Altruistic World Online Library

by **admin** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:42 am

Bill Clinton should have resigned: What he did to Monica Lewinsky was wrong, and he should have paid the price.
Updated by Matthew Yglesias @mattyglesiasmatt@vox.com
Vox
Nov 15, 2017, 9:15am EST

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Many years ago, when I was a high school student making my first visit to Washington for a two-week summer camp for weird politics dorks, the dominant news story was then-President Bill Clinton’s August 17, 1998, admission that despite earlier denials, he “did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate.”

“In fact,” Clinton conceded, “it was wrong,” and it “constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.”

In the days before the admission, there was considerable conviction in the chattering classes that the allegations, if true, would end up leading to Clinton’s resignation. That proved to be incorrect. Clinton was not shamed into resigning, and senior leaders of the Democratic Party did not pressure him into resigning.

At the time I, like most Americans, was glad to see Clinton prevail and regarded the whole sordid matter as primarily the fault of congressional Republicans’ excessive scandal-mongering. Now, looking back after the election of Donald Trump, the revelations of massive sexual harassment scandals at Fox News, the stories about Harvey Weinstein and others in the entertainment industry, and the stories about Roy Moore’s pursuit of sexual relationships with teenagers, I think we got it wrong. We argued about perjury and adultery and the meaning of the word “is.” Republicans prosecuted a bad case against a president they’d been investigating for years.

What we should have talked about was men abusing their social and economic power over younger and less powerful women.

The United States, and perhaps the broader English-speaking world, is currently undergoing a much-needed accountability moment in which each wave of stories emboldens more people to come forward and more institutions to rethink their practices. Looking back, the 1998 revelation that the president of the United States carried on an affair with an intern could have been that moment.

It was far from the most egregious case of workplace sexual misconduct in American history. But it was unusually high-profile, the facts were not in dispute, the perpetrator had a lot of nominal feminist ideological commitments, and political leaders who shared those commitments had the power to force him from office. Had he resigned in shame, we all might have made a collective cultural and political decision that a person caught leveraging power over women in inappropriate ways ought to be fired. Instead, we lost nearly two decades.

We didn’t even have the right argument

In the midst of the very same public statement in which he confessed the error, Clinton also mounted the defense that would see him through to victory — portraying the issue as fundamentally a private family matter rather than a topic of urgent public concern.

"I intend to reclaim my family life for my family," he said. "It's nobody's business but ours. Even presidents have private lives. It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life.”

To this line of argument, Republicans offered what was fundamentally the wrong countercharge. They argued that in the effort to spare himself from the personal and marital embarrassment entailed by having the affair exposed, Clinton committed perjury when testifying about the matter in a deposition related to Paula Jones’s lawsuit against him.

What they should have argued was something simpler: A president who uses the power of the Oval Office to seduce a 20-something subordinate is morally bankrupt and contributing, in a meaningful way, to a serious social problem that disadvantages millions of women throughout their lives.

But by and large, they didn’t. So Clinton countered with the now-famous defense: “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” Ultimately, most Americans embraced the larger argument that perjury in a civil lawsuit unrelated to the president’s official duties did not constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

But looking back through today’s lens, this whole argument was miscast. The wrongdoing at issue was never just a private matter for the Clinton family; it was a high-profile exemplar of a widespread social problem: men’s abuse of workplace power for sexual gain. It was and is a striking example of a genre of misconduct that society has a strong interest in stamping out. That alone should have been enough to have pressured Clinton out of office.

The affair itself was seriously wrong

In Clinton’s defense, of course, the wrongdoing at hand was different in degree from some of the more recent cases in the news.

In her 2014 Vanity Fair article looking back on the scandal, Lewinsky wrote, “I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position.”

As Clinton himself said, it was “not appropriate,” “wrong,” and a “critical lapse in judgment” — phrases that could easily have appeared in the introduction to a resignation message. Alternatively, one could easily imagine Democrats’ then-leaders in Congress Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle — joined perhaps by prominent Cabinet members such as Madeleine Albright and Janet Reno — repeating them back to Clinton in an Oval Office meeting the next day urging him to resign.

Instead, Democrats embraced the narrative that the wrongdoing, though real, was ultimately not serious — or at a minimum, not a matter of public concern.

This was a mistake. Clinton admitted he was wrong but stayed tellingly cagey as to what exactly was wrong about it, before implicitly sliding to the stance that the problem was marital infidelity. Marriages, of course, really are private and, as they say, complicated. By the broader issue of men in general abusing positions of power to obtain sexual gratification is most certainly not a trivial issue or a private matter. If word had gotten back to the White House of an unmarried Cabinet secretary having a clandestine affair with one of his interns, the administration might have taken action or (perhaps more likely) might have tried to cover it up. But they certainly wouldn’t have played dumb and pretended not to see that there was a problem.

“My boss took advantage of me,” Lewinsky writes in the same article, a piece in which she correctly argues that the ensuring debate ended up entirely slighting highly relevant issues including “the balance of power and gender inequality in politics and media.”

Had Clinton resigned in disgrace under pressure from his own party, that would have sent a strong, and useful, chilling signal to powerful men throughout the country.

Instead, the ultimate disposition of the case — impunity for the man who did something wrong, embarrassment and disgrace for the woman who didn’t — only served to confirm women’s worst fears about coming forward.

Democrats had a good alternative to Clinton

Politics ain’t beanbag, and oftentimes political actors have very good reason to stand by problematic actors. If New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez is convicted of the corruption charges for which he’s currently on trial (the jury is deliberating as I write), Republicans will argue that he ought to resign his seat. Democrats will strategically resist this, knowing that if Menendez steps down today, the vacancy will be filled by Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, while if he hangs on until mid-January, the state’s Democratic governor-elect, Phil Murphy, will fill it.

But in the case of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, there were no real policy stakes. Had Clinton left office, Al Gore would have become president and pursued essentially the same policy.

It’s not a coincidence that when The West Wing did its fictionalized version of the Clinton impeachment drama, it went out of its way to establish Vice President Hoynes as dislikable and ideologically unreliable (“the guy practically has corporate sponsorship,” Josh Lyman quips at one point before dismissing him as the “Tostitos vice president”), in order to make Bartlett’s effort to cling to office seem sensible and honorable.

Reality provided no such convenient plot contrivance. Gore was a centrist DLC Democrat just like Clinton, one who could easily have stepped into his shoes.

Had Gore become president, perhaps he would have run and won as an incumbent. Or perhaps, as in the real world, he would have lost. Either way, to admit that the Republicans had uncovered something genuinely scandalous would not have entailed making any crucial ideological or policy concessions. It would, instead, have required Democrats to look past knee-jerk partisanship. And, more importantly, it would have required them to acknowledge that what Clinton did was seriously wrong.

The time is right for a reevaluation

Over the past 18 months, the combination of an excellent profile by Katie J.M. Baker and a cynical stunt by the Trump campaign has prompted a reconsideration of Juanita Broaddrick’s allegation that Bill Clinton raped her in 1978.

This is an important conversation to have, due to both the serious nature of the charges and their interplay with the commonplace progressive idea that we should “believe women” when they come forward with allegations of sexual assault.

The Lewinsky case, however, is important precisely because the facts are not in dispute. Cases that involve unprovable, years-old allegations of assault pose an inherently difficult problem for almost any institution. But what’s striking about the charges leveled in recent months against Harvey Weinstein, Louis C.K., Leon Wieseltier, and so many others is the extent to which misconduct was an “open secret” in the relevant communities.

They kept getting away with it not because nobody knew, but because the people who knew treated it just how the American public treated Clinton’s abusive behavior — as something that was maybe wrong but fundamentally unimportant compared to an important man’s work.

In Clinton’s case, of course, part of the endgame is that a few months after his acquittal on impeachment charges, his wife launched her first Senate campaign. Once Hillary Clinton threw her hat into the ring, she immediately became America’s presumptive first woman president, creating a kind of reputational vortex that shielded her husband’s behavior from scrutiny. Attacking Bill was, by extension, an attack on Hillary — an attack that most people in leading positions in American progressive politics had no desire to make.

But now that Hillary is out of electoral politics and has emerged as a bigger draw and more potent political force than her husband, there’s no excuse for Democrats not to look back on these events with more objectivity. Fifty-something leaders of organizations shouldn’t be carrying on affairs with interns who work for them regardless of whether the affair is in some sense consensual.

We can’t change the past, but we should be clear about it

Building a firm line around that kind of activity would give any organization a stronger, healthier culture. Our expectations for the conduct of the president of the United States should be high, and we should treat men’s abuse of authority over younger female subordinates for sexual purposes as a serious, endemic social problem, not a private marital issue between the boss and his wife.

My guess is that in the years to come, most left-of-center people born in the 1980s will say that if they’d been old enough to have a view on the matter back in 1998, they would have favored pressuring Clinton to resign. I hope that is the case, at least. Most young Democrats backed Bernie Sanders over Clinton in 2016 and are accustomed as a result to the idea of an emotionally and intellectually hostile attitude toward “the Clintons.”

Unfortunately for me, I’m a little too old to get away with claiming to have had no opinion on this at the time. My version of a sophisticated high schooler’s take on the matter was that the American media should get over its bourgeois morality hang-ups and be more like the French, where François Mitterrand’s wife and his longtime mistress grieved together at his funeral.

As a married 30-something father, I’ve come around to a less “worldly” view of infidelity. As a co-founder of Vox, I’d never in a million years want us to be the kind of place where men in senior roles can get away with the kind of misconduct that we’ve seen is all too common in our industry and in so many others.

Most of all, as a citizen I’ve come to see that the scandal was never about infidelity or perjury — or at least, it shouldn’t have been. It was about power in the workplace and its use. The policy case that Democrats needed Clinton in office was weak, and the message that driving him from office would have sent would have been profound and welcome. That this view was not commonplace at the time shows that we did not, as a society, give the most important part of the story the weight it deserved.

As the current accountability moment grows, we ought to recognize and admit that we had a chance to do this almost 20 years ago — potentially sparing countless young women a wide range of unpleasant and discriminatory experiences, or at a minimum reducing their frequency and severity. And we blew it.

by **admin** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:50 am

Transcript of Interview With Kathleen Willey [Ed Bradley, CBS 60 Minutes]
National Politics
The New York Times
March 16, 1998

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

Following is an interview conducted with Kathleen Willey by correspondent Ed Bradley on the CBS News program "60 Minutes" and broadcast on March 15, as transcribed by the Federal Documents Clearing House:

BRADLEY: The significance of Kathleen Willey's account of her incident with President Clinton is that -- if true -- it is more than just a case of inappropriate behavior.

It leaves the president wide open to charges of perjury -- an impeachable offense -- that he lied repeatedly when he testified under oath in the Paul Jones case about his encounter with Kathleen Willey.

In addition, her story could also shed light on another issue being looked at by the special prosecutor: Did the White House seek to obstruct justice -- which is also a crime -- by pressuring Willey and others to alter her story?

Kathleen Willey is 51-years-old and lives in Richmond, Virginia. A loyal democrat, she campaigned hard for Bill Clinton in 1992.

Along with her late husband Ed, she volunteered her time and contributed thousands of dollars to Mr. Clinton's bid for the White House.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

In your mind back then, what stood out for you about Bill Clinton?

WILLEY: His sincerity.

I -- liked the fact that -- he was my age -- our age. I -- liked the things that he believed in. He was a contemporary of mine.

BRADLEY: How -- would you characterize at that time, your relationship with the president?

WILLEY: We were friends.

We had had the occasion to speak with him on election night. He had called us right after the election -- called me, just to thank us for our help. I would say good friends.

BRADLEY: Once Bill Clinton became president, Kathleen Willey continued her volunteer work at the White House, in the correspondence office, where she helped respond to the huge volume of mail coming in for the new president.

In this job, did you have much interaction with the president?

WILLEY: At that time? No.

BRADLEY: She says all that changed right after she saw the president, one day, on the White House lawn, and then got a call from the president's scheduler, Nancy Hernreich.

WILLEY: I saw the president at the White House Easter Egg roll, where I was helping out, and he asked where I was.

And, when I got home that afternoon, there was a phone call from -- from Nancy Hernreich, asking me if I would come up and meet with her, that the president had an interest in my working someplace else other than correspondence.

BRADLEY: Kathleen Willey was given a job in the White House social office, located in the East wing, near the Oval office.

Did you see the president more often in this job than you did in the -- the other one?

WILLEY: Yes.

I was in the East Wing at that point, yes.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BRADLEY: But Kathleen Willey's life was about to fall apart. Her husband, a lawyer, was in deep trouble.

He was under investigation for embezzling money from his clients, and the Willey family's finances were in a shambles. Kathleen Willey told her husband she needed to do something about it, and that she was going to see her "good friend," President Clinton.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WILLEY: And I told him that I was going to go to Washington and ask the president for a full-time paying job.

BRADLEY: And -- and you felt comfortable doing that?

WILLEY: Yeah.

Absolutely.

BRADLEY: What you are about to hear is what Kathleen Willey says happened behind closed doors that day, between her and the President of the United States, inside the Oval office.

So, let me ask you to take me through it, step by step, what happened when you went into the Oval office?

WILLEY: I went in, and the president was at his desk, and I sat down in the chair across from him, and I obviously looked very distraught.

He asked me what was wrong. I told him I had a really serious problem and that I needed his help. And, he said, "Would you like a cup of coffee?" And I said, "Yes, I would."

So he -- he walked to another -- a door on the other side of the Oval office, which led into a hallway, into his small galley kitchen, and there was a -- a steward in there, I remember.

And the president took a -- a coffee cup down out of the pantry, and -- a Starbucks coffee cup, I remember -- and, he poured me a cup of coffee, poured himself a cup of coffee, and we started walking back down the hall towards the Oval office and he said, "why don't you come in here into my study? We can talk better in here."

And, I stood and leaned -- I was leaning against the door jam. He was in the office.

We were standing facing each other, and I told him what had happened. I -- I didn't give him all the details. I just told him that my husband was in financial difficulty, and that things were at a crisis point, and that my volunteer -- volunteer days were over, that -- that I needed a -- a regular paying job, and could he help me?

BRADLEY: And, did he seem sympathetic? Did he say...

WILLEY: Yes.

BRADLEY: ... he could help you?

WILLEY: Yeah, well, he did seem sympathetic.

He -- he -- he was listening. I -- I had the feeling that he was somehow distracted when I was talking to him, but -- but he was not really -- really listening, but I know that he did. I know he knows how distraught I was and how upset I was, because I -- I was -- I was very worried. I was worried about my husband, and -- and -- and what as going to happen.

BRADLEY: And what happened next?

WILLEY: Well, he -- he said he would do everything that he could to -- to -- to help, and I turned around and -- out of the -- out of the office, and he followed me to -- I thought he was going to open the door to the -- to the Oval office, and right as we got to the door, he stopped and he gave me a big hug and said that he was very sorry that this was happening to me.

And -- I had -- had no problem with that, because when I saw -- every time I saw him, he would hug me.

He use -- just does that, is like that.

And, I remember I had -- still had this coffee cup in my hand, and it was kind of in between us, and I didn't want it to spill on him or me, and -- and it just was this -- it was just very strange. And he -- he took the coffee cup out of my hand and he put it on a bookshelf, and -- and -- he -- this hug lasted a little longer than I thought necessary, but at the same time -- I mean, I was not concerned about it. And then he -- then he -- and then he kissed me on -- on my mouth, and -- and pulled me closer to him. And -- I remember thinking -- I just remember thinking, "what in the world is he doing?" I -- it -- I just thought, "what is he doing?" And, I -- I pushed back away from him, and -- he -- he -- he -- he -- he's a big man.

And he -- he had his arms -- they were tight around me, and he -- he -- he touched me.

BRADLEY: Touched you how?

WILLEY: Well, he -- he -- he touched my breasts with his hand, and, I -- I -- I -- I was -- I -- I was just startled.

I was -- I was just...

BRADLEY: This -- this wasn't an accidental grazing touch?

WILLEY: No.

And -- then he -- whispered -- he -- he -- said in -- in my ears that, "I -- I've wanted to do this ever since I laid eyes on you." And -- I remember -- I remember saying to him, "aren't you afraid that somebody's going to walk in here?" The -- and, he said -- he said, "no. No, I'm -- no, I'm not." And -- and then -- and -- and then he took my hand, and he -- and he put it on him. And, that's when I pushed away from him and -- and decided it was time to get out of there.

BRADLEY: When you say he took your hand...

WILLEY: Right.

BRADLEY: ... and put it on him...

WILLEY: Hum-hum.

BRADLEY: Where on him?

WILLEY: On -- on his genitals.

BRADLEY: Was he a -- aroused?

WILLEY: Yes.

BRADLEY: He was.

WILLEY: Yes.

BRADLEY: What were you thinking?

WILLEY: Well, I -- I was -- there was -- I -- there were all kinds of things going through my mind.

I -- I think as -- when I think back on it, it was kind of like I was watching it in slow motion, and -- and thinking surely this is not happening. And, at the same time, I -- I wanted to -- I thought, "well, maybe I ought to just give him a good slap across the face." And then I thought, "well, I don't think you can slap the President of the United States like that." And -- and I just decided it was just time to get out of there.

BRADLEY: Did you say anything to him, or was there anything about your behavior that invited an advance?

WILLEY: I -- I -- I have gone over this so many times, so very many times, because I think that your natural instinct is to wonder, "Did I bring this on? Did I send a -- a -- the wrong signal?" The only signals that I was sending that day, was that I was very upset, very distraught, and I needed to help my husband.

BRADLEY: Did you feel intimidated?

WILLEY: I didn't feel intimidated.

I just felt overpowered.

BRADLEY: Did you ever say, "stop.

No. Get away from me?"

WILLEY: I just -- I -- I pushed him away.

I pushed him away, and -- and I said, "I think I -- I'd better go."

BRADLEY: And what did he say?

WILLEY: He -- he -- he kept looking at his watch, 'cause he told me that he had a meeting, and he said -- he said -- that he could -- he said they could wait.

And I said, "Well..." I said, "well, I'm leaving."

BRADLEY: When you walked out of there, what -- what were you thinking?

WILLEY: I just could not believe that that had happened in that office.

I -- I just could not believe -- the recklessness of that act.

BRADLEY: Recklessness? What do you mean "recklessness"?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BRADLEY: The FBI is now investigating charges that this man -- Nathan Landow, a major Democratic Party contributor with close ties to the White House, tried to pressure Kathleen Willey to keep her story secret.

60 Minutes has learned that this past week, the grand jury heard testimony from a key witness who said Landow had done just that. But his story is that he hardly knew her.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

Nate Landow -- you -- you know him?

WILLEY: Yes.

BRADLEY: Would it be fair to say that this is someone you'd seen more than a couple of times? This wasn't just a casual acquaintance?

WILLEY: Yes.

BRADLEY: You had discussed, with Nate Landow, the incident that took place in the White -- in the White House...

WILLEY: Yes.

BRADLEY: ...in the Oval office?

WILLEY: Extensively, yes.

BRADLEY: It's been reported that he has brought pressure on you, not to talk about it publicly.

Is that true?

WILLEY: I can't say at this point, because it's a -- all that's going on.

BRADLEY: All of these ongoing investigations.

WILLEY: Investigations, yes.

BRADLEY: Willey's lawyer advised her not to say any more about Landow; that's probably because Willey is cooperating with Kenneth Starr, who may not want to reveal his hand before Landow is called to testify before the grand jury.

Landow declined our request for an interview and, as we said, he says they hardly knew each other, and that he'd never had a detailed conversation with her about any of her relationships.

While Kathleen Willey did not want to talk about Nathan Landow, she did tell us other people close to the president have tried to influence her.

Have you ever been pressured?

WILLEY: Yes.

BRADLEY: How? Tell me about it.

WILLEY: I felt pressured by Mr. Bennett.

BRADLEY: The president's attorney?

WILLEY: Yes.

We -- we were together at some point before our court hearing, and he mentioned that he had just left -- he had just been at the White House, and -- and the -- the president asked for me and told him just -- that he just thought the world of me. And, he said, "now, this -- this was not sexual harassment, was it?" And, I didn't answer him.

And he said, "well -- and it wasn't -- not -- it wasn't -- it -- it wasn't unwelcome, was it?" And I said to him, "it was unwelcome and unexpected."

BRADLEY: Did you feel intimidated by Bennett?

WILLEY: I -- I felt pressured.

Especially when he threw in the -- the business about, "well, the president just feel -- thinks the world of you," and it -- it -- I found that a little laughable, though.

BRADLEY: Why?

WILLEY: Well, because if the president thought the world of me, why did he do what he did?

BRADLEY: Willey says she did not find it laughable when, she says, Bennett suggested she find herself a criminal lawyer.

WILLEY: It -- the insinuation to me was that Mr. Bennett was implying that I was going to face some kind of a criminal charge for perjury or -- or something else, and that I would need an inside dilute -- an inside Washington criminal lawyer, and -- and I -- I didn't, and I don't.

BRADLEY: Bob Bennett says that isn't so and insists that, if Willey says that, she is lying.

For her part, Willey says if there are any perjury charges to be filed, they should be directed at the president.

He said under oath, that the meeting stands out in his mind because you were so distraught, you were so...

WILLEY: Right.

BRADLEY: ... emotional that day, and that he may have kissed you on the forehead in a consoling way...

WILLEY: Right, right.

BRADLEY: ... but it was not a sexual advance.

If the president said that under oath, is he lying.

WILLEY: Yes.

BRADLEY: He is lying?

WILLEY: Yes.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BRADLEY: When the story first emerged last summer, the president's lawyer, Bob Bennett, said that Clinton had no specific recollection of ever meeting Willey in the Oval office. The president's lawyer also said then, that it was preposterous to suggest that Clinton made a sexual advance toward Willey.

But in a sworn deposition two months ago, the president contradicted his own lawyer, saying he remembered, "very well," an Oval office meeting with Kathleen Willey.

Still, Clinton denied emphatically any sexual encounter.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

What do you make of the conflict? I mean, there's a clear contradiction there.

WILLEY: I know.

BRADLEY: What do you make of that?

WILLEY: I -- I think that he probably realized that, completely disavowing any meeting was -- was just ludicrous.

When I came out of the Oval office, the first person I saw was -- was Lloyd Benson, and it has since been reported that, yes, indeed, he was there for a 3:00 meeting. I mean, these things can be documented.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BRADLEY: Kathleen Willey says looking back on it now, the incident that day in 1993, was not the first time the President had shown an unusual interest in her.

She remembers a day in 1992, when then Governor Clinton made a campaign trip to Richmond, Virginia, where Willey was volunteering to help get him elected.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WILLEY: I was at the airport to welcome him.

And, while I was out there meeting him, he -- he spotted me, and -- and we waved because we had -- I had seen him before at previous fund-raisers, and he sent someone over to get my telephone number.

BRADLEY: Did he ever use it?

WILLEY: He called me when -- when he got to Williamsburg, and when I got home he called me, and he asked me if -- if I could -- he -- he had lost his voice, and he was worried about that for the -- for the next -- for the -- the debate the next evening.

And he asked me how far I was from Williamsburg, and I told him. And I, kiddingly, told him -- I just jokingly said, "it sounds like you need some chicken soup." And, he said, "well, would you bring me some?" And I said -- I -- I don't really think I answered him because I thought he was just... being facetious.

And then he told me that he was surrounded by Secret Service agents, and that he would -- he would try to get rid of them, and -- if I would come down. And he said he would call me back later, which he did. And I declined to go.

BRADLEY: You declined to go because...

WILLEY: Because my instincts told me he wasn't interested in chicken soup.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BRADLEY: In an effort to raise questions about Kathleen Willey's credibility, the president's lawyers obtained a sworn affidavit from a woman who used to be one of Willey's closest friends.

Her name is Julie Steele. And she initially confirmed Kathleen Willey's story, saying that Willey went to Julie Steele's house on the night of the incident, with president Clinton; and then Willey told her what had happened. But in that affidavit, Steele now maintains that she lied at Willey's request.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

Why would she say that?

WILLEY: My own personal belief is that she was pressured.

I think that in -- I think that the White House wanted to try to discredit me, and they found a pawn in her.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BRADLEY: The affidavit Steele signed at the request of the White House lawyers said Steele had, quote, "never heard any allegations of improper conduct by President Clinton" until Willey asked her to lie, but Steele told Newsweek magazine that Willey had told her of an incident between Willey and the president.

And there's yet another woman in this story -- Linda Tripp; that's the same Linda Tripp, who secretly tape-recorded Monica Lewinsky, talking about an affair Lewinsky claimed she had with President Clinton.

What does Linda Tripp have to do with Kathleen Willey?

They worked together at the White House, and Tripp was there when Willey emerged from the president's office that day, in 1993.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

Did you say anything to her?

WILLEY: I remember saying to her -- I -- saying, "you are just not going to believe this." And we went outside, and I told her what had happened.

BRADLEY: You say that you were angry, you were upset, you were distraught.

Yet, she says you were joyful.

WILLEY: I -- I think probably -- in defense of her -- I think -- when I am in -- if I get into a very tense -- tense situation, I try to -- I fall back on my sense of humor.

I think when I said, "you are not going to believe this one," maybe she took that as joyful.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BRADLEY: A few months later, Kathleen Willey, shown here in a White House photograph with the president, had received a part-time paying job, and Linda Tripp was moved from the White House to the Pentagon.

According to Willey, Linda Tripp was furious.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WILLEY: She said, "Don't you think for one minute that I don't know what's going on around here." And I said, "I don't know what you mean." And -- and she said, "I know you're here because the president wants you here.

And -- and they want me out of here because I -- because I know what happened." And I said, "that's just absolutely, positively, not true."

She was very angry.

Very upset. Very bitter. And she -- she ended the conversation by saying, "I'm going to get you, and every place -- everyone else in this place, before this is all over."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BRADLEY: Linda Tripp, through her lawyer, denies saying she was out to get anyone.

But somehow Willey's name came to the attention of Paula Jones's lawyers, and Willey -- who says she intended to take her story to the grave -- was ordered by a judge to give her deposition.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

You -- you were a reluctant witness.

You didn't want your story to go public?

WILLEY: No.

BRADLEY: Why not?

WILLEY: I just knew that -- it was just a bad story.

It was just horrible behavior on the part of the president. And I did not think it was my place to make it public knowledge.

BRADLEY: You didn't walk away.

You didn't lodge a complaint anywhere.

WILLEY: No.

That's right. That was the choice I made.

BRADLEY: Because?

WILLEY: That was the -- the choice that I thought was the best one.

I -- I was -- I was embarrassed for the president's behavior. And, I saw no benefit whatsoever, in filing a compliant, or -- or -- or -- I mean, who do you file a complaint with anyway, when it's the president? Where do you go?

BRADLEY: Then, why did she decide now to go public?

WILLEY: I just think that it's time to tell this story.

I think that there -- too many lies are being told. Too many lives are being ruined. And, I -- I think it's time for the truth to come out.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

by **admin** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:55 am

Game Change Author Suspended From MSNBC Over Sexual Assault Allegations
by Ben Mathis-Lilley
October 26, 2017 11:44 AM

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

Mark Halperin in Washington on May 3.
Paul Morigi/Getty Images for Showtime

MSNBC has suspended best-selling author and political pundit Mark Halperin after a CNN report in which five women accused him of sexual harassment and assault:

The allegations in CNN’s piece describe a repeated pattern of inappropriate and aggressive sexual behavior in workplace settings:

Emily Miller of One America News Network said on Twitter after CNN’s piece was published that she was not one of CNN’s sources but that Halperin also “attacked” her when she worked with him at ABC.

Earlier this week, longtime New Republic editor and writer Leon Wieseltier admitted to “offenses against some of my colleagues in the past” after the backers of a new magazine he was set to edit canceled the project after learning about sexual harassment allegations against him. News also broke that the United Talent Agency has dropped Bill O’Reilly as a client after a report that he’d paid a staggering $32 million to settle one of several known sexual harassment suits against him. New accusations also continue to emerge against Harvey Weinstein, the powerful movie producer who was fired from his own company earlier this month after a New York Times report detailed numerous allegations of sexual harassment and assault against him. Donald Trump remains president.

by **admin** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:59 am

Top NPR News Executive Mike Oreskes Resigns Amid Allegations Of Sexual Harassment
Heard on All Things Considered
November 1, 20174:53 PM ET

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

NPR's Mary Louise Kelly talks with NPR CEO Jarl Mohn about how NPR has handled allegations of sexual harassment against NPR's Senior Vice President for News Michael Oreskes, who resigned Wednesday.

Transcript:

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:

And we are reporting on news from inside the NPR newsroom today. Our top editor, NPR Senior Vice President of News Mike Oreskes, has resigned following accusations of sexual harassment. Three women have filed complaints, one a current NPR reporter, the other two alleging harassment from two decades ago when Oreskes was at The New York Times. [EDITOR'S NOTE on Nov. 8: Since this interview was broadcast, NPR CEO Jarl Mohn has revealed that another woman who works at NPR filed a complaint against Michael Oreskes in the fall of 2015, and that Oreskes was disciplined “for both incidents.” There is more about that revelation here .] Mike put out a statement this afternoon saying, quote, "I am deeply sorry to the people I hurt. My behavior was wrong and inexcusable, and I accept full responsibility," end quote. NPR CEO Jarl Mohn says he asked for Oreskes' resignation this morning, and Jarl joins me now in the studio. Hi there.

JARL MOHN: Hi, Mary Louise.

KELLY: When did you first learn of an allegation of sexual harassment in connection with Mike Oreskes?

MOHN: Well, the first situation was the one you just referred to, was the - I guess in the fall of '15.

KELLY: So just to be clear, nothing had come to your attention, no allegations at the point when you hired him in the spring of 2015.

MOHN: None, none.

KELLY: You knew nothing.

MOHN: None.

KELLY: There have been a lot of questions about the timeline of when NPR knew what. So what I'd love to do is start there and just tick through my understanding of events as they unfolded, and please jump in and stop me if there's something...

MOHN: Sure.

KELLY: ...That doesn't square with events as you understand them. So in 2015, NPR staffer Rebecca Hersher alleged that Oreskes made her deeply uncomfortable at a three-hour dinner and that he asked personal and invasive questions. She complained, and Oreskes was reprimanded that same year, 2015, correct?

MOHN: That's correct.

KELLY: A year later, October 2016, NPR learned about a woman complaining of harassment by Oreskes at The New York Times nearly two decades ago. This complaint involved physical contact. She says he kissed her. He forced his tongue into her mouth, correct?

MOHN: Well, that's what we heard. And that would have been, I think, in the fall of '16, yes.

KELLY: Fall of '16. And then last month, a second woman complained of Oreskes' behavior during his time at The New York Times, a similar complaint that he kissed her...

MOHN: Yes.

KELLY: ...Without being - having been invited to do so.

MOHN: Correct.

KELLY: If that is the sequence, if you knew of these multiple allegations, did it cross your mind that leaving Mike in his job might put other women, might put our colleagues at risk?

MOHN: Yes. Well, let's look at those three examples that you gave, Mary Louise. The first, which occurred in the fall of '15 - that was an internal situation that happened here. It was a terrible situation. I condemn his actions. They were unacceptable. They're deplorable. We investigated. We did it immediately. We involved our HR department. We involved our general counsel. We sat with Mike. We confronted him about that situation and put him on notice that this could not occur. My understanding is - and again, it was reported here. David Folkenflik reported yesterday that that employee felt that we satisfactorily addressed that issue. And there's a whole range - I mean, there's a whole range of what is unacceptable behavior. This was...

KELLY: But that issue you knew about...

MOHN: Yes.

KELLY: ...When a year later a second allegation came in.

MOHN: You're referring to The New York Times, yes.

KELLY: The New York Times - from his tenure at The New York Times.

MOHN: Again, the important distinction here is, first, that did not happen at NPR. It was not an NPR employee. It was at The New York Times, and it occurred 20 years ago. Had that happened at NPR, we would have had a very different reaction to it. It happened 20 years earlier. One of the things we wanted to do as a result of that is make sure that that did not happen here. And I will tell you up to this moment sitting here and talking with you, Mary Louise, I'm not aware of anything that he's done or that happened that bears any resemblance to those issues that occurred 20 years ago while he was at The New York Times.

KELLY: Our media correspondent David Folkenflik has talked to five more women since last night on top of the three cases that we've already discussed, five more women alleging inappropriate conduct by Oreskes over a period of years. Has any other claim reached your office?

MOHN: I would say as a result of the published reports within the past 24 hours, we have heard of one other that has surfaced. I would say when the second New York Times story from...

KELLY: The second woman...

MOHN: Yes.

KELLY: ...Who dealt with Oreskes in his time at The Times.

MOHN: We felt very strongly that we needed to - and there had been rumors circulating around the building here about his behavior - rumors and gossip. We can't act on that. We have to act on facts. I put out an email. I put out a memo, a statement asking for anyone that has experienced or witnessed any of this behavior to please come forward. We laid out a whole array of ways that they could contact us. There must have been seven or eight ways in. Over that two-week period of time, we got no complaints. No one stepped forward. Unfortunately, it took the published reports to have something surface.

KELLY: But when you say it took published reports for this to surface, we're a news organization.

MOHN: Yeah.

KELLY: There's a few hundred reporters out there. Why are we getting scooped by The Washington Post on this?

MOHN: Why are we - are you - you're talking about The New York Times story? When we, you know...

KELLY: I'm talking about The Washington Post story quoting two New York Times woman. And I'll add to that. I learned that Mike Oreskes had resigned when I checked my phone in the line in the NPR canteen today. And the way I learned about it was via an AP news alert - Associated Press. Why did they know and we didn't?

MOHN: Well, because that's not from us. We did not release it. We had a clear timeline of how we were going to release this information. While we were in our meeting planning how we were going to release that information, the AP got the story. I suspect Mike released his statement to the AP. It was not from us.

KELLY: You said you can't act on rumors and gossip. But were you concerned that these accusations were creating a toxic environment in the newsroom?

MOHN: Absolutely, of course. As bad as...

KELLY: Should that not prompt action then?

MOHN: Well, it did, ultimately. We informally were asking questions. Clearly we didn't do everything we could because it didn't result in the right answer. But to suggest we were not doing anything or we were not acting appropriately is not - or that we were doing nothing is false.

KELLY: Let me push you again then on what did push you to act and put Mike on leave as of last night and then ask for his resignation this morning. The Washington Post published his story. He was put on leave within a couple of hours. Was that because new information came to light, came to you?

MOHN: Yes, yes.

KELLY: But you can't elaborate on what that is.

MOHN: I cannot.

KELLY: A new case, a new allegation?

MOHN: New case.

KELLY: Internal?

MOHN: Yes.

KELLY: Current employee?

MOHN: Yes.

KELLY: May I ask the severity of the allegation?

MOHN: Again, I hate...

KELLY: I know, but you've talked about a range, and there's a big range and it matters.

MOHN: I understand, but I'm going to be lambasted for any specificity here. And again, I want to get to the confidentiality of the complaint. I would say on this - on the range of, you know, Harvey Weinstein being on one extreme and the other internal issue that - the complaint that you referred to earlier...

KELLY: Conversation that made a woman feel uncomfortable.

MOHN: Yes. I would say it was clearly in that range.

KELLY: In the uncomfortable conversation range.

MOHN: Yes, yes.

KELLY: Jarl Mohn, our boss, NPR's CEO, talking about the resignation today of our top editor, Mike Oreskes, following accusations of sexual harassment. Jarl, thank you.

MOHN: Thank you, Mary Louise.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at http://www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

by **admin** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:04 am

Louis C.K. on Sexual Misconduct Allegations: “These Stories Are True”
by Sam Adams
The-21st-Annual-Webby-Awards--Inside

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

C.K. in May.
Bennett Raglin/Getty Images

In response to a New York Times article alleging that Louis C.K. exposed himself to and masturbated in front of several unwilling women, C.K. has issued a statement.

by **admin** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:15 am

Barbara Boxer recounts harassment on Capitol Hill: ‘The entire audience started laughing’
by Avery Anapol
11/15/17 03:35 PM EST

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

Former Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) on Wednesday shared her experience with sexual harassment on Capitol Hill, saying it was a "shaming" and "belittling" incident.

Boxer said on MSNBC that when she was a member of the House in the 1980s, she was humiliated by inappropriate comments from her colleagues at a hearing after she presented a bill.

"One of my colleagues said after I spoke, 'I want to associate myself with the comments of the congresswoman from California,’ which is exactly the right thing to say," Boxer said.

"But then he went on and said, 'In fact, I want to associate with the congresswoman from California,' at which point the entire audience started laughing."

The committee chairman added, “I want to associate with her, too," Boxer recalled. She said that she "turned bright red."

Boxer joined a number of current and former lawmakers speaking out this week about their experiences with sexual harassment on Capitol Hill. Several lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would overhaul congressional sexual harassment policies.

“This doesn’t compare to some of the dreadful stories we’re hearing,” Boxer said of her experience, comparing it to stories of physical attacks.

“But it was so humiliating and disempowering, and luckily I’m a strong person.”

by **admin** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:10 am

Bill Clinton is facing NEW accusations of sexual assault by four women while the former president was working with a billionaire playboy and flying on his private jet nicknamed Air F**k One, claims Clinton author
by Ed Klein
DailyMail.com
10:08 EST, 20 November 2017 | UPDATED: 13:25 EST, 20 November 2017

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

Edward Klein is the former editor in chief of the New York Times Magazine and the author of numerous bestsellers including his fourth book on the Clintons, Guilty as Sin, in 2016. His latest book is All Out War: The Plot to Destroy Trump was released on October 30, 2017.

Bill Clinton is facing explosive new charges of sexual assault from four women, according to highly placed Democratic Party sources and an official who served in both the Clinton and Obama administrations.

The current accusations against the 71-year-old former president — whose past is littered with charges of sexual misconduct — stem from the period after he left the White House in 2001, say the sources.

Attorneys representing the women, who are coordinating their efforts, have notified Clinton they are preparing to file four separate lawsuits against him.

As part of the ongoing negotiations, the attorneys for the women are asking for substantial payouts in return for their clients' silence.

A member of Clinton's legal team has confirmed the existence of the new allegations.

President Clinton, here with residents at the William Rivera Betancourt Vocational School which was turned into an emergency shelter in Canovanas, Puerto Rico, is facing accusations of sexual assault from four unidentified women, highly placed Democratic Party sources told author Ed Klein

The women alleged the former president assaulted them in the early 2000s, during the time Clinton was working with playboy billionaire investor Ron Burkle (pictured together in 2006)

The unidentified women were employed in low-level positions at the Burkle organization and in their late teens at the time of the alleged assaults. Clinton helped Burkle generate business and flew around the world on Burkle's private jet, which was nicknamed 'Air F**k One' (pictured)

Back in the late 1990s, Clinton paid $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit by Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee whose case led to Clinton's impeachment in the House of Representatives and his subsequent acquittal by the Senate in 1999.

The negotiations in the new lawsuits are said to have reached a critical stage.

If they fail, according to sources in Clinton's inner circle, the four women are said to be ready to air their accusations of sexual assault at a press conference, making Clinton the latest — and most famous — figure in a long list of men from Harvey Weinstein to Kevin Spacey who have recently been accused of sexual assault.

The new allegations refer to incidents that took place more than 10 years ago, in the early 2000s, when Clinton was hired by Ron Burkle, the playboy billionaire investor, to work at his Yucaipa companies.

Clinton helped Burkle generate business and flew around the world with a flock of beautiful young women on Burkle's private jet, which was nicknamed 'Air F**k One.'

The four women, who have not yet revealed their identities, were employed in low-level positions at the Burkle organization when they were in their late teens and claim they were sexually assaulted by the former president.

The 71-year-old politician has been followed throughout his years in public office with allegations of sexual misconduct, reaching its peak with the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Pictured: Clinton with White House intern Lewinsky in 1998

In the late 1990s, Clinton paid $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit by Paula Jones (left and right), a former Arkansas state employee whose case led to Clinton's impeachment in the House of Representatives and his subsequent acquittal by the Senate in 1999

The new charges are likely to revive the debate over why Democrats defended Clinton and why liberals and feminists ignored credible charges of sexual assault against Clinton from Juanita Broaddrick (left) and Kathleen Willey (right)

There is no evidence that Burkle knew anything about these alleged assaults by Clinton.

Contacted for a comment on the women's allegations, a member of Clinton's legal team said: 'Obviously, I'm aware of [the allegations] but can't talk about them.'

The new charges are likely to revive the debate over why Democrats defended Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and why liberals and feminists ignored credible charges of sexual assault against the 42nd president, not only from Paula Jones, but also from Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and others.

'Bill is distraught at the thought of having to testify and defend himself against sex charges again,' said a Democratic Party official who is familiar with the case.

'He hopes his legal team can somehow stop the women from filing charges and drag him through the mud.'

The source added that Hillary Clinton is furious with her husband for getting entangled in yet another sexual scandal.

Hillary Clinton allegedly offered to hire private detectives to find dirt on the new accusers, but Clinton's legal team advised against it, sources said

'Bill spends a great deal of his time in his penthouse apartment above the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock. Hillary occasionally goes to Little Rock, but she refuses to stay in the apartment because she knows that's his love nest,' a source said

She reportedly offered to hire private detectives to dig up dirt on the women, but Bill Clinton's attorneys persuaded her to not interfere.

'In the past Hillary had a team of detectives that managed to silence a number of women in Little Rock who had complaints about Bill's unwanted sexual advances,' said the source.

Klein's latest book, All Out War: The Plot to Destroy Trump, was released on October 30, 2017

'But now Hillary admits there's a different atmosphere in our culture about sexual harassment and it's not possible to intimidate women into silence about charges once they make up their mind to speak up.

'Hillary wants to remain in the public eye as a leader of the resistance to Donald Trump and play a major role in politics for years to come, including maybe even running for president again in 2020,' the source continued.

'She's afraid this latest scandal could destroy the Clinton legacy and torpedo her plans.

'The relationship between Bill and Hillary has been more of a business relationship for a number of years, except when it comes to their daughter and grandchildren.

'They haven't lived as man and wife for a number of years, mostly due to Bill's running around with other women.

'It became obvious years ago that even age wasn't going to make Bill settle down and stop chasing women. Hillary has simply ignored it and lived her separate life.

'Bill spends a great deal of his time in his penthouse apartment above the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock.

'Hillary occasionally goes to Little Rock, but she refuses to stay in the apartment because she knows that's his love nest.'

by **admin** » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:25 am

Harvey Weinstein scandal: New claim alleges sex trafficking
by Erin Jensen
USA TODAY
11:00 a.m. ET Nov. 27, 2017 | Updated 7:46 p.m. ET Nov. 27, 2017

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

The Harvey Weinstein scandal continues to unfold.

The Hollywood producer, who stands accused of sexual assault and harassment by dozens of women, also faces a growing number of lawsuits.

The latest updates:

A civil claim of sex trafficking filed in New York

British actress Kadian Noble filed a civil suit on Monday in New York alleging that Harvey Weinstein forced her into sexual acts while abroad in 2014. Even more damning: The suit, obtained by USA TODAY, claims The Weinstein Company violated federal sex trafficking law "by benefiting from, and knowingly facilitating" Weinstein's foreign business travels in which he would "recruit or entice female actors into forced or coerced sexual encounters on the promise of roles in films or entertainment projects."

Noble says she was summoned to the producer's hotel room at Cannes Film Festival in 2014 to talk about a role. He began massaging her shoulders and told her to "relax." According to the complaint, Weinstein called an unnamed Weinstein Company producer, who told the actress that she needed to be “a good girl and do whatever (Weinstein) wished,” and if she did, “they would work” with her further. Weinstein then began groping her, pulled her into a bathroom, and forced her to fondle him.

The suit says Bob Weinstein and The Weinstein Company "knowingly participated in Weinstein's" trips to foreign countries for such purposes.

“I filed under the Federal sex trafficking law because I believe the facts as alleged in the complaint fit squarely within the statute," Jeff Herman, Noble’s lawyer, told USA TODAY in a statement. "The benefit of filing under this Federal law is that it allows us to bring a claim in the United States for an assault that occurred overseas and it has a 10 year statute of limitations.”

Noble and her lawyer will hold a news conference in New York on Tuesday.

Weinstein repeated his denial that anything non-consensual occurred. “Mr. Weinstein denies allegations of non-consensual sex," his representative Holly K. Baird told USA TODAY in a statement. "Mr. Weinstein has further confirmed that there were never any acts of retaliation against any women for refusing his advances.”

Weinstein resigns from Directors Guild

Facing disciplinary action from the Directors Guild of America, Weinstein has announced that he's resigning from the entertainment guild.

Weinstein confirmed his resignation on Monday and said he has "nothing but the utmost respect for the organization" in a statement sent to USA TODAY by his publicist Holly Baird.

The Directors Guild broke with its policy of not disclosing internal affairs by announcing it had filed disciplinary charges against Weinstein on Oct. 13.

"As directors and team members who solve problems for a living, we are committed to eradicating the scourge of sexual harassment on our industry," said president Thomas Schlamme. "Unless we recognize what has become so acceptable in our culture and how we possibly, even unconsciously, are participants, everything else will be meaningless."

Weinstein has two directorial credits in IMDb: The Gnomes' Great Adventure (1987) and Playing for Keeps (1986).

A civil claim has been lodged in the U.K.

The first civil claim against Weinstein for a series of sexual assaults has been filed in the U.K.

In the claim issued Nov. 23 and obtained by USA TODAY, Weinstein is named as a defendant, along with The Weinstein Company (UK) Limited and The Weinstein Company LLC.

Personal injury lawyer Jill Greenfield represents the accuser, who previously worked for Weinstein, and has filed applied for an anonymity order on behalf of her client who wishes to remain anonymous.

The accuser's claim "is for damages for personal injury, expenses, consequential loss including aggravated and exemplary damages and interest arising out of a series of sexual assaults inflicted" by Weinstein during her employment, according to the claim form. The companies are also listed as the accuser sees they are "vicariously liable."

"Both the assaults and the psychiatric damage cause to the Claimant were caused by the intentional assault by (Weinstein), the negligence and/or breach of the statutory duty and/or breach of contract of the (companies) and/or their Agents and/or their respective predecessors in title," the claim alleges.

Reps for Weinstein did not immediately respond to USA TODAY's request for comment, but has previously denied any allegations of non-consensual sex in statements through spokeswoman Holly Baird.

In a statement issued to USA TODAY Monday, Greenfield said she expects the claim to exceed £300,000, or roughly $400,000. She also says that the accuser has not filed a complaint with police about the alleged incidents that occurred after the year 2000 but believes she will do so.

Earlier this month, London’s Metropolitan Police Service, also known as Scotland Yard, confirmed its 12th report against Weinstein received through its Child Abuse and Sexual Offenses Command's Operation Kaguyak investigation.

Contributing: Andrea Mandell

by **admin** » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:52 am

Dylan Farrow writes that Woody Allen abused her
by Jayme Deerwester
USA TODAY
8:24 p.m. ET Feb. 1, 2014 | Updated 8:47 a.m. ET Feb. 2, 2014

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

Adopted daughter of Woody Allen and Mia Farrow pens an open letter claiming she was molested by the director.

Dylan Farrow, the adopted daughter of actress Mia Farrow and her then-partner, filmmaker Woody Allen, has written an open letter published by the New York Times website detailing a 1992 incident in which she says Allen molested her.

Though the case made headlines back in 1993 and her mother and brother Ronan have discussed the case before, this is the first time Dylan has spoken publicly on the subject.

Dylan, now 28, was adopted by Farrow and Allen in 1987 when she was 2. Five years later, she writes that Allen led her by the hand to a room in their house where "he told me to lie on my stomach and play with my brother's electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me."

She goes on to say that "he talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we'd go to Paris and I'd be a star in his movies."

The incident in the attic was not the first time Allen touched her, she said, though she does not give a time frame for how long the alleged abuse went on. She only goes as far as saying that, "for as long as I could remember, my father had been doing things to me that I did not like. ... These things happened so often, so routinely, so skillfully hidden from a mother that would have protected me had she known, that I thought it was normal. I thought this was how fathers doted on their daughters. But what he did to me in the attic felt different. I couldn't keep the secret anymore."

At that point, she told Farrow, who left Allen that same year after the news broke of his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn, the 19-year-old daughter she had adopted with husband Andre Previn. (Allen and Soon-Yi married in 1997 and have two adopted daughters, Bechet and Menzie.)

A custody battle over their adopted children ensued and Allen's attorneys alleged that her mother encouraged her to make up the abuse allegations.

In September 1993, Connecticut state attorney Frank Maco declined to prosecute Allen, saying that while he had probable cause, he did not wish to inflict any further anguish on Dylan by making her testify. Farrow won custody of their adopted children and Allen was denied visitation rights.

"That he got away with what he did to me haunted me as I grew up," Dylan writes. "I was stricken with guilt that I had allowed him to be near other little girls. I was terrified of being touched by men. I developed an eating disorder. I began cutting myself. That torment was made worse by Hollywood. All but a precious few (my heroes) turned a blind eye. Most found it easier to accept the ambiguity, to say, 'who can say what happened,' to pretend that nothing was wrong. ... For so long, Woody Allen's acceptance silenced me. It felt like a personal rebuke, like the awards and accolades were a way to tell me to shut up and go away."

But this award season, Dylan says she felt differently. "This time, I refuse to fall apart. ... Today, I consider myself lucky. I am happily married. I have the support of my amazing brothers and sisters. I have a mother who found within herself a well of fortitude that saved us from the chaos a predator brought into our home."

Why is all of this coming back up now? The Farrow family's feelings toward Allen have been stirred up by the award season attention being paid to him, including the Cecil B. DeMille lifetime achievement award at January's Golden Globes and his Oscar nomination for best original screenplay for Blue Jasmine.

"Imagine your 7-year-old daughter being led into an attic by Woody Allen," she commands the reader. "Imagine she spends a lifetime stricken with nausea at the mention of his name. Imagine a world that celebrates her tormentor."

She drives her point home by calling out the stars of his films. "What if it had been your child, Cate Blanchett? Louis C.K.? Alec Baldwin? What if it had been you, Emma Stone? Or you, Scarlett Johansson? You knew me when I was a little girl, Diane Keaton. Have you forgotten me?"

by **admin** » Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:42 am

'I will never forgive Polanski. I'm telling the truth and Roman knows it': Actress Charlotte Lewis claims she was abused by director when she was 16
by Katie Nicholl and Laura Collins
UPDATED: 04:52 EST, 27 January 2017

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

Charlotte, as she is today, escaped Hollywood and now leads a 'normal life' bringing up her son in London

It has been a long time since Charlotte Lewis held a crowd enthralled in Hollywood.

But if she ever dreamed of a return to Los Angeles, where as a young actress she was hailed as a ‘golden child’ – talented, exquisitely beautiful and with a film career unfurling before her – it would never have been like this.

On Friday, Charlotte, now 42, called a Press conference in Los Angeles to claim that director Roman Polanski, the man who gave her her first break, had abused her, ‘in the worst possible way’ when she was just 16 years old.

Polanski is currently under house arrest in Gstaad in Switzerland under threat of extradition to America to face charges of an alleged rape of a 13-year-old in 1977.

His alleged victim, Samantha Geimer, has said she has no desire to see him stand trial as she simply wants to get on with the life she subsequently built.

But 27 years after their first meeting, Charlotte feels very differently. She wants him to ‘get what he deserves’, she says and has given a statement to prosecutors in Los Angeles.

Now, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, Charlotte explains why she has chosen to speak up now – against not just Polanski, but against Hollywood itself.

She says: ‘I know I should have gone to the relevant authorities at the time but I was scared and ashamed. I somehow thought it was my fault.

‘I’ve been so angry with some of the people in Hollywood who have spoken out in support of Polanski. Hollywood is giving the wrong message to paedophiles.

'He sexually abused me and manipulated me in the worst way. He has scarred me and the experience has definitely put a strain on my life.

‘I was recently engaged to a lovely man, but I would often clam up physically and I don’t think I’m very good in relationships. I will never forgive Polanski for what he has done to me.’

Charlotte had only just turned 16 when she first encountered Polanski. She had left school at 15 and by her own admission thought she was ‘pretty grown-up and street smart’ at the time. Looking back, she recognises that, though she may have been precocious and ambitious, she was anything but.

She had no acting experience but knew that she wanted her future to lie in film.

She modelled a bit while she searched for her big chance and, in 1983, she got it when a mutual acquaintance, 23-year-old model Eliza Karen, asked her to come with her to Paris to audition for a role in Polanski’s film Pirates.

Polanski had fled to the French capital five years earlier to escape the American courts over the Geimer case.

Charlotte recalls: ‘We had come over to Paris on the boat with not much money so that I could meet Roman. I was with Eliza, a friend of his. She was also a model and a couple of years older than me.

Vulnerable: Charlotte and Polanski launch the Pirates film at the 1986 Cannes film festival

‘She had put me up for a part in Roman’s new film. Apparently he wanted someone exotic-looking and because of my Hispanic look he wanted to see me. I didn’t know at the time, but I later found out that they had already found a French actress to play the role so I don’t know why he still wanted to see me.

‘We had checked into a hotel which was pretty central and very reasonable but when we told Roman where we were staying he said the hotel was not good enough and invited us to stay in his spare penthouse on the Avenue Montaigne, which seemed like a great offer.’

That night the girls went straight to Roman’s house for pre-dinner drinks. The first thing Polanski did on seeing Charlotte was to frame her face with his hands, as if shooting her through a camera. She felt uncomfortable, she now admits, but given the purpose of their meeting this in itself could hardly be described as odd.

She says: ‘The very first thing he asked me was, “How old are you?”I told him I was 16, but only just. This was in September and I had turned 16 that August.’

After dinner Polanski checked the girls out of the hotel room that he had dismissed as substandard and took them back to his apartment. While her friend retired to a neighbouring flat, Charlotte stayed chatting with the director on the sofa in his living room.

Fugitive: Roman Polanski, now 76, is facing extradition to America

‘We were drinking Moet and Chandon, I’ll never forget that, and I still can’t drink that champagne to this day. He told me he wanted me to stay the night with him and then he made a pass at me. He tried to kiss me and touch my breasts. I pulled away and told him that I had a boyfriend, which wasn’t true. It was an excuse, but he didn’t care.

‘He just said very coldly, “If you’re not a big enough girl to have sex with me, you’re not big enough to do the screen-test. I must sleep with every actress that I work with, that’s how I get to know them, how I mould them.”

‘I was shocked and got very upset and started to cry. I said I didn’t want to sleep with him, he was 50 and I found him disgusting.’

But as she recalls this today, Charlotte admits that she felt conflicted. ‘I saw this opportunity slipping away,’ she says softly.

‘My mother who had been working as a legal secretary had just been made redundant and although I was doing a lot of modelling I didn’t have a lot of money. I saw this film as my chance to make it. All these things were going through my head and I was getting more and more upset. I told him I didn’t want to sleep with him and I left.

‘I went to the other flat to see my friend and tell her what had happened.’

Charlotte says that, in her naivety and confusion, she became concerned that she was letting a professional opportunity of a lifetime pass her by, so returned to the director’s apartment.

‘Roman opened the door and led me to the bedroom,’ she recalls.

She has described exactly what she alleges happened next to the Los Angeles’ prosecutors, who are expected to investigate.

Charlotte says that the following morning, Polanski invited her and Eliza to join him for breakfast in his living room, and she accepted. She says now: ‘All I remember was wanting a bath. I needed to clean myself and I went to get fresh clothes.

‘After breakfast he wanted to show us the Mona Lisa so he took us to the Louvre and some other museums in the centre. We had lunch, then I went back with him to his apartment to collect my things as I was flying back to London that afternoon. I don’t know where Eliza was, I can’t remember.’

She claims that a further incident took place before she left for home.

Some might find it difficult to square her allegations of an ordeal that she claims was terrifying with her decision to return to Paris two weeks later for the Pirates screen test. But she did return and she got the part that would launch her career.

‘I never told my mother what had happened,’ she said. ‘I was just too ashamed. I needed to do this movie, the money was good – I was being paid £1,200 a month. My mother and I were living in housing association accommodation and this was a life-changing amount of money.’

Speaking out: Actress Charlotte Lewis, right, with her lawyer Gloria Allred at the Los Angeles press conference

Charlotte’s Irish mother raised her alone and the actress never knew the Iraqi-Chilean father to whom she owes her looks. Speaking in a promotional interview for the film in 1986, Polanski himself said of Charlotte: ‘She had what I needed for the film. Dark hair, dark eyes – and the look of innocence.’

Back then Charlotte spoke of the experience of filming as a ‘nightmare’.

‘Polanski tried to dominate me right from the start,’ she said. ‘He swore at me and shouted at me. There was such pressure on me that I became a nervous wreck.’

Today Charlotte recalls: ‘The mental abuse started as soon as I started filming. I always felt that as soon as I started the movie he wanted to fire me.

‘I developed a serious eating disorder. He would play mind games with me and tell me I was too fat and then too thin. I developed bulimia and lost so much weight I passed out five times during filming.

I had turned 17 and Roman had been told by the producer Tarak Ben Ammar and MGM to stay away from me. I was very alone. They wouldn’t allow me to have an agent. Roman continued to emotionally bully me and would joke to other people onset that I was frigid.

Scared: Charlotte says she is angry at the reaction of some people in Hollywood who support Polanski

‘I remember he made a bet once with a very famous American male actor that there was no way he could get me into bed because I was so cold and frigid. The producer flew my mother out to Tunisia [where Pirates was filmed] and I remember her hating Polanski. She said he had dead eyes.’

But though little has changed in how she remembers the miserable process of filming itself, her version of what happened between her and Polanski on a physical level has altered with the years.

In 1986 Charlotte claimed: ‘I found him very attractive, I’d love to have had a romantic relationship with him – and a physical one. You can’t help falling in love with him. But he didn’t want me that way.’

Though it is worth noting that at the time she was speaking she was still working for Polanski and, it could be argued, in thrall of him.

Today she says: ‘There was nothing about him I could have found physically attractive. He was short and stout and very strong.’

In another interview in 1999 Charlotte went on to claim that she did have a relationship with Polanski. But that it started after she had been cast in the film and when she was 17.

‘I wanted him probably more than he wanted me,’ she said then, claiming that they were lovers for six months in an affair that ended only when they began filming Pirates in Tunisia. She claimed afterwards that she’d been misquoted.

Ultimately this case must come down to one person’s word against another’s. Charlotte did not keep in touch with Eliza, the one person who could corroborate her account and, despite The Mail on Sunday’s strenuous attempts, we have been unable to trace her.

What is clear is that what Charlotte had hoped would be the start of a great Hollywood dream, instead set her on a path that led ultimately to addiction and despair.

Following her appearance in Pirates, Charlotte was hailed the new Nastassja Kinski – a former protege of Polanski who is said to have started an affair with him at the age of 15. Charlotte split her time between the UK – where she had a long-running role in Grange Hill – and Hollywood, where she starred opposite Eddie Murphy in The Golden Child in 1986.

She eventually moved to America and was swiftly linked with astring of eligible A-listers and hell-raisers, including Charlie Sheen and Mickey Rourke.

Professionally her star was on the rise but personally she was in serious trouble.‘Living in Los Angeles is like being at one long party,’ she later admitted. ‘It’s difficult to get away from it. I got to the stage where I was wondering, “What is the point of living here?” All I have is temptation.’

But she never lived up to her early film promise and in 1997, 14 years after she met Polanski, Charlotte returned to Britain and checked into the Priory to be treated for cocaine addiction. She had tried to give it up twice already, she said, but only ever in a ‘half-hearted’ way.

She tried to resurrect her career but whatever attraction Hollywood had held seemed to have gone.

Rising star: Charlotte starred alongside Eddie Murphy in The Golden Child in 1986

Eight years ago she quit acting for good and today she says: 'I am happy but it’s true to say I have never been able to have a normal relationship with a man. I have spoken to my vicar and my GP about this and I am now having counselling.’

Charlotte has many reasons for speaking out now but money is not one of them and she has not been paid for this interview.

Instead, she insists, her abiding desire is simply to tell the truth that she has concealed for so long.

Last summer she made two trips to Paris and tried to contact Polanski. She says: ‘I wanted to see him. I wanted him to apologise. But he was away making a movie.

‘I’d heard that Polanski’s daughter had turned 16 and if I could ask him one question it would be, “How would you feel if this was your daughter?”

‘I will never forgive Polanski,’ Charlotte says as tears threaten to fall. ‘I’ll never know if my life would have been different had this not happened. There needs to be some justice. I’m telling the truth and Roman knows I’m telling the truth.’

Mr Polanski declined to comment last night.

Altruistic World Online Library

Harvey Weinstein: 'Beautiful Girls' Scribe Scott Rosenberg

Re: Harvey Weinstein: 'Beautiful Girls' Scribe Scott Rosenbe

Re: Harvey Weinstein: 'Beautiful Girls' Scribe Scott Rosenbe

Re: Harvey Weinstein: 'Beautiful Girls' Scribe Scott Rosenbe

Re: Harvey Weinstein: 'Beautiful Girls' Scribe Scott Rosenbe

Re: Harvey Weinstein: 'Beautiful Girls' Scribe Scott Rosenbe

Re: Harvey Weinstein: 'Beautiful Girls' Scribe Scott Rosenbe

Re: Harvey Weinstein: 'Beautiful Girls' Scribe Scott Rosenbe

Re: Harvey Weinstein: 'Beautiful Girls' Scribe Scott Rosenbe

Re: Harvey Weinstein: 'Beautiful Girls' Scribe Scott Rosenbe

Re: Harvey Weinstein: 'Beautiful Girls' Scribe Scott Rosenbe

Who is online