War Evasion Talk Was Joke, Lawyer for Robertson Says

Republican presidential candidate Pat Robertson may have told fellow Marines during the Korean War that his father, a senator, would use his influence to keep him out of combat, his lawyer conceded Wednesday, but he insisted that the remark was only a joke.

However, the statement by attorney Douglas Rigler is a major concession in a libel case that Robertson filed in 1986 against former Rep. Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey of California, who had accused Robertson of using his father’s influence to avoid combat.

“Mr. Robertson may have joked . . . about his father’s influence,” Rigler said. But he pointed out that McCloskey had charged that Robertson actually “called his father” and asked for help in getting out of combat--a charge for which he said no evidence exists.

Robertson and his attorneys, trying to avoid a trial date that coincides with the Super Tuesday primaries next week, have offered to submit the libel case to arbitration later this year--an offer McCloskey has rejected--and indicated that they probably will end up asking a federal district judge to dismiss the case later this week.

“Mr. Robertson is caught on the horns of a dilemma,” Rigler said at a press conference called to lay out his side of the case. Going to trial on Tuesday would mean “sacrificing his presidential campaign to vindicate his honor,” he added.

McCloskey, who Wednesday accused Robertson of “chickening out . . . just like he chickened out 37 years ago,” faces a dilemma of his own. Defending himself against Robertson’s accusations has cost him more than $300,000 in attorneys’ fees and nearly $100,000 in other costs, according to his lawyers.

Sued by Insurer

His insurance company has been footing the bill but sued him in San Francisco federal court last year to try to get its money back, saying his homeowner’s policy does not cover the case.

McCloskey in the past has offered to settle the case if Robertson would pay his lawyers’ bills. But, as recently as last week, Robertson refused to do so, calling McCloskey a “patent liar” and saying he was “ready to go to court.”

Going to court would pose many risks for Robertson’s campaign. The candidate would be tied down in the court fight, which lawyers on both sides estimate could take two to three weeks. In addition, a trial could expose Robertson to damaging publicity.

The extensive pretrial testimony in the case includes conflicting evidence about what Robertson may have said about the influence of his father, the late Sen. A. Willis Robertson, and about what the elder Robertson may have done. The evidence does establish, however, that Robertson never engaged in direct combat and that he was in Japan during much of the worst parts of the war.

In delaying a request that the case be dropped, Robertson has put off a step that legally would be identical to losing. Tuesday, Robertson’s press spokesmen released a statement suggesting that he would pull out of the case, and Wednesday Rigler said he would “probably” file a motion today or Friday asking that the case be dismissed.

Room to Back Away

But both the campaign and the attorneys appeared to be leaving themselves room to back away from the decision to withdraw from the case.

Under federal court rules, Robertson may not simply drop his case at this point without permission of the judge presiding over it.

McCloskey’s lawyers held out the hope that U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green might order Robertson to pay some of their bills in return for dismissing the case. But the chances of that happening are slim--Robertson would not have to pay McCloskey’s attorneys’ fees even if he went to trial and lost.

So far, the fees have been paid by the insurer, New Jersey-based Federal Insurance Co., but in its suit the company argues that McCloskey’s statements about Robertson, true or not, are “willful acts” and that suits involving such acts are not covered by his homeowner’s policy.

McCloskey submitted bills for his legal defense to Federal Insurance Co., which sold him his homeowner’s insurance policy in 1986. That sent the company to federal court in San Francisco, seeking a ruling that it is not responsible for any costs stemming from Robertson’s action.

Cites Lack of Exclusions

The former Republican congressman from Palo Alto contends that the company must pay any costs, claiming that his policy has no specific exclusion against paying for libel suits. The case is set for trial later this year.

Stephen Newton, attorney for the insurance company, said McCloskey’s costs so far are “in excess of $300,000.”

Staff writer Dan Morain in San Francisco contributed to this story.