An Easy Out for Clinton

President Clinton’s lawyers have asked the court to move up the date for trial in the Paula Jones case, apparently because they want to get it over with as soon as possible. But there is a quicker, easier answer to his legal problems--one that could have political benefits as well. The president can simply tell his lawyers to stop defending the case. In legal terms, he can default.

Though he is the named defendant, there is no legal requirement that the president actually defend the Paula Jones case. It is his choice whether to participate or not. The only consequence of his abstention would be a judgment for the plaintiff, meaning that the trial judge would hold a hearing limited solely to the issue of Jones’ damages. She could testify however she chooses in support of her monetary claims, but there would be no testimony by Clinton and no cross-examination. A jury would then decide how much money was necessary to compensate the plaintiff, but the jury could not order an apology; indeed, it would not even be asked to decide whether Jones was telling the truth.

Besides, even after defaulting, Clinton could maintain his public insistence that he has done nothing wrong. A default judgment is not an admission of guilt. And Clinton could sincerely justify his action as a decision to spare the presidency the continued indignity of being subjected to wired informers, immunized testimony and coerced betrayal. In the hands of a masterful politician, the default judgment might even be portrayed as the high road--a noble financial sacrifice for the sake of safeguarding the independence of the presidential office.