"Starr.Remarks" - читать интересную книгу автора (impeachment)

The idea was simple and powerful: No one is above the law. The Supreme
Court sent the case back for trial with words that warrant emphasis:
"Like every other citizen who invokes" the District Court's
jurisdiction, Ms. Jones "has a right to an orderly disposition of her
claims."

After the Supreme Court's decision, the parties started to gather the
facts. The parties questioned relevant witnesses in depositions. They
submitted written questions. They made requests for documents.

Sexual harassment cases are often "he said-she said" disputes.
Evidence reflecting the behavior of both parties can be critical
– including the defendant's relationships with other employees in
the workplace.

Such questions can be uncomfortable, but they occur every day in
courts and law offices around the country. Individuals take an oath to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And no one
is entitled to lie under oath simply because he or she does not like
the questions or because he believes the case is frivolous or
financially motivated or politically motivated. The Supreme Court has
emphatically and repeatedly rejected the notion that there is ever a
privilege to lie. The court has stated that there are ways to object
to questions; lying under oath is not one of them.

During the fact-gathering process, Judge Susan Webber Wright followed
the standard principles of sexual harassment cases.

Over repeated objection from the president's attorneys, the judge
permitted inquiries into the president's relationships with government
employees. On Jan. 8, 1998, for example, Judge Wright stated that
questions as to the president's relationships with other employees
"are within the scope of the issues in this case."

In making these rulings, Judge Wright recognized that the questions
might prove embarrassing. She stated that "I have never had a sexual
harassment case where there was not some embarrassment." She also
stated that she could not protect the parties from embarrassment.

Let me summarize the five points that explain how the president's
relationship with Ms. Lewinsky – what was otherwise private
conduct – became a matter of concern to the courts. This is
critical to fully understand the nature of the committee's inquiry.

One. The president was sued for sexual harassment, and the Supreme
Court ruled that the case should go forward.

Two. The law of sexual harassment and the law of evidence allow the
plaintiff to inquire into the defendant's relationships with other
women in the workplace, which in this case included President