Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: WASHINGTON (AP) -- Striking back after a week of sensational allegations, President Clinton's lawyers told a court today that there is ``not an iota of evidence ... to support'' Paula Jones' sexual harassment claims. They again asked the court to dismiss the case set to go to trial in late May. ``Our filing focuses on the weakness of the plaintiff's case and her witnesses,' attorney Robert Bennett told a Washington news conference. In Little Rock, Ark., he was filing some 200 pages of legal documents buttressing his arguments. Bennett told reporters that chances of a settlement in the case were slim. ``I will never say never. I think the chances of settlement are most unlikely,'' he said. Directly responding to Mrs. Jones claim she was sexually harassed by Clinton in an Arkansas hotel room in 1991 and then suffered adversely in her state job, Bennett said: ``There is not an iota of evidence to support those claims.'' As for Mrs. Jones' claims last week that she has suffered mental and physical anguish and sexual aversion, Bennett said that until now she had raised ``no medical bills, not even an aspirin. ...I would say it was a big joke.'' Bennett said he was confident that Mrs. Jones' case would be dismissed. ``I don't think we're going to go to trial,'' he said. John Whitehead, one of Mrs. Jones' lawyers, insisted the case will go to trial, and said Bennett's response was simply evidence that ``he and his client do not truly uphold the standards and goals of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, signed into law by defendant Clinton himself to fully protect female victims of sexual misconduct by men. '' Bennett also addressed the sensational claims last weekend by former White House worker Kathleen Willey. She alleged that Clinton made an unwanted sexual advance. Bennett said his filing argues that the alleged incident is ``not particularly relevant to the Paula Jones case.'' In the filing, Bennett included a previously undisclosed excerpt from Mrs. Willey's deposition in which she acknowleged that her alleged 1993 episode with Clinton did not affect her job opportunities. ``Has Mr. Clinton at any time ever offered you any employment or favorable benefits in return for sexual favors,'' she was asked. ``No,'' she answered. ``Has he ever threatened you that if you didn't engage in sexual activity with him that somehow you would be penalized?'' Again she answered: ``No.'' Bennett also cited Mrs. Willey's continued contacts with the president after the alleged incident, including the fact that she met again alone with Clinton in the Oval Office less than two weeks after she claimed she was sexually accosted by him. She also wrote more than dozen letters to Clinton, none of them giving any hint of animosity stemming from the encounter. ``I would essentially look at the fact that Mrs. Willey indicates that she never made any kind of connection'' between the alleged incident and her prospects for work, Bennett pointed out to reporters. Willey's sworn account was first made available among 700 pages of documents filed by Mrs. Jones' lawyers with the court that also raised questions about Clinton's conduct with other women. Bennett dismissed Mrs. Jones' filing as ``garbage'' and ``little more than a web of deceit and distortions.'' Willey then went on national television Sunday night, alleging Clinton made an unwanted advance, touching her breasts and placing her hands on his genitals. Bennett asked the court in his filing to strike the material in Mrs. Jones' last filing, saying it was ``largely the inadmissable byproduct of plaintiffs' smear campaign.'' Bennett's legal strategy underwent some last minute revisions. In a letter Thursday to the federal court in Arkansas handling the Jones lawsuit, Bennett warned he would submit material on Mrs. Jones' sex life. By this morning, he had reversed course and decided not to file the material. It was the second time in a year that Bennett threatened such a tactic, then backed off. Bennett on Thursday wrote the judge in the Jones case that he would submit ``sensitive information of a sexual nature about Paula Jones'' but not make it public. In a statement today, he said he had changed strategies. ``The letter to the judge, which was improperly and perhaps illegally leaked in violation of (the judge's) gag order, reflects counsel's consideration about how best to rebut'' Mrs. Jones' claim last week that she suffered ``sexual aversion'' as a consequence of an alleged sexual advance by Clinton, the statement said. At the White House today, spokesman Mike McCurry said, ``This is a tactical question about the litigation that I think Mr. Bennett addressed. I don't know the degree to which he consulted with the president.'' Asked if Clinton felt it was inappropriate to use Mrs. Jones' sexual history, McCurry replied, ``Yes.'' The Clinton lawyers said the letter ``listed anything and everything that might be included in the filing,'' which is a rebuttal to legal arguments by Jones' lawyers submitted last Friday. Clinton says he does not remember meeting Mrs. Jones and rejects her contention that he made a crude sexual advance in 1991 when he was governor of Arkansas. Mrs. Jones contends that she rejected the solicitation, and as a consequence, was denied proper raises and promotions in her Arkansas state job. Mrs. Jones' lawyers, trying to paint the president as a sexual predator, consider Mrs. Willey a valuable witness because she -- like Mrs. Jones -- alleges that Clinton made an unwanted advance. Bennett's new filings are a rebuttal to the 700 pages of documents and legal arguments submitted by Mrs. Jones' lawyers last Friday. Those papers accused the president of managing a ``vast enterprise'' to obstruct the lawsuit -- offering jobs and even hush money to keep witnesses quiet about Clinton's alleged sexual relationships. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
