4.2.12 WC: 191694 I think the President could win if it actually went to trial, but it won’t go to trial. What I would do if I were his lawyer is to say, “Look, the dignity of the office precludes the [P]resident from answering any of these questions. We realize that as a result of not answering these questions, we will reluctantly, without admitting anything, have to be sanctioned by having the verdict directed against us on the merits. We accept that because we can’t answer the questions and preserve the dignity. And now let’s move on to the damages, where the focus is not on the [P]resident but on Paula Jones.” And in that way, he can, in effect, settle the case, even if the other side doesn’t settle because the damages will be very low, there won’t be an apology. There’ll be a judgment against him, but the judgment will be explained on the basis of the dignity of the presidency. So if the settlement talks fail, that’s what I would recommend that his lawyers think about. . . . And the [P]resident has to start asking himself: Is he well advised here? The President had three options, but he was aware of only two of them. He knew that he could litigate and try to win — as he ended up doing. He also knew that he could try to settle the case, which would have avoided the necessity of testifying at the deposition or trial. A settlement requires both sides to agree. In the Jones case, the president reportedly offered to pay Jones $700,000, in order to settle the case. Jones insisted on an apology® and the settlement talks eventually broke down. The third option, of which the president was unaware, was to default the Jones case. Every litigant in a civil case has the right to default — which means, essentially, to settle the case unilaterally by simply refusing to contest the allegations in the complaint. Consider, for example, the following hypothetical case: a fired employee of a high tech business sues for $10,000 in back pay. The business realizes th