Did lawyers for Paula Jones use fraudulent tactics to commit extortion against President Clinton? And just how deeply were Ken Starr and Linda Tripp involved?

September 3, 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- Attorneys for President Clinton are already busy preparing what will be an undoubtedly scathing rebuttal to a report that Ken Starr is likely to present to Congress in the next two weeks.

And there is renewed speculation in the Beltway that a report from Clinton's attorneys will not be at all "defensive" in nature, but instead will present evidence of fraud on the part of attorneys for Paula Jones and possible collusion on the part of the Office of Independent Counsel using illegally-obtained evidence from Linda Tripp.

With the lawsuit against President Clinton by Paula Jones thrown out -- at least for now -- her lawyers may have more than just an uphill battle on their hands attempting to prove that the President's answer to their definitively limited question about sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky constitutes perjury.

In fact, if they attempt to resurrect the lawsuit, they may do so at their own peril.

Facts have emerged since the lawsuit was given the old heave-ho by Judge Susan Webber Wright. And the questions they beg, when combined with a pattern of abnormal legal maneuvering by the Jones team, lead to a new conclusion: the Jones attorney's motion to discovery was based upon willfully misrepresented facts, constituting probable fraud.

Start with sources of the American Spectator's January 1994 "Troopergate" piece. Claims of impropriety between Clinton and a woman named "Paula," have been torpedoed by the article's author, David Brock, who now considers the sources unreliable and has even apologized to the President. Add to that the magazine's ties to avowed Clinton-haters Cliff Jackson, Richard Scaife and discredited judge David Hale: further questions about not only an attempt to "legitimize" lies and rumors to discredit Clinton in the "Troopergate" article but the ongoing "Arkansas project" to dig dirt on Clinton arise.

Next, look at new question as to whether the intent of Jones' original civil charges genuinely gibes with her grounds -- and motivation for -- discovery requests. Remember, Paula Jones and her attorneys based the requests on a contention that she allegedly "suffered tangible job damages" from her claimed refusal to engage in sexual relations with then-Governor Clinton in a hotel room.

But what was really going on? In James Retter's new book "Anatomy of a Scandal," he reports on conversations right-wing British writer Ambrose Evans-Pritchard had with Paula and her husband Stephen Jones during the two months before Jones filed their suit. Two days after the suit was filed, an article by Evans-Pritchard appeared in the London Telegraph outlining her attorneys' plan to use subpoena power and discovery to "reconstruct the secret life of Bill Clinton."

Which begs the question: what does that have to do at all with Jones's case and especially the claim of job damages? Paula's work record (she was reportedly fired from four jobs in less than four years for unsatisfactory performance) and her own testimony (which on a number of key points completely refutes the claims in her suit) are not exactly strong pillars on which to base a motion to discovery.

Which means the "secret life of Clinton" would not be of much use to the case -- but could prove very potent ammunition for political enemies of the President.

Paula Jones's own deposition is rife with statements that contradict her civil complaint:

-- Paula Jones denied knowing that she received a promotion from Grade 9 to Grade 11 just two months after the alleged incident. She got the promotion. Does it strike anyone as strange that she was not aware she'd been kicked up two grades?

-- She denied knowing that she had received step increases (merit raises) and cost of living raises during her tenure. She got those raises!

-- She admitted that she left state employment because her husband Stephen wanted to move to California -- and not for any other reasons. This directly contradicted her sworn statement in her civil complaint in which she contended that she left Arkansas state employment because she was transferred to a "dead-end job."

-- She could not think of a single promotion that she applied for. This contradicted the contention in her sworn civil complaint that she had been denied promotions.

-- She stated that she had no idea what her grade level was when she entered and left state
employment. You'd think she'd at least get this fact straight before trying to file a sexual harassment suit.

Hmmm... testimony that contradicts claims made in a civil complaint... not noticing something as gratifying as an increase on the ol' paycheck... is it any surprise that the words perjury and fraud cross inquiring minds?

But wait. Things get curiouser.

A subsequent demand by Jones' second set of lawyers hired for her by the ultra-conservative cult-like Rutherford Institute asked for $2 million to settle the case out of court -- a situation that is in total opposition to what generally happens when civil suits are settled out of court, namely a settlement figure lower than the figure a jury would be likely to award (in this case, a maximum of just under $600,000). A surprising number of legal commentators publicly questioned this move, and some even called it tantamount to a "shakedown" or "blackmail."

Remember, the public has not had a chance to hear the President's side of the story in the Jones suit -- including some reportedly devastating evidence refuting Jones's story. Retter's "Anatomy of a Scandal" reconstructed the time line for Clinton's and Jones's whereabouts on the day on which the incident between Jones and Clinton allegedly took place, including interviews with dozens of people who were with Clinton and Jones that day.

Retter reaches the convincing conclusion that such a meeting would have been impossible as Jones described in her deposition.

And it is widely rumored in the Beltway that a reconstructed timeline is not the only evidence contradicting Jones's entire tale of woe that the President's attorneys have uncovered.

Next, we turn to Monica Lewinsky -- she may be not only be immaterial to the Jones case but looks to have been yanked into the mix fraudulently -- based on what looks like fraudulent motion to discovery in the first place, meaning the only motivation for getting Lewinsky's name into the President's Jones deposition was a fraudulent effort to set up the President for embarrassment or (as they surely hoped) worse.

How did Lewinsky get into this scenario? Via Linda Tripp and Kenneth Starr.

When Lewinsky was "stung," officials of the OIC reportedly exerted coercive pressure on Lewinsky, including depriving her of access to counsel. And when she was questioned by Starr's prosecutors, they reportedly told her that they had her sworn affidavit in relation to the Jones case.

Hold it right there -- all Jones case testimony was under a gag order. Were they lying about it? Were they briefed on it? Or did they actually have it? If so, how did they get it? Not to be too obvious, but the Jones team would be a reasonable guess.

Kenneth Starr's authoring of an amicus brief for Jones's attorneys in 1994 raises questions of conflict of interest in adding Lewinsky to his investigation at the very least -- especially because the request was made by Rosalie Silberman, the wife of Judge Laurence Silberman, one member of the conservative-slanted three-judge Appeals Court panel that would later appoint Mr. Starr to the Office of Independent Counsel. Silberman actually made the request on behalf of the Independent Women's Forum -- a not-so-independent cadre of right-wing women coached and groomed as media pundits, funded largely by Clinton-basher Richard Mellon Scaife , the man who funded the "Arkansas Project."

And it seems more than mere serendipity that Kenneth Starr turned the attention of his investigation -- chasing down women allegedly "involved" with Clinton to ask about Whitewater "pillow talk" -- at the same time initiation of discovery in the Jones case commenced -- subpoenaing women Clinton allegedly engaged in trysts with on the pretense of showing a pattern of... employment discrimination?

Funny that both claims look like a real stretch. It only reinforces suspicion that the Jones and Starr camps were doing similar research and trying to find a way -- any way -- to link the two efforts.

Which leads us to Linda Tripp. Disturbing questions remain about the circumstances under which Tripp began working with the Office of Independent Counsel regarding the Lewinsky matter, and, for that matter, exactly when she was first in contact with Starr and his staff. Other questions surrounding how exactly the Jones team came to learn of the tapes and subsequently subpoena Tripp also remain. And, in a development that undercuts Tripp's claims of innocence and ignorance that she was illegally taping Lewinsky, new evidence emerged last week that Tripp lied about her actual knowledge of Maryland wiretapping statutes -- and therefore illegally taped Lewinsky. Tripp's motives and integrity are in question, to say the least.

Well... Clinton's attorneys may have something even stronger than conflicts of interest and ethics when the matter comes before Congress. The amazing convergence of so many coincidentally timed actions on the part of the Starr and Tripp teams ... the serious questions of fraud surrounding the Jones suit... conflicts of interest... contradictions and possible perjury on the part of the plaintiff that undercut the foundation of her entire case... and we haven't even discussed the pattern of leaks from the Independent Counsel's office which are presently under criminal investigation.

It doesn't look like "justice for Paula Jones." It doesn't look like a "search for the truth," the sanctimonious mantra of Ken Starr.

What it looks like is an attempt to take out a twice-elected President at all costs, including evidence of widespread deception, lies, collusion and fraud -- tactics that make attorneys on the Starr and Jones team look like legal racketeers.

--- The Editors

Telling us that children can "singularly" spot a double standard, Joe Lieberman stood alone on the Senate floor, speaking (or, more accurately, posing for C-Span and the networks that picked it up) and scolded his friend, Bill Clinton -- but then seemed to be willing to lead the charge for censure and not impeachment.

Lieberman says the president is alone and the only God can judge him. Members of Congress have been guilty and so have past presidents. We should not pass judgement, he tells us.

But -- and this is the big but -- he did just that, and said that the President is held to a higher standard, "the most powerful person in the world." His misbehavior is somehow worse than that of anyone else. There is more to this than dignity and propriety.

The American people are fundamentally fair and forgiving, he continued. But the President missed the opportunity -- and how significant and consequential his behavior was. Lieberman added he regrets that Clinton failed to acknowlege that his Presidency would not be imperiled if not for his own behavior.

The transgressions the Presdient has admitted to are too consequential for us to walk away from, he continued. It is wrong and unacceptable, and should be followed by some form of public rebuke and accountability. However, he added, it is premature to do so until we have received the report of the Independent Counsel -- and the White Houses response to it.

Lieberman continued: We must find out if we have crossed the "high threshold" that our Constitution demands to overturn a national election. Lieberman believe that talk of impeachment and censure now is premature - the President is still our nation's leader and our commander in chief.

And while the legal process moves forward, Lieberman said, Congress should provide the time and space and support he needs. That time and space "may give the President additional opportunity" to readdress his situation.

In the mean time, Lieberman said, we would all be advised to heed Lincoln: "If there ever could be a time for mere catch arguments, that time is surely not now." And Lieberman concluded by saying he believes we are at such a time today. "Let us proceed in accordance with our nation's traditional moral compass... but fairly and responsibly. Let us confront the damage that the actions of the President have done."

Very harsh words for the Presdient, said the moron anchor on MSNBC. Gwen Ifill added that Liberman and Clinton are friends and that she couldn't think of a harsher slap at the President.

Of course, she is wrong. Harsh would have been Lieberman calling for his resignation.

He did no such thing.

Instead, he wisely set the stage for a slap on the wrist -- all the President deserves from us!

So there!

-- The Editors