banner
toolbar
Energy Deregulation The power to choose. Click here
April 1, 1998

Jones Judge Warns About Witness Disclosure


Related Articles
  • The New York Times: The President Under Fire
    By FRANCIS X. CLINES

    WASHINGTON -- The judge in the Paula Jones case issued a terse warning Tuesday to her lawyers for publicly identifying a "Jane Doe" witness over the weekend in an unsubstantiated, hearsay allegation of sexual assault by President Clinton.

    Threatening sanctions if any lawyer in the suit violated disclosure strictures, Judge Susan Webber Wright of Federal District Court ordered an end to the pre-trial salvos of press releases that have made selective, sensational parts of the case public in advance of the trial, tentatively scheduled for May 27 in Little Rock.

    Judge Wright noted that the filing of the Jane Doe allegation was left in a court drop-off box in Pine Bluff, Ark., on Saturday, when she was not there to review it, and simultaneously publicized by the Jones legal team. It touched off another burst of sensational headlines of sexual allegations against Clinton.

    The assault charge, made public by way of unsworn, unsigned third-party hearsay, was released despite a sworn affidavit from the Jane Doe witness that the 20-year-old allegation was untrue. Clinton's lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, denounced the filing as a salacious publicity stunt in a complaint to the court.

    Judge Wright warned the lawyers to make no future pleadings public until they are "in the hands of this judge." And as she waded through the hundreds of pages of final court filings, she said that she was "on the verge of ruling" on the next key question in the case -- whether the civil damage suit should be thrown out because of lack of evidence, as the president's defenders have argued, or proceed to trial, as most principals in the case expect.

    The grand jury investigation into Clinton's relationship with the former intern Monica Lewinsky proceeded Tuesday with additional questioning of two previous witnesses, Nancy Hernreich, the chief of Oval Office operations, and Marsha Scott, a personnel specialist in the White House. It was Ms. Hernreich's fourth appearance before this grand jury and the third for Ms. Scott, who called the experience "intimidating."

    Ms. Scott, whose friendship with the Clintons extends to their Arkansas days, said she had appeared seven times altogether before juries convened by Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation. "I think that they have preconceived notions of what they want us to say and do," she said. "I refuse to participate in that."

    Upon leaving Tuesday after two hours of testimony, Ms. Scott told reporters: "It emotionally is very draining. It's designed to be very intimidating and very frightening, also very isolating."

    Ms. Jones' legal team, meanwhile, filed a separate argument with an appeals court objecting to Judge Wright's decision to exclude from the case all evidence and testimony related to Ms. Lewinsky. She is the former White House intern who signed an affadavit in the Jones suit denying she had a sexual affair with the president but reportedly confirmed it in a series of conversations in which she said she was urged to lie about it.

    The Lewinsky matter was excluded by Judge Wright after Kenneth W. Starr, the Whitewater independent counsel, opened a criminal investigation into whether the president sought to tamper with the Jones case by urging Ms. Lewinsky to commit perjury.

    Clinton has flatly denied both the Lewinsky charge and the civil suit allegation that he summoned Paula Jones in 1991, when she was a state worker and he was Arkansas governor, and exposed himself in a demand for oral sex. Ms. Jones' lawyers are trying to demonstrate a pattern of behavior by Clinton of allegedly seeking office sex in return for job favoritism and of having aides cover his tracks in what amounts to an obstruction of justice.

    In arguing for reinstatement of the Lewinsky matter, Ms. Jones' lawyers -- Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke of Dallas -- suggested to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis that they would be willing to delay the Little Rock trial until Starr completes his investigation. Judge Wright, however, has emphasized that she is under a firm Supreme Court directive to guide the suit to a timely outcome that does not impair Clinton's presidential duties.

    "To appease Mr. Clinton individually as a politician," the Jones team contended, Judge Wright "sacrificed vital evidence on the altar of unverified presidential convenience."

    Clinton defenders Tuesday underlined recent news stories indicating that Arkansas state troopers had made paid appearances at anti-Clinton political gatherings to air charges that they had procured women for Clinton. Peter W. Smith, a Chicago banker and Republican campaign donor, told the Chicago Sun-Times that he had paid more than $50,000 to help spread the "Troopergate" story, including $6,700 each to two state troopers who made the charges in speeches.

    Smith also said he gave $5,000 as expense money to David Brock, a right-wing writer who first published the troopers' sexual allegations in "The American Spectator," a conservative magazine. Brock, writing lately for mainstream publications, recently apologized to the president for "ransacking" his personal life with assertions from troopers who, he now maintains, "were greedy and had slimy motives."

    Smith, who is considered close to House Speaker Newt Gingrich, was reported traveling Tuesday and not available for comment. Eddie Mahe Jr., a Republican political consultant who Smith said was paid $25,000, defended the anti-Clinton scandal campaign.

    "We've been involved in a lot of opposition research, and we felt it was a good thing to do," said Mahe in an interview, describing critics' need to fathom "a river of suggested liaisons of one kind or another" regarding Clinton.

    "We decided to do this because there is a genuine belief on the part of many people, and I would include myself in that group, that you cannot divide a human being into two parts when it comes to someone's moral behavior," Mahe said. "If you don't have morals in your private life, you don't have it in your public life."



  • Energy Deregulation The power to choose. Click here
    Home | Sections | Contents | Search | Forums | Help

    Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company