 |
|
| Email this article | Printer friendly page |
| For Immediate Release | |
| Jan 8, 1998 | Contact: Press Office 202-646-5172 |
|
Today's Post Article Refers To Fruits of Discovery In Explaining Why Settlement Unlikely Evidence That Newspaper Has Cozy Relationship With Clinton's Attorneys in Jones' Case Mounts Today's article in The Washington Post, entitled "U.S. Probes Whether Retaliation Is Behind IRS Audit of Paula Jones," appears to contain information provided by President Clinton's defense team in the Paula Jones case, suggesting that discovery -- which should otherwise remain secret under a court imposed gag order -- has yielded no information which would cause the chief executive to settle the case short of trial. Specifically, the article states: "The discovery process turned up no testimony that has motivated Clinton, who has denied Jones's claim, to relent and offer the apology she insists she wants." The article adds: "Moreover, Jones's lawyers reportedly have not sought an independent medical examination of Clinton, as her previous attorneys once wanted, suggesting to legal analysts that they may not use the 'distinguishing characteristics argument in court." (Emphasis added). In a Legal Times article of November 17, 1997, it was reported (as also occurred in several other publications at the time) that Judge Susan Webber Wright issued a broad "gag order, " "with the blessings of both camps, [which] prohibits the parties, lawyers, and public relations agents associated with the case from revealing any information dug up during pretrial discovery." Id. at 2. (Emphasis Added). To buttress the appearance that Clintons' Jones defense team has a cozy relationship with The Washington Post, two other recent strange events are relevant. In Judicial Watch's lawsuit on behalf of State Farm policyholder Tom Flocco, for allegedly improperly paying Clinton's legal fees in the Jones case, the same Washington Post reporter who wrote today's article authored another article which, according to his co-reporter, resulted in an editor removing any reference to Judicial Watch's lawsuit, obviously to avoid any ramification to Clinton. Indeed, it was not until a recent article falsely declaring that Judicial Watch has been thwarted in its attempt to have Clinton pay back the monies to State Farm, that The Washington Post even admitted the existence of the suit. (In fact, a recent court ruling advanced Flocco's claims against State Farm). Perhaps not coincidentally, this recent article bearing a headline which mischaracterized the ruling in the State Farm case was written by the same reporter who authored today's story, and the earlier article which refused to even report the existence of the State Farm suit. Larry Klayman, Chairman of Judicial Watch, issued the following statement: "It is a shame that a major national publication would play games with the news. While this town has always been aware of a pro-Democratic tilt at The Washington Post -- particularly since it is owned by the Graham family, staunch Democrats -- it behooves the paper to engage in more even-handed reporting. In this latest instance, it may have participated, in its zeal to help Clintons' lawyers, and Clinton himself, in violating a federal court gag order. |
|
