As a veteran of the Clinton White House, I understood that snakebit feeling. But this is Clinton’s home stretch into the history books, and there is little time to waste to polish his legacy. So the Jones decision means the president must quickly decide what to do: settle, try to delay or go to trial. There’s a battle over these very options unfolding at the highest levels right now - a debate I’ve taken part in, even though I’ve formally left the White House. My view: try to take the case forward - fast.
This isn’t the first time we Clintonites have been down this road. Three years ago, in May 1994, we were working the phones in the Oval Office trying to press reluctant members of Congress into passing the ban on assault weapons. We won, but just outside the Oval Office, Robert Bennett, the president’s private lawyer, was on the phone with Paula Jones’s attorneys trying to see if a settlement were possible before she filed. Everyone in the White House, including Clinton, agreed that settling was the safest political course.
But the president was adamant about three things: not paying her, not confirming her claims and not apologizing for something he denied doing. Even more important, Jones’s lawyers were asking for something called a ““tolling agreement,’’ which would suspend the statute of limitations, meaning that she could refile her suit at any time. We could never agree to that. (From our point of view that was what undercut a settlement - not what Jones’s lawyers have long maintained: that a White House source, often alleged to have been me, denounced Jones’s character to CNN.)
Fast forward three years - and a re-election - later. What should the president do? A successful motion to dismiss is obviously the best outcome. Conventional wisdom is coalescing around the notion that settling the case is a strong second best. Though that sounds good in theory, it’s nearly impossible to construct language that doesn’t amount to an implicit admission of guilt. Stalling is not an attractive option, either. Sure, it’s easier to put off until tomorrow what you don’t want to confront today. But it’s unlikely that the case can be stretched beyond Clinton’s term, and delaying into 1998 and 1999 could be disastrous. That would mean the president’s final days could be consumed by court proceedings. No president wants to make his farewell address from a witness stand.
Because Jones’s account is so well known, going forward has few downsides. For the first time, her story will be subject to cross-examination. Unless there are significant new revelations about the president - or unless he loses - Clinton has already paid the political price for this. More likely is a quick dismissal by the judge or an acquittal by a jury. A settlement would not have the same cleansing effect: the clouds will only be dispelled when the legal system makes its decision in the open. Then the president would be free to complete his term in a way that will do justice to his office and his record.
