Files Detail Bitter Fight in Jones Lawsuit
Clinton Team Cited Accuser's Sexual History; She Sought to
Subpoena His Doctors
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 20, 1998; Page A02
washingtonpost.com
Lawyers for President Clinton and Paula Jones waged a stop-at-nothing
series of legal battles under the cloak of court-ordered secrecy last winter
that delved into everything from medical records about his private parts to
testimony about her sex life, according to documents unsealed yesterday.
The papers released on the eve of an appeals court clash in the Jones case
demonstrated that the president mounted a vigorous counteroffensive to
her lawyers' much-publicized attempts to uncover any Clinton sexual
misconduct, examining Jones's fund-raising solicitations, efforts to secure a
book contract and alleged barroom encounters with men.
Clinton's legal team raised the issue of Jones's sexual history in a brief filed
Jan. 7 -- as it turned out, the same day Monica S. Lewinsky signed an
affidavit falsely denying any sexual relationship with Clinton. The
president's lawyers wrote that their research had proven Jones was no
"innocent minister's daughter" who would be traumatized at being
propositioned by their client. Indeed, they cited a deposition from a man
who testified she engaged in oral sex with him in the parking lot of a bar the
same night they met, just months before the alleged May 8, 1991, incident
with Clinton.
The filings included little new information about Clinton's alleged relations
with other women, much of which was made public last spring before the
case was dismissed. But they revealed that Jones's lawyers tried
unsuccessfully to subpoena two of the president's doctors to testify about
the condition of his anatomy to determine whether it matched the
"distinguishing characteristics" their client had described.
The 724 pages of motions, briefs and affidavits were unsealed in Little
Rock by U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, just a day before an
appeals court in St. Paul, Minn., will hear oral arguments about whether to
overturn Wright's April 1 decision to throw out the sexual harassment
lawsuit.
Representatives of the two sides resumed fitful negotiations yesterday
intended to settle the case before today's scheduled 3 p.m. EST courtroom
appearance, but the chances of a last-minute deal appeared remote. Jones
attorney James A. Fisher and Clinton attorney Robert S. Bennett
conferred by telephone, but no formal new offer was put on the table,
according to sources.
"As of right now, we're still talking, which is a good sign and that makes it
a possibility for settlement," said John W. Whitehead, president of the
Rutherford Institute, the Charlottesville-based foundation backing Jones's
suit. "It might even be possible after the oral argument."
"I'm still hopeful," agreed Bill McMillan, a California lawyer helping Jones
deal with settlement talks. "But at the moment nothing is happening."
Bennett on Sunday flatly rejected an offer by Jones to withdraw her appeal
in exchange for a $1 million payment from the president and another $1
million from Abe Hirschfeld, a real estate developer who already has set
aside a check for that amount in a unilateral attempt to end the case.
While Bennett previously has offered $700,000, the president's confidants
insist Clinton will not agree to pay $1 million because it would look too
much like an admission that he solicited Jones for sex, which he has
adamantly denied. Moreover, White House advisers have ruled out
endorsing any involvement by Hirschfeld because it would appear
unseemly and would invite political attacks, given that the New York
millionaire faces 123 counts of tax evasion.
Hirschfeld said yesterday that his offer remains active and under
consideration by the Jones team, adding that his prosecution on the tax
charges is unfair and he is not seeking any quid pro quo from the president.
"I don't want nothing," he said. "The only thing I would want is if they could
change my accent, I'd give more money. I assure you that I won't miss it."
His only motivation, he said, is "so the nation can start functioning again."
The newly released court papers document how all-consuming the case
became for lawyers on both sides late last year and early this year. While
some of the filings dealt with substantive matters, many of them were
back-and-forth procedural fights over who failed to answer which question
or turn over what documents. Included in the file were various motions
filed by subpoenaed witnesses trying to get out of testifying, including
Lewinsky.
Along with her affidavit denying the affair, Lewinsky's lawyer, Francis D.
Carter, filed a brief complaining that she had no relevant information for the
Jones case and that forcing her to testify would subject her to "the spectre
of oppressively harassing questions about her personal life" that would turn
her White House experience "into a blight on her resume."
In the end, the motion was never acted upon because it was entered into
the court record on Jan. 20, the day before the first story broke about
independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's investigation into whether Clinton
tried to obstruct justice by covering up his affair with Lewinsky during the
Jones lawsuit. Wright then excluded the Lewinsky evidence from the case.
The records provide a glimpse into Clinton's mostly failed attempts to limit
the questioning of women linked to him. His attorneys succeeded in
persuading Wright to narrow the scope of research to no further back than
1986 and only to women who worked for state or federal government or
who were approached by state troopers on Clinton's behalf when he was
governor.
Neither Clinton's full deposition nor Jones's were among the papers
released -- only portions have been filed publicly -- but co-defendant
Danny Ferguson, the state trooper who escorted Jones to meet Clinton at
the Excelsior Hotel, said in a sworn statement that it was Jones's idea,
contrary to her assertions.
Clinton's legal team engaged in a wide-ranging search for evidence calling
Jones's motives into question. According to the papers, the president's side
obtained testimony from book publisher Judith Regan, who said she was
approached by a Jones adviser, Susan Carpenter-McMillan, seeking a
contract for her friend. The Clinton lawyers also complained during a
conference call that a Rutherford Institute fund-raising solicitation would
pollute the jury pool in Arkansas. And they waged a protracted battle to
force a fund-raising company working for Jones to open its records.
Perhaps the most salacious testimony cited by the Clinton team was a
deposition from a man named Michael King, who testified that he engaged
in sexual activity with Jones on two occasions after they met in a bar.
King's deposition was not released, but the Clinton lawyers said it
countered Jones's claim that she suffered emotional distress because the
then-governor allegedly dropped his pants and asked for oral sex.
King's story, the brief said, "would certainly be relevant as potential
rebuttal testimony should plaintiff assert at any trial that she was an
innocent minister's daughter, or that she was unfamiliar with oral sex, or
that she was emotionally traumatized by a suggestion that she perform oral
sex."
Staff researchers Nathan Abse, Ben White and Heming Nelson
contributed to this report.
© Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company |
