As an attorney for Paula Jones and President of The Rutherford Institute, I read with particular interest the adaptation of Michael Isikoff’s new book, “Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter’s Story” (“How It Began: The Right-Wing Web,” National Affairs, Feb. 22). But I must take issue with a number of points. You attempt to misrepresent and marginalize The Rutherford Institute by calling it an organization that merely “helps Christian conservatives mount legal cases,” and by claiming that I came to Ms. Jones’s aid because I “thought the Jones lawsuit would bring some welcome publicity.” The Jones case was only one aspect of the Institute’s ongoing efforts to highlight women’s issues, which have also included publishing books and educational materials on women’s rights and filing briefs in the United States Supreme Court and many other courts in sexual-harassment and discrimination cases. The Rutherford Institute came to Ms. Jones’s aid in order to defend her right as a woman to be free of workplace sexual harassment, and to vindicate the principle upon which the Institute was founded–that no one, including the President of the United States, is above the law. When I called Donovan Campbell of Rader, Campbell, Fisher and Pyke to ask him to take the case, he initially refused because he felt the case was too politically charged. We prosecuted the case through the federal court of appeals and to a final settlement in pursuit of these goals, not to obtain publicity or as a part of a political agenda. As I have personally made clear innumerable times in media interviews, neither I nor the Institute had a political or personal motive to damage President Clinton. Moreover, although the Isikoff adaptation rushes to term the alleged network of conservative lawyers a “conspiracy” in the very first paragraph, the balance of the piece amply demonstrates that if there was some form of conspiracy, it certainly was not directed at helping Paula Jones and it did not involve The Rutherford Institute.
As former counsel to Paula Jones, I take issue with the portrayal of my so-called relationship with the “elves.” Until the Isikoff adaptation used the term, I never heard the word “elves” to describe Jerome Marcus, George Conway, Richard Porter and Ann Coulter. Messrs. Marcus and Conway were very helpful, as to a lesser degree were other attorneys, to Joe Cammarata, my co-counsel, and me in research and writing, but the work we submitted in the Paula Jones lawsuit was ours. You recite that “Marcus drafted the first civil-rights complaint ever filed against a sitting president.” Someone created a proposed complaint before our entry into the case. Cammarata and I, however, drafted a very different complaint on our own. You also write that we “befriended” Ken Starr as we readied our argument to the Supreme Court, and that Judge Starr “believed the case had merit and counseled… [us] to move forward.” Indeed, we were not preparing our argument to the Supreme Court at that time; rather we were preparing a defense to the President’s immunity claim for Judge Wright in the trial court. Further, Judge Starr disclaimed any opinion on the factual merit of the case. You also assert that I suggested skipping a formal “grilling” by Judge Bork, Ted Olson and others in preparation for oral argument to the Supreme Court on presidential immunity. You are correct that I came to this meeting with “briefcase bulging” because I expected and hoped for a true dress rehearsal in front of Messrs. Bork, Olson, Conway, Marcus, FitzGerald and Cammarata. It was, however, the desire of others, particularly Judge Bork, to discuss the points of law in roundtable, instead of “moot court,” fashion. Joe and I were somewhat disappointed but we appreciated the sound advice from the assembled outstanding legal scholars. Finally, you criticize my oral argument to the Supreme Court. Indeed there are a multitude of lawyers probably more able than me to argue the Jones case, and I concede the 9-0 Supreme Court ruling in Ms. Jones’s favor perhaps resulted more from correct legal analysis by the Court than my oratory. However, may I humbly suggest that a factor in the Court’s unanimous decision in favor of Paula Jones may be the decision by Joe and me to take the “soft approach” to the Court in urging that due deference should be paid to any presidential claims of interference with duty. At least Joe and I will have an opportunity to correct the factual record in our upcoming book.
A Father’s Lament
I was touched by the empathy and un-derstanding Boz Scaggs showed in dealing with his son Oscar’s drug addiction (“My Son’s Unfinished Life–And Mine,” My Turn, Feb. 22). Oscar, as well as many others of my generation, could not or did not want to “just say no.” There is an unease about our rapidly changing world, uncertainty about an increasingly confusing future. Drugs have the illusion of being a sure thing, of bringing you to a state where everything is OK and where, for a brief while, reality ceases to exist. The tragedy is that for some souls, a temporary escape becomes permanent. Though it is often uncertain, painful and searching, life is precious and so fragile. My heart aches for the life Oscar Scaggs will never know, for his brave father and for all the parents left with only tears and unfinished work.
Boz Scaggs’s essay should be required reading (aloud) by all parents to every one of their children over the age of 10. Here is a man who has firsthand knowledge of the tricks and traps that drugs bring. He communicated the truth to his son, yet still lost him. The image of a drug addict as being scruffily dressed and passed out in the gutter is as outdated today as “Reefer Madness” was in its day. Any parents who think that something like this can’t happen to their children are only setting themselves up for the ultimate heartbreak.
Adapting Adoption Laws
I found your article on adoptees and birthmothers and the battle over secrecy fascinating (“Haunted by a Painful History,” Society, Feb. 22). All parties involved have legitimate rights, for information or privacy. Oregon’s Measure 58, which gives adult adoptees access to their birth records, seems to push pregnant women who refuse parental responsibility but expect anonymity to do one thing: get an abortion. Additionally, where’s the father in all of this?
Your article on Oregon’s adoptee-rights initiative, Measure 58, misses a few points. You imply that current Oregon law makes it impossible for adoptees to search and find their birthparents unless they utilize the state’s intermediary service. In fact, thousands of Oregon adoptees have successfully searched for their birthparents on their own. You further state that court orders granted to adoptees who petition the court to unseal records are “usually granted only to provide emergency medical information.” In fact, Oregon law allows the court to use its discretion, and many Oregon judges rather routinely open records to all adult adoptees upon petition. Records were not sealed in Oregon to protect birthparent anonymity, and Oregon law gives adoptive parents documents with identifying information about the birthparent upon request.
Your story on Measure 58 does an injustice to the vast majority of birthmothers. My son’s finding me was a tremendous surprise, one I had dreamed of but wasn’t prepared for. Many of us have lived in isolation for decades. Secrets fester over time, but my experience teaches me that the healing process begins with stepping out of the shadows. I have spoken to hundreds of birthmothers who, like me, have continued to care about their children regardless of circumstances of the pregnancy. And adopted people deserve the dignity of knowing who they are. It can safely be left up to the individual adults and families to work out whether they care to develop a relationship.
I believe my side of the story is not often told. As an adopted child, I have grown up feeling nothing less than blessed that for whatever reasons, someone gave me the chance to be a part of my “real” family. A real family is one that provides unconditional love, while raising and nurturing a child as he or she learns to become a functioning member of society; it’s not someone who merely happened to provide an egg or a sperm cell. Whether my birthmother gave me up out of love or because she simply didn’t want me, she did something few people are brave enough to choose to do today. It frustrates me when adopted children get a great amount of press because they want their “rights.” Although I have often wished to thank my birthmother, I have never felt it was my right to possibly turn her life upside down out of mere curiosity.
Letter From a Dog
Thanks for the great photo of me in your Feb. 22 Newsmakers section. However, I must take exception to the caption saying that I am “accident-prone.” Never before in my dog-show career, which culminated in my being the No. 1 German shorthaired pointer in 1998, have I had an accident in the ring. Why it had to happen at Westminster, the premier dog show in the nation, and on national TV, I’ll never understand, or live down. Maybe it was the pressure of the tough competition or too much liver bait. Anyway, except for that one embarrassing moment, I had a great time.
Canadian Pride
Your story on the hazards of traveling abroad (“Be Careful Out There,” Focus on Travel, Feb. 22) suggested that when Americans are asked their nationality, they should pretend they are Canadians. At first this appeared to be a compliment–that is, until the sentence that followed: “People think that they like Canadians.” Maybe that’s because we don’t subscribe to manifest destiny or go around flaunting ignorance of geography or other foreign languages. Americans are becoming more multicultural, but until a greater degree of tolerance for anything but McDonald’s and Hollywood emerges, please don’t take a cheap shortcut to respectability by posing as someone from another country.
As a proud Canadian, I resent the comment “People think that they like Canadians.” Having traveled in Europe and being mistaken for an American, I know firsthand what happens when you say you are Canadian. The attitude of the waiter or salesclerk changes from cold to friendly. Canadians are known across the world as polite, generous and personable people, unlike Americans, who come across as loud, egocentric and misinformed, as your comment proves.
Oprah Knows Best
Thanks for setting my priorities straight with your Feb. 22 Periscope item “Oprah-di, Oprah-da, Life Goes On.” In nine years of teaching high school, I have encouraged my students to seek positive role models with character traits like courage, intelligence, integrity, honesty and humor. Now I see what really matters is a waistline and a wedding ring. Silly me!
The Politics of Sprawl
I believe George Will is mistaken when he tries to portray the suburban-sprawl issue as a liberal cause (“Al Gore Has a New Worry,” the last word, Feb. 15). It seems to me the issues of urban decay, smart growth and suburban sprawl have been largely ignored by both conservatives and liberals.
One drive around Washington, D.C., where the time commuters spent stuck in traffic climbed 69 percent between 1982 and 1994, would convince George Will that suburban sprawl and its consequences are real and growing problems. He would also realize that Vice President Al Gore has taken a true reading of the public’s concerns about runaway growth and the traffic, pollution and increased flooding it causes. The government must stop subsidizing developers who want to destroy our open space.
