As a former federal agency attorney, I wish to respond to the inane Scripps Howard editorial of Oct. 9 titled "President has a strong case for putting off Jones lawsuit."
There is frankly no legal precedent for arguing that President Clinton is immune from a lawsuit against him in his personal capacity when it has no relationship to his performance of the presidential office. Immunity for government officials is based on the rationale that public officials should not be threatened with personal liability for their official decisions, because such personal considerations should not outweigh matters of the public interest. Because of this reasoning, the immunity of public officials does not extend to actions that are outside the scope of their official duties, and it definitely does not extend to actions taken prior to assuming the office. Even if Paula Jones claimed that the sexual harassment occurred after Clinton's inauguration, there is no way that the alleged conduct could be considered an official action deserving of immunity from prosecution.The notion that defending the lawsuit would be too burdensome and demanding of the president's time is laughable; he has already devoted many hours to participating in the legal maneuvering that has taken this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The idea that he is trying to protect his assets is ridiculous, since he has already spent more than $900,000 on legal fees defending against a $700,000 lawsuit, all of it reimbursed by his insurance company under a personal liability policy. He could easily have negotiated a settlement that did not admit liability, just as Michael Jackson did in the sexual harassment civil suit against him.
One of the duties of the president, contained in the oath required by the Constitution, is to see that the laws are faithfully executed. More than any other citizen, the president should set an example by submitting himself to the law. Our nation went through the trauma of Watergate in order to establish that principal. How can Bill Clinton ask us to obey the law if he claims, like an emperor, that he is above the law?
Raymond Swenson
Sandy