Salon Newsreal | Author asks when did Jones and Clinton meet?

D A I L Y+Q U O T E
Computer "crackers" get yuppified

R E C E N T L Y
A new kind of strike
By David Bacon
The first auto strike over GM's global investment strategy
(07/31/98)
The strange case of Kenneth S.
By Dr. Justin Frank
A Washington psychoanalyst analyzes "Kenneth S." and his odd fixation on the president's sex life
(07/30/98)
Starr's final act?
By David Corn
Kenneth Starr has sprung into action, but where is he headed?
(07/29/98)
Why Clinton caved in to Israel
By Jonathan Broder
The Lewinsky scandal's first big victim: The Middle East peace process
(07/28/98)
Victim of circumstance
By Mollie Dickenson
Overlooked during the endless Whitewater probe is the damage that's been done to Little Rock's venerable Rose Law Firm, which, contrary to reports, stands innocent of all wrongdoing
(07/27/98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

AUTHOR ASKS: WHEN DID JONES AND CLINTON MEET? | PAGE 1, 2
- - - - - - - - - -
You also found discrepancies in the time line of events on the day the president allegedly harassed Paula Jones.
Yes, It's quite remarkable. I found what appeared to be an irreconcilable discrepancy in the time line. It has to do with Paula's claim in two legal filings. She said what occurred in the hotel room happened at 2:30 in the afternoon. I found out that the president was at the Excelsior Hotel in the morning, gave opening remarks at the third annual Governor's Quality Control Conference, lingered in the hotel and then left to go to the governor's mansion for an official function.
And you verified this how?
I verified this by looking at logs, by talking to people including the then-press secretary for Gov. Clinton and found that this was in fact the way things happened.
So presumably this undermines Jones' claim?
This puts the Jones people in the position of having to account for Bill Clinton's going back to the hotel. Since they never bothered to examine Bill Clinton's schedule for the day, this came as a surprise to them. And their answer was, he simply went back -- that he left the function, a luncheon on the mansion lawn, and went back to the hotel.
Does the Jones team have any witnesses who saw Clinton go from the luncheon back to the hotel?
It came as a total surprise to the Jones team that the president was not at the hotel for a luncheon -- they thought he had been there for lunch and had simply lingered. The significance of this is enormous because Paula's claim is for emotional distress. She claims that what happened in the hotel room caused her to flee the room shaking, run downstairs and tell her co-worker what happened, then leave work early. Had this happened in the morning, before lunch, there would have been scores of people who could have attested to the fact that they had seen her.
Why isn't the Clinton camp seizing this information, bringing it to light?
You'd have to ask the Clinton camp. There is a gag order and the president's lawyers are not the kind to go out and give a lot of information. In other words, if the Clinton camp brought up the time line earlier, the Jones camp might have adjusted it accordingly. They would have room to be vague. Now they are locked in at 2:30.
Again, if this information is true, why haven't we heard about it?
Paula Jones has a constitutional right to make her claim and make her filings that will work their way to trial. What we rely on in the interim is reporters to tell us what's going on. And it seems to me that has not happened in the Paula Jones case because the question turns at some point from why didn't Clinton's lawyers bring this out to why didn't the media know this? The second question is, is it true? If it is true, then what does it say about Paula Jones and her lawsuit? If she was lying about the time, I think her whole case --
But wait, you just said you had evidence to prove it is true, that the alleged harassment, if it occurred at all, would have had to have taken place in the morning?
I've had two meetings with [former Jones advisor] Susan Carpenter-McMillan and in the first one she denied that Paula ever gave a time line. The second time she said that Paula did give a time but it wasn't 2:30, it was 3:30. So up to this point she is no longer contesting that Clinton was there in the morning and left, she is saying that he came back in the afternoon. She says what could have happened is that because the governor's mansion is only six blocks from the Excelsior Hotel, he could have walked. Well, what has been lost in all of this is Danny Ferguson [Clinton's then-body guard].
Can you explain the role Ferguson plays here?
Well, imagine Bill Clinton walking back to the hotel unnoticed. He would have had to have been with Danny Ferguson. Paula's claim is that Danny Ferguson was the conduit up to the hotel room in the first place. He must be there.
Did you talk to Ferguson?
He's under a gag order. What I have determined is that Ferguson will say, when these papers are released, that all this happened in the morning. And if it happened in the morning than Paula's whole claim of emotional distress collapses. There is no way with all the detail Paula Jones has brought to the events of that day that she could have possibly forgotten if the alleged harassment happened before or after lunch. If she is saying that it happened after lunch, she is saying it because she has to support a claim of emotional distress. To allow her to flee a room, go down and tell a friend and leave work early. That sequence does not work in the morning.
Everything you're saying could bring down her whole case, which in turn could complicate the Lewinsky matter. What happens next?
Good question. It seems to me that when the Jones papers are released, which seems to be imminent, contained within them will be a bombshell that will either support what I've said or not. And it will have to do with Danny Ferguson's claims. In his legal filings he does not give a specific time that things took place other than to say "after the governor's speech." Well I've now demonstrated that the governor's speech was in the morning. I am convinced that he will be asked specifically for a time, and if he says it was in the morning, not in the afternoon, Paula Jones' claim of emotional distress collapses.
SALON | Aug. 3, 1998

D A I L Y+Q U O T E Computer "crackers" get yuppified R E C E N T L Y A new kind of strike By David Bacon The first auto strike over GM's global investment strategy (07/31/98) The strange case of Kenneth S. By Dr. Justin Frank A Washington psychoanalyst analyzes "Kenneth S." and his odd fixation on the president's sex life (07/30/98) Starr's final act? By David Corn Kenneth Starr has sprung into action, but where is he headed? (07/29/98) Why Clinton caved in to Israel By Jonathan Broder The Lewinsky scandal's first big victim: The Middle East peace process (07/28/98) Victim of circumstance By Mollie Dickenson Overlooked during the endless Whitewater probe is the damage that's been done to Little Rock's venerable Rose Law Firm, which, contrary to reports, stands innocent of all wrongdoing (07/27/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		AUTHOR ASKS: WHEN DID JONES AND CLINTON MEET? \| PAGE 1, 2 - - - - - - - - - - You also found discrepancies in the time line of events on the day the president allegedly harassed Paula Jones. Yes, It's quite remarkable. I found what appeared to be an irreconcilable discrepancy in the time line. It has to do with Paula's claim in two legal filings. She said what occurred in the hotel room happened at 2:30 in the afternoon. I found out that the president was at the Excelsior Hotel in the morning, gave opening remarks at the third annual Governor's Quality Control Conference, lingered in the hotel and then left to go to the governor's mansion for an official function. And you verified this how? I verified this by looking at logs, by talking to people including the then-press secretary for Gov. Clinton and found that this was in fact the way things happened. So presumably this undermines Jones' claim? This puts the Jones people in the position of having to account for Bill Clinton's going back to the hotel. Since they never bothered to examine Bill Clinton's schedule for the day, this came as a surprise to them. And their answer was, he simply went back -- that he left the function, a luncheon on the mansion lawn, and went back to the hotel. Does the Jones team have any witnesses who saw Clinton go from the luncheon back to the hotel? It came as a total surprise to the Jones team that the president was not at the hotel for a luncheon -- they thought he had been there for lunch and had simply lingered. The significance of this is enormous because Paula's claim is for emotional distress. She claims that what happened in the hotel room caused her to flee the room shaking, run downstairs and tell her co-worker what happened, then leave work early. Had this happened in the morning, before lunch, there would have been scores of people who could have attested to the fact that they had seen her. Why isn't the Clinton camp seizing this information, bringing it to light? You'd have to ask the Clinton camp. There is a gag order and the president's lawyers are not the kind to go out and give a lot of information. In other words, if the Clinton camp brought up the time line earlier, the Jones camp might have adjusted it accordingly. They would have room to be vague. Now they are locked in at 2:30. Again, if this information is true, why haven't we heard about it? Paula Jones has a constitutional right to make her claim and make her filings that will work their way to trial. What we rely on in the interim is reporters to tell us what's going on. And it seems to me that has not happened in the Paula Jones case because the question turns at some point from why didn't Clinton's lawyers bring this out to why didn't the media know this? The second question is, is it true? If it is true, then what does it say about Paula Jones and her lawsuit? If she was lying about the time, I think her whole case -- But wait, you just said you had evidence to prove it is true, that the alleged harassment, if it occurred at all, would have had to have taken place in the morning? I've had two meetings with [former Jones advisor] Susan Carpenter-McMillan and in the first one she denied that Paula ever gave a time line. The second time she said that Paula did give a time but it wasn't 2:30, it was 3:30. So up to this point she is no longer contesting that Clinton was there in the morning and left, she is saying that he came back in the afternoon. She says what could have happened is that because the governor's mansion is only six blocks from the Excelsior Hotel, he could have walked. Well, what has been lost in all of this is Danny Ferguson [Clinton's then-body guard]. Can you explain the role Ferguson plays here? Well, imagine Bill Clinton walking back to the hotel unnoticed. He would have had to have been with Danny Ferguson. Paula's claim is that Danny Ferguson was the conduit up to the hotel room in the first place. He must be there. Did you talk to Ferguson? He's under a gag order. What I have determined is that Ferguson will say, when these papers are released, that all this happened in the morning. And if it happened in the morning than Paula's whole claim of emotional distress collapses. There is no way with all the detail Paula Jones has brought to the events of that day that she could have possibly forgotten if the alleged harassment happened before or after lunch. If she is saying that it happened after lunch, she is saying it because she has to support a claim of emotional distress. To allow her to flee a room, go down and tell a friend and leave work early. That sequence does not work in the morning. Everything you're saying could bring down her whole case, which in turn could complicate the Lewinsky matter. What happens next? Good question. It seems to me that when the Jones papers are released, which seems to be imminent, contained within them will be a bombshell that will either support what I've said or not. And it will have to do with Danny Ferguson's claims. In his legal filings he does not give a specific time that things took place other than to say "after the governor's speech." Well I've now demonstrated that the governor's speech was in the morning. I am convinced that he will be asked specifically for a time, and if he says it was in the morning, not in the afternoon, Paula Jones' claim of emotional distress collapses. SALON \| Aug. 3, 1998