Talk:Paula Jones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conventional?[edit]

The opening paragraph specifies "$850,000 (equivalent to $1,250,000 in 2016)." Is this parenthetical "equivalent to" clarification a conventional practice on Wikipedia pages? What justifies it in this case? Is someone supposed to come back and update this modern value periodically?

Rewriting[edit]

The article says:

"Many believe that Jones's lawsuit contributed to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, eventually leading to the impeachment of Bill Clinton."

Everyone believes that because it did. Clinton was impeached for lying and obstructing justice (asking others to lie) in the Paula Jones sexual harrassment lawsuit. The questions he lied about were about Monica. The attorneys were trying to prove a pattern of misconduct with subordinate employees.

This should be re-written to be more clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.220.203 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 February 2008

Eschewal[edit]

What is it?

Avoidance? But there's no tort or cause of action known as eschewal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.172.103 (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pay out[edit]

quote "Jones settled with Clinton for $850,000" who paid whom?

Clinton paid Jones. I just changed the article to reflect that. Thanks. Dave Farquhar 19:44, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What about the wast right-wing conspiracy? I read somewhere that Paula Jones told she was payed to say this about Clinton Mastgrr 13:01, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

neutral standpoint - Copied?[edit]

This article is not presented from a neutral standpoint. It reads like it was pasted in from something written by Clinton's campaign manager. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.158.117.244 (talk • contribs) .

This is Wikipedia, liberal bias is normal.Mantion (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People should clarify what bias they see specifically rather than making blanket allegations. It's not helpful for making corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.213.6 (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

Clinton was not able to be impreached because of his "extracurricular" activites for his relations do not have anything to do persay with the ability of the president to run the country. A president must be impreached because he broke the law and because adultry is not an impeachable crime it may be best to repeal the idea that the accusations of Paula Jones had any direct coorolation to the impeachment. It may be best to redue that section. Thanks for listening —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.54.213.238 (talk • contribs) .

You don't know what you are talking about! Clinton was impeached. That is the process the house goes through, and they voted the articles of impeachment which caused him to be tried in the Senate, where he was not convicted. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, not adultery. Go read the Wikipedia article on "The Impeachment of William Clinton" if you want an overview of the events. The impeachment was very directly based on the Paula Jones lawsuit and the lies Clinton told in defending himself against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.220.203 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 February 2008

The second commenter should note that the first commenter didn't say "Clinton wasn't impeached". What the first commenter said was that Clinton wasn't impeached for any sex-conduct with or directed at Paula Jones, which is true. The fact that "Clinton WAS impeached" is true doesn't prove that "Clinton was impeached because of Paula Jones" is true, and so if the article conveys that Clinton was impeached because of sexual conduct with or directed at Jones, the article should be revised.2604:2000:1383:8B0B:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

Other books[edit]

Much information about the Paula Jones case, Jones herself, and her lawyers' connections with the Kenneth Starr case are available in Conason and Lyons' book 'The Hunting of the President.' I have added only the fact that the tale of the 'distinguishing characteristic' was fabricated by Jones's 'elves' and later proven to be false. As far as the earlier comments go, the impeachment was a direct result of illegal collusion between the Jones lawyers and Kenneth Starr's OIC. Additionally, the entire accusation of perjury on Clinton's part, while technically true, was made possible by a 'perjury trap,' which is illegal on its face and was made possible by illegal acts by lawyers and investigators for both Starr and Jones. These are facts, not partisan speculation. This article, while maintaining its neutrality, must be revised to include the entire truth. 72.150.175.35 00:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Max Black[reply]

copypaste[edit]

128.171.76.165 added "copypaste tag" without citing where the copypaste came from? Move till cited. Telecine Guy 03:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Jones v. Clinton?[edit]

I pointed the redirect of "Jones v. Clinton" here (away from its previous redirect, "Clinton v. Jones," as that was related to the findings of the actual appeal case: "a landmark United States Supreme Court case...," regarding presidential immunity from civil lawsuits.)

But, it seems that the historical impact of the "Jones v. Clinton" case might merit having its own page, rather than a redirect. However, it would leave this a very limited biography of a person only historically notable for the lawsuit. I think the proper form is a section-page redirect, to this page?

For now, at least, that's how I'll have it. - JollaPwns (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

Troopergate (Bill Clinton) is an article with sparse sourcing (i.e., primarily to news articles that don't focus on the topic at hand) and possibly a less-than-ideal title. Since the only sources in that article concern Paula Jones, a merge here might be appropriate. Chick Bowen 03:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse merge since Troopergate is the prequel to Clinton v. Jones. We66er (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate since Troopergate is about separte events that occured before the Clinton v. Jones case was filed. Merging Troopergate into Clinton v. Jones would limit details of Troopergate to that covered in the legal case. Clinton v. Jones is just one of many reliable source materials about Troopergate that may be used to expand on the Troopergate article. In addition, troopergate is what the event is called. See Google books, Google scholar, Google news. Troopergate (Bill Clinton) should be renamed Troopergate since that is the prevailing way the term is known and Troopergate should be renamed to Troopergate (disambiguous). -- Suntag ☼ 16:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate via suntag's rationale. Holy cow, the Troopergate article just went under AFD, then DRV, then is under nom for a name change AND NOW it is being proposed for a merge. I think this is getting close to qualifying for a new paragraph in the essay I have been working on, Don't Bludgeon The Process. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate The article for Paula Jones contains biographical information (that could be further extended), that does really belong in the Troopergate article. On the other hand a very detailed/extensive article on Troopergate and all its aspects doesn't really belong in an biographical for Jones either.--79.200.121.150 (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sexually propositioned?[edit]

Jones said that Clinton pulled out his penis and asked her to kiss it. shouldnt that be in the article? Statesboropow (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Without photographic evidence,no.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.245.241 (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a women who was sexually assaulted and then harassed by a employer. Of course such testimony would be relevant IF, and only if it is directed at a political conservative person. Even though this article is about Paula Jones and her trial, her testimony in the trial is ONLY relevant on Wikipedia if its not directed towards a liberal. Now if Paula Jones said that Richard Nixon did this, although impossible, it would be worth noting.Mantion (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think it’s completely relevant. I didn’t know that until now and it would’ve been a good piece of information to have, especially if one were interested in writing about this case. I don’t see what political alignment has anything to do with it either. If her testimony in the trial isn’t relevant, then why even bring up anything she said at all? Her testimony is very important to the case and thus this article. Cool879 (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Republican Strategists, Stop Exaggerating The Facts[edit]

The fact is Jones was never able to prove that Clinton ever made sexual advances towards her. The show Lie Detector also did not prove her statement to be true, because anybody who learns to maintain a fair blood pressure rate during the polygraph tests can easily pass them. Wikipedia is neutral, and not a page to present slander.204.169.161.1 (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As liberal as your or wikipedia is, please keep your opinions about Jones to the forums.Mantion (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Danny Ferguson?[edit]

The article just throws his name in there, but doesn't explain how he was significant to the law suit. I suspect that his introduction was removed. AngusCA (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paula Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paula Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paula Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevance[edit]

How is it relevant at all to the case that “before the end of the entire litigation, her marriage broke apart.” or how apparently, “She also appeared in the news media to show the results of a makeover and rhinoplasty paid for by a donor”? Seems only added biasedly and to taint her reputation and/or character especially that last one. Cool879 (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Context of state employment[edit]

The lede mentions she was a state employee, but that info was nowhere to be found in the body of the article, so, I added it. It's kind of an important context that she was an employee of a state commission, and attending a conference in her official capacity, and a sitting state governor is alleged to have used his position of power to summon her to meet with him at his hotel room. Critical Chris

Misleading on Lewinsky and sex[edit]

One paragraph of this article says that Clinton "denied having ever had sexual relations with" Monica Lewinksy, and strongly implies that that denial was perjury. While Clinton may have been asked by the public "Did you ever have sex with Monica Lewinsky?", when he answered with the outright lie "I did not have sex with that woman" (at a moment when he was not under oath), he was never asked UNDER OATH and IN COURT "Did you ever have sex with Monica Lewinsky?". Another paragraph in this same article contradicts that tale, saying that the question was "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?". What would be the motive for crafting the question that way? Why not ask "Did you two ever have sex?" The only possible reason for the complex wording is to make a perjury-trap. Starr's people already knew, from Lewinsky, what she did to him, and what he didn't do to her. They typed up this Exhibit One so that it would only include things he did to her, not things she did to him, asked Clinton about Exhibit One, and he TRUTHFULLY answered "no", because he was only asked about doing those things to her, and, apparently, he never did. She did those things to him. Ever since, the world has been trying to twist what Bill said into a denial that he ever had sex with Lewinsky. It isn't. The question was (by design, a design that should have caused some people to get disbarred) too narrow to include everything that plain English designates as "having sex with". Had the question been asked absent the perjury-trap of Exhibit One, Clinton would have answered truthfully "Yes, we had sex" and then Starr wouldn't have won his perjury-trap. There are those who would say that Bill has, since, "admitted" committing perjury. Yeah. For reasons other than that he committed perjury. He wanted his wife to be better-positioned in her own career and denying perjury would have hurt her. He was making deals to shorten the amount of time his license to practice would be suspended, or to keep from getting disbarred forever. Bill had his reasons to say "Yeah, I committed perjury", none of which include his knowing that he committed perjury. But the argument that says we must believe his "confession" is absurd. How can you say that a man's "honor" and his "integrity" mean we must believe his assertion that he himself committed perjury, when the fact of his having committed perjury would mean that his "honor" and "integrity" are not very reliable? If Bill will tell lies for political expediency, he will, when it is politically expedient, tell a lie about telling a lie.2604:2000:1383:8B0B:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

Jones v. Clinton / Clinton v. Jones[edit]

Are Clinton v. Jones and Jones v. Clinton two different cases? Or are they the same? Kingturtle = (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Supreme Court[edit]

Here is how the page currently reads: “ . On May 27, 1997, the Court unanimously ruled against Clinton, and allowed the lawsuit to proceed. Clinton dismissed Jones' story and agreed to move on with the lawsuit.”


Does saying that Clinton “agreed to move on”, mean that he had an option to refuse to move on the lawsuit? Danimalizer (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paula_Jones&oldid=1207854966"