$2 Million to Humiliate the Nation

If a man drops his pants and asks a woman whom he has just met to perform a sexual act, his action is despicable and possibly criminal. If the woman is an employee or subordinate of the man, the conduct is also actionable in a civil proceeding. If the man were in a low-level management position, such as a foreman, the damages for that conduct would probably range between $2,500 and $25,000, provided that this was an isolated incident and there was no further retaliation, such as failure to promote for refusal to comply.

However, the amount of damages sought rises in direct proportion to the standing or the deep pocket of the perpetrator. Although the injury to the victim remains the same, the degree of potential embarrassment related to the position of the offender serves to increase the amount of damages sought and often obtained. It is a form of extortion that the law allows. Thus, if the president of the United States is the alleged “perp,” the potential damages are astronomical.

No matter how crass, unbelievable or stupid it may seem, Paula Corbin Jones charges that Bill Clinton, while governor of Arkansas, engaged in such conduct with a total stranger without any encouragement from her. The president vehemently denies the allegations, but Jones persists and the matter is moving forward with discovery and then trial, with pens and cameras poised around the globe.

The claimant insists that she is motivated by neither money nor politics, but merely seeks $2 million for vindication of her reputation and honor. Of course, that assertion must be reconciled with her public charges, without which her reputation would have remained intact and unknown outside of her immediate friends and family. But even assuming that her charges are true, as well as her protestations that her motives are solely self-vindication, at what price to the presidency and this country does she proceed?

Is the pursuit of this claim so important to Jones (and those who guide or prod her) that she would risk worldwide ridicule of the president and this country? Cartoonists inevitably will portray the president of the United States with his pants around his ankles and his private parts will be discussed on the international 11 o’clock news. Does her pride or reputation (if you believe her) or her greed, vengeance or political agenda (if you do not) mean more to her than her patriotism?

There are those who would quite properly contend that this conduct, if true, should be condemned and pursued no matter who is the wrongdoer. Even political motivation would be more easily understood if the president were facing election rather than having won it.

At this juncture, it is difficult to understand why anyone under these circumstances would be unwilling to subject her personal interest to the national good, particularly when this matter can be resolved so easily without loss of face and without concession or admission by either party by the following type of statements:

Paula Jones:

Although I made my charges against the president in good faith, I have decided that there are some things more important than the pursuit of my claim. Thus, I have concluded that it is in the best interests of the nation that the matter proceed no further. I am persuaded that the continuance of my suit demeans the presidency in the eyes of the world, interferes with the performance of important and essential duties by the president, and causes unnecessary embarrassment to Mrs. Clinton and anguish to Chelsea. My claim has not been about money or politics. I pursued it because of the injury to my reputation, and I am satisfied with the president’s apologies in this respect. With my reputation restored, I am content to dismiss the matter and will discuss it no further.

President Clinton:

Although I deny the charges asserted against me by Ms. Jones, I am convinced that it is in the best interests of the country and my family that the matter be settled. Continuation of this litigation, no matter what its outcome, would serve to diminish the office of the president and would interfere with the performance of my duties at a time when there are so many critical matters that require my attention. I have inquired of my lawyers what it would cost to further defend this action and have decided that those monies are best spent bringing the litigation to an end. Therefore, that amount will be paid to Ms. Jones. I apologize to her if anyone purportedly speaking on my behalf or in my defense falsely impugned her character, and I appreciate her willingness to bring this matter to a conclusion in the best interests of the nation.

Such a settlement would serve the interests of the parties and save the nation unnecessary embarrassment and ridicule. It would be an act of patriotism.