Reply #76: But the conduct in the Paula Jones case was "unofficial conduct" [View All]

[SteppingRazor]

To quote Clinton v. Jones:
"The principal rationale for affording Presidents immunity from damages actions based on their official acts--i.e., to enable them to perform their designated functions effectively without fear that a particular decision may give rise to personal liability, see, e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749 , 752, and n. 32--provides no support for an immunity for unofficial conduct."
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=95-1853)


In other words, the Paula Jones thing was completely unrelated to the fact that Clinton held executive office. Plamegate, however, isrelated to official conduct (i.e. the whole thing wouldn't have happened were the actors not in executive office), thus immunity to civil lawsuits due to both lack of jurisdiction and separation of powers. Additionally, the SCOTUS in Clinton v. Jones reiterated that, as the aciton in question took place before Clinton took office, it was even less likely to result in immunity. With the Plame thing happening during the term of office, then, immunity to lawsuits seems more likely, not less.

I don't like it, but I do think the court made the right decision here.