Court Rebukes Judge for Ruling Critical of Clinton

A federal appeals court Friday rebuked a lower-court judge for declaring that President Clinton broke the law when he released friendly letters from former White House volunteer Kathleen Willey, who had gone on national television to accuse the president of making unwanted sexual advances.

The appellate judges said that an opinion by U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth in March was “inappropriate” and “gratuitous” and that he should not have invoked “sweeping pronouncements on alleged criminal activity” by Clinton and his aides.

But the judges, in dismissing an appeal by the White House on a 3-0 vote, said that they would not intervene in the case at this time. They noted that a civil lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, the conservative legal group, has not yet reached trial and there would be time at a later date to consider an appeal.

Lamberth had said that “the president committed a criminal violation of the Privacy Act” two years ago by releasing Willey’s personal letters shortly after she leveled her accusations against him. Clinton’s top aides were also involved, he said.

In rebuking Lamberth, the judges declared that “members of the White House office are under no real threat of criminal prosecution.”

However, the appeals court decision against intervening in the case allows Lamberth’s ruling to stand, meaning that White House lawyers will have to answer questions posed by Judicial Watch. The case is part of the group’s lawsuit on behalf of 900 former appointees of Republican administrations whose FBI files were obtained in the early days of the Clinton administration by the White House office of security.

Willey is not a party to the lawsuit, but Lamberth allowed the plaintiffs’ lawyers wide latitude in exploring the issue of whether the White House had gathered and released damaging information about political enemies.

The unanimous appellate ruling was issued by two Democratic appointees, Harry T. Edwards and David Tatel, and a Republican, Douglas Ginsburg. White House spokesman Jim Kennedy said the president’s lawyers were disappointed that the judges did not overturn Lamberth’s ruling but were pleased by the rebuke of his opinion.

Larry Klayman, chairman of Judicial Watch, said the appeals court ruling “affirms that the president of the United States is not above the law.”

The appellate judges added that “the White House, as it has done for many years on the advice of counsel and the Department of Justice, remains free to adhere to the position that the Privacy Act does not cover members of the White House office.”

Willey’s nationally televised allegations in March 1998 that the president had groped her were somewhat undercut when the White House released several letters Willey had written Clinton shortly after the alleged groping incident in 1993.

A violation of the federal Privacy Act is a misdemeanor, but most legal experts believe that a president cannot be held liable by federal courts for any criminal offense. The White House said the letters showed that Willey remained on cordial terms with the president after the alleged episode.

Clinton, who has denied wrongdoing, told a recent news conference that he authorized release of the Willey letters to show her accusations “were untrue.”