|End of Page||The Assault on the Presidency||Site Map||Overview Page|
The following are excerpts from President Clinton's Jan. 26 motion ``for expedited trial and motions schedule,'' in the case of Paula Corbin Jones v. William Jefferson Clinton and Danny Ferguson. The motion was submitted to Judge Susan Webber Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
President Clinton, through undersigned counsel, hereby moves the Court to expedite the trial date of this matter and to truncate the briefing schedule for summary judgment accordingly. Expedited disposition is rquired to ensure the just and speedy resolution of this litigation, which is in the parties' and the nation's best interests. The reasons for this request are as follows:
Unfortunately, this Court's decision that the trial of a sitting President should not take place while he is in office, and the President's argument that this should also apply to discovery, were rejected by the higher courts. The events of the last few days have shown that the higher courts' confidence that this case could proceed without undue distraction to the nation's business was unfounded. So too was the reliance on plaintiff's assurances that she would not seek to inquire into the defendant's conduct as President and that this case was not a partisan witch hunt aimed at discrediting Mr. Clinton's Presidency....
Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's observation, and despite this Court's herculean efforts to maintain control of the litigation, all the dire consequences that we predicted in our briefs and oral argument have come to pass. The virtually unregulated processes of civil discovery have become a vehicle for parties allied in an attempt to destroy the President. The President is being tarred in the media; gossip, innuendo and hearsay are being passed off as fact. Allegations by unnamed sources are claimed to be credible. Normal journalistic restraint has been abandoned by the broadcast media in their competition to be first on the air with titillating allegations. In short, raw and salacious material is being placed in the public forum without providing the public the means to evaluate the credibility of the information.
All the while, violations of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Court's Confidentiality Order continue unabated--including completely inaccurate leaks concerning statements made at the President's deposition--with the President's counsel constrained from responding. Plaintiff's counsel nevertheless make regular media appearances.
While they solemnly repeat the mantra that they are covered by a ``gag order,'' they feed the media frenzy by implying that there is support in the record of this case for unsourced gossip and innuendo.
More significant, however, is the fact that the Office of Independent Counsel (``OIC''), intentionally or unintentionally, directly or indirectly, has joined forces with Paula Jones. His witnesses are now Mrs. Jones' witnesses. Indeed, in the context of this civil litigation, Linda Tripp--an individual with no knowledge whatsoever of Paula Jones or her allegations--reportedly secretly tape recorded conversations with another tangential witness, and provided the information in the tapes to the OIC and the news media. She also appears to be providing information to plaintiff's counsel as well, for as the Court knows, plaintiff filed an affidavit supplied by Ms. Tripp in this case.
The result has been television programs such as Sunday's Meet the Press, which opened with the caption, ``The Presidency in Crisis: Will the President Survive?'', and expressions of concern about the ability of the White House to focus on pressing domestic issues, the State of the Union Address, and burgeoning foreign crises. Meanwhile, plaintiff now wants to try the Monica Lewinsky case, as part of the Paula Jones case. Shadowing the steps of the Independent Counsel, plaintiff has issued a flurry of last-minute subpoenas for the purpose of obtaining unnecessary tangential impeachment evidence. [fn1]...
We contend that Paula Jones has no case, and we are prepared to prove it: Paula Jones did not suffer any detriment at the hands of President Clinton; she cannot prove either quid pro quo or hostile environment sexual harassment; she cannot prove there was a conspiracy between Mr. Clinton and Trooper Danny Ferguson to deprive her of her civil rights; and she did not experience severe emotional distress as a result of anything President Clinton is alleged to have done to her....
...|We fully appreciate that expediting trial in this matter may inconvenience the Court and other litigants, but we ask for this relief because it is important not only to the President, but to the institution of the Presidency....
|Top of Page||The Assault on the Presidency||Site Map||Overview Page|
|Top of Page||Assault on the Presidency||Site Map||Overview Page|
EIR Issue, March 13, 1998: The Olson-Starr Salon: Plotting Against the President -- $10.00