6 minutes now passed the 11 reminder that today is programming on Minnesota Public Radio is supported by Dayton's oriental rug departments in downtown Minneapolis, Saint Paul and at the Southdale Brookdale and Rosedale home stores. And good morning. Welcome to mid-day on Minnesota Public Radio. I'm Gary eichten by the president of the United States won't have to stand trial after all at least not next month as originally scheduled as you've undoubtedly heard federal district judge. Susan Webber Wright ruled yesterday that Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against the president Falls far short of the standard needed to go to trial presents problems are not over of course Jones attorneys say they will likely appeal to Paula Jones rolling and independent counsel can a star says he will continue his investigation into charges at the president lied about an alleged affair with Monica Lewinsky and then covered it up. So the more it is so more headlines are likely but yesterday's ruling was clearly a major development in this story and joining us this hour to discuss the ruling and what happens next are Ellen Sampson was a partner in the loss of law firm of Leonard Street and Diner former chair of the labor and employment section of the Minnesota State Bar. She has represented at both both. Plaintiffs and defendants sex harassment cases in joining us from Northfield to discuss the political aspects of this ruling Stephen sharer who's the chair of the political science department at Carleton College. We also invite you to join our conversation. If you have a question or comment about the Apollo Jones ruling give us a call or Twin City area number is 227-6002 276 thousand or if you're calling from outside the Twin Cities, you can reach us toll-free and that number is 1 800 to +422-828-227-6000 or 1 800 to 42282. Ellen Sampson. Stephen sharer. Thanks for joining us this morning and let me start with you and layman's terms. What was it that the judge actually ruled? It's it's some. It's not exactly simple for Lay people to understand but it's really really important to understand what the judge did when a person brings a lawsuit pretty much anyone if you can find a lawyer who represent you you can bring a lawsuit and you can say that a law was violated. I was mistreated something bad happened to me and what happened to me was it illegal? And that's essentially what Paula Corbin Jones did now the law. She said that was violated was a federal civil rights statute. It wasn't the more common Federal statutes that most sexual harassment claims are bought and brought under which is title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or some State Human Rights Act claim. This was what we call a section 1983 claim and she said that the president had violated her civil rights, by the way, he behaved toward her. And what the presidents lawyers did way back many months ago was they went to court and they said throw this case out because there's no legal grounds for bringing it. And what judge Weber right did was she threw out some of the pieces of the lawsuit but she said I'm not going to do that because I don't know and that is what many judges would do. They would say Okay plaintiff Miss Jones Okay defendant. Let's see your stuff. Do your Discovery take your depositions gather your fact and then I will entertain the motion again, and that's what this motion was. This was what we call in the legal business a motion for summary judgment and what the president's lawyer said to the judge was Judge, even if every single thing that Paula Corbin Jones says President Clinton did to her even if he did it. There's no legal claim here. There's no Elevation of section 1983 there's no violation of the Arkansas law for intent intentional infliction of emotional distress, which is essentially a law that we had up a principal. It's not really a statute. It's a common law principle. We have it in Minnesota and it's pretty much the same standard here that's exist in Arkansas. And the judge said, you're right. I have looked at all these facts and interpreting them most favorable to Miss Jones, which is what she has to do, even if all these things happened, there's still no legal claim and therefore summary judgment is granted and that is essentially the legal posture of what happened yesterday terms of a ruling. Did she even address whether Paula Jones has charges were accurate know because when you grant summer, Judgement, that's the question of did it happen to wait. Paula Jones says it happened or didn't happen the way Bill Clinton says it happened. That's a question that we call a question of fact and that is something that a jury would decide later in a jury trial or a judge would decide in a judge trial where the judge has to find her a fact this was a decision based on the law. And when you make that kind of a decision you assume that the facts are true as the plaintiff presented them. So Judge Joe Weber, right didn't say I don't believe you Paula. I believe you President Clinton or vice a versa what she said is Paula Corbin Jones. If every single thing you say happened happened just the way you said it. There's still no legal claim care. How important is this to the president? Oh, I think it's quite important to the president in that it helps to hamper. The Ken Starr investigation probably accelerates it as well. And removed and immediately pressing a legal matter for him if the trial it started on May 27th. It would have been a circus that would have been a profound distraction for the White House and they're very happy. It's gone. Does this restore his reputation know and I think that's going to be the problem for Bill Clinton, you know, all of the charges true or not have lead have led the personal perception of him as an individual among the public the only 28% positive regardless of his job performance and I have a feeling that's not going to change anytime soon and it's not necessarily because what everything is been said about him is true, but there's been so much of it out there for so long. It's begun to stick and how does this does this prevent cannastar from going ahead with the levinsky investigation in any way shape or form? House of his powers under federal law but the political constraints now are much more considerable than they were before even if a star can build a case for obstruction of justice for suborning perjury. It's it would have to be reported to Congress and then Congress would have to decide whether presidential action of that sort in a case that was dismissed is impeachable and my guess is that there would not be even if there was a fairly substantial evidence of obstruction of justice or subornation of perjury, I don't think Congress should have the political will to proceed Alan Sampson. Does this make it much more difficult for women to bring sexual harassment charges against people I think the answer to that is no sexual harassment is a violation of state and federal law under certain circumstances. I think if this case has any good out of the terrible embarrassment to everyone that's come from this it's that we need to understand exactly what kind of harassment is illegal mean. If a person is is raped or assaulted in some an appropriate way. They have criminal remedies to pursue those allegations and they should do so, what's it legal in according to title 7 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act is sexual harassment as a part of gender discrimination in the workplace. And what Susan Webber Wright basically said here is there was no adverse employment action. She didn't say that a bad thing didn't happen. But in order to be a successful sexual harassment plaintiff you were going to have to prove in the future as Now that to make the quid pro quo harassment claim that there was an a sexual favor was asked and there was some adverse employment action that may change a little bit based on a Supreme Court decision that is yet upcoming this term and to prove a hostile work environment. You're going to have to prove that something happened to you in your work environment that that was sufficiently severe and pervasive to have had a negative effect somehow on your work life. And Paula Corbin Jones did not meet that standard. I believe that other people will continue to meet that standard. I think if it sends a message that filing a sexual harassment lawsuit is not something that should be done lightly by either the plaintiff or address lightly by the defendant that may be a good thing because these are serious personal allegations and we should know what we're about when we're doing them. I was going to say one thing and notable about this case is that at Going on so long, of course got so much attention. And so no matter what may have happened in that hotel room. The fact of the matter is Clinton's reputation has been probably terminally tarnished here. I think there's some truth to that and I think that's why in a less than politically emotional setting often times people try to resolve these matters before they ever get into the litigation system. One of the questions. My husband asked me yesterday is why did it take so long if there were no legal claims and that's because it took all this time to get all the discovery and there were all these motions and a lot of damage and harm is done for a case where we now have a judge you said there weren't any legal claims here in a lot of circumstances employers are very anxious to have early notice of complaint so that they can do investigations and take appropriate action so that you can avoid this horrible trashing of people's reputations and by that, I mean for the poor person who brings forward the complaint was off and dragged through the wringer and for the person who Maybe I have behaved in some inappropriate way that is serious but not life-threatening or for the person who hasn't done what they're accused of doing. These are very personal legal issues. That's why we're also interested in them because they're very fascinating but they do grave harm and we need to be very serious about what we're doing one more question here before we get to some callers Stephen Scherer. Do you suppose now that the Congress if not immediately, but down the road here will take a second. Look at this procedure. Whereby presidents can face civil lawsuits while they're sitting in office. Let me add one other point to Ellen's last comment, which is that if the presidents lawyers that made a settlement some months ago when I guess they were very close to that if Robert Bennett at orchestrated a settlement, we would not have had this process of discovery and we probably would not be talking about Monica Lewinsky today. So while Yesterday was an immediate Triumph Robert Bennett. That one could question some of the earlier legal decisions made that produced this Trail of Tears for the president recent months. Although I suppose that everybody would have assumed he was guilty who knows a lot of people will say that it will look like I'm guilty and these are very difficult very difficult questions, but I I certainly agree with with Stephen that this would have been an issue that perhaps should have been discussed earlier. We're talking to shower about the ruling yesterday out of Arkansas essentially just missing the Paula Jones lawsuit against President Clinton Jones attorney say they are 99% certain that they will appeal Our Guest this hour Ellen Sampson who is represented both plaintiffs and defendants in sex harassment cases. She's a partner in the law firm of Leonard Street and Diner Stephen Scherer joins us from Carleton College in Northfield. He is the chair of the political science department and that if you have a question or Cam And about that yesterday's ruling and what happens next some of the implications involved get us a call Twin City area number is 227-6002 276 thousand. I'll try the Twin Cities 1 800 to +422-828-227-6000 or one 802-422-8284 scholar is from Cumberland Wisconsin. Is it some point I'd like a whole show about the Rutherford Institute, but I think it's appropriate to ask these people. At least. I'd like to know here as much as they want to tell me about The Institute and about the wealthy and influential and relatively Anonymous supporters of it your legal fees and they are funded by conservative interest. That's the part of supposedly a broader network of of wealthy conservative individuals. The name Richard Mellon scaife has been mentioned in many. Contacts regarding this Jerry Falwell and his organization if they have funded efforts legal efforts against the present as well. There's no question that there are a number of institutes like the Redford Institute and individuals who are very much want to pursue legal Avenues against Bill Clinton and they tend to be conservative and I think it's really not hard to see that if you follow the Press at all. It's pretty clear Alan Samson. The judge was given High marks yesterday for making this ruling in the political climate get on the political climate. I guess the assumption is it would have been easier to say. Well, let's go to trial and get it over with our judges supposed to take into account the context in which these cases arise. No judges are supposed to look at the facts and the law and we do things in our society. Because we are after all and maybe at times now you for a lawyer to say this, but I I truly believe we are a government of laws and not of men and women and that's why that's one of our wonderful strength is the democracy and we try to help ourselves judges federal judges like Jed Weber right have lifetime tenure and we do not put her or any judge in a federal courtroom to make a decision based on which way the political winds are blowing we put them there to apply the law and the facts to the best of their ability and to reach decisions and I think there's little doubt that this person who certainly found herself. I'm sure in a position. She probably didn't anticipate when she went to law school and she was a student of President Clinton's sheets appointed by President Bush. She did what she thought was the right legal thing to do and I think that was clearly the right thing for her to do and that's what we expected with her when she up her when she was entrusted with this high obligation. Richard Gere, and please have a question, It is said that she wanted her reputation. An apology. No, I don't think anyone United States has ever heard of her until she been on television. So she's the one who destroyed a reputation and second if this had been on a contingency basis with any lawyer handle this case reputation issue first and then contingency. I I can't answer that. I I think it might have been possible to find an an attorney who took it for the interest without the foundation support certainly if it weren't account name involving the president of the United States and there wasn't this other overlay and it was just a person. I don't think it would have been so easy to find a lawyer to take the case on it contingent fee as for her reputation. It's interesting to note that she originally had a defamation claim against President Clinton and that was thrown out very early in the game in the first set of rulings that the judge made it. It's very important to remember though that people have a right to have their day in court and that we often don't like the plaintiff's not I remember studying the some of the very famous First Amendment cases and thinking to myself that I probably wouldn't have wanted some of those people who brought those cases as closed or intimate friends or neighbors cuz I didn't care for a lot of the things they stood for. The principal say articulated are principles that I value highly and that I know most of us value together. So I think it's important not to throw rocks at any particular plaintiff. This may have been a sad and unfortunate lawsuit, but we need to be really careful about dismissing people's grievances too early because sometimes they turn out to be on the Forefront and to be articulating very important principles given that aside this is a very troubling and confusing case. Let's set Paul Jones's motivations aside and her concern for principal and so on a do you think the Rutherford Institute in the folks who've been pushing this case are interested in legal principles, or are they interested in touring Bill Clinton? It may be a bit of both but very clearly as there's a desire to the they believe that the prison has been. Will be of a wide variety of Love legal malfeasance has Law violations and the number of people who are conservatives think they should devote resources to making certain that he pays in court for that. So and I think really it's it's it's as if they're relatively straightforward about it. I wanted to add one other thing about Paula Jones reputation. If you look at the polling on Jones Wiley & Lewinsky, you see a distinction the public tends to attended not to have a favorable view of Lewinsky or Jones and a bio bio about fifty-five 6% majority really doubted that her lawsuit was a legitimate one Paula Jones accusations seem to have been taken more seriously by the public than the Jones accusations. And so I think it's interesting to note that in public opinion just to clarify again. Now, are there any legal charges growing out of the Wylie? No, and you see that the three women I've just mentioned only Jones had an active legal case against the president Marty your next question, but he'll and I'm wondering I heard on the news yesterday. Someone said if it doesn't happen the president, this lawsuit would never have progressed anywhere near as far as it did. I would just like to know your comments as a lawyer who has dealt with sexual harassment cases, and I'll take my answer of scary. Thank you. I think it's very hard to know. I think it's the case would not involve the president of the United States and all of the pre-trial wrangling that has gone on since 1994 when the case was first filed. It is possible that it would come to a quicker conclusion. I mean after all there was a trip to the United States Supreme Court in the intervening few years before this case returned back to judge Weber rights courtroom. So I think this may have taken a little longer the defense might have moved a little quicker for summary judgment, but Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view these cases take a long time from the time they start until the time they end what's really weird about this case has these incidents allegedly happened back in 1991 when President Clinton was the governor of Arkansas and when this case was brought in 1994, the statute of limitations had already run on title 7 type claims. There's a longer statute under section 1983, which is no doubt why it was brought under that statute. So it feels like it's been going on for a really long time because the actual incidents happened back in 91, but if these incidents that happened in 94 and we had a summary judgment ruling in on April 1st of 98, it's long, but it's not Completely out of the normal if this did not involve the president. Would this be a suit that we could call a frivolous lawsuit? I don't know the answer to that. I bringing a an allegation of a frivolous lawsuit is something not to be undertaken lightly and where you had these kind of serious allegations. I'm just not sure and perhaps the best answer to that is that the president's legal team did try a couple of years ago to get the whole case dismissed on the grounds that it failed to State a claim basically upon which any relief could be based and the judge did not accept that in total. She did accept a piece of it but not all of it. So to that extent, I think the answer is that judge Webber Wright concluded a couple years ago. It was not a completely frivolous lawsuit back to Washington Stephen Scherer. Does this get the president off any impeachment hook? I think so you see this decision actually helps a congressional Republicans quite a bit as well as of the present because according to opinion polls and politicians watch them carefully. The public is not in a mood based. In the state of current evidence to move towards any serious consideration of impeachment of the president and the dismissal of the Jones case. Now, I think makes it less likely that Ken Starr will be able to come up with a compelling argument for an impeachable offense and this relieves House Republicans. I think who were very leery of flying in the face of public opinion in pursuing an active impeachment inquiry Chris. You're a question, please. Call myself but I just want to make a statement on the office of the presidency. When can we see things that the where our president is being found by today in the news about Angela Dyckman and in Persian himself into that sort, you know in all levels of government are a lot of people that were they just didn't cover me that I qualified would be good office holders cannot be running for public office. And I just want to say one last thing Bill Clinton is a white male a good-hearted white male and I honestly believe within the next 35 or 40 years. You may see our first African American female Or Hispanic present United States. Are they treating him this way a sitting president this way I can just imagine down the road when we get the first ever female president United States how the Press is going to treat her and how they going to continue to disrespect the office. So I think I just I just let you blame this on the press and basically I'm very well-versed and I understand how government works and unfortunately, most of our electorate operates off sound bites. That's why most voters are single-issue voters. They don't understand what's going on. So this is the only things that can hold onto and if you look at the Republicans every time that the Democrats or any political organization tried to pass legislation to educate voters modal verb folder to educate the the electorate on the issues is always Vito politicians. Enjoy. I will 3 weeks ago. They had a pole that people cannot name the u.s. Senators only 20% of Minnesota is wellstone and be honest with you. We are the less they are subject to any type of scrutiny by the electric it when this type of stuff is on television and you're not talkin about the basic issues and infrastructure of the country excetera excetera. And this is focusing on the news. It drives away future generations of participating in government. Well, I do think that the scrutiny of public officials and the frequent criminalization of policy differences, which I think you've seen aimed at both Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton in recent years has helped the Poison the Well and encourage evil people not to go into politics. I think that's very much true on the question whether it's entirely the media. Well, I think the media and the question about what is appropriate Disclosure by the media is is is is a serious question. I think there's been a lot of media soul-searching about that in recent weeks as well as should be however, it does seem to me based on the evidence. We have it. There is a Siri. Possibility that we have some Reckless Behavior by our chief executive and if we have Reckless Behavior buy a present, I think we need to know that Stephen Sher joins us from Carleton College in Northfield Ellen Sampson is here in the studio and she is a partner in a law firm of Leonard Street Diner cuz she's done extensive work in the area of sexual harassment cases were talking to sour about the Paula Jones ruling that came out yesterday. And again, if you'd like to join our conversation, give us a call or Twin City area number to 276 thousand in the Twin Cities to 276 thousand outside the Twin Cities 1 800 to +422-828-227-6004 1 800-242-2828 will get you some more calls from it is the Roth IRA too. Good to be true. Can you really avoid paying taxes on your contributions and the earnings forever? Hello. This is Bob Potter and we'll straighten out some of the confusion surrounding the Roth IRA and other changes to the IRA rules on some money this weekend. Chris Vera Lynn CPA Ed slott here to take your calls. I just want you for somebody Saturday morning at and again Sunday afternoon at 5 on Minnesota Public Radio kuow FM 91.1 in the Twin Cities. Over the noon hour today second dollar. Midday, it's off to the National Press Club. We're going to hear from the managing director of the international monetary fund the agency. That's kind of on the front line of the battle against so you're Asian economic crisis trying to bring that to some satisfactory resolution. There is a bill before the Congress to provide the IMF with more money. It's passed the Senate would bog down in the house and we're expecting today that the head of the IMF will make his case. It is appearance before the national Press Club that's coming up at noon. Today's programming is made possible in part by The Advocates Minnesota Public Radio contributors include the McKnight Foundation working to strengthen families and communities Ecolab A supplier of cleaning and sanitizing products and services and Kare 11 news. The news handled with care sunny skies are forecast for Northwestern Minnesota through the afternoon cloudy in the south east High's in the 40s right now the weekend forecast at least on Saturday looks pretty If you're planning ahead Twin City forecast for today Cloudy with a high in the low to mid forties currently, it's cloudy and 38 degrees in the Twin Cities. We're talkin to sour about the Paula Jones ruling that came out yesterday. Our guests Ellen Sampson who is a partner in the law firm of Leonard Street Diner Steven shares with us. He is the chair of the political science department at Carleton College in Northfield again, if you'd like to join our conversation Twin City area number is 227-6002 and said, he's one 800-242-2828 Frank you're up next to a place one of your guests said earlier that this is a government of laws and not people but my understanding of how the Judiciary works and shows me that in fact, the population of the judges is a very important issue. You're always hearing people fighting over Supreme Court appointments and how they will influence a a supreme court this If it were just laws and facts that would not be an argument. We can look at them Brown versus the Board of Education which was decided under the same constitutional law as Jim Crow in it and further. I would suggest that a man judge could not have made the decision that this woman judge did yesterday Samson? I think the color makes some very good points on which I agree with him. Some of which I I disagree with I I I have to believe that a male judge could have made the same decision. I've appeared in front of male judges and female judges in sexual harassment matters, and I do not believe that I've gotten different rulings based on the gender of the judge that does not mean that judges do not bring who they are as people to the bench. They most certainly do it was after all a United States Supreme Court that ruled that separate but equal was okay and Plessy versus Ferguson. Back in 1896 and it was a supreme court that ruled. It was not okay in Brown versus Board of Education as the collar so correctly points out. I don't think that destroys the commitment that we have to being a government of laws. We have laws the people that are either appointed to serve on the bench or elected to serve on the bench in most cases do their level best to interpret those laws as they see fit things change over time, but I I believe that the bulwark of the Constitution the Bill of Rights statutes like title 7 numerous other statutes provide a framework within which are Judiciary operates and certainly I have raised questions and I'm sure the caller has about various decisions at various times. And sometimes you say to yourself. I can't believe anybody could have reached that decision, but I have faith in the construct of the legal system and it's my judgment and might my belief that most of our judges try very hard. We need a diverse Judiciary. There's absolutely no doubt about that. We needed you to Sherry of people of various gender of various races of various ethnic groups of various ages because we are what we are and we bring that to the bench but working altogether. Hopefully most of the time we reach decisions that we can say we did our best to Accord with the law not to follow some chaotic notion of what we wanted to do on any particular day even sure what your reading of judges. Politicians a lot of them are Xbox Leticia you get appointed to the bench, but I think Ellen is very important point one one enters the world of the law one is answering a a a structure of thinking a set of presidents that in fact do constrained behavior in many instances. And that I think is a in some ways a safety valve of protection for people in the legal process and other aspect legal process that keeps it from being entirely arbitrary based on who's the judges is the possibility of appeal and multiple adjudications of the same controversy that lessens the likelihood that the bias of a particular individual will on the bench will be the controlling decision. So I think there are a number of reasons why even though judges come with their own orientations. We should not assume that the legal process is simply an artifact of the judges got or bias. Do you think Stevens? Where had this judge been a male that the if the ruling we hadn't been different the reaction to it would be different. I'm not sure the reaction would be terribly different right now. The I suppose you would get from Paula Jones lawyers at this judge just doesn't get it cuz he's male you might get that sort of argument on the other hand. It's a pretty clearly stated summary judgment and pretty unambiguous and I doubt that the gender of the judge would have made a huge difference in terms the ultimate political outcome. He has the empirical consequences politically would have been largely the same Rob your question place. We're going to give a free ticket for a person a supervisory position to say expose themselves ask for sex and have no legal repercussion. Alan Samson, the answer to that question is absolutely not why not suggest that that people either pull this decision or buy a copy of today's New York Times which reprints judge Webber rights in Tire decision and she in large part addresses that point. Miss Paula Corbin Jones was not a direct report to President Bill Clinton. She there was one incident in a hotel room. It was not a direct supervisor of hers in her workplace who allegedly exposed himself to her and she is very careful in her decision to articulate what Miss Jones is a legend and she goes back into Miss Jones's materials and points out that in the organization in which you work for at least 19 months after this incident app actually happened. She receive good performance review. She receipt received steady promotions and the judge even looks at college or Paula Corbin Jones has claimed that she was discriminated against because she didn't get flowers on Secretary's Day and the judge says that she doesn't know why she didn't get flowers on Secretary's Day, but that alone does not rise to a federal discrimination lawsuit. So I don't think it all it means that I I do not think supervisor should be exposing themselves in the workplace to people when they supervise and I think any supervisor who does sew and who is accused of sexual harassment faces a sad and rocky road and the possibility of termination at the very least supervisor and employee relationship and let's let's say that were talking about Co equals in some way. Paula Jones has a spokeswoman Susan Carpenter McMillan is quoted as saying, excuse me of this ruling stands you have open season on women here in this country for groping and grabbing essentially the implication being. Well, everybody gets one chance and if the woman says no then of course you have to stop but you get you get that first free shot. Is that true I think in the workplace that is clearly untrue and that's an accurate statement in a gross oversimplification of of what has happened. And at the very beginning of of the program, I I tried to make the point that when we look at what is it legal in terms of sexual harassment we have to go back and look at it in the employment setting in the gender discrimination setting and if if we're going to argue that a man and a woman are riding in an elevator that has no other people in it and they don't work in the same workplace and they have no ties to one another and the man gropes the woman. There's no remedy for that woman under title 7 of the Civil Rights Act or the Minnesota Human Rights Act. There may be a remedy under the criminal justice system. There may be a remedy by suing that person for some sort of assault and battery as an individual but there's not an employment relationship between those people. So there's not an employment remedy under the gender discrimination part of the Civil Rights Act if sex harassment probably not but maybe sexual assault or something like that. CNN people, you know now the problem is that if you want to get money damages, you've got to find somebody with a deep-pocket to sue so it's better to sue the employer than this funeral poor person wandering but you can only assume the employer employer if there's some employment contacts for the situation that has been a lot and that will continue to be the lot Charles your question. Yes. I understand that the basis for this summary judgment is that even if all allegations are true that there is nothing to sue about I understand that an allegation made by Paula Jones was the conspiracy involving a state trooper's involvement handing her note accompanying her and remaining outside the door. I assume Melissa's Someone with a gun and in uniform. I also understand that she was originally at her workplace and that she alleges that The president when finished with her said that if anybody question to her about her absence from the workplace that she was to have them contact somebody who wouldn't turn contact him about it. So in that sense, there is some sort of supervisory relationship. But in any case, I mean this conspiracy makes it makes her taste more meritorious in my view and I wonder I mean if that is true then why the judge would just say that there is nothing to sue about. Okay. Well, let's not retry this case today, but tell him you want to come in her issue and what she said was pretty straightforward. She said because there are there is neither a quid pro quo sexual harassment claim. You're a sexual in a hostile environment sexual harassment claim under section 1983 there. Therefore cannot be a conspiracy theory Sochi. And it summary judgment on on that as well. And and you know what, once again you need to go back and then be sensitive to what she said that even if all of these things happened there wasn't the kind of tie into her employment that would have been necessary to go forward even sure back to the bigger picture here. It's been charged or alleged or said that that all of these charges have permanently tainted the presidency and that it's going if the luster of the presidency can be restored can take years and years to do. So, would you agree with that? Well, I think that over the night he's generally the presidency has been diminished and I'm not simply pointing at Bill Clinton is the reason for that. Although I think he does beer partial responsibility, but I think the changes in our culture or major factor to our presence become a celebrity the sort of grease for Geraldo and other morning. Talk shows as much as as much as the OJ Simpson etcetera etcetera and the idea that we can equate our national leader with a rock star or an outstanding athlete and sort of make them. This is the source of Sensational rumor speculation and innuendo. It seems to me to be a transformation in the way the public and the media in our culture generally has approached the presidency. I don't think that's going to change anytime soon. I mean Gary of a recent survey show that 25% of the public get most of their political information from the evening late night talk shows a Leno and Letterman. Well if that's your prison for understanding the world, yeah, the president's going to be viewed as just another celebrity and I think the presidency is diminished. So I think that this trend I think Bill Clinton is complicit in this trend very much right sort of plain to this. I think the trend is much larger than him and I think it is going to affect the office for the foreseeable future Howard your question, please I like to hear some kind of a timeframe concerning this home. What starts out with Paula Jones the Monica or to Monica Lewinsky to whoever else it seems like one just kind of snowballs on top of the other. I like to hear some response about that second part would be if this was taking place 30 years ago in the time frame of John Kennedy. I like to hear how people would respond. This was happening to John Kennedy in this day and age how things were how people would respond now. I'm not entirely sure about the time frame issue exactly what Howard was talking about. But can you can you explain briefly Alan how one one of these cases related to the other one of the things that Paula Corbin Jones lyrics were looking for was comparative data to support that the president was a bad actor with women in it. Sexually inappropriate way and one of the people that they found was apparently Monica Lewinsky who allegedly gave a statement in the an affidavit in the Paula Jones Discovery process that I talked about already more than enough and then hers her statement leaked out to the public and became a source of interest to do Ken Starr and then they took the tapes happened, but but The tie-in between the two of them appears to be that the Jones people came looking for Monica and for Lewinsky and for Catherine Willie and for apparently other women because they were hoping that by using these other examples they could buttress up Paula Jones has claimed that judge writes. It had some time ago said that the Lewinsky material was not admissible in the Jones case and in the very last part of her opinion yesterday, she says that regardless of whether or not there were other women. It was necessary for Miss Jones to prove to bring forward some facts that she herself. It had this bad experience in her employment. And then she fell to do that so that this other stuff was not important for her to consider in the context of summary judgment for Paula Jones, but that's how as I understand it and maybe Steven has a little different understanding. That's how this all came together. Very briefly since there. Are in one sense is no Paula Jones case anymore. If in fact the president lied about what happened with the Lewinsky and so on Leyden Essence about a kind of an in in conjunction with a non case, does that even apply anymore? And he lies or depositions or anything since there is no no Paula Jones food jars is saying is that whether or wether the president of the United States tried to get a witness to tell an untruth to a grand jury stands independent of Paula Jones Monica Lewinsky or anybody sexual peccadilloes, and I don't know yet how much legs that we're going to have ice in my mind. That is a somewhat of a different issue. Stephen sharer 30 years ago John Kennedy have this Arisen what would have been the response most of the provisions the Nelons been talking about this week? If come since John Kennedy was President, so we would be dealing with very different legal context for all of this first and foremost say it's your sort of asking a hypothetical that's difficult to answer sexual Norms were much more conservative in the early 60s at least publicly announce Norm. He will have to recall the Nelson Rockefeller was seriously damaged his attempt to get the 1964 Republican Presidential nomination because he had been divorced that was considered a great stigma in 1964 if there had been the source of Revelations and it's hard to imagine. The media pursuing is in the way they do now, I think public judgement would probably have Fairly harsh about President Kennedy if the evidence was compelling and I think that's one thing to keep in mind about Bill Clinton right now that the public has said basically threw pinion polls so that we can gather that they are not entirely convinced about the state of the evidence here Visa V the president and his legal culpability. And I think that's one of the reasons that his approval has the remaining time is job approval Stephen Sher pole seem to indicate that people would like to have this all come to an end now and started to do so whether or not he will respond to that remains to be seen but you have to remember that what can star is engaged in with the present is essentially a political process ultimately and not a legal one. He will give a report to Congress at some point and then it becomes political and clearly Bill Clinton is in a but much better position to handle that. Political process now then he was 48 hours ago the legal process aside Ellen Sampson any chance that the appeals court will overturn this decision and that the fall of Jones trial will resume or will actually go on resume to guess what the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals will do assuming it is appealed. It's important to know that often times people say they will appeal and they wind up not appealing or they wind up working out a quick settlement before the appeal. But let's assume that they do appeal the 8th circuit is our circuit. So those of us to practice law in Minnesota know a fair amount about it and I would say it's a pretty conservative circuit with regard to sexual harassment. I don't think there's a very good chance that they would overturn this decision. But Never Say Never, by the way, I Ray Suarez will have more on this at 1. O clock today on the first hour of Talk of the Nation. I guess this hour Ellen Sampson a partner in the law firm of Leonard Street and deinard former chair of the labor and employment section of the Minnesota State Bar and Steven share the chair of the political science department at Carleton College in Northfield. This is midday coming to you on Minnesota Public Radio and will continue in just a moment could take years for St. Peter to recover from the tornado that destroyed much of its historic Treeline charm. I'm learning Benson on Fridays all things considered a special report from St. Peter church hymns her caved in and it's incredible in my worst nightmare on TV. I wouldn't have never looked like this story St. Peter Friday at 5:30 on all things considered on Minnesota Public Radio k n o w FM 91.1 in the Twin Cities. Once again, a reminder over the noon hour today second hour of our mid-day program. We're going off to the National Press Club a live broadcast today with Michelle come to sue Who is the head of the international monetary fund and he'll be talking about the imf's efforts to try to resolve the Asian economic crisis that's coming up over the noon hour time now for The Writer's Almanac.