemerinsky said. “It is to get evidence that might be relevant, something that would lend support to her explanation.”

Reports last December in The Times and in the American Spectator, a conservative news magazine, have quoted several Arkansas state troopers as alleging that they routinely arranged sexual encounters between Clinton and various women.

Although these people might not be able to furnish direct evidence about what happened at the Excelsior Hotel, they could testify that Clinton had a “pattern or practice” of using troopers to procure women.

Joseph Cammarata, a Fairfax, Va., attorney who is representing Jones, said he will seek to gather such evidence to show a “pattern of behavior” on Clinton’s part.

“You have a wide latitude to gather information that may have some bearing,” he said. If depositions from troopers have “some relevance to any pattern of behavior that Mr. Clinton may have engaged in, that would lend credibility to the allegations,” he said.

Of course, Bennett hopes to head off the case before it gets to the discovery stage.

In interviews, he has said he will urge that the suit either be killed outright or delayed on the grounds that it should not be permitted to interfere with duties of a sitting President. If the depositions were to go forward, lawyers for Jones could seek to compel Clinton to answer questions about the incident.

Bennett’s claim of immunity for the President likely will delay action in the lawsuit, even if it does not kill it.

In a 1982 case, the Supreme Court said a President cannot be sued for damages based on his actions in office, but it has never ruled on whether a President can be sued over actions that took place before he was elected.

The high court in 1982 reasoned that a President could be seriously distracted from his official duties if forced to respond to lawsuits. Bennett is trying to build on that rationale, arguing that a President should not have to deal with the distractions of lawsuits even if they arise from actions that occurred before he took office.

The case has been assigned to Judge Susan Webber Wright, a 1989 appointee of then-President George Bush. If she were to reject Bennett’s immunity claim, Clinton could appeal to the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis and then to the Supreme Court.

Wright is a graduate of the University of Arkansas Law School where she was taught by Clinton.

Bennett said he believes that it could take a year or two to resolve the immunity question. Lawyers for Jones think that the issue will be resolved quickly. They also say, however, that they will press ahead with the suit against Ferguson, who cannot claim immunity.

Evidence gathered from Ferguson or from other state troopers could damage Clinton, legal experts said, even if the President’s lawyer succeeds in stalling the case.