The OIC only now admits that Willey was a liar because they have to explain
why, if she
had been anything else, they did not indict President Clinton on the strength (?) of her
testimony and her grope allegation. What they fail to point out is that they were so driven
to remove a twice elected President from office that they were covering for her all along.
They point out only the tip of the iceberg in terms of her discrepancies. In fact, she was
unable to keep any of her long and over-complicated stories straight.
The grope alone was material for a game of Clue.
Did it happen in the study, the dining room, the hallway?
Take your pick, at one time or another it happened in all three.
Then there was what "he said" or what "she said," never the same thing
And never mind the famous jogger story, that one was right over the edge. We were to
believe that pre-dawn, in pouring rain, post surgery, she could not sleep on that early
winter morning and went walking with a neck brace and three dogs. There, in the pre-dawn,
pouring rain, January cold, waited a jogger clad in black, face somewhat obscured by
pre-dawn light, hopeful she would not be able to sleep and would walk his way with three
dogs and a neck brace. There he was, just waiting to scare her. What a guy, what a story!
Sometimes he was identified as Jack Palladino, other times as Cody Shearer.
was Nate Landeau that sent the mysterious jogger, other times it was the Clinton White House.
The last time she spoke of this incident we did not get to hear the identity of the jogger,
only that "evil Hillary" ("evil," sound familiar?) sent him. Naturally his words varied as well.
Sometimes it was, "You are just not getting the message are you Kathleen?"
Other times it was,
"Aren't you getting the message?" Sometimes he called her children and the cat by name,
sometimes he didn't. One time he threw in her attorney's name along with the names of the
attorney's children for good measure. His purpose, in case by now you wonder, was to explain
the difference, MATERIAL difference, in testimony in at least four venues.
The first being Jones V Clinton where she "didnt know" or "couldn't recall"
and going on through FBI interviews, Grand Jury appearances, and of course the tearful
performance that was Sixty Minutes. He scared her into becoming inconsistent!
Naturally she didn't call the police or tell anybody about the mean old
jogger, at least not until
she was asked about the many differences in her account of events she had alleged as fact(S).
But it gets better. Did you know that the jogger is alleged to have killed the missing cat?
Well, that is what she said.
Naturally she did not tell anybody at the time about this one either. It
seems that the jogger
turned up two days before her Jones deposition and the dead cat's skull turned up on her porch
one day after the deposition. She did not want to tell anybody it seems because the cat was such
a real member of the family that it would be too painful for anybody to hear about. You can just
imagine how hurt the police would have been had she called them!
Instead of inflicting that kind of pain, she just bravely, and quietly,
buried the skull in her backyard.
Wasn't that thoughtful? But no, the FBI would not be able to recover it because the dogs dug it up.
She then had to throw poor old Bullseye's skull over the fence and into
the woods. Determined,
nevertheless, the FBI dispatched a forensic team (your tax dollar at work) to Richmond to scour
the woods. They managed to uncover bones but after hauling them back to Washington, it turned
out that they had retrieved raccoon bones and no remnant of the "missing cat" was ever found.
Heck, no wonder her testimony was all over the board with terror surrounding her like that!...
The real question for the OIC, and for every news organization in this
country, is why was it
necessary to nearly destroy my life and that of my son because I dared to dispute the words of
a woman they absolutely knew was lying when she alleged that President Clinton had "groped" her.
They tore our lives apart all the while knowing that Willey, their star witness, was a liar and
that I had told the truth. Of course they don't mention the "star witness" part either.
Let me do that for them...
There is no "high road" that Ray wants us to believe he had taken, are
What part of that even makes sense?
They admit to more than $65 million of your tax dollars going to the "cause"
and then try to tell us
that they have grounds for an indictment of the last elected President but are too kind hearted to
I own the Golden Gate Bridge and want to sell you shares if you believe
any part of this nonsense!
The fact is that they NEVER expected to be able to indict President Clinton on the strength of the
Paula Jones civil case deposition. And, for that matter, I have seen the entire Paula Jones case as
part of my pre-trial discovery, it was an absolute sham designed to cripple President Clinton.
The grand jury, with its Federal venue, was always their planned and "best odds" ticket to
destroying the President. They needed one thing to happen for that to be orchestrated successfully.
They needed to convict me and lock the truth away in prison for forty years.
The result would be the
raising of Willey's credibility and a chance to indict the President for "perjury" in his August 17, 1998
grand jury testimony regarding Willey. As it stood, the President and I were saying the same thing,
"it did not happen, there was no grope". We were saying the same thing because it happened to be
the truth. The OIC knew that from day one, and still they threatened, bullied, punished, and
ultimately prosecuted me because I dared to stand up to them and to tell the truth despite their best
efforts to silence me.
The problem was that they did not get a conviction, not even in the notoriously
Circuit were they able to convict. They could not get a conviction with the Foreman a Freeper who
posted on the internet via a buddy during the trial (and yes, Pete Yost of the AP and quoted in the
report knew that, so did Judge Hilton). They could not get a conviction when another juror (as an
example of the Fourth Circuit jury pool) was the wife of a CIA attorney, the Mother of an intern
with Bob Barr, and she herself worked for an extreme right wing, "right to life," group. They still
could not get a conviction and the "party" was over as a result. Starr packed it in and Robert Ray
was left to explain their over zealous prosecution of me.
Or, he could take the path he chose and explain why they did not use Willey
as a tool to indict
the President. He could not do both and save any shred of the OIC's credibility. He could not
say they believed Willey and came after me in true Nazi form but then decided not to indict the
President for speaking the same words I had spoken and I been indicted for speaking. That would
never fly. They had to admit that Willey was a liar to explain not using her testimony for their ultimate
goal. And if you notice, they carefully avoid admitting why they needed her and why they went to
such lengths to protect her.
They are still protecting themselves by protecting her, even with the admissions
made in the report.
For your information, the result of her first polygraph question about me was not "inconclusive" and
did not involve only one "confusing" question as she has stated. The results were "CONSISTENT
WITH DECEPTION." The Government not only lied about these results, but allowed my grievance
against Ken Starr in the eighth Circuit to be partly determined, and thrown out of court, on the
strength of this lie. This lie, and that of Michael Isikoff who claimed I kept changing my story.
I assume that reporters are under oath as they write and that Michael Isikoff
was not influenced by
the $600,000 check he had in his pocket as an advance on the book he was writing about a story
he certainlly had no need to influence. Nevertheless, the claim that I kept changing my story was
never even attempted by the OIC. In fact, Robert Ray, and David Barger (my prosecutor) before him,
were careful to say that I was consistent. A "consistent serial liar" was Barger's description of me.
Robert Ray, who inherited a mess, did not go that far. He simply stated
that I was consistent and
described the various venues where I said the same thing over and over. Having admitted to at
least some of Willey's lies, having admitted that she would not hold up in court but not that she was
their only chance in court, the OIC was backed into a corner. They simply made my prosecution a
footnote in the Willey story and offered no explanation beyond a feeble attempt to make me sound
guilty based on the lies of witnesses they attempted to use in order to bolster their case.
Had these witnesses been credible, including Willey, they would have retried
my case in a heartbeat!
They weren't, and the OIC knew that. My attorneys did not even need to present a defense.
They knew that would happen only once, they knew because Nancy Luque, Esq.
told them so.
She told them that the next time their witnesses would be lucky to "slither out of court on their bellies
especially Willey who crawled out the first time." They opted to forego a second trial because they
knew she could do it, there was no case and no crime...
Speaking of "crime," do you actually know what the charges were for or
about? I was charged with
three counts for "Obstruction of Justice," and one count for "False Statements." All four counts were
for the same "crime" and would net forty years in Federal prison per Federal guidelines for criminal
conviction. When asked, I told the FBI agents who came to my door that Willey did not come to
my house as she was still claiming, that she never told me anything about a grope, and that I did not
believe it happened. That was Count one, "false statements" to Federal Agents.
When asked by the prosecutor to do so, I repeated this same thing, the
truth, in two Grand juries,
once in the District and once in VA. That brought about two more counts, this time for "Obstruction
of Justice." It seems I was somehow impeding justice in the Jones case when I said Willey hadn't
come to my house or told me about her alleged "grope."
And that was not even the end of my crime spree, no sir, I went right on
the "Larry King Show" and
said all of it all over again! This time it appears that I was trying to influence potential jurors all over
the country. These were the jurors who might have presided over Jones V Clinton and would
certainly have been influenced by an ordinary American that most of them, if the case had ever gone
to trial, had probably never heard of in August, 1998. The power of my spoken word might even
be impresive except for one little thing, I was telling the truth and the OIC knew that.
They, not I, had the real power, the power to indict, the power to destroy..
They were protecting
Willey and they could not afford my honesty or credibility. They had become an out of control
freight train driven by Ken Starr and his partisan allies. It was a train loaded with all of the power
and resources of the United States government, it was also headed straight for me.
I never even saw it coming...
So, you tell me, why am I sitting here in a rented second floor walk-up,
albeit at the beach, awaiting
the outcome of possible condemnation resulting from six violations of the city housing code? The owner
has made no effort to make repairs or to even get bids on the work. I want to know why is it okay
for me to be fifty-five years old, the single parent of an eleven year old son, and be left like this,
left damaged and to "start over"? We are a long way from our former life on Arsenal Drive.
Is this America today?
Please tell me in a way I can understand, why has a government I once respected
made Adam and me
their "collateral damage" in a failed coup to overthrow two elections? And why does the media continue
to look the other way? They might write that Willey lied, but where is the part about the havoc caused,
and lives nearly destroyed, by those lies and an over zealous prosecutor who was willing to cover them up?
Do they have ANY idea, could anybody REALLY know, of the damage that has
been done to us?
I think not. One thing is clear though, Ken Starr "got out while the getting was good." He left Robert Ray
to clean up after him, are we surprised? Again, I think not. The real question here is will the media be
willing to step to the plate and write the truth, the jury is still out on that one.
I thank you for the opportunity to address at least some of the issues
that extend far beyond the
"final report." I ask you to think about them and about the aftermath in the context of your own lives.
If this could happen to me, it could happen to any one of us.
We need to throw down our partisan swords and work together to make certain
that it doesn't happen
to one more American citizen. None of us is safe from a government with too much power and too
many of our resources. Think about it...
Julie Hiatt Steele
Click Here to e-mail Julie Hiatt Steele