by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 1, 1998
All Rights Reserved.

e’s in over his head," said incredulous Harvard law professor and criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz. Befuddled and critical, Dershowitz wondered what a medical malpractice attorney is doing representing a potential criminal defendant. Dershowitz went on, "Ginsburg is making a public record which could bite him in his rear-end." Questioning the advisability of William Ginsburg’s strategy with Monica Lewinsky, many are questioning whether he’s playing fast and loose. Others are asking if Ginsburg is inadvertently helping Monica write her own obituary. When you’re in enough hot water, having your own attorney turn-up the heat is truly puzzling. But is he? By making the rounds on all the talk shows and playing to the media, is Ginsburg a public relations genius or a glutton for punishment? Is he operating with a coherent and calculated pre-trial strategy, or is he, as many suggest, "over his head" and out of control? Judging by his histrionics with the press at Dulles International Airport in which he angrily warned members of the press to "stay clear and give him some space," that inference is still anyone’s guess. More than likely, Ginsburg’s game is a cleverly disguised attempt to implant needed doubt in the court of public opinion. With enough sympathy for his client and enough notoriety impacting Kenneth Starr, maybe there’s a chance of an eventual pardon — at least in opinion polls and possibly a jury. It worked elsewhere, why not here?

       Following the same path, president Clinton’s own attorney, Robert Bennett, now appearing on Larry King Live, is also spouting-off to the press, responding to the fast and furious news leaks pointing the finger at president Clinton. Although having very different styles, there’s a strangely similar quality to their statements. Both attorneys categorically deny all damaging allegations, although certainly Bennett’s denials are more forceful and forever tying miscellaneous leaks to what he and Hillary see as "a vast right wing political conspiracy," orchestrated by the president’s longtime "enemies." Despite appearing very different, both Bennett and Ginsburg are clinging to the theory that their clients were framed by evil people with evil intentions.

       Taking their cues from the O.J. trial in which there was, according to defense attorney Robert Shapiro, a "mountain" of circumstantial evidence, both Ginsburg and Bennett are banking on the lack of direct physical evidence. Without blood, DNA or footprints, extricating the president should be a piece of cake. Right? Not so fast. While Linda Tripp’s tapes aren’t a smoking gun, it doesn’t mean that enough circumstantial evidence isn’t mortally wounding the president’s credibility. With the parade of witnesses coming forward with similar stories, even Mr. Bennett may be forced to recalculate his strategy of attributing allegations to a "vast right wing political conspiracy." Beating the rap by repudiating all damaging evidence, Bennett may be unknowingly making matters worse by stretching credulity to the breaking point. Sometimes less is more. Squeezing glue out of dead horse — a farfetched and unprovable conspiracy theory — is no longer helping the president’s cause. By continuing the implausible denials, a more informed and enlightened public grows ever more suspicious. Some things are better left unsaid, especially by someone viewed as having an axe to grind.

       Coordinating Bennett and Ginsburg’s statements are essential to maintaining consistency to any coherent defense strategy. Even without James McDougal "singing like a canary" — as CNN’s Robert Novak put it — too many corroborating stories about the president’s indiscretions are coming from too many unrelated sources. Accepting — as MSNBC’s co-host Stephanie Miller apparently does — that the polls have spoken and no one cares about president Clinton’s private affairs, sadly, but perhaps deliberately, misses the point. Blowing liberal or conservative smoke can’t ignore the fact that the allegations are no longer only about sex between consenting adults. Nor is this matter just about perjury or obstruction of justice: No, it’s now about aberrant sexual behavior demonstrating a pathological lack of restraint. If the allegations prove correct, then the charges go to the heart of the president’s fitness to serve. While impulsive behavior might be tolerated in some circles, it can’t be accepted in venerated role-models and certainly not in elected officials. Because pollsters sometimes ask the wrong questions and get the wrong answers, it can’t blind us into ignoring appropriate standards for serving in elected office — especially the presidency.

       With another White House volunteer Kathleen Willey coming forward with her story of sexual assault--no matter how mild or trivial — we must recognize that her personal losses — like those alleged by Paula Corbin Jones — can’t be weighed to ascertain the legitimacy to her claims. If this were true, than any employer or person in a position of authority could violate another person’s rights with impunity. Groping one’s private parts is normally prosecuted as sexual assault — and well it should be. Justifying this behavior based on real intentions doesn’t excuse the inappropriateness of the act, whether it’s performed in a preschool, church or the Oval Office. While it’s difficult to suspend final judgment, trivializing or minimizing the allegations runs a far greater risk. What message does it send to our children and to potential sex offenders whose sickness compromises the rights of innocent victims? Teaching children appropriate restraint begins first with an unequivocal message that they have no right to violate a person’s personal space, whether it’s sexual or otherwise.

       It’s easy to detour or be distracted from the real issues. Sexual assault — no matter how inconsequential — can’t be tolerated or excused. How many victims of domestic abuse would like the courage to defend themselves or even have their lives back? Certainly most people realize the inappropriateness of exploiting "power-differentials" in employment situations — including the White House. Although there are more denials about a quid pro quo — sex for special favors — the fact remains that modestly credentialed individuals, who happened to have an inexplicable relationship with the president, were afforded government jobs or offered coveted corporate positions. Trashing the independent counsel and insisting that "You can’t trust the messenger," can’t ignore the fact that there are many questions which deserve straight answers.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is director of a West Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care and political research and media consultation. He’s a seminar trainer, columnist and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.