EAMON Dunphy told the High Court he had never written a hostile piece about the Workers' Parry or Democratic Left.
Mr Dunphy said he viewed the evolution of the WP with great interest and there was clearly a struggle going on in that party.
Mr Kevin Feeney SC, for Independent Newspapers, asked if he had any personal antagonism towards the WP, which had evolved into the DL, or towards any member of the Dail representing the WP or DL.
Mr Dunphy said: "No, I didn't at all."
He became aware of the Moscow letter when the London Independent published a story about it and then the text of it appeared in The Irish Times in October 1992.
A general election was imminent. He did not want to write about it at the time because it was a news story. He did not feel any comment was possible or desirable until the status of the letter had been established and until those alleged to be implicated had a chance to respond.
Mr Feeney asked him if there were any changes in the circumstances which caused him to comment and write the article of December 13th, 1992.
Mr Dunphy said that on Monday, December 7th, John Armstrong from The Irish Times had an interview with Mr De Rossa. The Irish Times carried an extensive report of the interview and that was a real development.
The response to John Armstrong's questions would help them understand if this was a forged letter, and the terms in which Mr De Rossa addressed that made it very interesting.
In the Armstrong interview, Mr Dunphy found there was a lot of "dissembling", which meant hedging every answer.
Mr Feeney said witnesses for Mr De Rossa had criticised the suggestion that the article by Mr Dunphy on December 13th, was about the Labour Parry.
Mr Dunphy said the article was about the hypocrisy of the Labour Parry. The Labour Parry, having run the election campaign on the basis of accountability, was now proposing to go back to Fianna Fail who were the enemies, the cancer and turn their backs on Des O'Malley and Fine Gael and go with DL.
The Labour Parry wanted to go into government with FF and were using DL, as they were unacceptable to FG and the PDs. It was a manoeuvre.
When he wrote the article, the big thing was not really the Moscow letter but the proposal that DL would be in the next government. That's why The Irish Times went so big on the story: because of the prospect of being governed by people who had come from a party of questionable character.
Mr Feeney said the plaintiff's main argument was that in the second paragraph of his article he had accused Mr De Rossa of being involved in special activities.
Mr Dunphy said: "I most certainly did not. There is no accusation made there of his involvement in special activities or his knowledge of special activities."
He said it was Mr De Rossa in the Armstrong interview who first mentioned special activities and first defined special activities when he said they were illegal activities.
Mr Feeney said Mr De Rossa's lawyers suggested that in his article he was saying their client was personally involved in special activities.
Mr Dunphy said: "I say that, they were chancing their arm. Further on in the article he gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Mr Dunphy said in the Armstrong interview Mr De Rossa did not say the Moscow letter was bogus. Mr De Rossa said it was difficult to say what the origins of the letter were. In the story in the London Independent, he said he had no recollection of the letter.