Published in Washington, D.C.5am -- April 13, 1999 www.washtimes.com
Judge holds president in contempt
By Frank J. Murray THE WASHINGTON TIMESU.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright yesterday held President Clinton in contempt of court for repeated "intentionally false" statements under oath in the Paula Jones case.
"The court takes no pleasure whatsoever in holding this nation's president in contempt of court, [but] there simply is no escaping the fact that the president deliberately violated this court's discovery orders, and thereby undermined the integrity of the judicial system," she said, noting that her historic 32-page civil verdict was the first ever to hold a U.S. president in contempt of court.
The decision could lead to the president's disbarment.
Judge Wright took no criminal action in her unprecedented decision based on "clear and convincing evidence," and offered Mr. Clinton a hearing if he asks for one within 30 days. She postponed enforcement of civil money penalties payable to Paula Jones' former attorneys until he decides whether to seek that hearing or even to appeal to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court.
"The court will convene a hearing at the request of the president should he desire an opportunity in which to demonstrate why he is not in civil contempt of court, why sanctions should not be imposed, or why the court is otherwise in error in proceeding in the manner in which it has," Judge Wright said.
At her home in Cabot, Ark., Mrs. Jones was overjoyed. "Ah! Ta ta ta ta ta. That's all I have to say," she told the Associated Press, waving her hands above her head and dancing. Asked if she believed the ruling was good for the country, she said, "I could care less. It's not about that, it's about what he did."
Mr. Clinton's attorney, Robert S. Bennett, said he would "have no comment until I have had the opportunity of reviewing this matter fully."
Judge Wright hinted two months ago she would take such action for Mr. Clinton's untruths, but withheld the ruling until after yesterday's verdict acquitting Susan McDougal of criminal contempt for refusing to testify to the Whitewater grand jury about Mr. Clinton's truthfulness as a defense witness at her own trial.
Many of the statements Judge Wright listed as lies were among charges for which Mr. Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives, but acquitted by the Senate. They included his semantic jousting over what constituted sexual relations with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky and denial of an extramarital affair.
The penalties Judge Wright imposed are:
A report to the disciplinary committee of the Arkansas Bar, which could disbar the president and cancel his license to practice law for what she said was "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."
An order to repay the government $1,202 for the judge's own expenses in attending a Jan. 17, 1998, deposition in Washington where his statements were first challenged as lies.
An award of an unspecified amount to Paula Jones' former attorneys for expenses and legal fees incurred because of his lies.
T. Wesley Holmes, a partner in the Dallas law firm to which Mr. Clinton now must pay the undetermined amount, appeared pleased at the decision. "We think that this is a very appropriate and, frankly, a very measured response to what he did. We think it was the right thing to do for Judge Wright, since he was so obviously in contempt," Mr. Holmes said.
He said he had no estimate of the amounts his firm now can claim as a result of misstatements that began with written answers in the civil lawsuit in December 1997 and culminated for his firm with the dismissal of the case on April 1, 1998.
Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson called the judge's decision vindication of the impeachment effort and "a long-overdue victory for the rule of law."
The information Judge Wright sends to the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct likely will propel action on a complaint filed in late summer by an official of the Southeastern Legal Foundation asking that Mr. Clinton be disbarred.
"No lawyer anywhere in Arkansas or anywhere in American should be allowed to keep his license after repeatedly lying under oath to protect his own private interests," foundation President Matthew Glavin said last night.
The president already paid $850,000 to Paula Jones and her attorneys in a negotiated settlement of her lawsuit charging him with violating her civil rights through sexual misconduct when he was governor of Arkansas.
Judge Wright said yesterday that even if she knew about "the contumacious conduct" and each of the lies for which she now sanctioned the president, she would have decided the case the same way and dismissed it.
Mr. Holmes said that was legally incorrect.
"As a matter of law, when you've got this level of that sort of conduct, that alone ought to preclude summary judgment," Mr. Holmes said.
Constitutional experts long have debated whether a federal judge has the power to sanction a president as Judge Wright did yesterday.
She reviewed Supreme Court rulings that give a judge the power to govern her courtroom and said she believed her actions are within the law and the Constitution.
She said that submitting the president's unofficial conduct to her court in the May 27, 1997, Supreme Court decision in Clinton vs. Jones "includes the power to address unofficial conduct which threatens the integrity of the proceedings before the court."
"Throughout the history of this case, the [Supreme] Court has attempted to apply the law to the president in the same manner as it would apply the law to any other litigant," she wrote in explaining her legal reasoning.
Judge Wright used one of the most absolute powers of a federal judge to govern his or her own courtroom, in effect accusing Mr. Clinton, finding him guilty, and issuing a sentence all at the same time without a hearing or even notice.
However, she gave the president 30 days to request a hearing in her court, or to appeal her decision to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court.
She issued a 30-day stay of the sanctions to give Mr. Clinton time to consider his options.
She also said in a footnote that she would not hold hearings to deal with another area of misconduct, one involving both the president and unnamed others who violated her gag order and revealed case secrets to the press and associates.
"The court determines that such hearings are not in the best interests of the president or this court," she said.
"It is difficult to construe the president's sworn statements in this civil lawsuit concerning his relationship with Lewinsky as anything other than a willful refusal to obey this court's discovery orders," Judge Wright said, adding that Mr. Clinton's own admissions were all the proof she needed, but offering much more to buttress the case.
The long and detailed opinion accompanying the judge's order went into detail about the contradictions and misstatements, but were only a small piece of the evidence.
To illustrate her point, the judge also released virtually every word the president said about the case in written statements, the January deposition, television addresses and grand jury testimony.
