Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nevada judge tosses out Flowers defamation suit
Las Vegas Sun ^ | 3/16/04 | Adam Goldman

Posted on 03/16/2004 3:07:59 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing James Carville and George Stephanopoulos of defaming Gennifer Flowers when they commented on claims by Flowers that she had an affair with Bill Clinton.

U.S. District Judge Philip M. Pro ruled that no reasonable jury could find "clear and convincing evidence" that Stephanopoulos and Carville acted with malice when they discussed audio tapes that Flowers said proved she had an affair with the former president. The two former Clinton advisers made their comments while being interviewed on talks shows in 1998 and 2000.

In his summary judgment issued March 8, Pro also ruled that Stephanopoulos' publisher, Little, Brown & Company didn't defame Flowers in Stephanopoulos' 1999 book, "All Too Human."

The Flowers lawsuit was filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest group in Washington, D.C. Flowers was seeking unspecified punitive and compensatory damages.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said Tuesday that "we are considering an appeal."

The case stems from a 1992 news story in which Flowers said she had a 12-year affair with then presidential candidate Clinton while he was governor of Arkansas. During a news conference after the report was published, she played audio tapes of conversations with Clinton that she said were evidence the two had an affair.

Clinton initially denied the allegation but later, during his deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, acknowledged a single sexual encounter with Flowers.

Six years after the 1992 presidential campaign in separate interviews on "Larry King Live," Carville and Stephanopoulos both described the tapes as "doctored."

In his book, Stephanopoulos wrote that during the 1992 Flowers news conference he thought "maybe the tapes were doctored?" Stephanopoulos also told Tim Russert in 2000 that the tapes "were selectively edited."

Stephanopoulos and Carville said their comments were based on local and national television news reports. The reports quoted audio experts, including recently convicted felon Anthony Pellicano, and asserted the tapes were "questionable and not to be trusted," the judge wrote.

Flowers had argued the pair ignored obvious warning signs that the news reports did not conclusively determine that someone had altered the tapes. She said the two had motive and intent to defame her.

Flowers, a former Las Vegas resident, filed the lawsuit in November 1999 against Carville and Stephanopoulos. She added Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., as a defendant in January 2000.

Pro dismissed Flowers' lawsuit in August 2000, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case in November 2002.

The federal court also decided Flowers was a public figure, meaning her lawyers had to prove that the defendants acted with malice.

In November 2003, Pro dismissed Hillary Clinton from the case.

In his latest ruling, Pro wrote that there was no evidence of malice that Stephanopoulos and Carville "acted with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard."

Pro continued that "because each count of Flowers' complaint requires her to prove the element of malice this judgment is fatal to her complaint."

Bill McDaniel, Carville's lawyer, said Tuesday that the case was frivolous and politically motivated.

The judge issued a "strong opinion, the correct opinion," McDaniel said.

Fitton said Judge Pro had been overturned once before in the case by the appellate court, and "if we do appeal we believe he'll be overturned again. We generally believe he has been essentially wrong on the case."

Fitton also denied the case was politically motivated and said McDaniel's comments were "silliness."



TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: billclinton; bimboeruptions; clintonhandlers; clintonlawsuits; clintonlegacy; flowers; jenniferflowers; judicialwatch; lawsuits; lyingliars; personaldestruction; smearcampaign; whispercampaign

1 posted on 03/16/2004 3:08:00 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Judicial Watch loses another one ... they're chasing phantoms. The Clinton gang has way to many liberal friends on the bench to ever allow JW a win.
2 posted on 03/16/2004 3:14:25 PM PST by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
U.S. District Judge Philip M. Pro ruled that no reasonable jury could find "clear and convincing evidence"

A little presumptuous of this fella...He wouldn't have liked for me to be sitting on his jury...

3 posted on 03/16/2004 3:17:42 PM PST by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BluH2o
Sort of makes you wonder who's side Judicial Watch has really been on. I think about the only successful thing they did was getting Bill Clinton disbarred (I think that was JD).

I know that a lot of other people have walked away from JD's representation because they couldn't afford it anymore.

4 posted on 03/16/2004 3:25:16 PM PST by weegee (From the way the Spanish voted - it seems that the Europeans do know there is an Iraq-Al Qaida link.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BluH2o
Has JW ever *won* one?
5 posted on 03/16/2004 3:28:05 PM PST by Guillermo (It's tough being a Miami Dolphins fan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Guillermo
Hey, wise guy, watch it with the trick questions!
6 posted on 03/16/2004 3:30:46 PM PST by Kenny Bunk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BluH2o
The Clinton gang has way to many liberal friends on the bench to ever allow JW a win.

According to his official biography, Judge pro was appointed by President Reagan.

7 posted on 03/16/2004 3:32:52 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
"U.S. District Judge Philip M. Pro ruled that no reasonable jury could find "clear and convincing evidence"

The heck we couldn't.
8 posted on 03/16/2004 5:54:02 PM PST by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Guillermo
Nope
9 posted on 03/16/2004 6:38:42 PM PST by Checkers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Guillermo; deport
Has JW ever *won* one?

What is the meaning of win?

10 posted on 03/16/2004 6:54:47 PM PST by woofie ( 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: woofie; Howlin; DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
Well the Florida Senate candidate is keeping his streak alive..... Same results to be expected from his campaign also, imo.
11 posted on 03/16/2004 7:00:36 PM PST by deport ("These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I have ever seen. It's scary," Kerry said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Carville acts with malice every time he opens his foul mouth.
12 posted on 03/16/2004 7:01:54 PM PST by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deport
Amazing! You'd think he would win one every once in a while just by dumb luck!
13 posted on 03/16/2004 7:04:35 PM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Actually winning by having a court trial isn't his MO, imo. I think he was only after the hype to use for additional fund raising dollars which allowed him to live a very nice lifestyle without having to produce winning results.... Look for him to reappear at JW as soon as he ends his campaign for the Senate......
14 posted on 03/16/2004 7:22:31 PM PST by deport ("These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I have ever seen. It's scary," Kerry said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson