Paula Jones is speaking out again after almost 16 years. Good.
I can’t say she is an ethics hero, for she has vengeance on her mind, and maybe even some desire to cash in…or who knows? Maybe she can get a stipend from the Clinton Foundation to keep quiet. Nonetheless, her reemergence is a good thing. Too many have forgotten, or indeed never learned, about how she was sexually harassed by Bill Clinton when he was a governor and she worked for Arkansas, and systematically vilified and denigrated by Hillary, the Clinton team, and soulless Clinton enablers in the media before her lawsuit exposed the Monica Mess. I had even forgotten how outrageously she was treated, and I had followed the cases carefully.
I had not forgotten, however, the disgusting Democratic and feminist hypocrisy where she was concerned. Back in 1997, I remember confronting a prominent female trial lawyer, outspoken feminist, and then president of The Association of Trial Lawyers (before they changed their name to the stealth “American Association for Justice” to hide the fact that they were lawyers) whom I overheard trashing Jones as a lying, politically-motivated gold-digger. Recalling that during the Clarence Thomas hearings she had sported an “I believe Anita Hill” button, I asked her, in a room full of people, “Why don’t you believe Paula Jones, if you believed Anita Hill?” She just walked out of the room. She believed Anita Hill, whose accusation of ClarenceThomas was entirely politically motivated and unprovable, because she wanted to. She didn’t believe Paula Jones, who had a much stronger case, because Jones was a big-haired, working-class woman who dared to try to hold accountable a powerful, liberal, serial sexual predator that her association had contributed millions to elect. She was ashamed of the answer to my question. She should have been.
Here’s Paula on the “most admired living President” and the presumptive standard bearer for the Democratic Party in 2016, who will be running on a pro-women platform and accusing Republicans of waging a “war on women”:
‘There is no way that she did not know what was going on, that women were being abused and accosted by her husband. They have both lied…She should not be running with the terrible history they have. Who would want Bill Clinton back a second time, doing the same stuff he was doing before, philandering with women?…He does not have a right to be in the White House to serve the people the way he treated women, sexually harassing women. There were many women that came out and spoke out about what he did to them. He does not have a place in the White House to serve the American people.”
Have you forgotten? Here was the key section of Jones’s deposition that the Clinton team, guided by Hillary, claimed was all fabricated:
We talked for a few minutes. Mr. Clinton asked me about my job. He told me that Dave Harrington (who at that time was in charge of the AIDC) was his ‘good friend’. Mr. Clinton then unexpectedly reached over to me, took my hand, and pulled me toward him, so that our bodies were close to each other. I removed my hand from his and retreated several feet. Mr. Clinton approached me again, saying ‘I love the way your hair flows down your back’ and ‘I love your curves.’
While saying these things, Mr. Clinton put his hand on my leg and started sliding his hand toward my pelvic area. I did not consent to him doing this. He also bent down to kiss me on the neck, but I would not let him do so. I exclaimed, ‘What are you doing?’ and escaped from Mr. Clinton’s reach by walking away from him. I was extremely upset and confused and I did not know what to do. I tried to distract Mr. Clinton by asking him about his wife and her activities, and I sat down at the end of the sofa nearest the door.
Mr. Clinton then walked over to the sofa, lowered his trousers and underwear, exposed his penis (which was erect) and told me to ‘kiss it’.
I was horrified by this. I jumped up from the couch and told Mr. Clinton that I had to go, saying something to the effect that I had to get back to the registration desk. Mr. Clinton, while fondling his penis, said: ‘Well, I don’t want to make you do anything you don’t want to do.’
Mr. Clinton then stood up, pulled up his pants and said: ‘If you get in trouble for leaving work, have Dave call me immediately and I’ll take care of it.’ As I left the room, Mr. Clinton detained me momentarily, looked sternly at me and said: ‘You are smart. Let’s keep this between ourselves.’
Incredibly, Judge Susan Webber Wright initially tossed out Jones’s case, ruling that even if Clinton’s behavior had been ‘boorish and offensive’ it did not amount to sexual harassment under the law. She was not just wrong but unbelievably wrong, and she was overruled. (Today she could not possibly make such a ruling, because sexual harassment is much more reasonably defined.)
Those allegations principally describe events that are said to have occurred on the afternoon of May 8, 1991, during an official conference held at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Governor delivered a speech at the conference; respondent–working as a state employee–staffed the registration desk. She alleges that Ferguson persuaded her to leave her desk and to visit the Governor in a business suite at the hotel, where he made “abhorrent” sexual advances that she vehemently rejected. She further claims that her superiors at work subsequently dealt with her in a hostile and rude manner, and changed her duties to punish her for rejecting those advances. Finally, she alleges that after petitioner was elected President, Ferguson defamed her by making a statement to a reporter that implied she had accepted petitioner’s alleged overtures, and that various persons authorized to speak for the President publicly branded her a liar by denying that the incident had occurred.
Some non-partisan questions that Democrats should be asking as much as Republicans: How could Democrats make Bill Clinton their star speaker at the 2012 convention highlighting women’s rights and look at themselves in the mirror without gagging? How can the party attempt to anoint this man’s co-conspirator and abettor as he attempted to destroy his victims? Why are principled Democrats tolerating such hypocrisy and such a cynical betrayal of the party’s core constituency and values? How can they accept the candidacy of a such a fraudulent feminist, who set out to discredit and undermine a woman who personifies the supposed beneficiaries of progressive ideology? If a supposedly progressive party is this corrupt and conflicted, what good is it? Why would anyone want to be a part of such an organization? If Hillary Clinton, who was capable of such a despicable betrayal of progressive core beliefs in order to save her sexual predator husband’s political career and thus her own, is really the best candidate the democrats have, what does that say about the party?
Democracy can’t function like that, and won’t.