Episode 9 of Impeachment: American Crime Story, which takes up the grand jury depositions of Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp, is a bit like the obligatory recap episode of a The next American top model season, a catch up on the story so far with a bit of additional material, as we see Tripp and Lewinsky answering questions about events we’ve already seen unfold in previous episodes. However, the episode reinforces how the two women were put under the microscope and made the villains of the play while the men involved come away relatively unscathed.
9 out of 10 dislikes Linda Tripp
Linda sees herself as a courageous whistleblower who has been unfairly punished for her dedication to truth and ethics. She is therefore shocked to see the conservative literary agent Lucianne Goldberg affirm in a television interview that only 1 in 10 Americans regard her with sympathy.
According to a CNN / Time poll from July 1998, only 12% of Americans had a favorable opinion of Tripp, 52% being unfavorable and 36% “not knowing”. Tripp may have taken some solace from the fact that Lewinsky’s 12 percent favor odds were no better. And the two may have taken some solace from Starr’s opposition, which fell from 42% in March to 51% in June. Clinton’s approval, meanwhile, remained stable, with 56% viewing him favorably and only 38% unfavorably.
Was Bill wearing a tie Monica gave him?
Monica sees Bill appear on television the day he testifies before the grand jury, notices that he is wearing one of the ties she gave him, and wonders if this is a message of solidarity.
Clinton was indeed wearing a tie offered by Lewinsky for a Rose Garden speech on gun control the day he testified. However, it was unlikely to be a message. For one thing, Lewinsky wouldn’t have been able to see the footage until that night after she returned from appearing before the grand jury and had already testified. Weeks later, Ken Starr’s pursuit team showed the president a photo from the Rose Garden event and asked if the tie had any special meaning. Clinton’s response was an amused hoax, and the case was dropped.
Brett Kavanaugh and Team Starr’s focus on sex
The grand jury receives a table describing the sexual contacts between Monica and Bill organized by date. However, Starr’s team, urged on by young member Brett Kavanaugh, believe the descriptions of the sexual encounters are too vague and Monica’s responses too general. Kavanaugh insists she be re-examined under oath and forced to be more specific. In a grueling interview with the only female member of Starr’s team, Monica is open to questions about the most intimate details of her love life, questions she must answer to keep her immunity contract. Starr’s reasoning is that Clinton claimed he did not lie under oath when he said he “never had sex with Monica Lewinsky” in his Paula Jones deposition because he used the definition of sex proposed by Jones’ lawyers. Accordingly, to build their case, Starr’s prosecutors must determine whether the sexual acts committed fall within that definition or outside, in which case Clinton could be charged with perjury.
The Starr report, of which Judge Kavanaugh was now one of the principal authors, notably combined morality and pruritus; his introduction noted, “Many details reveal highly personal information; many are sexually explicit. It is unfortunate, but it is essential. Kavanaugh himself wrote a memo to Team Starr arguing for a sexually explicit line of inquiry with the President. However, this approach may not have been as much legally essential as it has been politically desirable, addressing sordid but not criminal behavior in detail and offering innuendo in place of substantive accusations.
That Starr had a very selective approach to moral outrage became more evident when, as president of Baylor University, he did not respond to gang rape charges against the college football team. He then became part of the legal team that brokered a friendly deal that allowed Jeffrey Epstein to serve only 13 months in jail on 12-hour daily passes. These actions led one of her former advisers, Judi Hershman, to reveal that she had had a “affectionate, consensual” year-long affair with publicly uxorious Starr.
Paula’s marriage in trouble
Paula Jones returns from hospital after having her nose done and struggling nationally. Her husband, Steve, blames her lawsuit for losing his job as an airline ticket agent and, even worse, thinks it was all for nothing, as a judge has dismissed Paula’s trial and they did not receive any money. She retorts that she only brought the costume to prove to him that she had not trained Bill.
Paula Jones had her nose redone in July 1998, at an estimated cost of $ 9,000. At the time, it was not known where the funds came from, but Jones said later she “started getting calls from plastic surgeons all over the country, wanting to give me everything I wanted because they thought I was unfair[ly treated] and it was not fair. She finally chose a New York plastic surgeon who offered to do a “boobs job.” [but I] decided not to do it.
In April of the same year, his lawsuit against Bill Clinton for sexual harassment was removed from office by a federal judge, Susan Webber Wright, who wrote that while Clinton’s alleged behavior, if it is true, was “certainly rude and offensive … the governor’s alleged conduct does not constitute sexual assault.”
Steve Jones, who had lost his job, did not leave the family’s one-bedroom apartment until March 1999. As with Paula Jones’ nose job, it was not clear where the funds were to pay the rent. from the apartment in Long Beach, Calif., were coming.
Did Linda have a criminal record?
Linda is determined to return to work at the Department of Defense and barges in to ask her manager why she is not being sent the documents she needs to do her homework. He replies that a New Yorker profile reported that she was arrested as a teenager, and since she did not mention this arrest on her security clearance form, she is likely to be charged by the Ministry of Justice and his security clearance was revoked. . Linda contends that the arrest was only the result of a teenage prank and sees the dismissal as proof that her fears of persecution by the White House are justified.
Tripp was actually arrested for robbery in 1969, although high school friend Kevin Milley said she was the victim of a prank gone wrong, not an instigator. Tripp and about two dozen other teens were together when two boys in the group took a watch and money from hotel rooms in Greenwood Lake, New York, and stuffed them into Tripp’s purse at his knowledge. They then called the police and reported a theft. “She was quite innocent in this matter”, Milley said. The charge against Tripp was reduced to loitering. She pleaded guilty and was granted unconditional release without conviction or fine. As vagrancy is less serious than a crime and would not have appeared on his permanent record, it is doubtful whether it should have been declared on the security form.
In 2003, Tripp received more than $ 595,000 from the Department of Defense to settle a lawsuit over the disclosure of his confidential personal information to the New Yorker. Upon discovery, Pentagon chief spokesman Ken Bacon admitted to leaking information from his personnel file. Corn Bacon maintained that “the question here is whether it was appropriate to answer a reporter’s question about how Linda Tripp answered a question on a public record.”