Dolly’s RICO case against Clinton

Dolly Kyle Browning, a witness in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against the president, is scheduled to appear before a U.S. district court on Feb. 16 in a RICO case against President Clinton.

Judicial Watch, a public-interest legal group, filed the lawsuit on behalf of Browning, who had been Clinton’s friend since she was 11 years old. Other witnesses of the Paula Jones lawsuit, including Linda Tripp and Kathleen Willey, were also included as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

In the case, Browning alleges that Clinton violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by maintaining control of the presidential office through a pattern of racketeering activity. Browning contends that Clinton did this by threatening and intimidating her in an attempt to prevent her from revealing a sexual relationship to the media or through publication of her novel, “Purposes of the Heart,” a fictional account of the alleged affair.

“Bill Clinton’s demonstrated pattern of threatening women must come to an end,” said Larry Klayman, chairman of Judicial Watch.

Another plaintiff in the case, Direct Outstanding Creations Corporation, is a company owned by Browning’s husband, Robert Browning. The company has taken part in the lawsuit due to the negative publicity of Dolly Browning’s book and alleged loss of sales it has suffered from actions taken by Clinton and certain members of his staff.

Co-defendants in the case include Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey, Deputy Personnel Director Marsha Scott, Clinton’s lawyer Robert Bennett, reporter Jane Mayer, and Advanced Magazine Publishers, Inc., parent company of the New Yorker Magazine. According to Browning’s complaint, these co-defendants aided Clinton in various racketeering activities.

Court records state that the lawsuit was filed against Clinton and the others named in the suit for “tortuous interference with business opportunities, disparagement of property, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), violation of First Amendment rights, and civil conspiracy.”

An example of such racketeering and intentional infliction of emotional distress allegedly occurred in late fall of 1993, when Lindsey is accused of threatening Mrs. Browning by telling Dorcy Kyle Corbin, Browning’s sister, that “we’ve read your sister’s book and we don’t want it published.” More than three years later, in an ongoing attempt to discredit Browning and prevent her from publishing her book, Mayer published an article in the May 26, 1997, edition of the New Yorker magazine that proceeded to report false, misleading, and disparaging statements about Browning’s book, according to court documents.

The article, in part, said that a publisher by the name of Alfred S. Regnery had received Browning’s book and said he “wouldn’t touch it with a 10-foot pole.” The article continues by saying that Regnery stated that the book “isn’t particularly newsworthy” and that “it’s far below our standards.”

Browning, however, claims she never sent Regnery a copy of the book. In fact, Regnery never saw a copy of Browning’s book, nor did he make the statements that Mayer attributed to him in her article, according to the suit.

Also in Browning’s complaint, she alleged that Scott made false, misleading, and defamatory statements about her. Scott reportedly claimed that she stood by Clinton during a conversation that he had with Browning as they talked together at their high school reunion. During the conversation, Scott said that Browning had repeatedly told Clinton that her story was not true, but that she was angry and needed money. Scott also claimed that Browning would yell out an accusation and then say it was all a lie.

In a handwritten notation about the incident, Scott said, “It was this erratic behavior that made me stay so attentive to what she was doing and saying.”

However, Browning said there was no way that anyone else could hear the conversation that she had with Clinton because there were several hundred other people in the ballroom dancing and listening to continuous music.

“During the conversation, our faces were close together. We were speaking in a volume that was only just loud enough to hear each other over the background noise,” said Browning. “The only people within at least six feet of us during our conversation were two male Secret Service agents.”

Even Bennett, Clinton’s lawyer, allegedly painted Browning in a false light. Browning said that during her deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit, Bennett referred to her March 6, 1998, affidavit as “a web of deceit and distortions.” Bennett also referred to them as “garbage,” “vicious and false attacks,” and “salacious material.”

Speaking about Jones’ attorneys, Bennett said, “Despite their vicious and false attacks, our filing focuses on the weakness of the plaintiff’s case and her witnesses (which include Browning)…Because they dumped so much of this garbage, as I say, on the record, we felt in fairness to the President, that we had to move to strike it and to present substantial evidence gathered in discovery, depositions, and things of that kind which rebut that salacious material.”

As much as Bennett may have wanted to discredit Browning, though, he never challenged the statements in her testimony about her long-standing sexual relationship with Clinton, and therefore had to know, or had reason to know, that Browning testified truthfully. Because of this, Browning’s complaint said that Bennett’s statements “intentionally, recklessly, maliciously, and negligently impugned Mrs. Browning’s integrity, truthfulness and veracity.”

Judicial Watch believes that in light of this recent RICO case, both Senate and House Republicans have failed to pursue the “clear-cut evidence” of the threats against Browning because they fear that there will be political backlash among “swing voters.”

“Congress won’t stop him (Clinton) because of selfish political reasons,” Klayman said. “So, now it’s time for Dolly Kyle Browning and other people of faith to take a stand.”

WorldNetDaily attempted to contact the White House in an effort to get reactions regarding this latest RICO case, but the phone call was never returned.