Author asks when did Jones and Clinton meet?

A new book details a key flaw in Paula Jones' story.

By Lori Leibovich

Aug 3, 1998 | What compelled television producer James Retter to spend more than a year investigating the so-called vast right-wing conspiracy to topple President Clinton? Two words: Rush Limbaugh. After years of listening to the flamboyant right-wing host's vitriol and inaccuracy-laden rhetoric, Retter says he was "driven over the edge." So he decided to fight back -- with facts.

A longtime Democrat, Retter claims he didn't know what he was expecting to find, that all he was after was the truth. Since he didn't see many journalists investigating the right-wing connections to pivotal Clinton bashers such as the Arkansas troopers, Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones, he did it himself. The result is a new book, "Anatomy of a Scandal: An Investigation into the Campaign to Undermine the Clinton Presidency" (General Publishing Group).

The most compelling of Retter's discoveries is his painstaking reconstruction of the events of May 8, 1991, the day Paula Jones claims she was propositioned by then-Gov. Clinton in an Arkansas hotel room. Retter concludes that due to the governor's schedule that day, it is nearly impossible that he met Jones in the early afternoon, as she has claimed in court filings. Clinton had indeed been at the Excelsior Hotel in the morning delivering a speech but had returned to the governor's mansion for a luncheon by the time he allegedly harassed Jones.

Because the Paula Jones sexual harassment case (which was dismissed several months ago, an action Jones is appealing) was the catalyst for the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Retter's claims are highly relevant today. Salon spoke with Retter about his findings and asked him why his discoveries are receiving very little media attention.

Your critics could discount you as just another Clinton loyalist trying to discount his detractors.

I started with a blank page. I would start with a topic and approach it with honest scrutiny and some skepticism. And it went where it went. I did not practice what I think is really appalling journalism these days where you discount things you don't like and include things that support you. When I was writing about Richard Mellon Scaife, for example, I credited him with being a philanthropist who supports good causes such as the Salvation Army. And with Limbaugh, I really tried to leave out salacious personal attacks that have nothing to do with the issues that the person is raising. I have bent over backwards to document and source what I have found. It stands up because it is based on fact.

For your book, you interviewed Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff, who was a critical figure in both the Jones and Lewinsky stories.

I came up with things that were unknown to Michael Isikoff that had they been reported earlier would have cast doubt on Paula Jones and her case.

What did you find that Isikoff and others did not?

The early involvement of the right wing in the Jones case, specifically the involvement of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. At that time, Pritchard was the Washington correspondent for the (London) Sunday Telegraph. The week that Paula filed her lawsuit he reported that he had a dozen conversations with her. We know that there was a claim by Larry Nichols [a disgruntled former Arkansas state employee who has waged a relentless campaign against Clinton ever since the then-governor fired him from an Arkansas state agency for malfeasance in 1987]. He said there was an English newspaper offering half a million dollars to anyone who would come forward with a claim. All I'm saying is there was money and there was early involvement with the right wing. In an interview with me, Michael Isikoff said he was unaware of this involvement. He and others had said, "Paula only went to the right wing because the mainstream press ignored her." When in fact the right wing was involved early on.

Next Page: Questions about the time line

• View blog reactions