JUDGE THROWS OUT PAULA JONES CASE; PRESIDENT STILL FACES STARR, APPEAL BID.

Byline: Robert A. Rankin and Angie Cannon Knight Ridder Newspapers

A 4-year-old sexual harassment lawsuit that sullied President Clinton's reputation, became the butt of late-night television jokes and gave birth to an investigation that still threatens the presidency was thrown out Wednesday because a judge found that it had no legal merit.

U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, in a historic turning point to Clinton's scandal-ridden presidency, dismissed Paula Jones' entire case against the president, ruling in Little Rock, Ark., that even if Clinton did what Jones alleged, it was no more than bad behavior that falls short of breaking the law.

``Although the governor's alleged conduct, if true, may certainly be characterized as boorish and offensive, even a most charitable reading of the record in this case fails to reveal a basis for a claim of criminal sexual assault, as there is no alleged conduct that could be characterized as forcible assault,'' Wright wrote in a 39-page opinion.

Clinton ``is pleased to receive the vindication that he has been waiting a long time for,'' said White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry, who was traveling with the president in Africa. Clinton attorney Robert Bennett told the president of the decision by telephone and Clinton ``asked if it was an April Fool's joke,'' McCurry said.

The Rutherford Institute, which has financed Jones' lawsuit, vowed in a public statement to appeal the decision ``immediately'' and to press the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

``We're very disappointed with the court's order. We've spoken with Paula Jones, who is in tears,'' Rutherford President John Whitehead told reporters. ``It's a shame that unless this ruling is reversed on appeal, there will never be a determination of who was telling the truth and who was lying. We respectfully believe the court was wrong.''

If an appellate court were to overrule Wright, Clinton still would face trial on Jones' charges.

Moreover, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr continues to press a multifront investigation of both Clinton and his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Starr's current investigation into allegations of presidential sex and perjury is a direct outgrowth of the Jones case. Lately, Starr's investigation has focused on allegations that potential witnesses in the Jones case, in particular former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, have lied under oath at the urging of Clinton and his associates.

``Judge Wright's ruling . . . has no effect on our authority, and we will continue working to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible,'' Starr said.

One official in Starr's office, asked whether Wright's ruling will increase public pressure on Starr to finish his work, said: ``We've never been very good at public relations, but my guess is that it will.''

Lewinsky, who denies allegations that she engaged in sex with Clinton outside the Oval Office, benefits from Wright's ruling, according to her lawyer, William Ginsburg. Starr has been investigating whether Lewinsky lied to Jones' attorneys, who sought her out as a witness in their effort to show a pattern of behavior toward women by Clinton.

``This confirms what many of us have known for some time. There never really was a Paula Jones case and that has obvious import to my client's position. We're very pleased,'' Ginsburg said.

Nevertheless, Starr's investigation could yet result in possible criminal charges, although it is more likely that the independent counsel will turn over to Congress whatever evidence he holds against the Clintons. The House Judiciary Committee already is preparing for possible impeachment proceedings.

Clinton victory

For now, however, Clinton unquestionably has won a major victory that could help to deflate whatever momentum remains behind efforts to cripple his presidency by exploiting scandals. At the same time, however, he clearly stands convicted as a chronic womanizer, adulterer and liar in the court of public opinion, as evidenced by public-opinion polls and the steady stream of jokes about him for months on late-night television. No judicial ruling is likely to exonerate his reputation.

One of Clinton's severest congressional critics, Sen. John Ashcroft, a Missouri Republican weighing a bid for the presidency himself, said Clinton still owes the public an explanation for his behavior.

``It's the president's conduct while in the White House, and not legal issues in this lawsuit, that is the focus of public attention. Bill Clinton's duty is crystal clear. The White House no longer has the Jones case as a cover for stonewalling, and the president should come forward promptly with a full accounting for his conduct,'' Ashcroft said.

But Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., doubtless spoke for many in his party when he said: ``It's about time we get back to solving the problems of the United States of America. Let's get back to business now.''

The allegations

Jones had said Clinton exposed himself to her in Little Rock's Excelsior Hotel on May 8, 1991, and asked her for oral sex. Clinton denied it. Jones, a state employee at the time, claimed in filings before the court that Clinton, then governor of Arkansas, subsequently had injured her career.

Even if Clinton did what Jones claimed, the incident ``was brief and isolated; did not result in any physical harm and did not result in distress so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it,'' Wright wrote, citing standards required by law.

Furthermore, the judge ruled, Jones' claims that she suffered a hostile work environment ``are without merit'' and others ``fall short of the rigorous standards'' required by law. Clinton's lawyers argued in court papers that Jones had produced no proof of her claims and asked the court to dismiss the case. Wright agreed.

``The court has carefully reviewed the record in this case and finds nothing in plaintiff's employment records, her own testimony or the testimony of her supervisors showing that plaintiff's reaction to Governor Clinton's alleged advances affected tangible aspects of her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment,'' Wright wrote.

Jones' attorneys had argued that she suffered at her job as a result of refusing Clinton's advance. They said her civil rights were violated and that what he allegedly did constituted assault.

Clinton's lawyers said there simply was no evidence to support those claims.

In a 700-page court filing last month, Jones' attorneys cited as ``tangible evidence'' of detrimental working conditions her perception that co-workers became more hostile toward her after the alleged encounter on May 8, 1991.

Her lawyers said she was ``discouraged'' from applying for better jobs and she was given a job with fewer responsibilities and less attractive duties. They also said she was mistreated by being stationed in a location where she was watched constantly. Moreover, they said, Jones did not receive flowers on Secretary's Day.

That last claim did not escape the judge.

``Although it is not clear why plaintiff failed to receive flowers on Secretary's Day in 1992, such an omission does not give rise to a federal cause of action,'' the judge wrote.

Jones' lawyers also claimed for the first time in March - seven years after the incident - that Jones was left with a ``sexual aversion.''

Clinton's attorneys have argued that even if the court believed the incident occurred as Jones alleged, her own employment records show that she got a job upgrade and regular merit and cost-of-living pay raises after May 8, 1991, undermining her claim of a job detriment. She also received satisfactory job reviews.

Moreover, no evidence showed any connection between Clinton and any job distress Jones claimed to suffer, the president's lawyers argued. Finally, they said that even Jones' version of events did not contend that Clinton used force or engaged in genital contact with her, so they said there clearly was no ``assault.''

As for Jones' claims that she suffered emotional trauma and stress, Clinton's lawyers said the expert who made that claim has a doctorate in education and counseling, not psychology or psychiatry. They also pointed out that the authority, Patrick Carnes, never interviewed Jones until this year.

Though Jones' civil suit has been dismissed, appeals could drag on for some time.

``The appeals process would very likely outlast the Starr investigation,'' said Jonathan Turley, a law professor from George Washington University.

CAPTION(S):

6 Photos

PHOTO (1 -- color) Paula Jones, seen here in 1997, lost her battle against President Clinton.

Associated Press

(2 -- color) White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry speaks with reporters in Dakar, Senegal, on Wednesday.

Greg Gibson/Associated Press

(3 -- color) WHITEHEAD

(4 -- color) BENNETT

(5 -- color) U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright

(6 -- color) no caption (Bill Clinton)