paula jones would get everything that her original lawsuit asked for -- $700,000. nced her not to accept it. >> there were people talking in paula's ear. one was her husband, steve, and the other was susan carpenter-mcmillan. she was against settling the case. >> i said, "you should really hold out for a lot more money." steve said, "no. you should really hold out for an apology." >> on national television. >> if he said it publicly, on national tv, i mean, that would be one thing, but if he just said it privately, that's like a chicken, you know, trying to hide and then do it after the fact. no, i wouldn't accept it. >> her attorneys were frustrated by the fact that paula would not accept a settlement that included everything her lawsuit had originally asked for. >> "if you win, would you write her a letter of apology while you're at it?" that doesn't happen. you get money. so, we had all the money she asked for, plus an apology. >> they said, at that time, "if you don't take the deal, then we are not going to represent you anymore." >> there were people that wante

paula jones. >> the complaint charges mr.xual harassment. >> this suit is about publicity. >> the case was designed by political activists in order to bring down the presidency. >> this case is going all the

1998, president clinton was inside the white house following several hours of deposition in the paula jonespresident, but they were not allowed to tell anyone. >> paula came out, and she said, "just know there's a gag order." >> so they would have to find another way to get their message out. >> i said, "fine. there's a certain restaurant in washington that has this huge picture glass window," and i said, "we cannot say a word, but this is what we're going to do." we ordered a big bottle of champagne. all the media was going by and snapping pictures. the headlines the next day read, "jones camp toasts with champagne. clinton's camp cancels dinner reservations." >> but there were more explosive headlines, at first, seen only by folks who were up late surfing the web in those early days of the internet. just after midnight, the drudge report dropped the world's biggest exclusive, "newsweekkills story on white house intern." >> it was the beginning of the importance of the internet. >> the internet was not what it was today. even though there'd been a drudge headline, which today would produce

i don't know. >> the paula jones lawyers would be questioning the president in just four days. so here's the thing. i'm actually closer to my retirement days than i am my college days. i just want kno am i gonna be okay? i know people who specialize in "am i going to bokay." i like that. you may need glasses though. schedule a complimentary goal planning session with td ameritrade. if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months, ... with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some peo

lewinsky at the moment that the question was asked by paula jones' attorneys right there in front ofebber wright, that it was technically true. >> i just want to make sure i understand, mr. president. do you mean today that because you were not engaging in sexual activity with ms. lewinsky during the deposition, that the statement of mr. bennett might be literally true? >> no, sir. i mean that at the time of the deposition, it had been...that was well beyond any point of improper contact between me and ms. lewinsky. >> it did more to damage his image than anything throughout the entire process. >> the use of the word "is" might have a perfectly appropriate legal defense in a brief written by his lawyer. but it was not the right way to approach testimony in front of a grand jury that would be seen by the whole world. >> he knew that there was a lot of evidence about it and that he was left really to sort of split hairs with the meaning of the word "is." >> it would become the defining moment of the entire ordeal. >> people remember the sound bite and the look on his face when he gave

lewinsky at the moment that the question was asked by paula jones' attorneys right there in front ofan webber wright, that it was technically true. >> i just want to make sure i understand, mr. president. do you mean today that because you were not engaging in sexual activity with ms. lewinsky during the deposition, that the statement of mr. bennett might be literally true? >> no, sir. i mean that at the time of the deposition, it had been...that was well beyond any point of improper contact between me and ms. lewinsky. >> it did more to damage his image than anything throughout the entire process. >> the use of the word "is" might have a perfectly appropriate legal defense in a brief written by his lawyer. but it was not the right way to approach testimony in front of a grand jury that would be seen by the whole world. >> he knew that there was a lot of evidence about it and that he was left really to sort of split hairs with the meaning of the word "is." >> it would become the defining moment of the entire ordeal. >> people remember the sound bite and the look on his face when he g

the lies told behind closed doors at the paula jones deposition were now close to being exposed. >> itl been stopped in its tracks had the president done what he should have done -- refused the test and settled the case. >> but it was too late for that now, as it became clear to the president that he was careening towards a very public reckoning that could alter history. what makes these simple dishes the best simple dishes ever? great tasting, heart-healthy california walnuts. so simple, so good. get the recipes at walnuts.org. you can switch and save time. it pays to switch things up. [cars honking] [car accelerating] you can switch and save worry. ♪ you can switch and save hassle. [vacuuming sound] and when you switch to esurance, you can save time, worry, hassle and yup, money. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved hundreds. so you might want to think about pulling the ol' switcheroo. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. ♪ ♪ohhhhhh, ou! guess what i just got? uh! ♪i used to be spellbound hello again.

the lies told behind closed doors at the paula jones deposition were now close to being exposed. >> itave all been stopped in its tracks had the president done what he should have done -- refused the test and settled the case. >> but it was too late for that now, as it became clear to the president that he was careening towards a very public reckoning that could alter history. thanks man. imagine if the things you bought every day... earned you miles to get to the places you really want to go. with the united mileageplus explorer card, you'll get a free checked bag. two united club passes. priority boarding. and earn fif thousand bonus miles after you spend three thousand dollars on purchases in the first three months from account opening plus, zero-dollar intro annual fee for the first year, then ninety-five dollars. learn more at theexplorercard.com need a change of scenery? the kayak price forecast tool tells you whether to wait or book your flight now. so you can be confident you're getting the best price. giddyup! kayak. search one and done. and lose weight with contrave. it's fda

the lies told behind closed doors at the paula jones deposition were now close to being exposed. >> ite all been stopped in its tracks had the president done what he should have done -- refused the test and settled the case. >> but it was too late for that now, as it became clear to the president that he was careening towards a very public reckoning that could alter history. (dog) mmm. this beneful grain free is so healthy... oh! farm-raised chicken! that's good chicken! hm!? here come the accents. blueberries and pumpkin. wow. and spinach! that was my favorite bite so far. (avo) beneful grain free. out with the grain, in with the farm-raised chicken. healthful. flavorful. beneful. the commute is worth it.me, the more you know you and that john deere tractor... you can keep dreaming up projects all the way home. it's a longer drive. but just like a john deere, it's worth it. (al♪rm sounds) oooooooooh! you sleep on a poorly crafted mattress, you might find yourself sippin' a hot cup of mud, too. you need a ghostbed™. the only mattress with cooling latex over gel memory foam to give you

remember, folks, they campaigned with bill clinton, they partied with harvey, they ridiculed paula jones, and 20 to brodrick it, and they look the other way when it was occurring for years because it helps them professionally, personally, politically, or all three. it was only when rose mcgowan exposed the truth about one scene that stars are, producers, directors, and even hillary clinton or forced her to issue there late in the game denunciation. and it ditto for conference my congress. it was not until reports emerged of the settlements paid to those accused. and by the way, while we are on that, he was forced into retirement over harassment allegations. he was that way for your, and everybody knew that. so i ask you, if these democrats care so much about women, especially vulnerable young women, why didn't any of them speak out? we all know why. now, this is really good. even a supreme court justice seems to be hopping on at the bandwagon, citing a toxic testosterone filled atmosphere for hillary's election laws. >> i think it was difficult for hillary clinton to get by the macho atm

paula jones case, where the supreme court said, bill clinton had to answer questions in a civil lawsuits deposition. why that precedent is very helpful to mueller is that the courts generally say criminal investigations are more important than civil investigations. so if the president had to answer questions in a deposition in a civil case, the logic would go, well, then he would certainly have to answer questions in a grand jury proceeding. the other precedent is the united states versus nixon case. where the court unanimously said nixon had to turn over the watergate tapes, as part of a subpoena for a pending trial. you know, all of those suggest that mueller's legal position is good, but it's certainly not a guarantee. >> ronald reagan did it in writing, right, during the iran/contra investigation? >> he did. he did. and other presidents have agreed voluntarily. gerald ford testified voluntarily in the assassination cases, the attempted assassination cases against him. bill clinton, as we all know, testified in kenneth star's investigation and gave a deposition in the paula jones case

clinton could not put off his deposition in the paula jones case until after he was president. think that's a very good precedent for mueller because the way courts look at criminal investigations, it's that they are more important than civil investigations. so if he couldn't -- if bill clinton couldn't put off a civil deposition, if mueller hits the president with a grand jury subpoena to testify, i think the odds are that mueller would win that case although it is not at all clear. this is untrod constitutional ground. the president is a unique figure under our constitution, so it's not a slam dunk. but i think the odds would favor mueller winning that case. >> why wouldn't mueller just automatically subpoena the president? >> well, as a normal course in a criminal investigation, you would start by talking to someone's lawyers and saying, hey, come in. let's have a conversation first. >> if the president refused, why wouldn't he just automatically -- >> i suspect he would try to convince the lawyers that if he did not come in, he would issue a subpoena. so before he actually

. >> this is paula jones. >> it's just humiliating what he did to me. >> this case is going all the way> the president was going into the ti

from white water and paula jones. >> i think a u.s. attorney would be given narrow focus, your job is to look at x, y, z and a time frame. we need a report by x time. the incentive for that is to get it done, wrap it up. not build an empire and expand your -- they could still do this with the special counsel mueller by narrowing the focus of what he can look at. >> the russia situation would be separate from what you propose. >> we have a special counsel looking into russia, right? but i don't think it is separate from what congress is doing. our system is based on accountability to we the people who act through their elected representatives. one of the most horrifying things to me is watching people like f.b.i. director christopher wray suggest he can't give information to congress because it's classified. it just gets it backwards. the congress is not accountable to the permanent -- >> now you have the weaving of information from blumenthal and cody sheerer the journalist. >> surprise. >> there is blumenthal on the left with bill cli

it went into the paula jones' investigation. it was during that, the perjury that president clinton committed pertaining to monica lewinsky that led to the impeachment. what do you think when you hear ken starr be critical of this? >> basically his argument was that the mueller investigation is there to -- >> we do have it. can we listen? let's roll it, then we'll talk about it. >> i think it's beyond his mandate. the mandate is what happened during the 2016 election in terms of collusion. that's the key idea. >> all right. >> he put it better and more succinctly than i could have put it. so the question for mueller is, is this out of his lane or do you start here because you believe that there is some connection of russian influence that actually does connect up to the campaign? now if you start with 2013, of course, that's the exact period of time covered by the steel dossier, infamous dossier put together by the former mi6 agent based on sources whom he had known or seen inside russia. even if mueller is not relying on the do

paula jones. >> the complaint charges mr. case was designed by political activists in order to bring down the presidency. >> this case is going all the way up to the supreme court.

>> well, the most relevant precedent is the paula jones case where the supreme court said bill clinton could not put off his deposition after he was president. if he couldn't -- if bill clinton couldn't put off a civil deposition, if mueller hits the president with a grand jury subpoena to testify, i think the odds are that mueller would win that case although it is not at all clear, this is untrod constitutional ground. the president is a unique figure under our constitution. so it is not a slam dunk but i think the odds would favor mueller winning that case. >> and why wouldn't mueller automatically subpoena the president? >> in a normal course, you would talk to someone's lawyers and say come in. >> if the president refused. >> i suspect he would try to convince the lawyers that if he did not come in, he would issue a subpoena. he would say i am going to put that document in your hands. again trying to be respectful to the person of the investigation. it is important that people are acting that we know all of the evidence and all of the information. and the only thing we know for su

>> that was paula jones case.as a civil lawsuit in which the supreme court ordered him 9-0 to defend the civil lawsuit, including testifying in a deposition, not full testimony in a court. in the starr case, i can't recall any of the president's lawyers and certainly not any of his other advisers telling him not to -- in fact, not only did bill clinton sit down with ken starr and answer questions about his personal life, he gave blood. he had to give blood to ken starr. this guy, trump, he can't answer a single question, and i think that's probably a better strategy for donald trump because he's guilty. that's the difference. bill clinton, people could argue he certainly had an affair, but he won the case on perjury and obstruction of justice. and i don't think trump can win this case. >> carrie, how long can this play out? how long will mueller's team allow it to play out? >> well, it depends. they'll set some period of time. it sounds from the reporting it's already been a couple months they've been negotiating

now, when you look back, i wish the president had not committed perpblg seu and settled the paula jones is lawsuit. as dean of law school, i did -- >> you were painted certainly -- >> i read it. you were reported that you wanted this. you were looking for things. >> absolutely untrue. >> i left -- or announced that i was leading to become dean of pepper dine law school. >> let me ask you one thing, outside your purview but relevant. everything we're talking about with #metoo and the need for systemic names, and whether or not women can consent, people can consent. when you look at lewinsky and clinton, do you think the argument could be made, yes, by age she was able to consent. but do you believe consent was even possible for her in the context of that relationship? >> i think it is a very hard question because she was an employee. now, she was an intern. but there was a power structure arrangement to it, which i think is very difficult. and you have to be extremely careful treating all people with dignity and respect, period. but especially in the employment relationship and where you

. >> this is paula jones. >> it's just humiliating what he did to me. >> this case is going all the wayas going into

the clinton v jones, the paula jones case, bill clinton was forced to give a deposition in a civil caseriminal justice system generally says criminal cases are more important than civil. so if the president is subpoenaed by a grand jury, i think the supreme court would more hilikely than not side wit mueller. but it's not 100%. >> anne, do you agree? >> i agree that it would be a protected litigation, that this would go back and forth. but i think the equities in the end is this is a criminal investigation. the president has evidence or information that the special counsel is seeking, and at the end of the day, i think a court would order him most likely to provide it. >>> coming up next, we're going to talk about a more immediate decision for the president, whether to allow the public to see a democratic rebuttal to the nunes memo. the president's claim is that the nunes memo vindicates him. details ahead. -if you told me a year ago where i'd be right now... aah! ...i would have said you were crazy. but so began the year of me. i discovered the true meaning of paperless discounts... an

i think he also could point to the bill clinton versus paula jones litigation, where they required billon to submit to a deposition in that litigation even while he was the president. i think the president's lawyers will push back hard against that line of attack. i think they will say the nixon case is very different. i think they will think they can make a stronger argument for executive privilege. but i think the big question, if this should reach the supreme court is, is this a case that's controlled by nixon, or a case that's something very different. >> bobby, if the president's legal team is truly worried that he's going to be caught in a lie. and from "the new york times" reporting, it seems like they are, and i guess from just watching and observing donald trump, you know why they might be worried. wouldn't the best strategy to be to avoid it? after all, lying to a federal investigator is still a crime. and lying in a grand jury is also a crime. >> oh, sure. and i think that -- and i've spoken to defense attorneys, friends of mine that say, you know, if you're looking at trump

jennifer flowers, paula jones. they were there with pitchforks. >> all right.the voices for president trump right now? where are the republicans who are saying, that's not appropriate behavior for a president of the united states? >> so the hypocrisy switch places, because, where were the democrats criticizing president clinton? >> there were plenty of democrats that criticized president clinton. there were plenty of them out there. >> it is interesting, the extent to which evangelical voters and evangelical leaders, you know, in terms of one of them, have given him a mulligan on this stuff. you hear people time and time again, he's not our moral leader, we're gnot electing him to be the pastor in chief, we're electing him to be the commander in chief. does that seem like some sort of sea change to you? >> i think some evangelical leaders are just disgracing themselves. and i think that is different, because they are pastors and religious leaders and they claim a moral high ground, that they have completely ceded when they side with donald trump. but that's the