Front Page   Nation-World   Arkansas-Local   Editorial-Voices   Sports   Business   Features-Style   Classified Ads   Acrobat® PDFs   Business Matters   Business & Tech   Weekend Section   Previous Features   Photo Gallery   Useful Links   Info & E-mail   Site Map

Statement released by Paula Corbin Jones' lawyers

    One positive attribute of our Constitution is that, with rare exceptions, everyone has the right to voice his own opinions, whether factually right or wrong. Mr. Clinton voiced many opinions in his video testimony to the grand jury aired yesterday. We will briefly address only those dealing with us or the Paula Jones case. In general, we believe Mr. Clinton made his attacks to rationalize his inexcusable behavior.
    Neither Paula Jones nor her attorneys have been politically motivated in this case; we have been motivated by the truth and the desire for justice. We did not ask the "wrong questions" in Mr. Clinton's deposition; we asked the right questions -- he gave the wrong answers -- even denying any recollection of being alone with Monica Lewinsky. He did not artfully dodge inexact questions. Instead, he falsely responded to precise inquiries.
    The definition of "sexual relations" in that deposition was taken directly from the United States criminal code, and criminal defendants are sent to jail every week in this country based upon that definition. No reported case has ever held this definition to be vague or ambiguous. Apparently, Mr. Clinton, a trained lawyer and past law professor, is one of the few human beings in this country incapable of understanding this language.
    Mrs. Jones' lawyers have never violated the trial court's gag order, and Mr. Clinton can produce no evidence that we have. Indeed, our publicly filed pleadings present evidence that any leaks in this case have come from Mr. Clinton's side and the White House.
    As to whether Paula Jones' case is "bogus," that is not what the trial court held, and the case is on appeal. The trial court assumed the truth of Mrs. Jones' account and then ruled that what Mr. Clinton did was not "severe" or "outrageous." We remain optimistic that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will agree with us that Mr. Clinton's conduct was both "severe" and "outrageous." Finally, we note that Paula Jones and her lawyers are not under imminent threat of criminal prosecution of impeachment; Mr. Clinton is.
   

This article was published on Wednesday, September 23, 1998