There is a legitimate question about the discovery process. However, the rationale is that quest for a pattern of behavior that would demonstrate favoritism or punitiveness, should they be obscure in the individual instance. On that basis, Clinton himself signed the legislation permitting such discovery into law, after having supported its passage, and thus he cannot claim that he was merely a passive victim here:-)...
As to the suit itself, since Miss Jones files too late for a simple sexual harassment suit, she was actually litigating under a statute in the civil law that demanded a higher standard of proof, one that required not merely a "hostile work environment", but an actual effect on her career. On that basis, Judge Wright dismissed the suit. However, it was widely believed that he suit would be reinstated on appeal, due to a Supreme Court ruling in the interim that said that it was only necessary that there be an implicit threat of a job action, it need not be proven that an overt action against the plaintiff had been taken...
In the final analysis, though, the salient facts were those taken up in Judge Wright contempt ruling, which is that the President defrauded the court after being directed to answer in the matter. There is a strong a fortiori case, therefore, that he did indeed commit perjury and obstruction of justice, and therefore violated his oath of office "to faithful execute the laws", and thus that he should not only have been impeached, but removed from office.... |
