Jones v. Clinton, never pretty, is turning uglier. Do such filings confirm contentions by Robert Bennett, the president’s lawyer, that ““this is an effort, this whole case, to embarrass and humiliate the president’’ in a campaign bankrolled by his political enemies? There’s no doubt that members of the Jones camp delight in seeking to embarrass and humiliate Bill Clinton. And there’s no doubt that some of those now supporting Jones, like the Rutherford Institute, have conservative leanings. But as a matter of law, questions about Clinton’s alleged past now appear somewhat more relevant than they did before.
Whether the questions will have to be answered is up to Judge Susan Webber Wright, who must decide which to allow before trial, now set for next May. What relevant evidence could be sought from women with whom Clinton has allegedly had consensual extramarital relations? Not much, it seemed, unless Jones could show that Clinton had a pattern of sending state troopers to fetch women (as Jones claims Trooper Danny Ferguson fetched her) or had used his official powers to court, reward or punish them (as Jones claims he punished her).
Last week, however, we learned more about Jones’s claim that the then governor had ““distinguishing characteristics in [his] genital area.’’ Jones detailed the ““characteristics’’ in a secret, sworn affidavit that Bennett obtained through discovery in late September. Jones’s allegations had begun to leak out by about Oct. 10, in comments by radio host Don Imus. Then Bennett offered a pre-emptive denial Oct. 12 on CBS’s ““Face the Nation.’’ Calling the Jones affidavit ““a sham,’’ he claimed that ““a thorough medical examination’’ of the president on Oct. 3 had shown that ““there is absolutely no unique characteristic of any kind, that in terms of–and this is awful to even have to discuss this, but the plaintiff has forced this on us–in terms of size, shape, direction, whatever the devious mind wants to concoct, the president is a normal man.''
““Shape’’? ““Direction’’? Bennett’s words became more understandable on Oct. 15, when The Washington Times reported that the Jones affidavit said Clinton manifested what the Times called ““a distinctly angled bend visible when the penis is erect.’’ (Sources close to the case have since confirmed that this is essentially what Jones claims.) Such a condition can be acquired through Peyronie’s disease or can be congenital. Bennett asserted that the president’s Oct. 3 physical ““adamantly rebuts everything that is in that affidavit’’ and vowed to destroy Jones’s credibility by disproving her claim about the president’s private parts. Her own lawyers have recently downplayed the affidavit; they may have their own reservations about it.
Still, they may ask that Clinton submit to a medical exam by a neutral physician. But some urologists say a routine exam six years later could not definitively rule out the possibility that Clinton had the condition at the time of the alleged Jones incident (May 8, 1991). So the most telling evidence might come from anyone who has seen Clinton in intimate circumstances. Jones’s lawyers have a long list of possible witnesses: Gennifer Flowers is one. Another woman they want to question about Clinton’s alleged pattern of behavior is Kathleen Willey, the former White House employee whom Jones has subpoenaed in the hope of showing that Clinton made sexual advances toward her in the White House; Willey–who wants no part of the Jones lawsuit–is moving to quash the subpoena. (Clinton’s lawyers deny that the president made any advances toward Willey.)
How could Jones’s claim be ruled out, or in? Court rules authorize plaintiffs to fish for any possibly relevant evidence. But the rules also allow defendants like Clinton to object on various grounds, including undue ““embarrassment,’’ with judges refereeing any disputes.
Wright’s decision on how to proceed on the ““distinguishing characteristics’’ will undoubtedly affect the prospects for settlement. If Jones can’t prove what she says she saw, her chances at trial might not be promising. If Clinton can’t resolve the issue in his favor in discovery, he may try harder to make the case go away. Bennett insists the president will neither pay Jones any money out of his own pocket nor ““apologize for something that did not occur.’’ Bennett also says that Jones ““and her handlers’’ don’t want to settle because they have decided she would be ““more marketable after a circus-like trial, for books and whatever.’’ We’ll see. Jones’s deposition is set for Nov. 12.
