Elena Kagan's Role In Clinton-Lewinsky Sexual Harassment Suit Withheld From Record Disclosure

WASHINGTON — Bill Clinton's presidential library won't publicly release memos and notes Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan wrote about the sexual harassment lawsuit that triggered Clinton's impeachment.

Kagan was involved in defending Clinton in the lawsuit brought by ex-Arkansas state worker Paula Jones, according to documents released Friday. Clinton's testimony for the Jones lawsuit, denying a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, led to his impeachment.

The library held back several of Kagan's memos to Clinton's top advisers in the case, saying that publicly releasing them would divulge confidential advice. They were turned over to the Senate Judiciary Committee that will hold hearings on Kagan's nomination, however.

It's clear from files that were made public that Kagan had a hand in the Jones case. In a September 1996 memo, Kagan writes that she's been in touch with other lawyers on a brief in the Jones lawsuit and, "I am happy with the direction they seem to be taking."

Earlier that year, she forwards to colleagues a brief written by then-Solicitor General Walter Dellinger supporting Clinton's bid to postpone the civil trial until after he had left office.

"It's really pretty good," Kagan says of Dellinger's brief. She notes approvingly that the brief "downplays" the question of whether the president should have immunity for conduct before he took office, and instead focuses on the argument that the case should be delayed because it would disrupt the performance of Clinton's duties as chief executive.

The White House said Kagan, who didn't focus on litigation matters, played only a tangential role in both the Jones case and the Whitewater investigation of Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton's financial dealings.

"Kagan's work focused principally on providing legal advice to the policy and legislative staff," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. Her "work on Whitewater and Paula Jones involved reviewing legal pleadings, assisting in response to document requests, and offering legal research on short-term projects."

Clinton could have chosen to keep the records off-limits entirely, Earnest said, but instead gave them to the Senate panel "in the interest of transparency."

The papers are part of a roughly 40,000-page cache of records released Friday, most related to Kagan's stint in the White House counsel's office in 1995 and 1996.

Clinton settled the Jones case before trial. Although the House impeached him on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, the Senate rejected both counts.

Comments

[party-of-one]

05:21 AM on 06/12/2010

JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS concludes her report by noting "Clinton settled the Jones case before trial. Although the House impeached him on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, the Senate rejected both counts." She omits the fact that in a addition to paying Paula Jone nearly $1 million, Clinton was found to have broken the law and was cited for contempt of court by Judge Susan Wright for ''false, misleading and evasive answers'' designed to obstruct the judicial process in a sworn deposition in the Jones lawsuit in January 1998. He he had his law license suspended as a result.

A quick read of the transcript of Clinton's court deposition in that law suit reveals a multitude of lies, not just about sex, but about the employment status of a federal employee, the operation of the Executive Office of the President, and abuse of Presidential executive authority for personal benefit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/clintondep031398.htm#lewinsky

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/22/us/appeal-unlikely-in-clinton-contempt-case.html

Given that Clinton lied under oath to a court of law at a time Elena Kagan, paid by the American taxpayers, was giving him legal advice related to the Paula Jones law suit, the records should be released publicly. The nation went through major trauma because of Clinton's efforts to save himself embarrassment. The public deserves to know exactly what role Kagan, a nominee to the Supreme Court, played in advising him.

[HenryDavid]

04:25 AM on 06/14/2010

I agree. We should know the whole story.

And what happened with Jennifer Flowers? Did it go to trial? Any judgment against Bill ("I have special needs") Clinton? Any Kagan advice on this one?

Did Kagan do some legal favors for the big boys and subsequently get her name on the short list for SC candidates?