Death of American Virtue - Ken Gormley [171]
Behind the scenes, other Washington operatives were jumping into the act. Conservative activist-lawyer Ann Coulter, who was lending moral support to the elves, was aghast that the Jones case might be settled. In a burst of candor, she told journalist Michael Isikoff that settlement “was contrary to our purpose of bringing down the President.”
The proposed stipulation of settlement that Bob Bennett agreed to have the president sign was even stronger than Davis and Cammarata had hoped for. It read: “The parties agree that Paula Corbin Jones did not engage in any improper or sexual conduct on May 8, 1991, and that the allegations and the inferences about her published in January 1994 in the American Spectator are false and their adverse effects upon her character and reputation regrettable.”
For two days, the Virginia lawyers made frantic telephone calls and faxed messages to Paula, who remained holed up in her Long Beach condo. Increasingly, Davis and Cammarata felt that they were losing a grip over their client. Paula was not returning their phone calls. There were rumors that she was shopping around for new lawyers. Susan Carpenter-McMillan was reportedly horrified that the case might settle; she was making a full-court press to replace the Virginia lawyers. In a confidential letter recapping numerous phone conversations, faxed to Paula in California on August 19, the lawyers literally begged their client to accept the deal: “It is a complete victory for the interests you seek which are the redemption of your character and reputation.”
Not only would she be receiving everything that she had asked for in her complaint, but the lawyers reminded Jones that she would be concluding the litigation in a strong position in terms of restoring her good name: “Your reputation is now at its highest peak because of your victory in the Supreme Court.” The money and language “fully redeems your reputation for character and truthfulness.” If she scotched the deal, on the other hand, her reputation “will suffer serious deterioration in the course of litigation, and therefore, failure to accept this settlement will, in effect, ‘snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.’”
The Virginia lawyers were baffled that their client was suddenly insisting on an “explicit apology” by Clinton and “an admission of wrongdoing.” The latter had never been on the table—not ever. Nor was such a remedy permitted by law. “Your focus has thus changed from proving that you are a good person, to proving Clinton is a bad person. That was never before your objective in filing suit.”
Davis and Cammarata also warned Jones that their professional reputations were being compromised. Demanding x set forth in the complaint, grinding down one’s opponent until that opponent agreed to pay x, then demanding y, was not how the legal system worked. They wrote: “There are serious ethical problems for lawyers who continue litigation after all the client’s interests can be reached by settlement.”
In a last-ditch effort to save the agreement, Davis and Cammarata offered to slash their own fees to get the case resolved. They ended the twelve-page letter by making an emotional plea: “We have given our heart and soul to your case for over three years. Paula, we believe you and we believe in you. You are a good person. You have become like family to us. When you asked if we would recommend this [settlement] to our family [or to a daughter] we told you we would.”
Ten days later, Paula Jones still was not budging. The Virginia attorneys sent a second confidential communication to their client in California. It was one of the most remarkable documents ever to emerge from Gil Davis’s basement files.
In a startling admission of what they believed the case was actually worth, Davis and Cammarata underscored that the settlement amount of $700,000 was already a sky-high number. Judge Wright had recently thrown out several counts, meaning that the maximum Jones could