Clinton's sexual harassment case tarnishes office of president

Saturday afternoon, on the eleventh floor of a Washington law firm, the President of the United States delivered a six hour deposition concerning the sexual assault charges filed by Paula Jones. He addressed such lofty topics such as his philandering ways and the shape of the presidential member. A phalanx of salivating reporters waited outside, hoping for the latest scoop. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but something doesn't sit right here.

Given the results of the deposition, White House insiders indicate that a trial is almost certain, meaning that Bill Clinton will become the first Chief Executive to be a defendant in a civil proceeding. This will be the final chapter in a sordid story that started five years ago, when Jones first accused Clinton of exposing himself to her in 1991, during a term as the governor of Arkansas. Jones filed suit in 1994, and last year the Supreme Court ruled that it was Constitutional for a president to stand trial while in office. The events of the past week provide convincing evidence that the Court ruled incorrectly.

The proceedings have taken a decidedly circus-like atmosphere, and threaten to create the greatest national disgrace since Iran-Contra. Jones has hired a spokeswoman, Susan Carpenter-McMillan, to proffer advice on such matters as makeup and wardrobe. Jones has seized on every opportunity to garner attention and sympathy, and now she is demanding $2 million to settle the suit instead of the $700,000 originally demanded. Carpenter-McMillan inadvertently underscored the shlocky-ness of the whole mess when she proclaimed, "Paula has left the building!" upon emerging from the deposition (Jones had been escorted out the back way).

Handling the Jones case is the Rutherford Institute, a kind of evangelical Christian civil liberties union located in Charlottesville, Va. The leader of this firm has apparently seized on the publicity of the case to send a fund-raising letter with Jones' signature to over a million people, the largest solicitation effort undertaken in the 13 year history of the firm. When asked if he had a political agenda, the leader answered "Oh, gosh, no." Indeed.

Is Clinton guilty? In this particular case, we can't be sure. We do know enough to conclude that the president's character is less than unassailable-where there's smoke, there's usually fire, and there sure is a lot of smoke around the White House. But the issue here is not Clinton's guilt or innocence; nor is it the oft-debated question of whether the character of a man effects his ability to govern. What is at issue is the integrity of the office of the President of the United States, and whether the dubious, though serious, claims of one person justifies breaching that integrity. In our media-dominated, publicity-starved culture, subjecting the president to the same capricious legal system as the rest of the citizenry opens a Pandora's Box.

The ramifications are already in evidence. According to James Carville, the defense is being financed by right wing Republicans intent on destroying Clinton. Although this allegation could well be hot air, the behavior of the Republican Party has been disappointing and disturbing. Suffering through a string of defeats and besieged by a rising tide of Clinton popularity, Republicans have reverted to finger pointing in an attempt to undermine the administration. Regardless of Clinton's innocence or guilt, we all know that if a Republican president were in office, Republican leaders would be denouncing the proceedings as the outrage that they are.

And copycats are already cropping up; Newsweek reported that a White House volunteer delivered a deposition last week claiming that she was fondled by Clinton in 1993. Carpenter McMillan would have us believe that this trial is about "a little girl from Arkansas who is taking on her harasser." I think Carville is closer to the truth when he said, "It's all about money, plain and simple, and a healthy dose of right-wing politics." Undoubtedly, any plaintiff deserves their day in court; Paula Jones should have the chance to confront Clinton with her charges-after Clinton steps down in 2000. But events to date demonstrate how partisan politics, the public's insatiable appetite for scandal and media sensationalism are irreparably damaging the already tarnished aura of respectability which should surround the office of president. Making Jones wait a couple of years before a trial may be unfair, but that injustice pales in comparison to the negative effect of such a national embarrassment on the faith of Americans in their government, and on the credibility of our nation abroad.

Parker Stanberry is a Trinity junior.