Contrast Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky against the conduct of the so-called “Subject Judge” toward her partner.
A senior government official engages in sexual activity in the workplace on multiple occasions. A piece of fabric becomes stained. When questioned during an official inquiry, the official lies. But thanks to a whistleblower, the truth emerges. The person is caught in flagrante delicto, offers an apology, and pledges that it will not happen again. Sound familiar?
The saga of President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky is widely known to anyone older than a certain age. (I recall downloading the Starr Report over a dial-up connection when I was fourteen.) Lewinsky, then an intern, reportedly engaged in ten sexual encounters with Clinton within the White House. The majority of these meetings unfolded in the Oval Office, though some took place in a room that is now used by the former president to display MAGA merchandise. Lewinsky never had vaginal intercourse with Clinton, but oral activity did occur. Clinton touched Lewinsky’s genitals and used a cigar in an inappropriate manner. Betty Currie, the secretary stationed outside the Oval Office, maintained plausible deniability and would leave the area whenever Lewinsky was present. Clinton famously stained Lewinsky’s blue GAP dress with his fluids.
Soon enough, the allegations leaked. At first, Bill Clinton lied. In a notorious January 1998 press conference, he stated, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.” But Linda Tripp had secretly recorded conversations with Lewinsky and handed them to Independent Counsel Ken Starr. Only after the truth emerged did Clinton adjust his story, quipping, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” Clinton faced impeachment for obstruction of justice and perjury due to giving false testimony in the Lewinsky investigation. Ultimately, he was acquitted. After his acquittal, he was found in civil contempt by Judge Susan Webber Wright for misleading the grand jury. Clinton also surrendered his Arkansas law license for five years.
Now let us turn to the so-called “subject judge” in the Eleventh Circuit. For the sake of argument, I will pretend we do not all know the judge’s identity. I have spoken with several journalists and investigators today. They all concur with my assessment. The name will surface soon enough. For now, I will simply refer to this disgraced jurist as Judge Betsy.
Judge Betsy had sexual relations with a law enforcement officer in her chambers on multiple occasions over the course of a year. This officer’s department regularly argued cases before the judge. This appears to present a far greater risk of conflict than a relationship with an intern. Unlike Betty Currie, who could remove herself from the situation when her boss engaged in sexual activity, Judge Betsy’s junior clerk was compelled to hear “kissing sounds” and “sounds of moaning.” And, much like Monica’s blue dress, the clerk testified that “one of the cushions on a sofa in the Subject Judge’s chambers was stained in a manner consistent with semen.”
When the investigation began, Judge Betsy lied. She described the allegations as “outrageous” and “baseless” and denied them. She then attacked her law clerk, the whistleblower, accusing her of tardiness, using her phone in court, and dressing “too casually.” Some temerity for a judge to shame her clerk’s attire given that she herself disrobed to have sex in her chambers. This charge evokes David Lat’s old blog, “underneath their robes.” Remarkably, Judge Betsy blamed her law clerk for retaliating against a life-tenured federal judge. The power dynamics here are completely inverted.
Judge Betsy sent two follow-up emails to the Chief District Judge. She lied: “I am astonished and confused, and have no idea what this clerk is referring to or why [the clerk] has made such allegations.” Twenty minutes later, she offered another falsehood: “I don’t even know which law enforcement officer [the clerk] is referring to.” Judge Betsy lied to Chief Judge Pryor: “I have never engaged in sexual intercourse in my office, nor anywhere else in the Courthouse.” Judge Betsy could have spoken those words straight from Bill Clinton’s mouth. Like Clinton, Judge Betsy was exposed thanks to a whistleblower. The clerk reported the message through internal channels. Fortunately, there are no secret recordings.
The similarities, sadly, end there. Clinton was impeached, held in contempt, and surrendered his law license. Judge Betsy received a mere slap on the wrist, and her identity remained confidential. Her punishment consisted of drafting a vaguely worded apology that admitted no real fault, exemption from onerous committees (which could be seen as a reward), and avoidance of the heavy administrative duties that come with the role of chief judge. Judge Betsy does not even read about 70% of the civil orders she signs; this hardly marks her as a competent administrator. (I checked her docket—she signed orders today and yesterday; life goes on.) There is no meaningful punishment at all. She obstructed the investigation, lied to several judges, and attempted to retaliate against her law clerk. She apologized only after being caught.
There are numerous stains on the federal judiciary. One stain is the mark on the couch cushion in Judge Betsy’s chambers. Another is the flagrant abuse of discretion by the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit to keep this reprimand private. Yet another stain is left by the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference, which endorsed this private reprimand. There are judges on both bodies whom I respect, but they clearly erred in this instance.
Of course, the most lasting stain has been left by every member of the judicial apparatus who has done NOTHING to halt the discreet impeachment of Pauline Newman by Kimberly Moore. Judges can sleep with people in their offices, retaliate against their clerks, lie about it, and still keep their reprimands private. Yet Judge Newman, who has done nothing wrong, has been unable to hear a case in years. Moore even mocks Newman by omitting her from a narcissistic AI cartoon. Shame on them all.
What comes next?
First, the House of Representatives should initiate impeachment proceedings against Judge Betsy. Perhaps if Judge Betsy felt real pressure, she would choose the honorable path and resign. Moreover, if the judiciary intends to keep this entire matter quiet, Congress can illuminate the full scope of it. The impeachment power should include the authority to subpoena records from the Judicial Council. Generally, judicial records are not subject to impeachment, but here the judges act in an administrative capacity under a federal statute. Under Trump v. Mazars, Congress appears to retain the power to investigate how its laws are enforced against a sitting federal judge. If the judiciary wants to avoid impeachments, they must take internal misconduct seriously.
Second, Congress should revisit the discretion granted to federal judges to police themselves. If these facts could plausibly justify keeping a reprimand private, the rules need revision. The public deserves transparency. Remember that Judge Moore attempted to use “anonymity” to shield her inquiry into Judge Newman. Subpoenas could be employed to advance new judicial-ethics legislation. I recognize that many of these reform questions are partisan, but I expect fair-minded people to agree that the sentences for Judge Newman and Judge Betsy are not equivalent.
Third, the Georgia Bar ought to open a disciplinary proceeding against Judge Betsy, who remains an active member in good standing. After all the fuss about “barfare” we have witnessed, this would be a highly appropriate target for the disciplinary authorities to scrutinize. Does a federal judge who has sex in chambers and then lies to her presiding judges possess the candor and character to practice law?
Fourth, given the judge’s longtime friendship with the victorious district attorney, who herself has faced infidelity on the job, it seems unlikely the Fulton County District Attorney will take action. The U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia might find it appropriate to investigate the judge’s false statements and any possible misuse of government property (that is, those cushions).
