Their Lives: The Women Targeted By the Clinton Machine

Gathered together in one place, for easy access, an agglomeration of writings and images relevant to the Rapeutation phenomenon.

Re: Their Lives: The Women Targeted By the Clinton Machine

Postby admin » Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:01 am

Part 1 of 2


JUST A FEW WEEKS before Troopergate broke, and about ten weeks before Paula Jones's press conference, the White House arranged a meeting between President Clinton and a woman who had worked for several months as a volunteer in the White House Social Office. Kathleen Willey requested the appointment with intent to beg Clinton to help her find a paying job. Her husband Ed Willey was facing disgrace and financial ruin as a lawyer who had bilked clients out of substantial sums of money to cover his personal tax liens. Kathleen Willey was desperate. Strained by their financial quagmire, their future was on the rocks, and Kathleen believed her best hope was a full-time, salaried position. Clinton had always been friendly and approachable to the Willeys, so she pressed for an appointment with him. The White House scheduled her for a November 29, 1993,meeting with the president.

During that encounter in the Oval Office, Willey told Clinton she and Ed were in serious trouble and that she needed a job badly. He comforted her and expressed sympathy for what she was going through. He also kissed her, put his hand on her breast, and put her hand on his erect penis. She was shocked. Her first reaction was to slap him, but "I don't think you can slap the president of the United States like that." [1] She left hurriedly and saw head of the U.S. Treasury Lloyd Bentsen, [2] chairman of the OMB Leon Panetta, and chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisors Laura Tyson outside the Oval Office waiting to meet with the president. [3] She couldn't believe what had just happened.

Kathleen and Ed Willey met BillClinton in 1989 at a political rally in Charlottesville, Virginia for Virginia Lieutenant Governor Douglas Wilder, [4] and again at a 1991 event for Clinton. [5] When Clinton announced his bid for the White House both Willeys were enthusiastic about his campaign. Virginia's first Clinton for President headquarters opened in Ed Willey's office in 1991. [6]

In October 1992, Kathleen Willey and a few other local Democrats greeted Bill Clinton at the airport as he arrived in Richmond, Virginia for a televised debate with George H. W. Bush and Ross Perot. [7] Clinton, suffering from laryngitis that day, whispered to Virginia Lieutenant Governor Donald S. Beyer, "I remember that woman from some fund-raising activity, but I can't remember her name." [8] Beyer replied, "That's Kathy Willey." [9] Video footage of this airport greeting depicts this conversation.  [10] Nancy Hernreich, Clinton's Little Rock office manager who later became his director of Oval Office operations, approached Kathleen Willey that day and asked if the governor could have her phone number. [11] Willey obliged, and later that afternoon, Clinton called her at home. [12] Noting his raspy voice she commented, "It sounds like you need some chicken soup." [13] Clinton, ever the smooth operator, responded, "Would you bring me some?" [14] She hedged; Clinton said he'd have to call her back, and later that afternoon he did. Clinton asked again about the chicken soup but Willey told Clinton she'd see him that evening at a fundraiser after the debate; in her words, she was "starting to get the drift" [15] of Clinton's interest in her and "my instincts told me he wasn't interested in chicken soup." [16]

Despite sensing Clinton's inappropriate interest in Kathleen, the Willeys remained active supporters of Clinton's campaign and flew to Little Rock with their two college-age children on election night to celebrate Clinton's victory. [17] In April 1993, Kathleen Willey landed a volunteer position in the White House Social Office. [18] Still living in Richmond, she traveled by train to the White House a few days a week to help coordinate events like receptions and the White House Christmas party. [19]

Working in the White House wasn't an unfathomable leap in lifestyle for Willey. She and Ed had married in the early 1970s when she worked as a secretary in his real estate law practice. [20] One colleague of Ed's described him as "very prominent, very well-liked ... an attractive guy," and said Kathleen was "involved in a number of charitable organizations." [21] The couple had two children, a son and a daughter. [22] Ed's practice succeeded wildly in the hey-day of the 1980s, but when the real estate market crashed they continued living an extravagant lifestyle even as their income dwindled. [23] They lived in what Willey called a "traditional Southern marriage" and her husband "took care of the finances." [24] They still found a way to donate money to Clinton's 1992 campaign and other Democratic causes, [25] but the trappings of a successful life were about to come crashing down around them.

By the fall of 1993, Ed Willey's embezzlement scheme had been exposed, and creditors hounded them. [26] One day, Kathleen Willey was driving to a Red Cross Meals-on-Wheels volunteer appointment when her husband called her. [27] He asked her to sign a note promising to repay $274,000to help them escape legal trouble and criminal charges for his embezzlement. [28] She signed the note, which obligated the Willeys to come up with the money in just two weeks. [29] Over Thanksgiving, with that deadline only days away, Kathleen Willey told her family she intended to ask the president for help finding a job, to get herself and her husband out of their mess. [30]

Nancy Hernreich arranged the appointment for her, and on the afternoon of November 29 at about 3:00 p.m., Willey sat across the desk from Clinton in the Oval Office. [31] He asked her if she'd like a cup of coffee and escorted her through a hallway into a private kitchen, handing her a Starbucks mug of coffee. He showed her around the small hideaway office off the end of the hallway, pointing out his collection of political buttons. After a couple of minutes of small talk, she was near tears as she told Clinton about her husband's financial trouble. The bottom line, she told the president, is that she needed a job. [32]

She felt embarrassed and walked back down the hallway toward the Oval Office. When she reached the door that led to the Oval Office, Clinton caught up with her and hugged her. "I'm really sorry this has happened to you," he said. With her back against the door, coffee mug still in her hand, Clinton kissed her. "I was shocked," Willey told reporter Michael Isikoff almost five years later -- off the record. "It was like an out-of-body experience."  [33] She tried to push away but Clinton just said, "You have no idea how much I wanted you to come to Williamsburg and bring me that chicken soup." Willey asked if he was concerned about people waiting outside, but Clinton brushed it off, saying he had a meeting but he could be late. Clinton took the coffee mug out of Willey's hand and said, "I've wanted to do this ever since the first time I laid eyes on you." He began kissing her again, and his hands were "everywhere" -- on her breast, up her skirt, in her hair. [34] He put one of her hands on his crotch. Willey told Michael Isikoff she knew Paula Jones was telling the truth because during this encounter Clinton's face was "beet red," just the way Paula later described him. [35] Someone knocked on the door, causing Willey to disentangle herself and say she had to go.

Willey was shaking as she walked out of the White House, trying not to look at anyone. When she spotted Linda Tripp, a former co-worker, Tripp said, "Where's your lipstick?" Willey took her aside and told her what had happened. Tripp shook her head and said to Willey, "I could always tell the president wanted you." [36] Indignant, Willey insisted that wasn't why she had gone to see Clinton that day. Years later, Linda Tripp would tell a much different version of this conversation. That evening, Willey drove over to her friend's house and recounted the story again. Two other friends later testified that Willey told them about the incident the day it happened. [37]

The day before, the stress of their financial situation had become too much for Ed, and he had left their home to stay at a friend's house for the night. [38] By the evening of November 29, Kathleen Willey was upset about her encounter with Clinton, but she was much more concerned with locating her husband. [39] She couldn't contact him. She found out the following morning that at about 5:00 p.m. the previous evening-a couple of hours after her encounter with Clinton - her husband, then sixty years old, had walked off into the woods and committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. [40]


Without a doubt, November 29, 1993, was "absolutely" the worst day of Kathleen Willey's life. [41] In the midst of her grief, her desperation heightened. Clinton called her the next day. Though she was terribly upset and on sedatives she remembers him saying "You never saw this coming, did you?" and telling her he hoped she would return to work at the White House. [42] A friend had her hospitalized a few days after her husband's suicide. [43] Her legal troubles intensified; she was on the hook for the $274,000 note she'd signed at her husband's request. She was "sued the day after the funeral for half a million dollars." [44] An insurance policy on her husband's life provided some money but she renounced it, allowing it to go to her children to avoid its seizure by her creditors. [45] Clinton came through on a paid position for her (though he later denied any personal involvement getting her the job). [46] The White House hired her in the White House Counsel's office in March 1994, [47] but that only lasted six months. [48] In 1995 the White House sent her on at least two State Department trips at taxpayer expense, giving her the chance to visit locales like Copenhagen and Jakarta. [49] In September 1996 Clinton appointed Willey to an unpaid position with the United Service Organization, [50] which oversees the social needs of military service members. [51]

A friend told her the White House was just trying to keep her quiet, but Willey didn't seem to understand that, or care. [52] She needed help, and a connection to the president of the United States was more help than most widows find. She managed to "hold off a mountain of crushing debt" and "restore her family to financial security." [53] Even while taking full advantage of the White House jobs, one of Willey's friends told Michael Isikoff that the November 29, 1993, encounter left Clinton a "fallen hero" in Willey's eyes. [54] Willey genuinely looked up to Clinton and thought he was a wonderful president. Whatever betrayal she felt after his sexual advances in 1993 was nothing, however, to the betrayal she felt after her story hit the realm of public knowledge four years later.

As one reporter later put it, by 1997 Kathleen Willey "had, it appeared, emerged from a clouded past into the clear vista of the future," having survived her husband's wracking financial ruin and suicide. [55] She had "endured tragedy and scandal only to become a potential witness against the president of the United States." [56]

Kathleen Willey's name first appeared publicly as the target of a subpoena in the Paula Jones lawsuit in July 1997. The Supreme Court had just denied Clinton immunity from suit and the Jones lawyers busied themselves tracking down women as potential witnesses to Clinton's sexual predation. Willey came to their attention because of an anonymous phone call received by Jones lawyer Joe Cammarata in January 1997 while Cammarata was preparing for Supreme Court oral arguments. [57] The caller refused to give her name but gave enough detail about an incident of unwanted sexual advances inside the White House in 1993 to allow the Jones legal team later to identify the caller as Kathleen Willey. Willey denied she made that call but there existed so many similarities in the caller's and Willey's lives that the Jones team (and later a federal judge) thought it probable that Willey and the caller were one and the same. So, Willey was ordered to testify in the Paula Jones case.

Today, Willey still maintains that she did not make that call. She never intended to go public about her experience with Clinton. "I think it was either Linda [Tripp] or Julie [Steele]" who made the call to the Jones lawyers, Willey told me. Julie Steele was once a close friend -- the friend to whose home Kathleen went the evening after her encounter with Clinton in the White House. But Steele was facing financial difficulties of her own and from the moment Willey confided in her about the harassment from Clinton, Steele constantly pressured Willey to sell her story. Long before Willey's name ever entered the public realm, Steele even went so far as to buy a stack of tabloids and sit down with Willey to talk about which tabloids to contact.

"I kept telling her I would never voluntarily tell my story," Willey recalls now, but Steele kept pressuring her to "just make it quick and dirty" by going for as much money as possible. "She eventually sold me out for $15,000," Willey says. Steele ran to the tabloids and sold them pictures of Willey and her children, traveling the country to get the highest price. The betrayal Willey still feels comes through in her voice as she confides to me, "That was the end of our friendship."

Before the May 1997 ruling by the Supreme Court in the Jones case, reporter Michael Isikoff spoke to Cammarata about the anonymous phone tip. [58] Isikoff thought Kathleen Willey was the caller and met with her in February and March 1997. [59] She denied she'd made the anonymous call, but eventually told Isikoff her story. She would speak only off the record, and hesitated to speak at all. She expressed concern for what her story would do to Chelsea Clinton, and she didn't want to hurt the president. She gave Isikoff the names of two friends whom she'd told of the November 29, 1993 incident immediately after it had happened. Isikoff now had two leads: Tripp and Steele.

Steele confirmed Willey's story to Isikoff in March 1997. [60] Tripp corroborated learning of a sexual encounter between Willey and Clinton on that fateful day in 1993, but told Isikoff it had been something Willey had been excited about. [61] Isikoff later wrote, "Sorting out the women's conflicting accounts is next to impossible. In Tripp's version, Willey was on a single-minded mission to ensnare Clinton. In Willey's, Tripp was consumed with the notion of a romantic attachment between the two [Willey and Clinton] and was constantly egging her on." [62]

Isikoff might not have been able to discern who was telling the truth at the time when he was writing his book, but by February 1999 Tripp herself told Larry King and his national audience that Kathleen Willey is "an honest person" who is "telling the truth." [63] Willey comments now that Tripp's "180 degree" turn-around was "bizarre," but chalks it up to the fact that Tripp felt "personally wronged" after being fired from the White House back in 1994. "Linda was very loyal to the Bush White House and hated the Clintons and their entourage," Willey tells me. The two women were friends while they worked together at the White House, but Tripp was so angry about being fired that their friendship ended bitterly.

When Lloyd Cutler moved in as the new White House Counsel in 1994, Willey was allowed to stay on while Tripp was shunted to the Pentagon. Willey tells me that when Tripp was told she was about to be fired, Tripp "went to [Bruce] Lindsey," a White House advisor and loyal Clinton confidant. Tripp told Lindsey that she knew "about something that happened in the Oval Office" and that he should think twice about firing her. This was no doubt a reference to Kathleen Willey's story. "Next thing you know," Willey sighs, "she's making $90,000 working at the Pentagon." Tripp was still furious over being fired from the White House though, and for some reason blamed Willey for it. On Tripp's last day in the White House in April 1994, she pointed at Willey and yelled "I'll get you for this!" And she did. By corroborating the essence of Willey's story -- that Willey and Clinton had a sexual encounter in the Oval Office in November 1993 -- Tripp relentlessly dragged Willey into the Paula Jones case even though Tripp initially made it sound like the encounter was something Willey had wanted.

Ironically, Willey surmises now, by giving into Tripp's threats and transferring her to the Pentagon, Clinton inadvertently set himself up for the real trouble with Monica Lewinsky; when the White House sent Monica to the Pentagon to keep her away from Clinton, they sent her right into Linda Tripp's path -- the one person with incentive and determination to get the president. "Linda Tripp was so devious; if there was anyone she could team up with to get at Clinton, she'd do it," Willey explains. "Of all the people in the world," Willey chuckles, for the White House to "put Monica in [Tripp's] vicinity -- someone really messed up on that one. They could have put Monica anywhere, but they sent her to the Pentagon where Linda Tripp befriended her."

Tripp did her best to get back at Willey and Bill Clinton. Tripp's conversations with Isikoff helped get the story off the ground. After their victory in the Supreme Court on May 28, 1997, the Jones legal team hired investigators to track down Willey. [64] In July 1997 they were getting close, and Willey was getting nervous. She called Nancy Hernreich at the White House and warned her that a reporter had been asking her questions. [65] On July 4,1997, Jones lawyer Joe Cammarata called Willey at her home. [66] She ignored the call and found an attorney for herself.

While Isikoff was talking to Kathleen Willey and others in an attempt to sniff out the Lewinsky scandal, Tripp called Willey one night. Willey hadn't spoke with Tripp in years. Tripp hinted that Clinton was having an affair with an intern and kept "trying to tantalize me with all these details," Willey recalls. Willey thought to herself, "Be careful," not wanting any part of whatever drama Tripp was cooking up. During the phone call, Tripp's call waiting beeped and she asked Willey to hold. When Tripp clicked back over to Willey she said, "Monica?" Willey answered, "No, it's me, Kathleen," and Tripp, sounding confused, hurriedly ended the conversation. Willey, of course, didn't make sense of that incident until months later when the Lewinsky scandal had broken. Recounting it to me years later she sounds bemused at the twisted set of circumstances she found herself embroiled in.

On July 25,1997, Paula Jones issued a subpoena to Kathleen Willey [67] and the game was on. Willey's lawyer, Dan Gecker, had called Clinton's attorney Bob Bennett a couple of weeks earlier to try to find out what the White House's response might be if Willey was forced to testify. [68] Gecker's primary concern was his client's privacy; Willey did not want to open herself up to the Clinton spin machine by making her story public know 1- edge. [69] Receiving no definitive answers from the Clinton camp, Gecker objected to the subpoena, claiming Willey had no useful information for the Jones case. By the end of July, though, Willey's name began appearing in the news as an important potential witness. Other than a remark by Bill Bennett to Newsweek, the president and White House aides refused to comment on what Willey was expected to say. Spokesperson Mike McCurry even warned reporters to think twice about covering the Willey subpoena at all. [70]

When asked about Willey as a potential Paula Jones witness in early August, President Clinton "froze and glared at the reporter as he finished the question." [71] Clinton answered, "There was a request to be left alone and not harassed and we're just trying to honor it," (referring to Willey's attempt to quash the subpoena) and returned to listing his fall 1997 "priorities" including "education standards, entitlement reform, tobacco restrictions, campaign finance, expanded free trade treaty-making powers and limits on greenhouse gases blamed for global warming." [72] But the Kathleen Willey story was not going to disappear any time soon.

When the infamous Matt Drudge posted the bare outlines of Willey's probable testimony -- being groped in the Oval Office -- on the Drudge Report Web site on July 29,1997, Newsweek decided to run a story, even though Isikoff could only quote Linda Tripp and Julie Steele, since Willey was fighting the subpoena and still refused to talk on the record. [73] Willey was horrified when the Drudge story hit; her lawyer called her that day and told her, "You've been sold out. The Sun [a tabloid] has the story and your picture's been sold for $15,000." Willey said, "It's Julie [Steele], right?" and her lawyer said it was. Willey was devastated at being dragged into the spotlight, particularly by a person she once considered a dear friend.

When Isikoff questioned Steele again, this time she told him she'd lied to him in March 1997 at Willey's request, and that no such incident like Willey described ever happened. [74] The way Steele talked to Isikoff, though, made it seem as if her retraction in August 1997 was her way of trying to avoid being named in the story. [75] (She paid dearly for this choice. In January 1999 the Office of Independent Counsel had her indicted by a federal grand jury for lying to federal officials when she repeated this retraction to them. Steele's trial ended in a mistrial in May 1999. Steele stuck to her revised story -- that Willey never told her about a groping -- even in the face of at least three friends who testified Steele had told them about Willey's sexual encounter with Clinton well before 1997. [76])

The August 1, 1997 issue of Newsweek carried a banner headline: "A Twist in the Paula Jones Case." [77] Isikoff quoted Clinton's lawyer Bob Bennett saying Clinton had "no specific recollection of meeting" Willey in the Oval Office, and while Clinton may have consoled Willey around the time of Ed Willey's death, it's "preposterous" to suggest that Clinton made a sexual advance in the turmoil of Kathleen Willey's distress. [78] The article quoted Linda Tripp on seeing Willey emerge from the White House that day" disheveled. Her face was red and her lipstick was off. She was flustered, happy and joyful" Tripp told Newsweek. [79] Bob Bennett told America, "Linda Tripp is not to be believed." [80] This stung Tripp, who had been conversing with the White House (and Monica Lewinsky), trying to be a team player. [81] Julie Steele confirmed Willey's account of receiving a phone call from Clinton back in 1991 (the "chicken soup" conversation) but backtracked from her initial interview with Isikoff and said now that Willey had told her weeks after the alleged incident merely that Clinton had made a "pass" at her. [82]

A few days after the August 11issue hit the stands, Isikoff received an anonymous phone call from a woman who told him that something similar to what happened to Willey had happened to her in the Oval Office, most likely after Willey's encounter. [83] She said after meeting Clinton many times at Democratic events, she would often be invited to the White House. On one such occasion, Clinton took her from the Oval Office through the same hallway into the private office. Clinton began kissing her and touching her breasts. She pushed herself away from him and Clinton turned away from her and "finished the job himself." [84] The woman said she'd been stunned; she'd never had a man take advantage of her like that. The woman refused to give Isikoff her name, citing her husband's on-going activity in Democratic politics, but wanted Isikoff to know "there are a lot of us out there who are not bimbos." [85]

Willey's attorney tied up the subpoena with legal objections until a court hearing in November 1997, when a judge gave Paula Jones permission to depose Willey. [86] The day before that hearing, Willey and her lawyer met with Bob Bennett, and Willey told Bennett that if forced to testify she'd have to admit that Clinton's advances on November 29, 1993 had been "unexpected" and "unwanted." [87] Willey said later that she had "felt pressured by Mr. Bennett," who had opened the meeting by telling her that the president "thought the world of [her]" and then said, "Now, this ...was not sexual harassment, was it?" [88] When she remained silent Bennett pressed, "Well wasn't unwelcome, was it?" [89] After she said it was, Bennett suggested that she find herself a criminal lawyer, intimating that she'd face perjury charges if she dared tell her story under oath. [90] Bennett later told the press that "any suggestion that I threatened or intimidated her in any way is a bald-faced lie." [91] In Clinton-speak, it must depend on what the words "threaten" and "intimidate" really mean.

Before Willey was ordered to testify at her deposition, the Clinton team publicly kept quiet about her, hoping the subpoena would be quashed and she would keep silent. Strange, disturbing incidents occurred regularly, however, which left Willey feeling insecure and unsafe even before her deposition. She sensed she was being watched and followed, and her suspicions were confirmed by a number of people in her hometown informing her that strange men were asking about her. Before these things began to happen to her, Willey says, "It just never occurred to me that people would do things like this." But it wasn't difficult for her to guess who had the most motive to have her watched, followed, and intimidated. "I just know these people are so good, they are surrounded by layers and layers of people who will intimidate people like me," she told me, talking about the Clintons. "I was terrified. This is just the way these people do business."

A few months before her deposition Willey had three tires replaced on her car. "I remember standing at the tire place," she told me, "on a warm September day, waiting for them to fix my car." The mechanic approached her saying "It looks like someone has shot out all your tires with a nail gun; is there someone out there who doesn't like you?" I can hear the shiver in her voice as she says, "That really got my attention; that's when I started getting worried."

Just two days before her deposition, Willey disclosed later to the FBI [92] and in a lawsuit against the Clintons, [93] a man approached her while she was jogging. [94]The man, wearing sweat pants and a baseball cap, asked her questions. [95] He knew the names of her lawyer, her cat (Bullseye, her pet of thirteen years who had disappeared two months before), her kids, and about how her tires had been slashed recently. [96] "You're just not getting the message," the stranger said ominously. [97] "And you know, the message was to go into that deposition and lie," Willey said. [98] The threat left her "very, very, very frightened." [99]

Recounting the incident to me years later she says, "I can't tell you what it was like when this creep said 'Did you ever get those tires fixed on your car?' and told me what a 'nice cat' Bullseye had been. That's when I knew these people meant business." She remembers going home that day, shaken, sitting alone in her living room thinking "This is a whole new ballgame, and I am out of my league."

The harassment continued for months. Her mail carrier pulled her aside one day and warned her that a "creepy, scuzzy-looking" guy had shown up at the post office trying to get directions to Willey's home. A shopkeeper in her small hometown warned her that after Willey had come into the store recently, a man had come in asking questions about her. And on and on until Willey felt she was constantly looking over her shoulder. It was not the life she had worked so hard to build for herself. "I was a soccer morn," she says reminiscently. "A stay-at-home morn, and I loved every minute of it." She felt woefully unprepared to deal with this sort of intimidation.


On January 10, 1998, Paula Jones's lawyers deposed Kathleen Willey. [100] President Clinton was scheduled for a deposition the following week. Willey was the consummate hostile witness, volunteering nothing, answering in tight-lipped monosyllables. [101] The Jones lawyers had to ask exactly the right questions to get Willey to testify about anything untoward that occurred on November 29, 1993. The depositions in the case were ordered to be kept secret by the court, but newspapers immediately reported from "sources" that Willey had indeed testified about an unwanted groping incident in the Oval Office. [102]

Parts of her deposition didn't square with how she'd told her story to reporter Michael Isikoff nearly a year earlier, but that's because with Isikoff she spoke freely, confident she was off the record. In her deposition she was forced to talk against her will as another victim of the Clinton version of the Cruel Trilemma. Her story implicated Clinton, not herself, yet she was understandably reluctant to testify and did so only under threat of being jailed for contempt of court. Her deposition evinces a genuine struggle on her part to walk a fine line between avoiding perjury and giving as little information as possible that might damage Clinton. But that couldn't possibly have anything to do with the string of intimidating incidents throughout the preceding months, Bennett's non-threats, non-intimidation five weeks earlier, nor with the terrifying verbal threat made against Willey and her children by a thug just two days earlier.

In deposition she described most of the conversation leading up to the sexual advance as occurring while she and Clinton were sitting across from each other at his desk in the Oval Office  [103] , though she had made it sound to Isikoff as if they went to the little kitchen and office almost immediately. She testified that when she got up to leave, Clinton walked over and hugged her. (She still hadn't testified about being led down the hallway into the private office.) Finally the Jones lawyer pried it out of her that she and Clinton had a cup of coffee in the private office. After more step-by-step questioning, she had to admit that the goodbye "hug" Clinton initiated as she was leaving the private office "just continued longer than I expected." The lawyer had to ask, "Was there any kissing involved during that hug" for Willey to answer, "There was an attempt." As easily as extracting a sliver from underneath a fingernail, Jones's attorney finally elicited the crux of Willey's testimony: "He put his hands -- he put my hands on his genitals," but only in response to the very specific question "Did Mr. Clinton ever seek to take either of your hands and place it on his body anyplace?" Willey volunteered absolutely nothing else, and later in the questioning the lawyer thought to ask, "Did Mr. Clinton attempt to touch your breasts?" to which Willey answered reluctantly, "I think so." The lawyer patiently followed up: "And what's the basis for your thinking so?" Willey said shortly, "I have a recollection of that." Jones's attorney asked further, "Was he successful?" and Willey answered simply, "Yes." When the question had been in posed in every possible way Willey finally testified that after kissing her Clinton had said something about" always wanting to do that." Lawyers everywhere hope their clients will be as closed-mouthed as Willey under cross-examination.

Closed-mouthed, but truthful. Willey told me that one of the attorneys who represented the House of Representatives during the Clinton impeachment proceedings asked her why, after all the harassment, she had decided to go into that deposition and testify truthfully. As a law-abiding, upstanding citizen Willey told him "I had no choice," even though she desperately wanted to stay out of the deposition altogether. The House attorney told her, "If you had gone in there and lied, you would be dead today. Telling the truth was your life insurance policy." Willey says that the gravity of that statement still chills her blood.

Whether by instinct or design, many women whose stories we've revisited here have acted similarly, raising their public profiles in hopes that status as a newsworthy name would lessen the chance they would simply disappear under suspicious circumstances. Like Elizabeth Ward Gracen and Sally Perdue before her, Kathleen Willey suffered months of harassment and intimidation designed to keep her quiet.

The following Saturday, January 17, 1998, Clinton testified during his deposition [104] that he never attempted to kiss Willey, never attempted to touch her breasts, and never had any form of "sexual relations" with Willey. He "emphatically" denied Willey's claim that he ever put her hand on his genitals. Why, the lawyer asked, would she tell a story like that if it weren't true? Clinton responded long-windedly:

She'd been through a lot, and apparently the, the financial difficulties were even greater than she thought they were at the time she talked to me. Her husband killed himself, she's been through a terrible time. I have- I can't say. All I can tell you is, in the first place, when she came to see me she was clearly upset. I did to her what I have done to scores and scores of men and women who have worked for me or been my friends over the years. I embraced her, I put my arms around her, I may have even kissed her on the forehead. There was nothing sexual about it. I was trying to help calm her down and trying to reassure her. She was in difficult condition. But I have no idea why she said what she did, or whether she now believes that actually happened. She's been through a terrible, terrible time in her life, and I have nothing else to say. I don't want to speculate about it.

Clinton made a much worse witness than Willey, from the defense lawyer's point of view; he talked too much and offered too much information unrelated to the specific questions asked of him. Clinton testified that he had casual conversations with Willey sporadically during the campaign and when she volunteered in the White House, but the November 1993 meeting was the first time he had ever talked with her one on one. In fact, Clinton testified, he "vividly" remembered meeting with her that one time in the Oval Office; it stuck out in his memory because Willey was "so agitated and she seemed to be in very difficult straits." Of course, when Willey's name first appeared in the press back in August 1997, Clinton's lawyer had said Clinton had "no specific recollection" of meeting with Willey. [105] Clinton deigned to express sympathy for the distraught Kathleen Willey even as his smear machine kicked into high gear.


From the beginning of Willey's unwanted thrust into the scandal spotlight, the White House and the press treated her more gingerly than Paula Jones or Gennifer Flowers. Columnist Arianna Huffington wrote just after Willey's name surfaced in August 1997, when Willey had yet to say one word about what happened to her and the only information available came from Linda Tripp: "The first lesson learned from Bill Clinton's latest bimbo eruption is that she [Willey] wasn't a bimbo." [106] The August 11 Newsweek article noted that Willey, then fifty-one years old, had suffered emotional distress over the financial devastation and death of her husband. It went on to describe her as a "former flight attendant" who had been "married to the son of an influential Virginia state legislator." [107] The couple" drove expensive cars, skied at Vail, and ... contributed to the Democratic Party." [108] Not one word suggested Willey as another bump on the road to bimboland.

Within days of Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition the Lewinsky scandal was bursting wide open. Willey was in the shadows of coverage and commentary compared to Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky. Articles discussing her testimony, however, continued to describe her in much more flattering terms than Paula or Gennifer ever drew. The Washington Post called her an "energetic woman in her early fifties" with "one of the most prominent political surnames in this politics-obsessed capital," referring to her late husband's father, powerful Virginia state senator Edward E. Willey. [109] After mentioning the difficult period Willey had suffered through over her husband's suicide, the Post concluded, "Today Willey lives in rural Powhatan County about thirty miles west of here, in a handsome house on a large, wooded lot at the end of a single-lane gravel road." [110] Patently, living in a "handsome house" rather than a trailer accorded Willey more respect than previous Clinton accusers. Another paper referred to Willey as a woman who had been dragged into "besieged celebrity," [111] painting her as a casualty rather than coquettes like Flowers and Jones.

At the end of January 1998, one article portrayed Willey as a virtual paradigm of virtue, observing that after her husband's untimely death her "life had come to revolve around her children and charity work."[112] For some reason (class bias? scandal fatigue?) the press treated Willey as a real person rather than writing her off as a slut or bimbo. Even when the White House got busy that spring and began another round of Clinton versus Women smearing, the press remained relatively reluctant to jump on the bandwagon.

Willey refused to speak out publicly for almost two months after Clinton's deposition and Kenneth Starr's sting operation using Linda Tripp to tape Monica Lewinsky erupted into the most tantalizing scandal to rock Washington in two decades. It may not sound like a lot of quiet time, but remaining taciturn for two months must have felt like two years to a woman caught in the middle of such a highly publicized political scandal. In January 1998 the Los Angeles Times stated after talking to Willey's lawyer that "Willey is not particularly interested in building Jones's case." [113] By late January, Monica Lewinsky's infamous "talking points" memo had been discovered as a "key piece of evidence" in Starr's investigation. [114] The talking points, a three-page memo that Lewinsky had given Linda Tripp, spelled out in detail what Tripp "should" say about the Kathleen Willey incident, with an obvious eye toward discrediting Willey's story. The talking points instructed Tripp to say things like:

You and Kathleen were friends. At around the time of her husband's death (The president has claimed it was after her husband died. Do you really want to contradict him?), she came to you after she allegedly came out of the Oval and looked (however she looked), you don't recall her exact words, but she claimed at the time (whatever she claimed) and was very happy ....

[Y]ou now do not believe that what she claimed happened really happened. You now find it completely plausible that she herself smeared her lipstick, untucked her blouse, etc .... [115]

The relevance of the talking points to Starr's investigation concerned whether Lewinsky had been instructed by Clinton, Vernon Jordan, or anyone associated with Clinton to issue those talking points to Tripp, thereby encouraging Tripp to lie under oath in the Paula Jones civil suit. The relevance of the talking points to Kathleen Willy was that they possibly represented the White House's first attempt to discredit her.

Meanwhile, Clinton's deposition had not yet been unsealed for public viewing, so during January and February 1997 his version of their encounter was still left to speculation. In mid- February, Starr subpoenaed Willey. [116] The substantive veracity of her story could bear on Starr's ability to show that Clinton suborned perjury if he was behind the talking points attempting to influence Tripp's potential testimony about the Willey incident. It could also directly prove presidential perjury if Willey's story held up enough to contradict Clinton's (presumed) under-oath denial of it.

At the same time, Willey's former friend Julie Steele told Clinton's lawyers that Willey had asked Steele to lie the previous year to support her claim of an unwanted sexual advance, providing the Clinton scandal team with something to point to in an attempt to discredit Willey. [117] By early March, when Willey was still expected to testify before a federal grand jury in Starr's investigation, her story was, as one reporter wrote, II fraught with contradiction." [118] Another paper said "In the fifty months since [Willey's encounter with Clinton allegedly] occurred, there have been fragmentary and conflicting accounts of what happened, many leaked to the media by unidentified people with political or financial interests in the scandal." [119] With her name, reputation, and credibility being bandied about in the press, it should have surprised no one that by mid-March, Kathleen Willey steeled herself to suffer whatever fallout would come from publicly telling her story.

On March 15, 1998, a week after testifying to Starr's grand jury, Kathleen Willey appeared on CBS's 60 Minutes with Ed Bradley. On March 13 significant portions of her deposition and Clinton's deposition had been publicly released, so Clinton's denials and Willey's stilted version of her story were public knowledge. The day the program was to air, 60 Minutes executive producer Don Hewitt told the press that Willey's story was "very believable and very persuasive and leaves little doubt about what happened." [120] Willey agreed to appear on 60 Minutes for one reason: the show's producers told her that a White House operative had been threatening her former friend, Julie Steele, about possibly revoking Steele's adoption of a child. [121] No matter what had gone wrong in her friendship with Steele, the idea that the Clinton White House dared threaten a mother with taking away her child infuriated Willey enough to tell her own story about what Clinton had done to her. [122]

One reporter surmised that unlike Gennifer Flowers or Paula Jones, Willey would be more difficult for the White House or press to dismiss because "[s]he has no known connection to the right-wing conspiracy cited by Hillary Clinton" and "there's been no talk of book or movie deals for Willey, or exclusive payola stories with supermarket tabloids." [123] The fact that her deposition showed how the Jones lawyers had to "pull the damaging testimony from a reluctant Willey" also "tends to enhance her credibility." [124] Hmmm. What would the Clinton spin machine come up with to smear this one? The nation wouldn't have to wait long to find out.


On 60 Minutes in March 1998 Willey said she was breaking her silence because "too many lies are being told, too many lives are being ruined." [125] Journalist Roger Simon evaluated her appearance and concluded: "Willey was calm during the 60 Minutes interview. She was sometimes shy, sometimes a little hesitant, but she appeared credible." [126] The Los Angeles Times reported that "Willey appeared tense but resolute" in her interview. [127] "She spoke slowly and softly and paused frequently as she offered her account of the events of more than four years ago." [128] The story she told on 60 Minutes tracks very closely with the account she'd given Michael Isikoff twelve months earlier, even though Isikoff never included her statements in any article since she had been refusing to speak on the record. As tens of millions of American households tuned in (making that 60 Minutes show the most-watched program of the week) [129] Willey told the public what happened to her on November 29, 1993: [130]

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 walked to... a door on the other side of the Oval Office, which led into a hallway, into his small galley kitchen, and there was a steward in there, I remember. And the president took a -- a coffeecup down out of the pantry, and -- a Starbucks coffeecup, 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 doorjamb. He was in the office. We were standing facing each other, and I told him what had happened [to her family finances). 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 I needed a -- a regular paying job, and could he help me ...

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

He said he would do everything that he could to help, and I turned around ... 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.

... And he took the coffee cup out of my hand and he put it on a bookshelf, and ... 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 ... kissed me on -- on my mouth, and pulled me closer to him. And ... I just remember thinking, "what in the world is he doing?" ... And, 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.

[Q:] Touched you how?

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

[Q:] This -- this wasn't an accidental grazing touch?

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 saying to him, "Aren't you afraid that somebody's going to walk in here?" ... [He] said, "No. No, I'm -- no, I'm not." 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.

[Q:] When you say he took your hand ... and put it on him ... Where on him?

On -- on his genitals.

[Q:] Was he a -- aroused?

Site Admin
Posts: 32020
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Their Lives: The Women Targeted By the Clinton Machine

Postby admin » Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:01 am

Part 2 of 2

Willey said she was "embarrassed for the president's behavior" but "decided not to file a complaint. Who do you file a complaint to anyway when it's the president?" [131] She felt that the president took advantage of her when she was so distraught over her financial woes. [132] She felt like slapping him, she said, but refrained because "I don't think you can slap the president of the United States like that." [133] She didn't feel "intimidated" but she did feel "overpowered." [134] As she left the Oval Office that day, Willey "just could not believe that that had happened in the office. I ... I just could not believe the recklessness of that act." [135] Asked if Clinton was lying Willey replied simply, "Yes." [136] She also told America about the "chicken soup" phone call she'd received from Clinton in 1991. [137] She had considered the president a friend, and the incident in the Oval Office betrayed that friendship, particularly since her husband had also been a friend. [138] She'd let the cat out of the bag, and she paid heavily for it.

The Clinton defense squad opened fire immediately. Speaking directly about her story for the first time in public, Clinton declared "[N]othing improper happened," and said "As you know the story's been in three different incarnations." [139] He was counting Linda Tripp's version, of course, which couldn't really have helped him much since Tripp's account made it clear that something sexual had indeed occurred. Nevertheless he continued, "I have said that nothing improper happened. I have a very clear memory of the meeting. I told the truth then, I told the truth in the deposition .... I am mystified and disappointed by this turn of events." [140] Indubitably he was being honest there. He must have been genuinely "mystified" that his scare tactics (courtesy of his lawyer and possibly a thug) and generous job procurement efforts for Willey had not prevented her from refusing to commit perjury for him.

White House spokesperson Ann Lewis said on national television the next day that someone who claimed to be upset by something like this wouldn't go around asking to be involved in the 1996 campaign the way Willey did. [141] The drift: something is seriously wrong with this woman. As one columnist put it, Clinton couldn't come up with any good reason why Willey would be lying about him, "but if she's crazy, who needs a reason?" [142] Six years earlier, the same Ann Lewis lectured Pat Buchanan for questioning Anita Hill's veracity based on the fact that Hill followed Clarence Thomas from one job to another and continued to call him despite her claims of harassment. Concerning Hill, Lewis explained how and why a woman could act so friendly to a man who'd sexually harassed her: "You [Buchanan] don't know what it's like to be a young working woman, to have this really prestigious and powerful boss and think you have to stay on the right side of him for the rest of your working life or he could nix another job." [143] When Buchanan ridiculed Hill for not being able to "handle [a] fanny paddler[]" Lewis shot back:

If you have trouble listening to women's voices, please listen to what I said again. I said, she was trying to stay on his right side because her economic career would be at stake. He was always going to be on her resume, this was her most prestigious, most powerful boss. It was in her interest, once she stopped working for him, to refashion that relationship so it would be friendly but distant and proper. [144]

But concerning Kathleen Willey, the very same Ann Lewis couldn't imagine how any sane woman could stay friendly toward her alleged harasser. Perhaps the Lewis of 1998 didn't dare cross her own "prestigious, most powerful boss?"

While disclaiming the move was motivated by any" animosity" toward Willey, the White House immediately released correspondence from Willey to the president dating from 1993 through 1997 that reflected Willey's friendly attitude toward Clinton. [145] The correspondence "shows that Willey made persistent requests of Clinton and the president took the time to deal with her entreaties personally," reported the Associated Press. [146] Willey explained later that she deliberately remained friendly toward Clinton on advice from her attorney. [147] Her letters to Clinton during the years after he groped her and before she was subpoenaed were her way of letting him know that she intended to keep quiet about what he'd done and that she needed paid work if he could find it for her. [148] For his part, Clinton super-lawyer Bob Bennett immediately spread the word that Willey was seeking a $300,000 book contract, [149] (Her lawyer handled offers from many publishers regarding book deals, but Willey never pursued any of them. [150])


Public attacks on Willey's credibility weren't enough for the Clinton damage control team. They were also arranging other methods to discourage Willey from talking. A well-established, Maryland-based investigative firm, specializing in international security employing mostly former military and government agents, received an assignment to do "opposition research" on Kathleen Willey soon after her 60 Minutes interview. Jared Sterm, now owner of the firm, was the agent assigned to this project. When the news media began digging into this story after Ken Starr subpoenaed Stern, only speculation emerged as to who had hired Stern. CNN quoted an attorney representing Stern as saying "There was some indication from [Stern's] employer that this [assignment] had 'come from the White House,' but [Stern] had no independent knowledge of that." [151] Unidentified CNN "sources" asserted that prominent Clinton friend and Democratic fundraiser Nathan Landow was the client who hired Stern's investigative services, but Stern refuses to confirm this. It's not exactly a stretch to imagine that a Friend of Bill with money to spare -- like Landow -- might get a call from a wistful Clinton remarking, "It sure would be nice to dissuade this Willey woman from talking."

Stern and the other investigators involved with this assignment are understandably reluctant to disclose specifics, and Stern's grand jury testimony has not been released to the public. According to Kathleen Willey, Stern" called me and tried to warn me, using an anonymous name." To her understanding, Stern testified under oath that his orders came from the White House. When I spoke to him in early 2005, Stern refused to comment on the ultimate source of his assignment to do opposition research on Willey, but he didn't deny Willey's statements.

Stern confirms that he had "several conversations" with his boss and the clients involved in the Willey assignment, and some of those conversations "involved suggestions of strategies not appropriate or wholesome," but refuses to comment on the specifics of those suggestions or on whether such suggestions were actually carried out. Contrary to previously reported accounts, Stern says he did not "quit" the assignment, but he believes that the inquiries of Kenneth Star, law enforcement, and the media forced the opposition research efforts directed at Willey to "terminate ... early." Careful not to say too much, Stern says he knows he was not the only person performing "opposition research" on Willey.

As to the telephone call he placed to Willey, Stern says that hypothetically, such a call by an agent in his position is often made "for more than one reason." Stern refused to elaborate, so I asked a private investigator who wished to remain nameless if he had ever confronted a similar situation and made such a phone call to a subject of an investigation. He told me that in his business, one purpose of such a call might be "to alert a subject of shady activities," while another might be "pretext to engage [a subject] in discussion to glean information about how much the person has talked" to authorities and so forth.

Stern expresses nothing but praise and sympathy for Willey for "taking the high road" throughout this ordeal. He couldn't help but believe her in her interview with 60Minutes, and opines of Clinton, "He's good-looking with some power; it's a joke to think he didn't do" what Willey and others claim he did. Stern met Willey at her home once for an interview with Chris Wallace, who then worked for ABC News. (This joint interview with Willey and Stern never aired. ABC News senior investigative producer Chris Vlasto told me it had been scheduled to air September 12, 2001, but it was preempted by coverage of the terrorist attacks of 9/11.) Stern says Willey's first comment to him when he entered the room was "I don't know whether to kiss him or smack him," which Stern found charming. "She's an attractive, smart, quality woman," he says, "but look at where she is," referring to her years of unemployment and scrutiny due to involvement in a Clinton scandal. Though his direct involvement with opposition research on Willey began after her deposition, he admits that based on his experience he has no trouble believing her accounts of being threatened by thugs and intimidated prior to her deposition.

Instead of gobbling up the White House's newest wave of spin, the press continued to render Willey in a relatively favorable light, consistently referring to her lack of ties to conservative groups, her well-to-do background and involvement with the Democratic Party, and her heroic struggles concerning her husband. Rather than reporting the Willey letters released by the White House as "new evidence that seriously calls into question Willey's story" the press typically began its reports with phrases like "The White House on Monday launched a counteroffensive against Kathleen Willey .... " [152] Another report stated: "The release of the letters capped a day of damage control by the White House, as strategists tried to defuse the accusations made by someone they concede is the most credible accuser Clinton faces." [153]

One columnist surmised that Willey's better reception in the eyes of public and press was due to "popular prejudice and expectation about how a virtuous woman should look, behave and respond." [154] After all, Willey "is resolutely middle-class" (as opposed to Paula Jones?), "a respectable middle-aged widow" (as opposed to Monica Lewinsky?), "still pretty but not flashy" (as opposed to Gennifer Flowers?), "dignified, sensible and genteel" (as opposed to any of the women we've met so far?). [155]

After admitting that Willey was "clearly a supporter" of the president, thus making it difficult to "impute any motive to her," Clinton aide Paula Begala added, grasping at a straw, "But she has a friend who said she asked her to lie." [156] Jesse Jackson, who had been praying with Clinton in the midst of the Lewinsky scandal, chimed in with an excuse for Clinton rather than a defense: "Sex isn't the only string on the guitar," the Rev. Jackson said with a shrug, "There are nine more Commandments." [157]

Kathleen Willey's drama unfolded about a year after Paula Jones had begun receiving somewhat kinder treatment in the press, and with the Monica Lewinsky story percolating at the time, the media's willingness to believe Clintonian denials seemed to be eroding. Journalist Michael Kelly summed up this trend in two wickedly sardonic columns. Reading them yourself in their entirety would be an excellent and amusing use of a Saturday afternoon at the library. (Tragically, Mr. Kelly was killed in April 2003 while embedded with the Army's 3rd Infantry Division covering the Iraq war for The New Republic. [158] He was the first journalist to die in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom.)

Kelly's column entitled "1Believe" was published February 4, 1998; its sequel, "1 Still Believe," was published March 18 that year. Round one opened by declaring "1believe the president. I have always believed him." [159] Kelly continued with proclamations such as: "1 believe Paula Jones is a cheap tramp who was asking for it. I believe Kathleen Willey is a cheap tramp who was asking for it. I believe Monica Lewinsky is a cheap tramp who was asking for it. ... I believe the president has lived up to his promise to preside over the most ethical administration in American history." [160] In round two Kelly announced:

I believe Ms. Willey is, like Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers and Dolly Kyle Browning and Sally Purdue before her, and like the women who will come after her, a bald-faced liar. If Monica Lewinsky sticks to her affidavit that she never had sex with the president, I believe her. If she instead confirms the long hours of recorded conversation in which she detailed a sexual affair with the president and affirmed her intention to lie in the affidavit -- well, then, I don't believe.

I believe, as the White House whispering campaign already has it, that Ms. Willey is a bit nutty, and a bit slutty ....

I believe everyone is lying except my Bill. [161]

Even feminists seemed tom and divided about how to respond to Willey. Patricia Ireland, then president of NOW, said of Willey's story, "If it's true, it's sexual assault," not just sexual harassment. [162] "Now we're talking about, really, sexual predators and people who in positions of power use that power to take advantage of women," she elaborated. [163] Ms. Ireland cautioned that nothing had been proven but added, "Seeing the interview [on 60 Minutes] was even more compelling than seeing the words on paper. I have to say she has a great deal of credibility." [164] Kate Michelman, then president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, said after Willey's 60 Minutes interview, "1 heard her story and this was a woman who sounded credible, who told a story that was compelling and believable." [165]

Not all left-wing feminists could agree. The bipartisan National Women's Political Caucus, the Women's Legal Defense Fund, and the National Women's Law Center all declined to comment. [166] Cynthia Friedman, then chairman of a Democratic group called the Women's Leadership Forum, gave a heartfelt version of Michael Kelly's "1 Believe" sentiment by saying: "This is what I know: The president issued a very flat denial about Willey's accusation, and I really believe in the president." [167] California Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both of whom entered the Senate in the Year of the Woman (1992) in part due to the fallout from the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings, remained circumspect. Senator Feinstein even attempted to differentiate between Anita Hill and Kathleen Willey: "One involves the president of the United States, involves his word," she insisted. [168] "The word of the president is a very important thing." [169] As opposed to the word of a man who is "only" a Supreme Court Justice?

Anita Hill herself implied that Willey had no business coming forward at all: there was no comparison between her story and Willey's, since Clinton had been twice elected by a voting public who knew of allegations of sexual misconduct while Thomas was bound for a first-time lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. [170] Apparently, unless your goal is to arrest the career of your accused harasser, you have no reason to tell your story. Hill added that since Clinton is "better on the bigger [women's] issues" nothing Willey had to say was "so bad" as to reject Clinton as a president. [171]

Feminist icon Gloria Steinem declared in a New York Times Magazine essay that Clinton's actions toward Willey might make him a candidate for sex-addiction therapy, but he didn't commit sexual harassment because he took no for an answer. This, Steinem insisted, was enough to make Clinton's troubles qualitatively different from those of Clarence Thomas or Bob Packwood, who were accused of repeated unwanted advances. [172] Apparently for Ms. Steinem there is no difference between talk and action. Clinton didn't even ask Willey for a sexual favor -- he just went ahead and touched her all over and then guided her hand to his erect penis.

Elaborating on her position a few weeks later Steinem said, "The truth of the matter is that [Clinton's] behavior toward women is considerably better than any president I know of-at least as far as we know ....We have to make clear that his behavior is not acceptable, and yet not keep him from being effective on issues of equality." [173] Which is it? His behavior is unacceptable, or he treats women better than any president in history? Steinem seems to be saying that it doesn't matter. What matters is that he supports reproductive rights and the Violence Against Women Act. His personal abuses pale in significance next to his righteous political agenda.

Steinem's tortured defense of Clinton prompted even the generally liberal New York Times to editorialize, "We doubt whether Ms. Steinem meant to advocate a new kind of 'no harm, no foul' mentality in the workplace. But that is the dangerous implication of her analysis." [174] Whether or not Willey's claims amounted legally to sexual harassment, argued the Times, "The Clinton case raises the very real possibility that if the president is seen as getting away with gross behavior, more bosses will feel free to behave abominably." [175]

Perhaps sensing the shift in the press and "[w]ary of a backlash if they hit too hard," the Clinton cadre kept its smear campaign "quiet," instead using whisper and innuendo. While Press Secretary Mike McCurry publicly denied that anyone was trying to besmirch Willey, White House advisers anonymously spoke to reporters about her background and suggested she was after a book deal, she was emotionally distraught, and/or she was under a lot of pressure. [176] In not so many words, this was a deranged, unbalanced woman who had mysteriously decided to attack the president. Even as the Clinton team continued to smear Paula Jones as "money-hungry and a tool of the Republican right" and denigrate Monica Lewinsky for wearing too-short skirts, "[i]n Willey's case, the spin has been more subtle." [177]

Clinton's tactics prompted The Washington Post to call the release of the Willey letters "perhaps the most vivid illustration so far of the White House's belief that information is a potent weapon." [178] The Post continued critically, "When facts are damaging, they are kept secret with few apologies" but when facts flare helpful ... the White House becomes an advocate of public disclosure." [179] Once again, as we saw with Paula Jones, some Clinton defenders used his reputation for womanizing as a defense against Willey's story: "Clinton's not a coercive guy; he's very subtle," one advisor told the Post on condition of anonymity.  [180] Maybe something sexual happened, the advisor conceded, but Willey was "lying about how she felt about it." [181] In case you missed it, Kathleen Willey was asking for it.

On August 17, 1998 Clinton testified before a federal grand jury in Kenneth Starr's expanded Whitewater investigation. Clinton continued to deny Willey's account and offered this helpful information to the grand jury [emphasis added]:

I didn't do any of that, and the questions you're asking, I think, betray the bias of this operation that has troubled me for a long time. You know what evidence was released after the 60 Minutes broadcast that I think pretty well shattered Kathleen Willey's credibility. You know what people down in Richmond said about her. You know what she said about other people that wasn't true. I don't know if you've made all of this available to the grand jury or not. She was not telling the truth. She asked for the appointment with me. She asked for it repeatedly. [182]

Clinton was furious that his efforts to destroy Willey hadn't worked well enough. Perhaps the most chilling part of his tirade also expressed pellucidly his calloused attitude toward Willey: "She asked for it repeatedly." He was referring to her asking for an appointment with him, but the possibility of a maleficent dual meaning lingers hauntingly.


Kathleen Willey got off easier than some of Clinton's women. She found much more support in the media, the public, and even from some feminists and left-wingers than Paula Jones or Gennifer Flowers had. Sure, she was threatened by a random thug and had trouble finding steady work (because of the controversy, she said in early 2001, "I don't think a lot of people are eager to hire me"), forcing her to declare bankruptcy and suffer several long years of unemployment before landing a permanent job.I83She felt in enough danger that the day the Senate began deliberating Clinton's impeachment, Willey met privately with Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine). This meeting didn't become public knowledge until a year later. Willey approached her out of fear, caused by incidents including having her tires slashed and being approached while jogging by the nameless man who mentioned her children. "She wanted people to understand the harassment she had endured -- not the crude come -- on by the president," according to a review of a book about the impeachment trial written by journalist Peter Baker. [184] Collins, who eventually voted "not guilty" in the impeachment trial, believed Willey's story of harassment and found her accounts of being threatened "troubling." [185]

Overall, though, Willey has rebuilt a successful, fulfilling life for herself. She was forty-seven years old when Clinton advanced on her in the Oval Office, and she spent the following decade of her life recovering from the experience. After the spotlight had dimmed somewhat she "ran away" to the Florida Keys for a while. [186] An old acquaintance, Bill Schwicker, called her out of the blue and after many soothing hours sanding down his twenty-eight foot sailboat together, they married in 2000. [187] He has been a source of joy in her life ever since. "My husband and I have been through terrible times over this," she tells me. "He hung in there with me, but it hasn't been easy." She is also desperately proud of her grown children; her son is a boat captain and her daughter is a medical doctor. [188]

She largely stayed out of the spotlight from the summer of 1998 on, refusing a second interview requested by 60 Minutes and speaking out only occasionally. In September 1998 she took two polygraph (lie detector) tests administered by the FBI. [189] The first results were inconclusive but the second test indicated she was telling the truth. [190] The House of Representatives avoided calling her as a witness in the impeachment proceedings, allowing her to continue trying to rebuild her life in peace.

In May 2001 she joined the conservative media outlet World Net Daily as a guest columnist and speaker. [191] Her occasional appearances on cable and radio talk shows concerned current events like former Congressman Gary Condit's involvement with Chandra Levy and feminism's politically-motivated hypocrisy. [192] In 2001, when the Clintons vacated the White House, their cat Socks went to live with Betty Currie, Bill Clinton's loyal secretary. Kathleen Willey wrote a cute mock letter to Socks, [193] with whom she had spent some time when she worked at the White House. Willey wished Socks well with his new owner, suggesting he was better off with Currie than the Clintons anyway. As proof of the Clintons' preference for dogs over cats, Willey reminded Socks that her cat, not her dog, had mysteriously disappeared allegedly at the hands of a Clinton-affiliated thug.

In March 2002, the Office of the Independent Counsel (OIC) released its "Final Report of the Independent Counsel In Re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association" (i.e., Whitewater and the expanded investigation into the Lewinsky affair and related suspected cover-ups). Appendix B of that Final Report detailed the independent counsel's findings regarding" Allegations Made by Kathleen E. Willey." [194] A surface glance at that appendix was all some Clinton loyalists needed to start crowing about Willey's lack of credibility.

However, a careful reading of Appendix Bcompels the understanding that the OIC decided it couldn't prosecute Clinton for perjury based on Willey's testimony not because her story lacked credibility but because of the he said, she said nature of her story. The OIC determined there was "insufficient evidence" to support criminal charges against any of the likely Clinton-related suspects for threatening and intimidating Willey before her deposition. [195] As to whether Clinton had committed perjury by denying Willey's version of their encounter the OIC concluded that "there was insufficient evidence to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that President Clinton's testimony regarding Kathleen Willey was false. Accordingly, the independent counsel declined prosecution and the investigation ... was closed." [196] The OIC specifically cautioned that it was not "offering, and cannot offer, any opinion as to whose version of events is right, Willey's or President Clinton's" and "[i]n the narrow context of assessing whether to seek criminal charges against President Clinton for his denials" it therefore "concluded no more and no less than that charges could not be sustained against President Clinton concerning his testimony about Willey." [197] The biggest reason for the OIC's conclusion was that "Willey and President Clinton [were] the only two percipient witnesses to the alleged encounter" [198] -- in other words, it was a he said, she said situation that would be nearly impossible for prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Without any supporting physical evidence the case would rest entirely on Willey's testimony, and her fear-motivated, reticent deposition testimony had caused her to look as though she'd elaborated on her story by the time she told it on 60 Minutes and to the grand jury.

By the time Clinton left office, Willey considered herself politically a "Democrat in recovery." [199] After what Clinton did to the country and to her, she said, she was anxious for George W. Bush's inauguration, [200] though initially she supported John McCain in the 2000 race. [201] She voted for Bush in the general election of 2000 because he is a "good and decent man." [202] Watching President Bush's first address to a joint session of Congress in 2001 made her feel "proud to be an American" for the first time in eight years, she said. Her experience with the Clintons "taught me a lot about politics," she told me. "My late husband and I had spent years donating time and money to Democrats, yet not one Democrat came to my defense."

Willey has publicly called Bill Clinton a "sexual predator" and predicted his behavior wouldn't stop. [203] In April 2002 she was briefly given her own radio talk show at a Richmond, Virginia station but it was canceled after only a month. [204] Around that time she was asked if she hated Clinton. "He's pathetic. I don't hate him. I just feel sorry for him. I just think he's a pathetic soul. I feel sorry for his whole family. I'm sorry for our country. You know, I really am, that we were put through what we were put through for eight long years." [205] With a note of weariness and only a hint of bitterness she tells me, "Everything he stood for amounted to nothing in my book after all that. You just can't have any respect for someone like that."

While she can't look at Bill and Hillary Clinton the same way she had when she first met them a decade earlier, she feels, and hopes, that she has "moved on." [206] If so, that's a remarkable accomplishment for a woman who once found herself in the crosshairs of the Clinton attack machine.


Kathleen Willey turned to Bill Clinton in a time of distress, partly looking to him as a friend, but mostly looking to him as an accessible, powerful person who could help her. Almost all of us find ourselves in difficult straits at times; few of us can personally turn for help to the Leader of the Free World, but those who can probably do. Clinton occupied the most powerful position in the world. Implicit in the deal made between Clinton and the public who elected him was an understanding that he would use his official power for our benefit. Not every one of us benefits equally, of course. One of the understandable perks of holding an influential position is the ability to use it to help people you care about personally. In some way, I have no trouble believing that Bill Clinton genuinely enjoyed helping his friends when he could. But on November 29, 1993, when a friend approached him for help he took advantage of her instead. Clinton had no legal, official, ethical, or moral obligation to aid her. He did, however, have an obligation to refrain from harming her the way he did. Disregarding the responsibilities incumbent upon him as a public servant and as a human being, he swept her very real torment aside in the moment in order to gratify his own desires. Impeachable offense? Not even close. Despicable instance of mistreatment of yet another woman? Absolutely.

She remained his friend and political supporter even after the unwanted sexual advances. She allowed the incident to fade into the past. She sought no retribution from him and continued to call on him for help finding work. Through no fault of her own she found herself wrenched into telling her story. Less than a year after Clinton appointed her to a government post, he and his defense team began denigrating her character and integrity by denying she had anything" on" Clinton. They kept relatively quiet while she and her lawyer fought to kill the subpoena; if she had quashed it successfully, perhaps she would have remained on friendly terms with the Clintons. As late as January 1998 Willey's attorney was still claiming that Willey had a "continuing good relationship" with Clinton. [207] When she was forced to testify about the incident, which had been 100 percent of Clinton's own making and was politically damaging to him, he turned on her with a vengeance, doing all he could to depict her as an emotionally damaged, unstable, dishonest woman.

Clinton's uninvited pawing of Willey fits snugly into the category of unwanted sexual advances discussed in the previous chapter, and demonstrates yet again his objectification of women. Clinton's reaction to Kathleen Willey after she'd been forced to go public about that humiliating unwanted sexual advance illustrates yet another dimension of misogyny: patronization.

Clinton and his gang chose a different strategy to deal with Willey than with Paula Jones or Gennifer Flowers, at least publicly. They attacked her credibility not based on her motives (as with Flowers) or her lack of status (as with Jones), but on her presumed lack of emotional capacity. Poor Kathleen Willey. Left to deal with her husband's crimes and suicide, the poor little gal just snapped. She's even deluded herself into living in a fantasy world where Bill Clinton is some kind of pervert. In Bill Clinton's words, she was "upset," she was "in difficult condition," she's been "through a terrible, terrible time in her life," she'd "been through a lot," and all he did was try "to calm her down" and "reassure her." She was such a wreck, in fact, that she maybe "now believes that actually happened" but he has "no idea why she said what she did." That patronizing strategy designed to discredit Willey only highlights the misogyny lurking behind his mistreatment of her.

Some psychologists theorize that "sexism has a dual nature comprised of hostile as well as benevolent (i.e., subjectively positive) orientations toward women, both of which serve to justify and maintain women's subordinate status." [208] The existence of this dualized sexism, researchers maintain, is the result of two things: men's overall greater structural control than women, (i.e., "men are commonly in control of central economic, political, and social institutions") and the interdependence of men and women. In other words, men dominate, yet men and women need each other in intimate relationships. These societal conditions yield an "ambivalent" sexism with two faces: hostile sexism ("antipathy toward women"), and benevolent sexism ("subjectively favorable, yet patronizing beliefs about women").

Hostile sexism fosters the attitude that men properly have power over women, that women are inferior to men in competence- related fields like occupations and leadership roles, and that women's sexuality endangers men's status and power. Benevolent sexism is the flip side of the sexism coin and engenders beliefs like "protective paternalism (the belief that men should protect and provide for the women on whom they depend)," the belief that "women are the better gender, but only in ways that suit conventional gender roles," and the belief that "men can achieve true happiness in life only when involved in romantic relationships with women."

Hostile sexism views women as inferior; benevolent sexism views women as weak. Both provide justifications for treating women as less valuable, less worthy human beings than men. The benevolent variety is more palatable, to both men and women, because instead of expressing outright disdain for women, it expresses concern that women are incapable of handling autonomy; male dominance benefits women because it protects them. It's a softer way to enforce notions of gender inequality, utilizing patronizing condescension rather than forceful denunciations. It's a pat on the head with an intoning "Father knows best, dearie," instead of a violent beating or a ridiculing shout. It's softer, but no less damaging to women, and sometimes it's more successful than hostile sexism in maintaining gender discrimination and depriving women of a proper sense of autonomy, confidence, and competence.

For Bill Clinton, benevolent sexism provided a more acceptable vehicle for him to denounce, demean, and demoralize Kathleen Willey than outright hostility would have. After her story leaked, and especially after she dared tell it in her own words on national television, the Clinton team targeted her as a distraught, misguided soul whom Bill Clinton had done his best to rescue. Clinton posed himself as bewildered and disappointed by how she'd turned on him. Calling her a liar and a tramp might have backfired, since the press and public perceived Willey as the "most credible accuser Clinton faces." So Clinton's sexism shifted gears. Abandoning open hostility, he instead tried to paint her as a helpless woman gone terribly wrong. His strategy with Willey may have found some inspiration in his leftist ideology and brings us to our fifth identification of a tenet of liberalism that seemingly contributed to Clinton's misogyny.

In modern liberalism, government bears a parental responsibility for the well-being of its citizens. From gun control to prosecution of tobacco companies, liberalism consistently calls for measures designed to save us from our own decisions. This kind of paternalism is beneficial for small children who have yet to acquire the life experience and maturity to make their own decisions, but such a parental approach is out of place with respect to the relationship between citizens and government. Perhaps many of the decisions liberals want to make for us would in fact be "good" decisions -- don't smoke (or if you do, blame the tobacco companies), don't play with guns, don't hold prejudiced opinions of others, don't develop land that will displace the tree frog, and give your money to help the less fortunate. Perhaps liberals are right that the world would be a better place if we all made the "right" decisions. But perhaps that isn't really the point.

For all of liberalism's alleged emphasis on the importance of diversity, its government-as-parent approach eliminates diversity by denying people the opportunity to direct their lives according to their own priorities, moral principles, desires, and goals. Isn't that part of the "pursuit of happiness" promise in our nation's Declaration of Independence? Short of inflicting tangible harm on others, it's our God-given right to get to arrange our lives as we see fit. And some people, if they weren't prohibited by government, would choose to smoke cigarettes, own guns, hold irrational prejudices against others, develop their property even if it displaces a tree frog, and spend their money on their own family rather than give it away to strangers. Those decisions may be wrong by some standards of morality, but the choice should be ours to make, not our government's. Our parents have every right and reason to tell us when we're small children, "don't play with guns" and "don't smoke," but when we're adults, the level of risk or even self-destructiveness we engage in is a personal matter, and we should be expected to pay the price when our choices harm others. Even as adults, people and organizations with whom we associate often weigh in with their opinions and try to influence our behavior, but they have no business forcing their wishes on us. No matter how well-intentioned, liberalism's view of government as a superparent erodes the human experience of self-development and freedom of choice that forms a crucial part of living life as an authentic person.

Liberals typically defend their parental measures as necessary to prevent "harm" to others that flows from our "bad" decisions: smoking irritates non-smokers around us, owning guns risks accidental shootings, irrational prejudices unkindly demean those targeted by them, developing land that displaces tree frogs disrupts the delicate balance of the ecosystem, refusing to give your money to help the less fortunate is just selfish and perpetuates widespread problems of hunger and poverty. Only rarely do liberals identify a desire to protect people from themselves as the motivation for a law or program; they are more apt to point to "harm" done to third parties as the justification for paternalistic measures. But the condescension embedded in such measures shines through.

This is not to say that some ideologies on the right of the political spectrum don't advocate measures that step on the toes of individual autonomy. Social conservatives, for example, often support measures designed to curb activities they deem immoral (e.g., anti-sodomy laws, anti-prostitution laws). Social conservatives' impetus for such measures is not so much paternalism but a form of societal protectionism -- shielding themselves and the rest of society from behaviors they find immoral and offensive. In this way, liberalism and social conservatism place government in a far different role than do libertarians. Libertarians focus on the rights of everyone involved; the outcome of respecting everyone's rights is not the business of government. For most libertarians, the only justification and role for government action is to facilitate protection of our rights to life and property.

However, only ideologies on the left advocate using political force to care for people's every need and eradicate every discomfort known to human existence, from crime to poverty to poor education and health care. Only liberals pursue measures designed to save us from ourselves -- measures that proceed from the assumption that most of us can't be trusted to do the right thing or make good decisions.

Take the current trend toward using government to cure the "social ill" of obesity. The libertarian magazine Reason displayed a cover article on a recent issue entitled, a bit crassly, "The War on Fat: Is the size of your butt the government's business?"209The idea of using all kinds of government-sponsored tactics to decrease obesity has become a cause celebre for liberals. Jacob Sullum writes, "[W]hile anti-fat activists treat 'freedom' as an empty corporate slogan, they seem to think the mantra 'public health' can justify any policy proposaL" [210] By framing their desire to eliminate obesity as a "public health" issue, Sullum continues, these activists use a "rhetorical trick" to obscure "the fact that obesity is not a contagious disease; it does not spread from person to person in a way that justifies state action." [211] In fact, Sullum suggests, if it's okay for government to impose sin taxes on "bad" foods and use tax dollars to pay for advertisements and seminars designed to show people how to eat better and lose weight, there's no principled reason why government can't just require each of us to follow a certain diet and perform regular exercise. Is everyone ready for "mandatory calisthenics in the public square every morning?" [212]

No politician or activist is suggesting quite that level of government intrusion into our lives (yet), but the point is that within an ideology that believes government bears responsibility for our general well-being, rather than simply protecting our right to control our own lives and property, there's no principled limit to how much government can step in and mandate our behaviors. Particularly with respect to issues like obesity, it's easy to discern that liberals' motivation stems from a desire to protect us from our own bad choices. They may demonize the big companies that sell us junk food instead of just wagging their fingers at us and imploring us to drive past the McDonald's, but the patronization remains. We are incapable of making good decisions for ourselves, and it's government's duty to make sure we make the right choices.

Outside a political context, on a personal level patronization and paternalism make useful tools for manipulating people to behave the way we'd like them to behave. When outright denunciation and ridicule (let alone force) might backfire, a good backup strategy is to make people feel small, incompetent, and guilty. Look down at them, tilt your head a little, and say condescendingly, "You poor, misguided soul. You just aren't able to see clearly. It's not your fault; you just don't know any better. Take it from me -- this is how you ought to behave. It's for your own good." Which is more or less the approach Bill Clinton took with Kathleen Willey when she was forced to testify against him and go public about the humiliation he put her through. Poor thing; she's just not able to see the truth through all her confusion and distress. Feel sorry for her, but for God's sake, don't believe her.
Site Admin
Posts: 32020
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Their Lives: The Women Targeted By the Clinton Machine

Postby admin » Sat Jun 11, 2016 5:12 am

Part 1 of 2


THE FACT THAT MONICA Lewinsky's graphic descriptions of her consensual affair with President Clinton entered the public domain has to be one of the low points of American politics. I could have lived a perfectly fulfilling life without knowing the details of their sexual encounters in the Oval Office. For what my opinion is worth, the fact that prosecutors found this level of detail relevant and worthy of public dissemination constituted a breach of their responsibilities to conduct themselves and the public's business with a modicum of dignity and respect for the people involved. The subject matter of this book peremptorily kills the possibility of getting a "G" rating, but I will nevertheless spare readers the coarser parts of Ms. Lewinsky's fervid account of her affair with Clinton. In fact, since Monica Lewinsky far and away wins the prize for Most Loquacious Clinton Woman, her story appears here merely in abbreviated form. Prurient readers can find all the details in her grand jury testimony and her book. The acts Lewinsky and Clinton performed together are irrelevant to our analysis, but the way Clinton subsequently treated her does shed further light on how his liberal beliefs reinforced his misogynistic tendencies.

Months before the public knew about Monica Lewinsky, journalist Michael Isikoff had learned from Linda Tripp that Tripp's "young friend" was having an on-going, consensual affair with the president. [1] In his 1999book, Uncovering Clinton, Isikoff writes he wasn't sure at first that consensual affairs warranted further investigation. By the summer of 1997 so many "womanizing" scandals had plagued Clinton that Isikoff began thinking that the Lewinsky affair did justify unveiling it to the public:

In the end, I thought, Clinton's serial indiscretions really did matter.... They mattered because private misbehavior on Clinton's scale required routine, repetitive and reflexive lies to conceal itself.... But lying, engaged in often enough, can have a corrosive effect....A culture of concealment had sprung up around Bill Clinton and, I came to believe that summer, it had affected his entire presidency. [2]

Isikoff argued, "Clinton's recklessness and arrogance deserved to be uncovered. But exposure -- not impeachment -- was the only remedy that interested me." [3] As we saw in the prior chapter, Kathleen Willey's story had done quite a lot to disintegrate the media's readiness to look the other way at Clinton's misdeeds. The press, considered so fundamental to a free society that protecting it from government control received pride of place in the very First Amendment to our Constitution, was doing its job, helping each of us form opinions about Bill Clinton as a person.

Arguably, the lies, deception, and consistent mistreatment of women could have been exposed without involvement of prosecutors, grand juries, or articles of impeachment. Those measures, perpetrated by people brandishing a political agenda as a sword sheathed in judgmental indignation, exacted punishments from Clinton that none of us had a right to demand. It would be the same if George W. Bush's political adversaries, who screeched that President Bush lied to Congress and the American people to get congressional permission and funding to go into Iraq, decided to push for an independent counsel to investigate the charge. The perspective of history, and information gleaned in hindsight, will help us judge President Bush's veracity concerning Operation Iraqi Freedom. Congress can hold all the hearings it wants, the press can investigate to its heart's content, Michael Moore can release as many sequels to Fahrenheit 9/11 as the box office will support, and Ted Kennedy can bellow about frauds made up in Texas, but criminal prosecution and impeachment would be out of place. [4] The 70 million tax dollars expended by the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) investigating potential crimes committed by Bill and Hillary during their tenure in the White House bought us little more than salacious details and a ready excuse for Clinton to maintain a posture of justified defiance when called to task for his misdeeds.

I realize the analogy isn't perfect; unlike President Bush, Clinton was accused of lying under oath in a civil suit and encouraging others to lie in the same lawsuit, and those actions might indeed be federal crimes. The reality of civil lawsuits, as any lawyer will tell you, is that people lie quite often in the course of a lawsuit, but it's hard to prove it. The burden of proof in a civil suit is proof by a preponderance of the evidence, which juries are told means anything more than 50/50. In other words, if a defendant in a civil suit says "I didn't do it" and the plaintiff says "he did it," a jury only has to believe that it's more probable than not that the plaintiff is credible to find in her favor. Does this mean the defendant lied under oath and committed perjury? Who knows, because the crime of perjury must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt," and a civil jury's determination that the defendant was less credible than the plaintiff doesn't get you far toward proving a criminal offense.

Perjury is a serious crime because telling the truth under oath props up confidence in the judicial system. However, one element of perjury is that the lie under oath must concern a material fact that could influence the underlying lawsuit. If Clinton lied about having "sexual relations" or a "sexual affair" with Monica Lewinsky, it would be difficult to prove perjury because whether he engaged in consensual sex with Lewinsky has little or no relevance to Paula Jones's claims of sexual harassment. If Clinton lied about Kathleen Willey that gets closer to perjury because Willey's experience was closer to sexual harassment, but even so, the OIC determined there was insufficient evidence to even charge Clinton with perjury, let alone convict him. (As we noted in the prior chapter, that doesn't reflect at all on Kathleen Willey's credibility, it just means that proving the crime of perjury would have been too difficult.) If we spent millions of dollars trying to prove perjury every time the shadow of it appeared in our civil court system, we would soon find ourselves out of money.

The OIC's expensive, years-long attempt to pin criminal charges on Clinton seems unreasonable and appears to represent serious abuse of prosecutorial discretion: targeting someone for criminal investigation based on political or personal dislike. Charging people with "derivative crimes" like obstruction of justice, lying to a federal investigator, or perjury is a strategy too often used by prosecutors to nail a person for "something" when the prosecutor has been unable to prove any underlying crime. [5] The Martha Stewart prosecution was a good example of such a tactic; prosecutors couldn't pin any substantive crime (like insider trading) on her, so they charged her with lying to federal officials and obstruction of justice instead. [6]

The efforts of so many Republicans to bring Clinton to "justice" by way of criminal and impeachment sanctions backfired and even somewhat reversed the trend among the press and public to criticize Bill Clinton for his behavior. Because a majority of Americans saw the grand juries and impeachment proceedings as an ill-fitting punishment for what Clinton did, we fixated more on the overzealousness of Kenneth Starr than on the crux of Clinton's wrongdoing. Americans have a pretty reasonable view of justice, on the whole, and a keystone of our justice system is trying to make the punishment fit the crime. We recoil from disproportionate retribution, and we disapprove of punishment as vengeance. Family members of violent crime victims often fantasize about torturing the perpetrator, but we don't allow them that satisfaction. Overall, we do what we can to maintain a sense of proportionality and humanity even in the way we treat the criminals among us.

Whatever the nature of Clinton's offenses, this libertarian author believes that none merited the politicized assault he received by his adversaries. By contrast, the decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court to disbar Clinton [7] for his actions was a reasonable, justifiable consequence that the legal profession had every right to impose on one of its own. Clinton eventually admitted he'd intentionally misled the court in his Paula Jones deposition. Even as a witness/defendant in the Paula Jones case, he was still a lawyer bound by the ethics of his profession, and those ethical mandates do not smile with favor on intentionally deceiving the court. The legal profession's castigation of Clinton-as- lawyer demonstrated that Clinton did not escape consequences for his deceptive behavior.

We'll never know how Clinton's presidency might have unfolded if both sides of the aisle had contented themselves with denouncing Clinton's reprehensible behavior, discussing its significance in various contexts, and letting it go at that. I can't help thinking that Clinton's time in office would then have been crippled by a mounting perception of him as untrustworthy, deceptive, weak, and yes, misogynistic. Instead, his popularity rose in the aftermath of impeachment proceedings and Republicans allowed him to leave office with at least a relative moral upper hand because they appeared more vindictive than he did.

It's challenging to separate the political ramifications of Clinton's affair with Lewinsky from his behavior itself, but for our purposes it's possible and useful to differentiate between the two. "Clinton did what he did," writes Michael Isikoff, "quite apart from the ...plotting of any right-wing cabals." [8] Clinton may have been unfairly targeted in a political vendetta but his adversaries would have fired empty cannons without the ammunition his own actions furnished.

dated other men during her eighteen-month affair with Clinton, and even used to tease him about having "competition," [16] though she never told him about her fling with a high-ranking Pentagon official that led to her pregnancy and abortion in the fall of 1996, an unpleasant experience she didn't reveal publicly until she told her story in a book in 1999. [17]

Not that she kept all this to herself. She told two of her counselors, her mom, and a handful of trusted friends, in varying degrees of detail, about her relationship with President Clinton.18 The recipient of the most detail of her relationship with Clinton was her friend and Pentagon co-worker Linda Tripp, with whom Monica spoke regularly about the affair from November 1996 through December 1997. Tripp eventually taped many of those conversations, unbeknownst to Lewinsky, and those tapes set in motion the chain of events that got the OIC involved and wound up forcing Lewinsky and Clinton to come clean about their affair.

While she worked in the White House, meetings between Lewinsky and Clinton would be set up by the president directly calling Lewinsky's office, usually on weekends, arranging for the pair to bump into each other in the halls and slip away to his private study. [19] Lewinsky was transferred from the White House to the Pentagon in April 1996 to be the Confidential Assistant to Ken Bacon, spokesman for the Pentagon. After that move her trysts with Clinton were arranged primarily by Betty Currie, Clinton's secretary. [20] When Monica told Bill she was being transferred he was upset and promised to bring her back to the White House after the 1996 election. [21] At that point, Clinton and Lewinsky agreed that Lewinsky should always say she was coming to visit Betty, so that nothing would look suspicious. [22] Though they shared the oral sex experience about nine times, they never had sexual intercourse; Clinton told her that at his age, "there was too much of a consequence in doing that." [23] Lewinsky "wasn't happy with that."

Neither was Lewinsky happy when the president told her he wanted to end their relationship. Lewinsky was able to provide the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) remarkably specific dates for her meetings and conversations with Clinton because she had always "been a date-oriented person" and had a habit of circling dates she met or spoke with Clinton in her Filofax. According to her grand jury testimony, on President's Day 1997, and again on May 24, 1997, he told her that he just didn't feel right about the affair and wanted to do the right thing in God's eyes and for his family. The most intimate encounters after "D-Day" (Dump Day, as Monica calls that May 24) involved only kissing. Three days after Lewinsky's D-Day the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Clinton and allowed the Paula Jones lawsuit to go forward.

Three months before D-Day, on February 27, 1997, she met with Clinton so the two could exchange (late) Christmas gifts. They hadn't seen each other much since the previous April. By that time Monica had been shunted over to the Pentagon, and a staffer didn't want Clinton alone with Monica anymore, so Betty Currie was the designated chaperone for that meeting. But Currie left the room and while alone, they engaged once more in oral sex. This time, Monica was wearing the now-notorious navy blue Gap dress that came into contact with "biological" proof of the tryst. She kept the dress not as a souvenir but because she wanted to wear it again. [24] But she told Linda Tripp about the dress and that she suspected some of Clinton's semen might be on it, and Tripp encouraged her to keep it and not have it cleaned. [25]

Monica desperately wanted to work in the White House again, and although Clinton assured her he had people trying to bring her back, no White House job ever materialized. By the summer of 1997the Paula Jones case had heated up and Monica learned from Linda Tripp that reporter Michael Isikoff had been snooping about the Kathleen Willey story. In a July 4 meeting with Clinton, Monica warned him that Isikoff was on to Willey, but Clinton already knew, since Willey had tipped off the White House herself the previous week. That July 4 visit was not a pleasant one for Monica. She had written a letter to Clinton in which she made a veiled threat to tell her parents of their affair unless she got a job in the White House. Clinton began their meeting by lecturing her angrily, "First of all it's illegal to threaten the president of the United States." [26] She cried. He forgave her.

On July 14, 1997, Lewinsky had just returned from an overseas trip with the Pentagon when she received a call from Betty Currie asking her to meet with the president that evening. [27] Back in March, before Linda Tripp agreed to talk to Michael Isikoff about Kathleen Willey, Tripp tried to reach deputy White House counsel Bruce Lindsey at the White House. He never returned her page, which offended her, and when Isikoff approached her again she told him about learning of Kathleen Willey's encounter with Clinton. Now that Paula Jones's lawyers were on to Kathleen Willey, Clinton asked Lewinsky to please convince Tripp to call Bruce Lindsey, presumably to find out exactly what Tripp was prepared to say publicly about Willey. Lewinsky complied with Clinton's request. [28] In the same conversation Clinton asked Lewinsky if she had said anything to Tripp about her relationship with him. [29] Lying, Lewinsky said she hadn't. [30]

By October 1997 Lewinsky more or less gave up her efforts to secure a position in the White House, and redirected her energy to pressure Clinton to help her find a job in the private sector in New York. On October 9, 1997, she and Clinton had an argument about it over the phone, but they made Up. [31] Two days later Clinton asked Lewinsky to prepare a list of companies she'd like to work for, with the idea that his influential lawyer friend Vernon Jordan could help her obtain a job with one of them. By early November Lewinsky had met with Jordan, who told her the president "highly recommended" her and assured her that finding a job from her list wouldn't be a problem. But all through November and December no job offer emerged.

On December 6, 1997, Lewinsky approached the White House gates trying to deliver Christmas presents for Clinton through Betty Currie. She couldn't reach Currie at first and when she did, she learned that the president was in the Oval Office with another woman. This upset Lewinsky, who fought with Currie over the phone and later that day received a phone call at her house from an angry Clinton, who told her it was none of her business who he was with and berated her for causing such a stir. He invited her over for a meeting that evening, though, and they had a "very nice" visit together. On December 11 Lewinsky met with Vernon Jordan again to discuss "contacts" to whom Lewinsky should send application letters for a job.

On December 17Clinton again called Lewinsky at home and said he had two things to tell her: first, Betty Curie's brother had been killed in a car crash, and second, Lewinsky had been tapped by the Paula Jones legal team as a potential witness. Lewinsky was "upset and shocked." Clinton told her it "broke his heart." Clinton also suggested that before she got a subpoena maybe she could sign an affidavit. "You know, you can always say you were coming to see Currie or that you were bringing me letters." This strategy, obtaining preemptive affidavits from worrisome women, had served him well for over a decade. In the same phone conversation Lewinsky tried to persuade him to settle the Jones lawsuit. Clinton wasn't keen on that idea and changed the subject, saying he'd have Betty Currie bring Lewinsky's Christmas presents over to her. Monica flatly refused, insisting to Clinton that they needed to "let Betty be" since her brother had just been killed.

After talking with Clinton, Lewinsky called Linda Tripp. Tripp had been subpoenaed in the Jones case and Lewinsky had been pestering her to be a team player, to downplay the suggestion that anything sexual had ever happened between Clinton and Willey, and especially between Clinton and Lewinsky. That night, Lewinsky wanted Tripp to know that if Tripp lied about knowing anything concerning Lewinsky and Clinton, it would be okay because Lewinsky and others would make the same denials. Everyone could provide a "united front" and the problem might just disappear.

Two days later, on December 19, 1997,Monica Lewinsky received her subpoena in the Jones case. She "burst into tears" -- calling it "sort of my worst nightmare." She said later she deeply resented being dragged into the Paula Jones case. "I lost my job because I was [Clinton's] girlfriend and the bottom line is that my affair with the president hampered, rather than helped, my job prospects. In fact, my experience ruined Paula Jones's arguments about sexual harassment." [32] Immediately she called Vernon Jordan, went to his office a couple of hours later, and showed him the subpoena. Jordan said there were two important questions: did she have sex with the president, and did the president ever ask her for sex? [33] She answered "no" to both of Jordan's questions that day, but testified later that she had assumed that Jordan knew she had a relationship with Clinton and was asking her those questions to find out what she was prepared to say under oath about it. [34]

After meeting with Lewinsky one more time on December 22, Jordan arranged for her to meet with a lawyer, Frank Carter. [35] Lewinsky told Carter there was no way she should have received this subpoena, that Paula Jones's case was "bunk," and that she would be willing to sign an affidavit denying a sexual relationship with Clinton and/or explaining away her frequent visits and correspondence to the White House by saying she was just over there visiting Betty Currie. [36] Lewinsky also asked Carter to convey all this to Bob Bennett, the president's lawyer, because in her mind, even a low-level political appointee like herself "work[s] for the administration and you're politically aligned with this administration and everything you do is in the best interest of the administration and, ultimately, the president. And that's where your goal and your focus should be." [37] Despite her many references to looking at Clinton as a man rather than as a president, Clinton's official status apparently played heavily into Lewinsky's reluctance to do anything that might harm him politically.

On December 28, 1997, not even three weeks before his deposition in the Paula Jones case, Clinton invited Lewinsky over to the Oval Office where they played with Buddy the dog and he gave her Christmas gifts. [38] She had been struggling for a few days, wondering if she should tell Clinton that Linda Tripp knew about their relationship, but decided against it, wanting this visit to be a "nice" one since she was anticipating heading to a New York job soon and might not get to see Clinton much after that. [39] Maybe it should have seemed odd that Clinton would give her gifts when he knew she had already received a subpoena that required her to turn over all gifts from him, but at the time, she was "in love with him" and just "happy to be with him." [40] At her suggestion, Betty Currie soon stopped by her house to pick up a box full of the gifts Clinton had given Lewinsky. [41] (She kept some sentimental things out of that box but months later turned them over to the OIC. [42])To Lewinsky, turning over her gifts to Currie was a way for her to reassure Clinton that she had no intention of getting him into trouble, [43] even if it meant hiding evidence and committing perjury.

On January 5, 1998, Lewinsky met with her attorney, Frank Carter, who prepared her for the probability of testifying in a deposition, since Carter wasn't sure an affidavit was going to satisfy Jones's attorneys. Carter said he'd draft an affidavit, and Lewinsky decided she wanted Vernon Jordan to look it over before she signed it, because Jordan was "the president's best friend" and she wanted the affidavit to be "blessed" by the president. [44] Later that day, Clinton called Lewinsky after she had told Betty Currie she didn't want to sign anything without talking first to Clinton. Monica was in a mood. She had seen a photo in the media of Bill and Hillary romantically intertwined on their vacation and felt" annoyed" and "jealous." She was short with him and told him she was worried about being asked in deposition how she'd gotten her job with the Pentagon. Clinton said she could always say that Legislative Affairs had arranged it for her; this would keep certain White House aides out of the discussion.

The next day, January 6, Frank Carter gave Lewinsky a draft affidavit. She showed a copy of it to Vernon Jordan, and the two agreed that some of the language was problematic because it mentioned that Lewinsky had been "alone" with the president once. With a few revisions, Lewinsky signed the affidavit under penalty of perjury the following day, January 7, including a paragraph stating she'd never had a sexual relationship with Clinton. She was more than ready and willing to do this because of her "love for and loyalty to" Clinton. [45] Bysigning the affidavit she felt like she was "putting on my team jersey" on the side of the president. [46]

Later that day Lewinsky flew to New York for a job interview with the parent company of Revlon. [47] The interview went poorly. She called Vernon Jordan to let him know she'd blown the interview. He said he'd call the chairman, and Revlon set up a second interview for Lewinsky and informally offered her a position. [48] On January 13, Revlon formally offered her a $40,000 salaried position in their public relations department and she accepted. She stopped by Vernon Jordan's office the same day, thanked him for the job, gave him a token gift, and showed him a copy of her finalized, signed affidavit. [49]

On January 14, 1998, Lewinsky typed out the "Talking Points" memo and gave it to Linda Tripp, directing Tripp to downplay and discredit Kathleen Willey's story. [50] Lewinsky drove Tripp that day to Tripp's lawyer's office so that Tripp could sign her own affidavit, and the two women discussed the talking points. Lewinsky maintains that no one associated with Clinton helped her write the talking points. In fact, in Lewinsky's opinion, the president never encouraged her to lie at all-she would have come up with the same excuses and means of covering up their affair whether or not he had ever suggested using Betty Currie as a cover. "For me, the best way to explain how I feel [about] what happened was, you know, no one asked or encouraged me to lie, but no one discouraged me either." They just shared a mutual understanding that they would both deny the affair. Somewhat reminiscent of Gennifer Flowers's observation that she sometimes felt more protective of Clinton's family than Clinton was, Lewinsky testified that she was sometimes the one to take extra care not to appear too close to Clinton publicly or take too many risks that might make people start wondering. [51] She would have continued to take steps to prevent the affair from disclosure with or without Clinton's encouragement.

Right up to the president's mea culpa admitting to their relationship on August 17, 1998, Lewinsky still "loved" Clinton. [52] After that little speech of his, she told the grand jury on August 20, she no longer knew how she felt about him. [53] She felt like he'd characterized their relationship as merely a service contract, and it was much more than that to her. [54] She had spent nearly three years doing everything she could not to hurt him, and in his public admission he didn't even directly mention her, and didn't acknowledge the pain the past seven months of denials had caused her and so many other people. After all their times together, talking and laughing, she just thought he had a "beautiful soul." Now, she couldn't know how she felt about him anymore, fearing that he had been an "actor" the whole time.

What she did know, she confessed to the grand jury, is that she didn't think it was "right to have an affair with a married man." She'd been through a similar love affair before she came to D.C. and she never expected to fall in love with Bill Clinton but she did. Trying to explain why she did what she did, Monica said in August 1998:

There are obviously issues that -- that -- you know, a single young woman doesn't have an affair with a married man because she's normal, quote-unquote. But I think most people have issues and that's just how mine manifested themselves. It's something I need to work on ....

Lewinsky didn't know until she had been apprehended by the FBI that Linda Tripp had been secretly taping their phone conversations, nor that Tripp had worn a wire in cooperation with authorities when the two women met for lunch on January 13, 1998, nor that her lunch date with Tripp on January 16 was the final set-up. On that day, Lewinsky was approached by the FBI (working with the OIC) as Tripp and Lewinsky arrived for their lunch meeting at the Ritz-Carlton. [55] "The agents flashed their badges, told Lewinsky they wanted to talk to her privately and took her to a room upstairs." [56] The agents told Lewinsky about Tripp's tape recordings, which contradicted Lewinsky's January 7 affidavit, exposing her to prosecution for perjury, and showed Lewinsky transcripts of the tapes and photographs of Lewinsky's wire-tapped lunch with Tripp earlier in the week. [57] "My life is ruined," Lewinsky told the agents. [58]

She spent the next few hours crying, refusing to talk without first speaking with her lawyer, Frank Carter, but she couldn't reach him. She had never felt so terrified. She thought about jumping from the ten story window. [59] She resisted cooperating -- even though they threatened to prosecute her mother and told her if she called her lawyer they'd yank immunity off the table. [60] Monica insisted on calling her mom, who rushed down to the Ritz-Carlton and phoned her ex-husband, who in turn promptly contacted his friend, attorney William Ginsburg. [61] By the time Ginsburg spoke with Monica late that night, he said he couldn't advise her to sign an immunity deal because he hadn't heard the Tripp tapes yet. [62] Monica left the hotel that night frightened and devastated, but still unwilling to play ball with the OIC. [63] It took the OIC months of negotiating over immunity before Monica Lewinsky cooperated and told them everything.

At the end of Lewinsky's final appearance before the grand jury in August 1998 she was asked if she'd like to add to her testimony, so that she felt she'd had the fullest opportunity to tell her side of things. She answered: "1would. I think because of the public nature of how this investigation has been and what the charges aired, that I would just like to say that no one ever asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my silence. And that I'm sorry. I'm really sorry for everything that's happened. [She begins to cry.] And I hate Linda Tripp." [64]


But for seven strange, weary months, none of this was confirmed, except by the taped phone conversations courtesy of Linda Tripp, which didn't settle the question of how accurate Lewinsky's story was. Lewinsky's lawyers and the OIC negotiated over an immunity deal until the end of July 1998.Lewinsky refused to comment publicly during that period, neither recanting nor confirming her affidavit denying a sexual relationship with Clinton. Like Kathleen Willey, until Lewinsky found herself cornered by the legal system, she kept silent and did all she could to protect Clinton. Like Willey, Lewinsky found herself on the unpleasant end of a carefully executed smear campaign.

Lewinsky's had a different spin, though. Perhaps Clinton and his defense team held back out of fear they'd push Lewinsky into going public during those long months while she and her lawyers fought off the OIC Perhaps Clinton personally felt reluctant to attack a young woman whose only mistake had been falling for him and blabbing to a girlfriend. Perhaps the Clinton spin machine once again sensed a backlash and knew they had to choose a less direct method of discrediting anything Lewinsky might say. Or perhaps they realized from the beginning of the Lewinsky story that certain circumstances didn't look good for Clinton, despite Clinton's denials of any improper relationship. After all, gifts, meetings, and phone calls could (and eventually would) be documented; those things would require explanation sooner or later.

Their solution was brilliant. Clinton and his defenders kept their angry denials and attacks off Lewinsky personally (with a few notable exceptions) and instead demonized the OIC and Kenneth Starr. As Isikoff put it, "To prove his lies, Clinton knew, his foes would be forced into the gutter -- or to go to such extraordinary lengths that, in the end, they would look worse than he." [65]

Just days after his January 17, 1998, deposition in the Paula Jones case, and less than a week before the State of the Union address, the Monica Lewinsky scandal hit the front pages. Working surreptitiously with Linda Tripp (to whom he quickly granted immunity), Kenneth Starr and the FBI "stung" Monica Lewinsky on Friday, January 16. They had Tripp's tapes and expanded authority to investigate accusations of obstruction of justice (and after Clinton's deposition, perjury). "Clinton Accused of Urging Aide to Lie; Starr Probes Whether President Told Woman to Deny Alleged Affair to Jones's Lawyers" rang the front page headline in The Washington Post on January 21, 1998. [66] On the same day, Revlon rescinded its offer of employment to Lewinsky, since Vernon Jordan, now facing investigation for possible obstruction of justice, had recommended Lewinsky to them. [67] "The president adamantly denies he ever had a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and she has confirmed the truth of that," Clinton's lawyer Bob Bennett said. "This story seems ridiculous and I frankly smell a rat." [68] Lewinsky's attorney William Ginsburg said "If the president of the United States did this-and I'm not saying that he did -- with this young lady, I think he's a misogynist," he said. "If he didn't, then I think Ken Starr and his crew have ravaged the life of a youngster." [69] Like Kathleen Willey and her lawyer, Lewinsky and hers attempted for months to stay on Clinton's good side.

Clinton's first public denials were terse. "There wasn't improper relations; I didn't ask anybody to lie." [70] Clinton said he was "furious" with the charges but would fully cooperate with Starr's investigation. [71] "The relationship was not sexual," Clinton insisted, as reporters continued asking for clarification of his relationship with Lewinsky. [72] Reporters seized on one of Clinton's initial statements: "There is not a sexual relationship; that is accurate." [73] Did his use of the present tense "is" convey that there was more to the story? Clinton also invoked his mother's coping mechanism of putting bad things aside: "I came here to try to change the country and to work to build the future of America and a new century. And I just have to try to put this in a little box, like I have every other thing that has been said and done, and go on and do my job." [74] This story, though, was bigger than any box Clinton could have used.

The first four days of Clinton's carefully worded denials prompted The New York Times to opine that Clinton's "cryptic, partial and insufficient" responses required complete explanation to a public that had not "prejudged the facts" but remained "troubled and mystified" by the facts known thus far. [75] "Itis time for Mr. Clinton to tell the whole story in all its detail and context," The New York Times pleaded. But they would have to wait seven long months for Clinton to admit there had been any kind of sexual relationship, or to hear Lewinsky's version of events, and even longer -- until Clinton wrote his memoirs -- to hear any explanation from him about why he did what he did.

Hillary Rodham Clinton wasted no time in charging to her husband's defense, immediately declaring, "Certainly I believe [the allegations are] false. Absolutely." [76] She spent a lot of time "on the telephone rallying loyalists to come to her husband's defense" in the critical days just prior to the State of the Union address, [77] and on January 27 she told Matt Lauer on the Today Show that their political opponents were the true villains in unfolding drama: "[T]he great story here this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president." [78]

Despite the Clintons' heated denials and deflections, from day one of the scandal Republicans raised the specter of impeachment. Henry Hyde, then chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, assured the media "There will be great pressure to impeach the man." [79] In the beginning it wasn't just Republicans who threw out the "I" word. George Stephanopoulos, by then a former Clinton aide but still relatively loyal, said the seriousness of the charges, if proven, meant possible impeachment. [80] Clinton's former Press Secretary Dee Dee Meyers hinted at the same prospect. "If he's not telling the truth," she said, "1 think the consequences are just astronomical." [81]

White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry offered only brief statements the day the scandal broke: Clinton was "outraged" and "never had any improper relationship with this woman." [82] Clinton told his Cabinet members the charges were untrue and they stood by him, many issuing public statements that they believed his denials. [83] Political consultant James Carville, usually Clinton's most vicious public relations attack dog, seemed rather subdued at first, saying only that he believed Clinton's denials and hoped everyone would" get to the bottom" of the charges as quickly as possible. [84] Administration aides, some of whom had defended Clinton since the 1992 campaign, told reporters on condition of anonymity that Clinton's initial denials had not been as clear as they'd hoped, and that if the charges turned out to be true Clinton should resign. [85] Clinton's person-on-the-street supporters of every stripe hoped the allegations were false, expressed anger at Ken Starr for "being prepared to pick up any available rock to throw at the president," but also immediately suspected that something indeed happened between Clinton and Lewinsky. [86] Why, many wondered angrily, would Clinton bring "aid and comfort" to his enemies by handing them a "lethal weapon"? [87]

Aside from attacking Starr, the media and administration officials also cast a few direct aspersions on Monica Lewinsky, mostly with an air of condescension, hinting that she'd been moved from the White House to the Pentagon because she had a "slight crush" on Clinton and made too many efforts to get close to him. [88] An official at the Pentagon described Lewinsky as a "sweet kid, a little flirtatious in a way that a lot of twenty-four year old women are," but others merely said she was a dedicated worker. [89] White House officials stated they'd transferred Lewinsky to the Pentagon in 1996 because she was "infatuated" with Clinton. [90] Not without reason, as it turned out.

One Boston Herald columnist expressed support for Lewinsky over Clinton, albeit in a patronizing way, by recasting the scandal as a boxing match. [91] In one corner, a fresh-faced former intern just twenty-four years old. In the other comer, "Slippery Bill, the aw-shucks, lip-biting serial philanderer with a 'pattern and practice,' as Newsweek put it, of using political office, power and perks for 'sexual predation."' [92] Lewinsky's own lawyer helped create the patronizing image of her as a young, innocent pawn in a bigger game. Angling publicly for an immunity deal from Starr, Ginsburg proclaimed dramatically "She is at the vortex of a storm probably involving the three most powerful men in the United States -- the president, Vernon Jordan and the independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr. She's devastated." [93] The Washington Post described Monica as "an enigma wrapped in conflicting images." [94] After noting that some White House aides derided Lewinsky for having a "conspicuous crush" on Clinton, the Post continued: "She is described by some as 'sweet,' 'polite' and 'intelligent'; by others as 'arrogant,' 'spoiled' and 'immature."' [95] Ask enough friends, acquaintances, and co-workers of any of us and I'm sure you'd get a similar mixed bag of adjectives.
Site Admin
Posts: 32020
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Their Lives: The Women Targeted By the Clinton Machine

Postby admin » Sat Jun 11, 2016 5:12 am

Part 2 of 2

The most hurtful character assassination against Lewinsky came from Clinton himself and it became public because of a hardball tactic by Ken Starr. Under the guise of obtaining evidence that the Clinton cadre's public relations attacks on Starr and his prosecutors constituted actual "threats" that could impede prosecutors from doing their jobs, [96] Starr subpoenaed White House aide Sidney Blumenthal [97] and demanded that Blumenthal disclose the names of journalists he'd spoken with about the scandal and the substance of his conversations with them. Through Blumenthal's testimony, word leaked out that Clinton had told Blumenthal that Lewinsky was just a "stalker" who had come on to Clinton and been rejected by him. [98] Not only did Clinton fail to step up on a personal level and do anything to help Lewinsky -- paying her legal bills, for instance, would have been the least he could've done -- but Clinton actually had the nerve to affirmatively hurt her.

Despite word from aides that Clinton would refuse any further comment or explanation on the scandal, on January 26 Oust five days after the story broke in print, and the day before the State of the Union speech), Clinton addressed the American public for what he must have hoped would be his final word on the matter. At the tail end of a speech heralding a host of education reforms, "He put on his most determined face and punched the air with his finger to drive his point home," declaring firmly: "I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me....!did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie. Not a single time. Never. These allegations are false, and I need to go back to work for the American people." [99] When Monica Lewinsky spoke freely about her reaction the following year she said Clinton's "that woman" phrase felt "very harsh" and hurt her. [100]

Speaking to Larry King the same day, Paul Begala said he believed Clinton, and believed the investigation would clear his friend and advisee. "You wait and see," Begala boasted to King. [101] If Begala ever felt betrayed by Clinton he didn't show it; he was Clinton's right-hand man editing the eventual confession speech the following August. [102] But most of us were far from convinced. Maybe because his "that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" denial came six years to the day after Bill and Hillary's joint appearance on 60 Minutes to put the Gennifer Flowers story to rest during the 1992 campaign -- and just days after he had reportedly admitted to an affair with Flowers at his deposition.

Fueled mainly by speculation and spin, the Lewinsky story continued to pound the public into disgust for the next several months. A federal judge dismissed Paula Jones's lawsuit in April, but the OIC investigation continued in full swing. Finally, at the end of July 1998, Lewinsky got an immunity deal from Starr and agreed to testify before the grand jury. In those intervening months, Clintonites fought fire with fire (in their view), hiring investigators to dig up dirt on Starr and his prosecutors, and threatening to go public with stories about the prosecutors' sex lives. [103] Carville ranted that Starr was obsessed with sex, Starr was out to "get" the president, Starr was an "out of control" partisan. [104] Carville had been waging war against Starr for years, and as the Starr-is-out-of-control mantra picked up steam throughout the Lewinsky scandal, Carville proudly claimed to have been a "prophet." [105] Baiting Starr into occasionally biting back and getting angry in public, says former Clinton political consultant Dick Morris, was referred to by the Clinton defense team as their "lift and loft" tactic -- lifting Clinton "above the fight." [106] It worked especially well as the Lewinsky scandal intensified, but it didn't entirely diffuse the outrage and disappointment felt by many when Clinton finally confessed.


Monica Lewinsky testified before the grand jury first on August 6, then again on August 20. In the intervening days, President Clinton testified on August 17. That concession on Clinton's part wasn't the result of a genuine desire to get to the bottom of things and clear up all misconceptions. Rather, it was the culmination of three events that summer. [107] Since January, Starr had been firing off subpoenas like they were going out of style to everyone who possibly had any connection to the scandal, methodically building a case against Clinton. By July 1998 Starr achieved three potent victories: first, he and Monica reached an immunity deal; second (because of the immunity deal) Starr now had his hands on the infamous "blue dress" and had it tested for Clinton's DNA; third, Starr subpoenaed Clinton, then withdrew the subpoena and arranged for Clinton's voluntary rather than coerced testimony [108] in exchange for a few conditions that favored Clinton (e.g., unlike other material witnesses or potential defendants Clinton was allowed to have attorneys present). This deal increased the probability that Starr would elicit relatively truthful testimony from Clinton for two reasons. First, if Clinton had been forced to talk under a subpoena, perhaps he would simply have invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself and said nothing. Second, Clinton could have tied up the process for months with legal challenges to Starr's right to force a sitting president to testify. Whether the decision to deal with Starr was legal, political, or (most probably) a combination, Clinton agreed to testify on August 17.

The videotaped testimony wasn't made public until the following month, but just after his testimony ended, Clinton addressed the nation. While some were still referring to Lewinsky as "hopelessly deluded" with a "90210 imagination" [109] Clinton issued yet another sort-of apology, this time in the form of a four-minute public address from the White House: [110]

As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information. Indeed I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact it was wrong.

It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.

But I told the grand jury today, and I say to you now, that at no time did I ask anyone to lie, to hide or destroy evidence, or to take any other unlawful action.

I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people. Including even my wife. I deeply regret that....

I had real and serious concerns about an independent counsel investigation that began with private business dealings twenty years ago -- dealings, I might add, about which an independent federal agency found no evidence of any wrongdoing by me or my wife over two years ago....

This has gone on too long, cost too much, and hurt too many innocent people.

Now this matter is between me, the two people I love most, my wife and our daughter, and our God. I must put it right. And I am prepared to do whatever it takes to do so ....

And so tonight I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months, to repair the fabric of our national discourse and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise of the next American century.

"Yep, I kinda misled y'all, but it's time to move on now -- oh, and Ken Starr sucks" sums up the spirit of his so-called confession. But this was the most Clinton would say about his relationship with Lewinsky until he published his memoirs six years later. As for what actually happened between him and Lewinsky he explains: "During the government shutdown in late 1995, when very few people were allowed to come to work in the White House and those who were there were working late, I'd had an inappropriate encounter with Monica Lewinsky and would do so again on other occasions between November and April, when she left the White House for the Pentagon." [111]He continues, "For the next ten months 1didn't see her, although we talked on the phone from time to time." Because of the blue dress he had to admit to seeing her at least once more, in February 1997, when "Monica was among the guests at an evening taping of my weekly radio address, after which I met with her alone again for about fifteen minutes." He adds, "I was disgusted with myself for doing it, and in the spring, when 1saw her again, I told her that it was wrong for me, wrong for my family, and wrong for her, and I couldn't do it anymore." He also writes that he told her he "would try to be her friend and help her" but "nothing improper occurred" between them after that. What a stand-up guy.

He defends his testimony at his Paula Jones deposition, insisting that his denial under oath about ever having "sexual relations" with Monica was based on the legalistic definition of that term used by the lawyers that day. [112] The definition "seemed to require both a specific act and a certain state of mind on my part" and" did not include any act by another person," Clinton surmises.

As for the aftermath of his Lewinsky affair, Clinton admits, "What I had done with Monica Lewinsky was immoral and foolish" but he was" determined not to compound it by allowing Starr to drive me from office." [113] So, he continues, "I went along doing my job, and I stonewalled, denying what had happened to everyone: Hillary, Chelsea, my staff and cabinet, my friends in Congress, members of the press, and the American people." He regrets "having misled all of them." In the months before the scandal came to light he felt "[i]t was like living in a nightmare" particularly because he was understandably unwilling to "help Ken Starr criminalize my personal life.... " Clinton's now-infamous explanation for why he engaged in his affair with Monica Lewinsky doesn't appear in his book. In a 60 Minutes interview with Dan Rather in June 2004 promoting his memoirs he said that he did it for the most "morally indefensible" reason possible: "Just because I could."

The media didn't give Clinton a free pass. It was "no mea culpa speech," decided The Washington Post after Clinton's August 1998 public admission. [114] Agreed the inimitable Michael Kelly: "It was an everybody-else culpa." [115] The speech "seemed to have too much input from pollsters and lawyers, and not enough heartfelt contrition from Clinton," concluded another journalist.  [116] The New York Times editorialized edgily that Clinton's time-tested strategy of "minimal confession and contained tantrum that got him elected twice" would "not make him a leader who will be missed once he leaves Washington." [117] When Clinton walked into the White House Map Room for his battle with prosecutors, delivered by live video feed to the grand jury, The New York Times opined that he faced a "force" more powerful and destructive than Ken Starr -- his own "habit of stonewalling, of misleading by omission or concealment or fabrication or failure of memory, [that] has been the source of virtually all this administration's troubles." [118] There was no ringing endorsement for Clinton in the press that day. When Monica Lewinsky felt safe enough to talk about her reaction several months later, she said of Clinton's tepid apologies (which hadn't included her at all): "I felt like a piece of trash. I felt dirty and I felt used and I was disappointed." [119]

Former White House chief of staff Leon Panetta (Lewinsky's old boss) said Clinton staffers, aides, and advisers must be feeling "stab[bed] in the back." [120] Dee Dee Myers agreed that Clinton had "put them in an incredibly awkward position, completely by virtue of his own actions." Clinton, Myers said despairingly, "believes that character is an evolving thing." Consultant Dick Morris, who'd been kicked to the curb after a sex scandal of his own, scoffed at the idea of feeling sorry for Clinton's staffers. "[A]ny of them who were dumb enough to actually believe Clinton's stories deserve what happens to them," he said bluntly. [121]

Ann Lewis, one of Clinton's most ardent, vocal defenders, refused to talk to the press, saying she needed to think some things over. Her brother, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Lewis was in a tough spot because her close friend Hillary was in a difficult position. A handful of loyal Clintonistas immediately expressed unwavering support without a trace of bitterness. Media consultant Mandy Grunwald stated flatly, "He did it to protect his family. And it's none of our business." [122] Clinton must have thought it was the business of at least some of his close supporters. Without naming names, Clinton aides confirmed that Clinton had called them in one by one over the preceding weekend to tell them his seven-month string of denials had been false; he had, in fact, had an improper relationship with Lewinsky. [123] He expressed regret to some but not others. [124]

A CBS poll immediately after this speech showed that 63 percent of Americans believed the "matter should be dropped" now. [125] It wasn't dropped, of course, until after Starr released his report in September, the House of Representatives opened an inquiry into impeachment in October and passed two articles of impeachment in December, and the Senate acquitted Clinton in February 1999. Then it was over. Then Lewinsky's life could resume, though for months she remained fearful of losing her immunity if she spoke too freely. Commentary during the post-confession, pre-impeachment months focused mostly on whether Clinton's actions amounted to "high crimes and misdemeanors" warranting removal from office. Aside from her testimony during the Senate trial, the public didn't hear much from Monica Lewinsky until the following spring, when for the first time she spoke about her experience outside the frightening context of threatened criminal indictment.


"I'm not going to pretend that it was always about something bigger than me," Lewinsky told Time magazine in March 1999. [126] "Because for me, it wasn't." [128] Her book, Monica's Story, hit the stands that month, and she had been interviewed by Barbara Walters on ABC's 20/20 ten days prior. She was living in New York with her mom and stepfather, worried about finding a job and getting her life back on track, unable to go out in public without wearing a disguise. As for Bill Clinton, she was finally over him. She hated him in some moments because she felt she didn't deserve from him "the way he characterized this relationship" and "[t]he way he allowed, if not orchestrated, the White House to say all those things about me." [128] Her ambivalence is understandable. "Sometimes I'm proud of him still, and sometimes I hate his guts," she told Barbara Walters. "And, um, he makes me sick." [129] She expressed no ambivalence with respect to Ken Starr and his investigation; his report to Congress, she said in her book, made her feel "raped and physically ill with myself,"  [130] like the "world looked at me as a whore," [131] and like "the most humiliated woman in the world." [132] Any regrets? On some days she regrets "ever having had this relationship begin" but on other days she just regrets "telling Linda Tripp." [133]

Her biggest mistake in the whole thing, she thought, was not being discreet enough, because she "betrayed the president in that way." [134] She felt sorry for causing pain to her family, to Chelsea and Hillary Clinton, and yes, to herself. "1 was the one lying awake at night crying, scared I was going to go to jail," she said. "1 was the one being followed. I was the one being tom apart in the press, and my family ....But I don't know that the punishment fit the crime." [135] She doesn't consider herself a celebrity, and refuses to give out autographs when people ask: "1 think that the root of the word [celebrity] is celebrated[,] someone society should celebrate .... I don't feel that I should be honored for what I'm known for." [136] She's right, of course, but our voyeuristic society still catapulted her into fame, illustrated by the fact that at her first major book signing in London, she sat in a chair at Harrods where the likes of Margaret Thatcher, Norman Schwarzkopf, and Mikhail Gorbachev sat signing their own memoirs in years past. [137]

The day that Lewinsky's two-hour interview with Barbara Walters aired in March 1999, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and other prominent Democrats gathered to show a spirit of party unity and highlight their "Family First" party agenda for the year, focusing on Social Security and Medicare reform, health care and education initiatives, and raising the minimum wage. [138] With the impeachment ordeal only a few weeks behind him and less than two years remaining in his second term, Clinton finally found himself relatively scandal-free. After losing seats in the November 1998 election, Republicans ultimately got the point that the public didn't want to see Clinton kicked out of office for what he'd done and reoriented for the 2000 election. Hillary, riding a wave of public sympathy as the injured spouse who nonetheless loyally stood by her man, began testing the waters for a New York Senate bid. [139]

Over the next five years, Monica Lewinsky dabbled in a variety of activities that kept her name in the spotlight. She became a spokesperson for the Jenny Craig weight loss system, briefly hosted a Fox reality television show, designed and sold handbags, and devoted her spare time to studying Kabbalah (a Jewish mystical spiritual tradition), dating, flea-market shopping, and thinking about going to graduate school. It's probably not quite the way she imagined she'd spend her twenties, but she has proved herself to be resilient and determined to make something of her life.


In popular culture, Don Juan remains a synonym for a man who charms and seduces women, a real ladies' man, portrayed by Johnny Depp in the 1995film, Don Juan de Marco, (whose title character boasts of having 1,500 lovers by age twenty-one) and borrowed for the name of a popular "how to get women" Web site for men. [140] The fictional character first entered literature in a Spanish play, The Seducer of Seville by Tirso de Molina, in 1630. Additional artists transported the Don Juan legend into other countries throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and by the 1800s he had been memorialized in several famous musical and literary renderings, including Lord Byron's satiric poem "Don Juan," (1819-1824), Mozart's opera "Don Giovanni" (1787), and George Bernard Shaw's "Man and Superman" with its famous Act III titled "Don Juan in Hell" (1907). These later works "portray Juan as a tragicomic hero, destroyed by his obsessive search for the ideal woman." [141] Don Juan, along with Casanova, Romeo, lady killer, stud, gigolo, playboy, etc., has become a name for a sexually active, intriguing, charming man who "eats women for breakfast -- and lunch, and dinner." [142]

The tag "Don Juan" has evolved over the years until the point where it has been watered down by popular culture and now applied to any charming ladies' man. This popular interpretation of the term is not appropriate in the case of Bill Clinton, especially since it might imply that he and Monica were equally responsible for the fallout from their affair. Because of this, perhaps a less common but more forcefully descriptive word needs to be used. A real Don Juan is what some authors have caustically termed a "femivore:"

The femivore's essential nature is that he infatuates and seduces women and leaves them bereft of spiritual and often physical life.... Most often, in literature and mythology, he escapes consequences and responsibilities and is allowed to remain a memorable and ephemeral treasure whose supernatural prowess defies mere mortals .... In all cases, he is unbearably independent... and does not linger to concern himself with the futures of the ravished females he leaves behind. Such a creature, of course, makes any sense of love and eras inconsequential. The femivore's concerns are immediate and lustful. He doesn't nurture. Thus, he debilitates any sense of past or future. [143]

The same author observes it "would be easy enough to label the femivore as misogynist and wastrel: indifferent to humanity in women, insensitive and irresponsible to all but himself," but the fascinating question is how and why such a man, who should be "anathema to all women," is continually viewed by female conquests and male idolizers as merely "mischievous" and "boyish," a "lovable bastard," a model of a healthy, if overactive and sometimes reckless, male libido. [144]

The cause of the femivore's vitality is clear: society has mistaken him for some kind of hero, enticing women to fawn before him even as he leaves "broken hearts (and devastated psyches and self-concepts) scattered behind" him. A real Don Juan -- a femivore -- is a hero who "may be a subtle, likable, socially enviable, and glamorous rapist, for whom beguilement replaces force." The success of the femivore, unlike a rapist, "requires a conspiracy and mutual acquiescence from both sexes" whereby both "seek individually and mutually destructive power" and both" denigrate what it means to be human."

It doesn't seem much of a stretch to label Bill Clinton a Don Juan or femivore in the context of his very mutual, very consensual affair with Monica Lewinsky, particularly when she talks about how he confided to her that his romantic affairs "multiplied" after he married Hillary Rodham, and he continued to work through his marriage even though he had to circle on his calendar the days when he'd been" good." [145] Monica was just one of many, though he made her feel special and unique. Once Clinton's fun was over, he took no action to help her pick up the pieces of her life.

Given Lewinsky's own feelings that Kenneth Starr caused her perhaps more trauma than Bill Clinton ever did, some have argued that Starr was a bigger misogynist than Clinton, claiming that he willingly ruined the lives of women like Lewinsky, her mother, Betty Currie, and others in order to build his case against the president. This isn't accurate; comparing Starr and Clinton with respect to mistreatment of women is apples and oranges. It's true that Starr's actions had devastating impacts on women like Lewinsky. But his actions were motivated not by a desire to hurt women per se, but by a willingness to aggressively prosecute Bill Clinton. Clinton's mistreatment of Monica Lewinsky begins and ends with yet another demonstration of his belief that women in his life exist to serve at his pleasure and deserve little or no respect "in the morning," so to speak.

Clinton didn't take advantage of Lewinsky; she was an equal participant every step of the way, from initial flirtation to repeated sexual encounters. There was never a time when Clinton pressured her to do something and she felt offended or trapped the way Paula Jones or Kathleen Willey must have. She loved him and believed he loved her. She caught the eye of a femivore, and responded the way women have throughout history. She got caught up in the excitement, the flattery, the fantasy, of receiving sensualized attention from one of our "heroes." Clinton played his part flawlessly, too. He captivated her with charm and flattery, empathizing with her and holding her tenderly. He also berated her whenever she threatened to cause too much of a scene, and left her brokenhearted but strung along in the months between "D-Day" and when the scandal reached public ears. After it did, she was "that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" to him, and finally an "improper," meaningless encounter who didn't deserve a public apology from him or concern for her reputation or internal well-being.

What might any of this have to do with Clinton's leftist ideology? Could liberal politics have any influence on Don Juan de Clinton? The essential characteristics of a real Don Juan apply by analogy to help identify our sixth tenet of liberalism that may have made it easier for Clinton to behave the way he did.

Modern liberalism seduces citizens by portraying government as charming, benign, and all-powerful. I have argued in previous chapters that liberalism views government as a useful, efficient tool for forcing us to behave the way we should behave. But an equally prominent, effective aspect of modem liberalism involves presentation of government not as brute force, but as a seductive answer to all our problems. Like the femivore's conquests who work with him for their own debasement, many of us regularly support the vision of government as a powerful, effective, win-win way to improve our lives. Overall, Americans have come to expect government to "manage the economy, address social problems, protect the environment," [146] and of course, rid the world of terrorism. Liberalism never fails to champion government action as an appropriate way to help us better our lot in life. From Social Security, Medicare, welfare, and other entitlement programs, to subsidized college loans, rent control, and minimum wages, liberalism encourages us to seek help from our fellows through confiscation of their money (taxes) and control over their choices (laws and regulations).

The fact that progressive policymakers have consistently won elections and garnered support throughout the decades shows that many of us don't look at widespread government activism as an imposition, but rather as a favor. Even when we protest government-sponsored entitlement programs we do so usually on grounds of efficiency or pragmatism, not philosophical objections. For example, the recent push for prescription drug benefits for senior citizens met with tremendous public support. Those who opposed it raised concerns like "how are we going to pay for it" rather than "why must the federal government be responsible for this problem." Although a Republican administration backed the idea, it probably supported the idea not on principle but in response to the idea's popularity, and didn't go far enough to escape criticism from liberal Democrats.

The popularity of a measure like government-funded prescription drug benefits exemplifies a prevalent attitude of acceptance among the public to embracing government action to tackle any problem that appears intractable. In the New Deal era, the seemingly intractable problem was finding enough work for able-bodied people who needed jobs. In our day, senior citizens too often find their fixed incomes inadequate to provide for their medical needs. Emotionally, those problems feel intolerable, and the left has seduced us to turn to government as our protector and provider. What we never count on, and what liberalism refuses to acknowledge, is that the government is rarely capable of making good on all it promises.

Government cannot possibly come through as the hero that liberalism promises. Looking to government to solve all the problems liberals insist it can solve requires assumptions that contradict reality. To truly believe that government can come to our aid as a heroic power, we have to fall prey to a version of the "Illusion of Omnipossibility." Psychotherapists use this term to describe a reluctance to commit to a particular path for fear that making one choice forecloses all other options. Liberalism pushes us to accept a twist on this Illusion by encouraging us to forget the reality of the world in which we live -- a world characterized at a basic level by finite, scarce resources. Liberalism ignores this basic reality and instead encourages us to believe that with government, all things are possible. The spiritual maxim "With God all things are possible" rings true for most of us precisely because it is untrue within this world. Within the confines of our earthly reality, all things are not possible, and promises to the contrary will always be proved false.

Just as no one of us can produce and distribute all things for all people, we cannot accomplish that goal through heavy-handed governmental action, either. When we talk about government providing Social Security and subsidized housing, eradicating terrorism and corporate fraud, we have been seduced into the Illusion of Omnipossibility, the assumption that all things are possible with enough political will. Assuming away the reality that we are working with limited resources -- money, time, energy, innovation, natural materials, etc. -- we engage in political debates over what problems government should solve as if all problems can be solved by government. Most of us avoid the Illusion of Omnipossibility in our personal affairs; we recognize that our paychecks can't stretch to cover all our desires. But liberalism has costumed government as a superhero who exists above petty restraints like scarce resources, who can and will accomplish all the goals we wish.

In a post-9/11 world, the political version of the Illusion of Omnipossibility is more dangerous than ever. The very real danger of further attacks on American soil and interests abroad should give us all pause when thinking about the role of government. The imminent threat of terrorism should remind us of government's fundamental purpose: protecting us from foreign aggression. If our resources are limited, and if eradicating terrorism should be our primary goal, then it's time to give up the illusion that government can pursue all possibilities. September 11 should wake us up to the importance of prioritizing our goals and respecting the limits of the world in which we live. Government can't do everything for us, but it should at least devote itself to the one activity we originally entrusted to it: providing for our national security.

Even today we still hear liberals subscribing to the Illusion of Omnipossibility. President George W. Bush may have interpreted his re-election as an opportunity to reform the "third rail" of American politics, but as soon as he began to suggest ways to salvage the collapsing Social Security program he attracted a torrent of liberal attacks. Left-wingers such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi assailed Bush's suggestion that privatized retirement accounts be incorporated into the system as a way of transitioning from the current bankruptcy-bound Ponzi scheme. This liberal defense of Social Security comes in spite of the fact that members of Generation X don't even count on the program to be there for them when they retire, or else they view it as a bonus to whatever they manage to save for themselves. Baby boomers are approaching their time to cash in on Social Security, but have also realized from their parents' experiences that the average monthly check of $874 isn't going to get them far. [147] This disappointing situation facing millions of Americans is what remains of FDR's promise to provide secure golden years for every average American. No one bankrupted Social Security on purpose; it's the inevitable result of an entitlement program that promises more than it can ever deliver. But try telling that to liberals like Pelosi.

The underlying approach to progressive "great experiments" like Social Security and every other massive scheme entailing redistribution of wealth is this: spot a problem, convince people they can't solve it without you, and promise them too-good-to-be- true returns on their trusting hand-over of higher shares of their incomes and autonomy. Like women on the receiving end of some Don Juan's charm, we buy it time and again, to our eventual disappointment and detriment. Why? We're enticed by the seductive attention, the link to power unfathomable to most of us as individuals, and the promise of being cared for without the personal risk we'd face if we were left to fend for ourselves with "only" our families and communities for support. We need a hero, and liberalism has dressed up government to meet that need -- a power ready, willing, and able to rescue us from any and all of life's discomforts. When it fails, we rarely blame the hero. So we'll try again and again to "save Social Security" rather than admit it's failed and challenge ourselves to retain some of our money we've thrown into it and create safety nets of our own design.

Bill Clinton as a politician embodied this aspect of liberalism. He sincerely believed in government's ability and responsibility to help us. His personal charm and optimism seduced us into giving him the chance to prove that government can rescue us from the challenges of life: expensive health care, costly college educations, monthly bills that outstrip menial labor wages. What gets lost in those promises is the vision of what we could accomplish if we kept our hands on our own paychecks, made our own investments, teamed up with each other in our own ways to tackle those challenges. You can't blame Bill Clinton when the results fall short of the promises. In search of a hero, enough of us are willing, over and over, to turn our lives over to the care of government.

As a man, Bill Clinton used the personalized version of this approach to seduce a young woman and leave her in the dust. You can't entirely blame Bill Clinton for the disappointment and despair Monica Lewinsky experienced when the results of their affair fell short of the promises. In search of a hero, she was willing to turn herself over to the care of a femivore who ensnared her -- and the rest of the republic -- in a painful web of deceit and denials. He apologized to us, but never to her. He'd like you to remember his affair with Monica Lewinsky as just a mistake made by a mortal man. He'd like you to forget that his behavior painted him as a femivore who preyed on a vulnerable young woman whom he seduced into participating in her own entrapment.
Site Admin
Posts: 32020
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Their Lives: The Women Targeted By the Clinton Machine

Postby admin » Sat Jun 11, 2016 5:13 am


UP TO THIS POINT, I have carefully avoided using the word "victim" to describe any of Clinton's women. I made that conscious effort in tribute to the maxim that overuse of a word dilutes its meaning. As comedian Ellen DeGeneres once put it, when everything is "the worst thing" then people run around saying "Oh, paper cuts -- they're the worst thing," as if a paper cut is a "worst thing" in the same way as the death of a loved one is the "worst thing." While Gracen, Perdue, Flowers, Jones, Willey, and Lewinsky suffered undeserved mistreatment at Clinton's hands, none of those women found themselves victimized by Clinton in the most extreme, brutal sense of the word. Four of those women engaged in consensual affairs; the other two suffered the humiliation of unwanted sexual advances, including unwanted touching, but neither suffered forced sexual intercourse -- rape.

In this final profile, the "V" word appears at last, and I hope that by reserving it for Juanita Broaddrick, its meaning will remain robust, for there is no more appropriate place for it than in her story.


In March 1976,Bill Clinton took a leave of absence from his professorship at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville law school to run for Arkansas state attorney general. Calling the post "the principal protector of the people," [1] Clinton faced off in the Democratic primary against the secretary of state and the deputy attorney general. Rebounding from his November 1974 loss in his first political race (popular Republican incumbent congressman John Paul Hammerschmidt narrowly beat him), Clinton poured more energy and networking zeal into his attorney general campaign than the other two primary candidates combined. It paid off. He garnered more than 50 percent of the primary vote, thereby avoiding a run-off, and faced no Republican challenge in the general election, leaving him free to campaign around Arkansas for Jimmy Carter until he began his career as a public servant in November 1976, at age thirty.

Already, supporters knew that Clinton was their "governor-in- waiting," and sure enough, by 1977he began contemplating his bid for the chief executive spot. [2] His only question was whether he should skip this step and go directly to the U.S. Senate. His first campaign call was to Dick Morris, to help him decide whether to run for governor or senator. Once he'd decided on the governorship, he spent the spring of 1978 running two campaigns. Publicly, he had his own primary election to deal with, though he was far and away the strongest Democratic candidate. Privately, he spent hours plotting with Dick Morris to improve the then-governor's chances of beating his Democratic rival in the U.S. Senate race -- in hopes of neutralizing that rival's status as Clinton's main competition as rising Democratic star in Arkansas politics. [3] In the general election that fall, Clinton won with 63 percent of the vote to become governor at age thirty-two.  [4]

In 1978,thirty-five year old Juanita Hickey worked as a registered nurse. She was married to her first husband, Gary Hickey, but having an affair with her future second husband, David Broaddrick. She had started her own nursing home in Van Buren, Arkansas, a successful endeavor that eventually grew into two residential facilities -- one for the elderly, and one for severely handicapped children. The young, charismatic Clinton was in the midst of his gubernatorial race and had made a campaign stop at her nursing home that spring. [5] While glad-handing there, Clinton told her to be sure to stop by campaign headquarters if she was ever in Little Rock. [6] She was so impressed with him that for the first time in her life she volunteered to help a political campaign, agreeing to hand out bumper stickers and signs. [7] She thought he had "bright ideas" [8] for the state and felt eager to pay a visit to his Little Rock headquarters, excited about picking up T-shirts and buttons to hand out. [9]

Not long after that, she attended a seminar of the American College of Nursing Home Administrators [10] at the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock. She stayed in a hotel room with her friend, Norma Kelsey. After they checked in to their room, Broaddrick called Clinton campaign headquarters and was told to call Clinton at his apartment. [11] She did, and asked Clinton if he was going to be at his headquarters that day. He said no, but suggested they meet for coffee in the hotel coffee shop. A bit later the same morning, Clinton called her and asked if they could meet in her hotel room because there were reporters crawling around the coffee shop. She agreed.

She felt "a little bit uneasy" meeting him in her hotel room, but felt a "real friendship toward this man" and didn't feel any "danger" in him coming to her room. When Clinton arrived she had coffee ready on a little table under a window overlooking a river. Then "he came around me and sort of put his arm over my shoulder to point to this little building and he said he was real interested if he became governor to restore that little building and then all of a sudden, he turned me around and started kissing me. And that was a real shock." Broaddrick pushed him away and said, "No, please don't do that" and told Clinton she was married. But he tried to kiss her again. This time he bit her upper lip. She tried to pull away from him but he forced her onto the bed. "And I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him 'No,' that I didn't want this to happen but he wouldn't listen to me." But he "was such a different person at that moment, he was just a vicious awful person." At some point she stopped resisting. She explained, "It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to 'Please stop.' And that's when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip."

Clinton didn't linger long afterward. "When everything was over with, he got up and straightened himself, and I was crying at the moment and he walks to the door, and calmly puts on his sunglasses. And before he goes out the door he says 'You better get some ice on that.' And he turned and went out the door." The whole encounter lasted less than thirty minutes, but it changed Juanita Broaddrick's life forever.

When questioned by an interviewer, "Is there any way at all that Bill Clinton could have thought that this was consensual?" Juanita Broaddrick answered, "No. Not with what I told him, and with how I tried to push him away. It was not consensual." The interviewer, NBC's Lisa Myers, pressed for specificity. "You're saying that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted you, that he raped you?" Broaddrick answered, "Yes."

Broaddrick's friend Norma said that when she left their shared hotel room that morning, Broaddrick had told her that she planned to meet with Clinton. When Norma called around lunchtime, however, Broaddrick sounded so upset that Norma returned to the room to find Broaddrick's lip and mouth badly swollen and her pantyhose ripped off. Broaddrick told Norma that Clinton had sexually assaulted her.

Broaddrick was too upset to stay for the nursing home meeting, so she and Norma drove the two hours back to Van Buren immediately, stopping for more ice to apply to Broaddrick's swollen mouth. [12] On the drive back, Norma says, Broaddrick was in shock, and very upset, blaming herself for letting Clinton into her room. [13] "But who, for heaven's sake, would have imagined anything like this?" Broaddrick said years later. "This was the attorney general -- and it just never entered my mind." [14] In her NBC interview, Broaddrick said she didn't tell her then-husband, Gary Hickey, who says now that he doesn't remember her lip being swollen (she says she explained that to him as an accident). Broaddrick did tell her now-husband, David Broaddrick, soon after she returned home, that she had been assaulted by Clinton. David Broaddrick recalls that her lip was "black" and "mentally she was in bad shape." Broaddrick told three other friends soon after the attack, all of whom vouch for her story.

About three weeks after the rape, Broaddrick told Lisa Myers, and her first husband attended a Clinton fundraiser together. She still "felt in denial" and "very guilty" and at that time still felt like she should "just shut up and accept [her] punishment" for letting Clinton into her room, since that must have given him "the wrong idea" about what she had wanted to happen. After that, Clinton called her half a dozen times at her nursing home. Once he got through to her and asked when she was coming to Little Rock again. She just said, "I'm not," and left it at that.

In 1979, Broaddrick accepted a non-paying position on a state advisory board relating to nursing homes -- a position to which Governor Clinton appointed her. For over a decade she dealt with the governor's office on occasion but not Clinton personally, except for a 1984 letter Clinton sent her after her nursing home was named one of the best in the state. At the bottom is a handwritten note, "I admire you very much." She interpreted it as a "thank you" for her silence. [15]

In 1991 she attended another nursing home meeting in Little Rock, with two friends. In person, Bill Clinton called her out of the meeting; one friend confirms seeing the pair talking. Immediately, Broaddrick says, Clinton "began this profuse apology," saying to her, "Juanita, I'm so sorry for what I did. I'm not the man that I used to be, can you ever forgive me? What can I do to make this up to you?" Feeling "absolute shock," she told him to go to hell and walked away. "In that moment," Broaddrick tells me, "I let go of my guilt and put it where it should have been all those years: on him." She continues, "It was a relief not to blame myself anymore." When she went to lunch with two of her friends who were also nurses just after the freak encounter with Clinton, the three women "actually began to discuss the possibilities that Bill Clinton might be remorseful." However, "that faded as soon as he announced his candidacy for President about three weeks later." Broaddrick and her friends were all at work when the news broke, "and we just looked at each other and shook our heads in disgust."

As early as the 1992 presidential race, Juanita Broaddrick's story entered the realm of rumors that swirled around Bill Clinton. Though her own account didn't appear in the news until one week after the Senate acquitted President Clinton in February 1999, her name had been circulating among the media, Clinton's political opponents, and later, Paula Jones's legal team. Broaddrick's "phone rang incessantly with requests for interviews, all of them refused" until January 1999. [16]

In November 1997, investigators for Paula Jones confronted Juanita Broaddrick -- and tape recorded the encounter -- but she slammed the door in their faces saying she didn't want to relive the "horrible thing" that had happened. [17] When Jones's attorneys subpoenaed Broaddrick, she signed an affidavit saying she'd never experienced unwanted sexual advances from Bill Clinton. Paula Jones's lawyers used Broaddrick's story, disguised as "Jane Doe #5" in a court filing based largely on a 1992 letter to Broaddrick from a friend of hers, Philip Yoakum. In that letter, Mr. Yoakum wrote that he was "particularly distraught when you told me of your brutal rape by Bill Clinton, how he bit your lip until you gave into his forcing sex upon you." [18] When this letter and the Jones court filing hit the news in March 1998, Mr. Yoakum told reporters he'd tried to get Broaddrick to go public during the 1992 campaign, but she'd said to him, "Who would believe me, little old Juanita from Van Buren?" [19]

Some people would. Reporting in March 1998 on the Yoakum letter, NBC's Lisa Myers called Broaddrick's story "potentially the most explosive allegation out there." [20] Myers pointed out that "Juanita Broaddrick has never tried to sell any story. She has never gone after the president. She is a nurse who built a nursing home business. She is a respected member of her community in a little town in Arkansas." [21] Through lawyers, the White House called Broaddrick's story (as represented in the Paula Jones court papers) "outrageous" and smugly pointed journalists toward Broaddrick's affidavit denying it. [22]

Ken Starr provided the impetus forcing Juanita Broaddrick's story into public view when he subpoenaed Paula Jones's lawyers for records relating to Broaddrick and three other specific women (in addition to Kathleen Willey and Monica Lewinsky) in March 1998. [23] In April 1998 Broaddrick admitted to the OIC that she'd lied in her affidavit, but Starr didn't pursue her story because she insisted she'd never been threatened or bribed into silence - hence there was no obstruction of justice angle for Starr to use in his investigation. [24] To the public eye, Juanita Broaddrick's story remained a mere footnote to the Paula Jones lawsuit and the Monica Lewinsky scandal engulfing the Clinton administration throughout 1998. She spoke with The Washington Post in April 1998 but insisted on staying off the record.

Even though she'd signed the affidavit and had consistently refused to discuss her story on the record, "Jane Doe #5" appeared in materials turned over to Congress during impeachment hearings and reportedly influenced several wavering Republicans to vote in favor of impeachment, [25] although House of Representatives prosecutors declined to include her story in their case against Clinton at the Senate trial. [26]

Rumors about her story wouldn't disappear. Some of them offended Broaddrick, and one in particular pushed her over the edge into public disclosure: on New Year's Eve 1998 a friend handed her a tabloid story stating that Clinton had bribed David Broaddrick to suppress his wife's account. [27] By January 1999, NBC correspondent Lisa Myers had been trying to persuade Broaddrick to tell her story publicly for months. Kathleen Willey tells me, "Lisa Myers called me and asked me if I would talk with Juanita." Willey talked with Broaddrick "many times ... I told her what I went through" going public with her story. "Juanita would tell me, 'I'm just so afraid that I'm finally getting this off my chest and then people won't believe me,''' Willey tells me sadly. "She kept saying, 'I don't want it to be for naught.'"

After everything Willey had been through herself, she didn't feel like she could offer Broaddrick much comfort. "I had to tell her there are no guarantees; look who you're dealing with," Willey says, before adding quietly, "All of us involved in this Clinton thing, we really have not fared well." Willey stopped short of giving Broaddrick any specific advice. "I wouldn't tell her what to do," she says.

Broaddrick was in her mid-fifties in January 1999when she finally relented and taped an interview with NBC. NBC had the scoop, but held off airing the interview for a month, citing the need for further investigation into the details of Broaddrick's account.28The delay frustrated Broaddrick, who said NBC had been investigating for nearly a year already, even combing through" old papers about the case we settled with two employees fired for theft twenty years ago." [29] During the delay, NBC interviewer Lisa Myers told Broaddrick, "The good news is you're credible. The bad news is that you're very credible." [30] The story looked explosive, and NBC wanted to make sure it was "rock solid" before airing it. [31]

Broaddrick wound up giving The Wall Street Journal's Dorothy Rabinowitz a heart-to-heart chat, which the WSJ published on February 19, 1999, [32] a week after the Senate acquitted President Clinton. NBC aired its interview with Broaddrick on Dateline on February 24, 1999. [33] WSJ editorial writer Dorothy Rabinowitz described Broaddrick as "a woman of accomplishment, prosperous, successful in her field, serious; a woman seeking no profit, no book, no lawsuit." Ms. Rabinowitz continued:

[She is a] woman of a kind people like and warm to. To meet Juanita Broaddrick at her house in Van Buren is to encounter a woman of sunny disposition .... She sits talking in the peaceful house on a hilltop overlooking the Broaddricks' forty acres, where thirty cows, five horses and a mule roam .....It's a good life all right. [34]

By the time it finally aired its interview with Juanita Broaddrick, NBC had done the thing properly. Lisa Myers reported that NBC had talked to four friends who corroborated Broaddrick's story, and had even tracked down a detail that would be often used to challenge it: Broaddrick could not remember the month or date of the rape. Springtime of 1978was as close as she could recall, though she recalls with clarity many other details, like what she was wearing, the hotel room furnishings, the view from the window. NBC checked all of Juanita Broaddrick's personal and business records, public records, nursing home records, and convention schedules, and learned that there was a nursing home meeting at the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock on April 25, 1978. [35] State records even show that Broaddrick received credit for a seminar that day. The White House refused to answer NBC's requests for information, and NBC could find no evidence about Clinton's whereabouts that day which contradicted Willey's claims; he had no "public appearances on the morning in question," and newspaper articles "suggest he was in Little Rock that day." [36]

Other details checked out, too. The "little building" visible from the hotel room window that Broaddrick says Clinton pointed to was the Pulaski County jail. Though it was tom down later, in April 1978 it was visible from river-facing rooms in the Camelot Hotel. [37] Local law enforcement officials told NBC that Broaddrick was a solid citizen with no criminal record, and that they took her allegations very seriously; of course, there was nothing that law enforcement could do, since the statute of limitations for the crime of rape had run out more than a decade earlier.

Why did she refuse to report it when it occurred, or come forward when Clinton ran for president? "[Given the] mentality of the '70s," she said, "There I was, I was married, I was also in a relationship with another man, and ... I was there alone in a hotel room with the attorney general and I didn't think anyone would possibly believe me." [38] As for corning forward during the 1992 campaign, she and her second husband, David Broaddrick, talked about it in 1992, but "[it] brought up a lot of hurt, and a lot of things that I'd buried years ago. And then we just decided it wouldn't be in our interest to do it. Sowe decided not to." [39] Lisa Myers asked, "Did you receive any payoff to stay silent," to which Broaddrick responded, "Oh goodness, no. I mean how could anyone be bribed or paid-off for, for something that, to not say anything about something that horrible?" No one ever threatened her, either; staying silent for so many years was strictly her choice. Why did she sign a false affidavit? "1 didn't want to be forced to testify about one of the most horrific events in my life," she told Lisa Myers. "I didn't want to go through it again." But signing the affidavit hadn't called off the hounds and there she was, reliving it all over again on national TV.

When Kathleen Willey finally carne forward with her story of unwanted sexual advances in March 1998,Broaddrick told Myers that she struggled again over whether to tell her side of things. "1 would get up in the morning and I would think: it's the thing to do. Then by nighttime I would think that could bring no good whatsoever to my life. And I'm sorry for these women. I'm sorry for what they went through, but I just wasn't brave enough to do it. There's nothing else to say." She talked to Ken Starr in April 1998 only because he granted her immunity and she was afraid of lying to federal prosecutors. By the time she bared her soul in public in January 1999, she "just couldn't hold it in any longer." Although she had "buried this a long time ago," she now felt compelled to "clear up all these stories" floating around about her. Time had not healed all her wounds, however. When asked how she felt about Bill Clinton, she replied, "I couldn't say it on the air. My hatred for him is overwhelming."

As difficult as it was for Broaddrick to come forward, she expresses sympathy for the trouble her Dateline interview caused Lisa Myers. "I feel that Lisa suffered during this time," Broaddrick confides to me. While NBC postponed the airing of the Dateline interview, some people created buttons that read "Free Lisa Myers" that were worn by Brit Hume and others on Fox News Network. Despite Myers's painstaking research and reporting, airing Broaddrick's story still carried a professional and political price. "Lisa and I remain good friends," Broaddrick tells me. Clearly, Lisa Myers remains one of the few journalists with the courage to stand by Broaddrick through this ordeal, and Broaddrick must deeply appreciate her professional integrity and personal support.

Broaddrick is also tremendously proud of her son, attorney Kevin Hickey, who appeared on Larry King Live in March 1999 defending his mother against guests Dee Dee Myers and David Gergen, former Clinton advisors. [40] Kevin was only nine years old when the rape happened, and his mother didn't burden him with her ordeal until rumors began surfacing during the 1992 campaign. Then, she sat down with Kevin and told him what Bill Clinton had done to her. He was shocked, and angry at then-candidate Clinton. "I couldn't believe what was happening," Kevin told Larry King. "But I could tell, just by the look in her face, that this was just a terrible, terrible experience." When Larry King asked Kevin what his feelings were toward Clinton, Kevin replied, "Disgust. The guy has got into a high office -- a lot of people think he's a very good politician and that may be true, but I think he leaves a lot to be desired as a person and that's pretty much my feelings of him." Dee Dee Myers and David Gergen were left fumbling for words, admitting that they found Kevin and his mother quite believable. Gergen said that Kevin's interview gave him pause because "what mother would tell her son that she had been raped if it hadn't happened?" Broaddrick says of her son's interview, "He was awesome .... Dee Dee Myers and David Gergen were speechless after Kevin's interview."

After Broaddrick' s interview with the WSJ, the White House issued its first direct statement mentioning Juanita Broaddrick by name. "Any allegation that the president assaulted Ms. Broaddrick more than twenty years ago is absolutely false," read a statement from the president's personal attorney, David E. Kendall. [41] That was it. No attempt to argue that Clinton wasn't even in Little Rock on the day in question, or that he had never been alone with her, or even that they hadn't had sexual relations. The denial was immediately parsed by some in the press and public wary of Clinton's overly-technical, legalistic use of the English language. Broaddrick wasn't known as "Ms. Broaddrick" in 1978, some noted-at that time she was "Mrs. Hickey." [42] She alleged rape, not "assault." [43] The denial even seemed to leave intact a possible loophole -- Clinton could retort that consensual sex had occurred, just not rape. Clinton never addressed the charges; when questioned he answered, "Well, my counsel has made a statement about the .. .issue and I have nothing to add to it." [44]

An initial smattering of coverage followed the February 20 Wall Street Journal interview, but the story faded quickly. On February 23, 1999, journalist Richard Cohen wrote of the Clintons:

None of the rules of political gravity apply to them. They just float above everything.

Take the rape charge. It is that -- get it? I feel I have to emphasize it: The president of the United States is accused of raping a woman back when he was attorney general of Arkansas. An account of this alleged rape ran on Page 1 of The Washington Post. Get it? Page One! The Washington Post! Do you want to know what happened next? Nothing. [45]

A second wave of commentary and coverage washed up after NBC aired its interview on February 24, 1999. Much of it focused on the perceived weaknesses in Juanita Broaddrick's account -- particularly, that she could not recall the month or date of the rape, and that she attended a Clinton fund raiser just weeks after it happened. [46] Coverage focused on her story's import to the media industry more than on the impact of her story as such. The Chicago Tribune wrapped up its article with a tone weary with scandal fatigue: "The Broaddrick allegation -- a devastatingly serious but old and unproven charge against the president of the United States -- presented every newsroom in the country with a difficult decision." [47] Columnist Mary McGrory wrote that Broaddrick's allegations were treated more as a "press mystery" [48] than as a bombshell. Michael Kelly spotted the problem: no one cares. Clinton's lawyer, Kelly observed, declared the allegation "absolutely false." But the lawyer couldn't know for certain the charge was false. "At best, he can know that Clinton says the accusation is false," Kelly wrote. "And what is that worth?" Kelly concluded, "But [Clinton's lawyer] of course doesn't really care whether Broaddrick's story is true or not. He doesn't really care whether the president is a rapist or not. He doesn't really care, because he figures you don't really care either -- at least, not enough to do anything about it." [49]

Richard Cohen, a columnist for The Washington Post since 1976 who is no friend of conservatives (in a column after President Reagan's death Cohen refused to give Reagan credit for ending the Cold War, saying flippantly that the Soviet empire "would have collapsed sooner or later" [50])remained troubled by Juanita Broaddrick's story. "Is it possible the president's a rapist? Am I supposed not to care?" Cohen wondered. "Who is this guy?" Cohen wrote, and answered himself: "At one time, I thought I knew. He was a somewhat left of center southern governor -- progressive, a policy wonk, a product of the antiwar movement, and, of course, a womanizer. This much I knew, and none of it, including the last, bothered me much." [51] But Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky were not what Cohen expected from Clinton. Now, with Juanita Broaddrick, "A woman has cried rape. She sounds credible .... The White House denies the charge, but so what? I would expect nothing less. Anyway, we're not talking George Washington here. With Clinton, if there's a cherry tree down, we know who did it." [52] You can almost see him shaking his head in dismay as he closed by repeating, "Who is this guy?"

But Bill Clinton's constellation of previous denials-turned-admissions had at least somewhat caught up with him. Donna Shalala, Clinton's Secretary of Health and Human Services, had firmly and publicly expressed complete belief in Clinton's denial of the Monica Lewinsky affair in 1998. [53]A year later, when asked whether she believed Juanita Broaddrick, Ms. Shalala would only say that she took the charges seriously, hadn't reached a conclusion about whether she believed Broaddrick, but didn't need to decide that in order to be "a patriot and a professional" and do her job in the Clinton Administration. [54] A senior White House official, speaking only on condition of anonymity, said: "Bill Clinton has got a problem. If he weren't president he would be in counseling .... But I don't think because he's got a sickness, that corrupts everything about him .... He is a great president." [55] A sickness? Perhaps, but sexual addiction is just one part of the mix of influences shaping Bill Clinton's mistreatment of women.

Former Clinton loyalist George Stephanopoulos, whose book about life in the Clinton White House, All Too Human, came out less than a month after Broaddrick's charges aired, said it "rips my stomach" to think of being in the White House and trying to duck her story. [56] He thought Clinton's lawyer's denial was worded to give cover to the idea that there might have been a consensual sexual encounter. The man he knew and worked for from 1991 until 1996, he said, wasn't capable of such an assault, but "I did not know Bill Clinton in 1978." Hardly a ringing endorsement from someone who used to consider Bill a friend as well as a boss.

One newspaper editor wrote, "[W]ho can say Broaddrick's charges are preposterous, outrageous, unthinkable? Who can say with certainty we don't have a rapist in the White House? Indeed, her story is so credible that NBC News -- nobody's rightwing conspirator -- aired it after weeks of double-checking the details. Major networks don't run such stories every day." [57] The editor continued, "Jones, Willey and Broaddrick -- there's something about Bill and sexual assault. He's either the most victimized man in America or our most famous victimizer .... Alas, his own may not have been the only lip Bill Clinton's ever bitten."

The media didn't give Clinton a free pass on the Broaddrick story, but there did exist an overall lack of direction; "where do we go with it from here," summed up the sentiments of many journalists. With no legal, criminal, or impeachment machinery pushing the story along it petered out quickly, with most commentators' final words centered on the sad thought that no one will ever know for sure whether we twice elected a rapist to the highest office in the land. Noting that Newsweek's only coverage of the Broaddrick story had been a pithy remark in its "Conventional Wisdom" item-of-the-week box (she got a sideways arrow for not coming forward sooner but, opined Newsweek, her charges "sound like our guy"), one columnist summed up the reaction to Broaddrick this way: "He raped you, Juanita? Yeah, sounds like our guy. But what's your point?" [58]

Refusing to comment directly on Broaddrick's credibility, The New York Times editorialized that Clinton's "talk to my lawyer" statements were insufficient responses: "There is no legal or constitutional remedy for the [Broaddrick] situation," wrote the Times. "But surely there is a limit to how long Mr. Clinton can speak through his lawyer on these matters ....[I]t would be nice to hear Mr. Clinton himself address the matter and provide his version of what transpired, if in fact the two did meet in a Little Rock hotel room in 1978." [59] Professor Susan Estrich called The New York Times "deeply out of touch with the people of this country" [60] for making such an unreasonable request of Clinton. The Washington Post also disagreed with The New York Times-but for a different reason. Hearing Clinton speak directly to the matter wouldn't help us figure out Broaddrick's story one bit, editorialized the Post: "Mr. Clinton's word in this realm by now has no value. That leaves us with an accusation that cannot be reasonably accepted, nor easily ignored. It is a mark of where Mr. Clinton has brought us as a country that he cannot begin to ameliorate that fact." [61]

On an episode of NBC's Today, Dorothy Rabinowitz, the journalist whose Wall Street Journal interview with Broaddrick brought the story into the mainstream, defended her assessment of Broaddrick' s credibility. She said that Broaddrick's twenty-one year delay may mean the legal system offered no recourse, but history still had a right to know her story in order to evaluate the person of Bill Clinton. [62] .Rabinowitz, who had earned respect among her peers for her investigative reporting about false claims of child sexual abuse in the mid-1990s, added that talking face to face with Juanita Broaddrick is to "find yourself in the presence of someone you suspect is telling something that happened."  [63] The show's other guest for the segment, Alan Dershowitz, dismissed Broaddrick's story as "gossip," though he admitted that Clinton's word wasn't any better than Broaddrick's when it came to matters of sex. [64]

Attacks on Juanita Broaddrick's character were kept to a minimum, but some pundits took their shots. Bill Press, co-host of CNN's Crossfire, wrote for the Los Angeles Times that he didn't believe Juanita Broaddrick for the following reasons: (1) she couldn't remember the date of the rape ("If she was scarred for life, wouldn't she remember the date?"); (2) she was cheating on her first husband at the time so at most Broaddrick and Clinton probably had consensual sex ("If you're cheating on your husband, and then cheat on your boyfriend, do you tell your boyfriend the truth?"); and (3) she attended a Clinton fundraiser and accepted appointment to a government post after the alleged rape ("Why did she still want to support a man who raped her?"). [65]

Former White House special counsel Lanny Davis protested, "Is journalism about reporting facts or not? ... It is not corroborated because her girlfriend saw her with a swollen lip. That doesn't make the charge of rape a fact .... How do we know she didn't lie to all her friends? We know that, voluntarily ... she swore out an affidavit that she now says she lied about." [66] His protest might have been a bit more convincing if we hadn't watched a similar affidavit signed by Monica Lewinsky go up in smoke just six months earlier.

Feminists had trouble discounting Juanita Broaddrick' s allegations. Gloria Allred, an attorney who filed the first formal charges against Senator Bob Packwood for sexual harassment, is a rape survivor herself who never reported the rape to police. [67] Whether or not anything could be done legally about Broaddrick's rape, Ms. Allred insisted that the public has a right to know if the president is a rapist. [68] Denise Snyder, executive director of the D.C. Rape Crisis Center, cautioned people about viewing Juanita Broaddrick's two-decade delay in coming forward as a slight on her credibility. When the assailant has "a lot of power and a high public profile," such delays are common, she said. [69]

Patricia Ireland -- the then-president of NOW who also voiced support for Kathleen Willey -- issued a preemptive statement calling on the White House to treat Broaddrick "fairly, respectfully," and not to "trash this woman," whose allegations must be taken seriously. [70] On Larry King Live Ireland added that even if President Clinton looked America in the eye and denied the rape, there's a "certain credibility gap" to whatever he'd say. [71] She added that she understood why Juanita Broaddrick felt reluctant to come forward for so many years. [72]

Susan Faludi, author of the influential 1992 feminist tome Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, found Broaddrick "credible" but wasn't sure "what Juanita Broaddrick wants done [about her allegations]." [73] So she used Broaddrick to take a swipe at conservatives, for whom "women can be damned" unless "the perpetrator is Clinton." [74] Bycontrast, feminist author Andrea Dworkin stated flatly, "I believe that Clinton is a rapist. I believe the woman -- and if I had doubts about the woman, I trust what I perceive about him." [75] She classified "what he did to Paula Jones" as assault, and from there, she said, "it's a very clear line to rape .... Suddenly, every time you look at this man you have to think about rape. It's harder to sleep, it's hard to work ... because this man is the president. That's obscenity -- right there." [76] She didn't stop with castigating Clinton, either. "Essentially, while what's left of the women's movement shows any support for Clinton, they're destroying the movement itself as any kind of refuge for women who've been sexually assaulted," Dworkin said cogently. [77] Apparently at least one feminist icon truly believes in feminism's motto -- the personal is political -- enough to apply it even to a leader who's good on "women's issues" if that same leader mistreats individual women.

Around this time -- during and just after the impeachment trial -- Clinton's job performance rating remained high, hovering at about 64 percent, [78] However, the percentage of people who believed him to embody the values most Americans try to live up to had plummeted to about 30 percent, and only about 35 percent of the public believed him to be honest and trustworthy. [79] There's nothing schizophrenic about those numbers. A dishonest, untrustworthy man can make official decisions favored even by those who think him dishonest and untrustworthy. Pundit Morton Kondracke argued that nothing should be done about Juanita Broaddrick's story -- legally or politically. But as a "cultural test" people should know as much about President Clinton's "personal" behavior as possible, even if it meant considering the possibility that a sitting president is a "monster" who "sexually assaulted a woman, biting her lip to impose himself on her." [80]

One month after Juanita Broaddrick's charges aired publicly, Bill Clinton faced reporters in his first solo press conference in over nine months. One reporter had the audacity to pose this question: If the first president was remembered for never telling a lie, what would be Clinton's legacy in this respect? [81] "Clinton's face tightened. Then, in an edgy voice, he pleaded for people to look just as hard at the veracity and motives of his critics as they have at his own." [82] In a "box score," Clinton went on, "there will be that one negative," but "then there will be the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times when the record will show that I did not abuse my authority as president, that I was truthful with the American people, and scores and scores of allegations were made against me and widely publicized without any regard to whether they were true or not." [83] He didn't bother explaining which "allegations" were true and which weren't. And he never directly addressed Juanita Broaddrick's charges. Maybe he feared this was finally a he said, she said battle he might lose.

Broaddrick filed a lawsuit against Clinton in the summer of 1999, to obtain documents the White House may have gathered about her, claiming its refusal to accede to her demand for such documents violated the Privacy Act. The case was dismissed in 2001. In the middle of that lawsuit, Broaddrick's nursing home business found itself audited by the IRS for the first time in its thirty years of existence. "I do not believe this was coincidence," Broaddrick declared, "I do not think our number just came Up." [84] For a while Juanita and David Broaddrick returned to their quiet, successful life in rural Arkansas. But, Broaddrick tells me, "My life with David gradually began to deteriorate before and after the interview [on Dateline]." Her husband had been "totally against my coming forward and I think the unwanted publicity into our private lives gradually destroyed our marriage." They divorced in 2004. Juanita still owns one of their two nursing home facilities, and their home and acreage, and David owns the other facility. "We are both very happy now," she says, "but I will always wonder if we would be together and happy had I not come forward."

This is a woman of tremendous strength, whose zest for life and self-confidence shines through her voice as we talk. She loves to play tennis and is on two teams. She is financially comfortable and has even begun to date again. "Man, that is a trip at sixty-two," she laughs. She baby-sits her "new, precious grandson" and has a "very happy life." She remains an outspoken critic of former President Clinton, but tells me, "Life goes on, and it is a great life."


The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, a division of the Center for Disease Control, reports that about 40 percent of rape victims described their attacker as a friend or acquaintance, and that fewer than half of all rapes are reported to authorities. [85] Juanita Broaddrick fits within those statistics. Whatever the circumstances of the rape, most victims experience some level of psychological trauma. Juanita Broaddrick didn't walk us step by step through the long days and nights she must have spent processing what happened to her, but the Rape Treatment Center at UCLA Medical Center tells rape victims that common reactions to the psychological trauma of rape include: shock and disbelief; intense emotions of anger, anxiety or depression; unwanted memories, flashbacks, or nightmares; physical symptoms like sleeplessness, headaches, or stomach pains, fear for personal safety even in situations that didn't previously cause any concern; and feelings of guilt and shame. [86] Acquiring information about all the "normal" reactions does little, though, to actually help a woman feel better about experiencing the brutal act of rape.

I'd rather disclose my limitations in looking at Juanita Broaddrick's story than wonder quietly to myself if I managed to pull off neutrality in writing about her experience. These pages aren't intended for my own life story, but I doubt my ability to write about Juanita Broaddrick without imposing some of my own experience onto my interpretation of hers.

Many years ago I was sexually assaulted ... raped -- the word still sticks uncomfortably in my throat. I don't think I've said it out loud for years, and I'm even grateful to be writing this instead of speaking it. Reading the transcript of Broaddrick's interview with Dateline I noticed immediately that Broaddrick got through her narrative of her encounter with Clinton without saying the word "rape." She answered "yes" when Lisa Myers asked if Clinton raped her, but she never did utter the word herself. A Clinton defender used that omission to insinuate that maybe Broaddrick wasn't really alleging rape; [87] I tend to see it as understandable reluctance to "own" rape as a personal experience.

In my own case, the offender was a person I'd known since childhood. I told no one for months, and when I eventually confided in a few close friends it was through a cloud of alcohol rather than deliberate disclosure. It took a long time working with dear friends and a wonderful therapist before I could accept the word "rape" for what had happened to me. It took many more months to shed the guilt I felt in believing I had caused it to happen, and for the recurring nightmares to stop. It took even longer to let go of the anger that eventually surfaced in my consciousness. In fact, by the time I reached the height of my anger phase, the statute of limitations had passed, precluding me from attempting revenge or remedy through civil or criminal action.

Even if the statistic floated by feminists that one in four women suffers rape overestimates the actual number, even one is too many. The trite phrase "Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" truly means something when it comes to experiencing rape, because for a while you feel as if a part of you has died, and recovering means finding a new, stronger life and identity.

I have my own theories now about what might have made my attacker treat me the way he did, and my best guesses explain a lot about why I was convinced for a long time that I'd brought it on myself. The guilt was soul-crushing. Broaddrick says her attacker left the scene with the words "You'd better get some ice on that." Mine left with the words, "Love you." You don't forget those words in a moment like that, and no matter what they are, they tend to leave you feeling somehow degraded, dirty, and disposable.

Broaddrick talked about not corning forward because she didn't think anyone would believe her, and because she felt shame and fear about being perceived dishonorably due to the affair she was having at the time with the man who would later become her second husband. My reasons -- instincts, more like -- for keeping silent were a bit different, but also centered on shame and fear. I don't think I worried that family or friends wouldn't believe me, but I did feel entirely responsible and hated the thought of anyone I cared about thinking of me in some way tainted by involvement in something so ugly. Nor was I eager to invite conversations or questions about my sex life. The thought of going to the police was humiliating, and anyway, it was my word against his. I had no proof.

Broaddrick says she and her now-husband talked about whether she should come forward while her rapist was running for president. They decided it was better for her not to. On balance, she thought, it could bring nothing good to her life. Though I've never heard rumors of the person who raped me aspiring to be president of the United States, I have no desire now to hold him accountable in a public way. I still feel like I knew this person very well, and I long ago trekked the road of forgiveness and arrived with a sense of confidence that this person would never repeat that behavior. If I had been raped by a more-or-less stranger, maybe I wouldn't have that kind of confidence and would feel a sense of responsibility to other actual or potential victims to step forward and make his past behavior public knowledge.

I'd known this person for such a long time that we had many mutual acquaintances, and for quite a while I heard his name and saw his face much too often. Juanita Broaddrick had to live in a country where her rapist's face, voice, and image surrounded her all through the '90s. That kind of constant reminder might have pushed me over the edge to full disclosure, too.

She admits to lying under oath, denying the rape in an affidavit for the Paula Jones case. I wasn't under oath, but I once lied to protect the person who raped me -- to a federal investigator doing a background check on this person for a job.

Broaddrick says her rapist once confronted her in person and apologized for what he'd done. She told him to go to hell. The person who raped me apologized too, many months later, over the phone. I just cried.

Most mentions of her experience also included the criticism that she can't remember the month of the alleged rape. Neither can I. You'd think a person would remember the exact hour, day, month, and year of something like that. You'd think. Except that's just it; you're not navigating through the experience with your head. You go through it with your body and your heart and soul. So I can say with certainty precisely where I was, the colors in the room, the tone of his voice, what I felt in each moment. But I cannot for the life of me say with certainty whether it happened in October, November, or December. I guess that's just me. Well, and Juanita Broaddrick.

It's just her word against his. No possibility of legal action for the rape itself, so no possibility of any evidence other than her story. None of us were present that fateful day, and I realize that some people falsely accuse others of crimes, but I also recognize sparks of authenticity in Broaddrick's story.

No one wants to think of Bill Clinton as a monster. But the possibility or plausibility of Juanita Broaddrick's story doesn't force a conclusion as black and white as that. Rape is always a horrific crime, but not all rapists are horrific people. Women consistently describe Clinton as charming, boyish, good-natured, fun-loving. That can be a genuine side of a person coexisting with a darker side of the same person. Years after the incident, Clinton took Broaddrick' s hands in his and tried to apologize for what he'd done, assuring her he was now a different person. Hopefully that's true. I don't believe the person who assaulted me is a monster. Far from it; I'd known him as a kind, even-tempered, patient man with an easy sense of humor, and before the actual assault I'd never seen a clue of that kind of contempt or rage from him. Believing Juanita Broaddrick doesn't mean painting Bill Clinton as an evil human being who doesn't deserve to draw another breath. Very few people are entirely good or entirely evil. Believing Juanita Broaddrick, or even conceding that she might be telling the truth, for our purposes adds a final dimension to our look at how liberal politics influenced Clinton's behavior.


The core mistreatment aspect of Juanita Broaddrick's experience with Bill Clinton is almost the polar opposite of his mistreatment of women like Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, and Gennifer Flowers. The latter three women didn't suffer mistreatment sexually, but found themselves variously mistreated in the aftermath. Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey experienced unwanted sexual advances, but neither alleged unwanted sex. Juanita Broaddrick isn't the only woman ever rumored to accuse Bill Clinton of rape, but she is the only woman who has confirmed her claims publicly. Clinton didn't go through the trouble of smearing Broaddrick's reputation as he did with other women, but he didn't really have to; with no fear of legal or political repercussions, he ignored her and moved on, and he surely hopes we will ignore her, too. Her story faded quickly from the front pages, though -- in the words of Charles Krauthammer -- it is still "lingering, subterranean." [88] What does it mean that we may have permitted a rapist to run the free world for eight years? Former Clinton political consultant Dick Morris may have had the most incisive one-liner in the wake of Juanita Broaddrick's public allegations: "If you're going to be a sexual predator, be pro-choice." [89]

A credible accusation of rape against any ostensible leader should be devastating, but against a leader held up as a champion for women it should have been shocking. As we've seen, though, not many were shocked by Juanita Broaddrick's story. Sickened, perhaps, and maybe even angrier at Republicans for attacking Clinton than at Clinton himself, but few people found themselves so stunned that they could dismiss the story out of hand. One journalist said bluntly, "The president is accused of rape and nobody is shocked." [90] Of course, the appropriate adjectives were used to report Broaddrick's story: horrific, terrible, monstrous; but after about two weeks her name and story faded into near-oblivion, even though the name and story of her attacker remained one of the most visible in all the world.

Not that equal fame or celebrity is what Juanita Broaddrick wanted for herself. In fact, she did all she could for two decades to avoid reliving or being questioned about her attack. But since she did come forward, I'm on the side of Dorothy Rabinowitz, who intoned that history has the right and responsibility to take her story into account when it evaluates the man who became our forty-second president. In some ways, Juanita Broaddrick is like all other rape victims, but in other ways, the identity of her rapist places her in a category of her own, with unique burdens. Most rape victims don't face the knowledge that their attacker is poised to grace the pages of history books, possibly painted as some kind of hero, for generations to come. Most rape victims don't have to stomach their attacker being heralded as the best thing to happen to women since the right to vote, much less hear about him selling 400,000 copies of his legacy-obsessed memoirs in just one day.

With Juanita Broaddrick's story, we find ourselves back where we started: is it pure hypocrisy, driven solely by personal weakness, that propels a person so devoted to so-called women's issues in the political realm to be such a calloused abuser of women in his individual relations with them? Bill Clinton's victimization of Juanita Broaddrick certainly manifests psychological, emotional, and personal issues on Clinton's part, but it also illustrates a central feature of liberalism that can induce such raw, violent mistreatment of women.

Modern liberalism paradoxically aligns itself with force to bring about goals of peace. This intrinsic paradox dooms liberalism's goals of world peace and global equality from the start. The rhetorical aims of leftism actually comport nicely with the message of Jesus Christ and other religious figures. Love your neighbor, care for the widows and orphans among you, make no distinctions between "Jew nor Gentile, male nor female," turn the other cheek, judge not lest ye be judged, and so forth. Imagine how beautiful our world today could be if we had spent the past two thousand years practicing those lofty principles (regardless of whether every one of us revered Christ as God). As a code of morality, those principles encourage us to treat each other with genuine kindness, respect, and love. We cannot prevent every natural disaster or calamity, but we bear responsibility for creating much of the trauma that fills our modem world by refusing to practice love, tolerance, and kindness.

But Christ spoke to people's hearts; he didn't suggest that his teachings ought to become the law of the land imposed on people by force. In fact, he recognized that such an effort is ultimately futile: you can use force to bully people into changing their acts, but you can't force people to change their innermost desires, intents, thoughts, or feelings. A change in the latter is only possible through an individualized, conscience-driven spiritual process. It cannot be imposed by other people; Christ made this clear when he proclaimed, "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's." Yet the use of force to try to change people's hearts is precisely what political ideologues have attempted to do throughout history, sometimes out of a raw, inhumane desire for power but often out of good intentions to improve society by forcing people to do the right thing.

Many admirable parallels exist between liberalism's central values and those propounded by Jesus Christ. Liberalism's exaltation of equality, fairness, and peace echo St. Paul's exhortation of "faith, hope, and love." The core values espoused by liberalism comprise an ancient set of moral tenets that, whenever they have been practiced, make the world a better place. But here's the harsh reality that makes liberalism a dangerous ideology: politics isn't about morality.

Genuine morality must be voluntary, or it's no longer morality. Forcing you to choose correctly is no moral victory on your part because you had no real choice. And politics is always a discussion about how and when to use force. To pass a law, regulation, tax increase, or program always involves using force or the threat of force to bring it about. If politics is about enforcing morality, the paradox emerges: genuine morality cannot be achieved by force. To liberal ideology, politics is about enforcing values. Therein lies the problem.

The values of leftism fit comfortably within a moral code, but they have no place in a political ideology. Liberalism's morality finds itself inevitably corrupted by association with political force, just as Christ's message has at times found itself corrupted by an unholy alliance between church and state. This is not to say that politics doesn't involve ethics. But there is a crucial distinction between morality and ethics. Every individual person needs a moral code to guide her beliefs and actions, but selection and practice of such a code needs to remain solely the province of her own conscience or else it isn't genuine morality. Every political system needs a code of ethics to guide it, but political ethics differ from personal morality. Personal morality tells us what we should choose; political ethics tell us what we are permitted to choose.

When it comes to political ethics, the rules should be made according to the rights of everyone involved -- and each of us possesses identical rights to own and use our own lives and property. That leaves each of us free to apply our own moral precepts to the problems of life and strive to make the world a better place using every nonviolent means at our disposal. No matter how noble the purpose, advocating the initiation of force against our fellow human beings can only perpetuate a culture of violence, dominance, and control, placing a world based on peace, partnership, and cooperation further out of reach.

In a person psychologically or emotionally predisposed to mistreat women, attachment to liberal ideology can reinforce misogyny because of liberalism's advocacy of political force as an appropriate way to impose values. The political conviction that your ideology permits you to initiate force against citizens in order to mold their behavior can translate into a personal conviction that you can justifiably initiate force against a woman to wrangle submission from her.

It does not require a stretch of the imagination to surmise that Clinton's political convictions instilled in him a belief that he could justifiably initiate force against a woman if she somehow threatened his ability to impose acceptable values on society. Juanita Broaddrick knows in her heart that Bill Clinton found himself capable of using the most egregious display of force possible against a woman. Many who have spoken with Juanita  -- including this author -- believe her. Her credible accusation should leave us all disturbed at the thought that we put a rapist in the White House. Her story should encourage us all to think carefully about the connection between misogyny and liberalism, and whether we really want another Clinton presidency.
Site Admin
Posts: 32020
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Their Lives: The Women Targeted By the Clinton Machine

Postby admin » Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:22 am


THROUGH THE STORIES of seven different women with sadly similar experiences of crossing paths with Bill Clinton, this book has discussed some of the ways liberalism contributes to Clinton-style misogyny. That is not to say that other ideologies can't foster their own special brands of misogynistic behavior. The focus here has been on liberal misogyny because unlike conservatism, liberalism cherishes gender equality as a core value, yet liberalism has produced advocates like Bill Clinton who betray those values in their personal interactions with women.

Generally, the reaction to this apparent hypocrisy split along liberal and conservative lines: the left half-heartedly chastised Clinton's behavior but insisted that his personal misdeeds had nothing to do with his exemplary political values; the right pointed to Clinton's personal immorality as evidence that he didn't have character worthy of a national leader. Both sides missed the causal relationship between Clinton's liberalism and his treatment of women. Ignoring the connection leaves unexplained the reasons for the astonishing discrepancy between Clinton's political championship of women's rights and his disturbing mistreatment of women on a personal level. Exploring the connection might help us rise above arguments over liberal and conservative values long enough to engage in political discourse over whether anyone's moral values deserve enforcement through the political system.

Liberalism's influence on Bill Clinton's sordid mistreatment of women shouldn't be interpreted as a reason to reject liberal values out of hand. Rather, it should encourage a deeper understanding about the connection between politics and personal behavior, and alert us to the dangers inherent in joining moral values with political methods. Even the purest moral values necessarily become corrupted -- with life-damaging consequences to real victims like Juanita Broaddrick -- when force is an acceptable method of attaining those values.

My core objection to liberalism lies not with its values but with its methods. I support gender, racial, and sexual orientation equality in all aspects of life. I support a healthy balance between commerce and protection of the ecosystem. I support nonviolent solutions to global conflict. I support using economic resources to provide material comforts to as many people as possible. What I cannot support is trying to accomplish any of that through the power of political force.

The cause of liberal misogyny is liberalism's acceptance and perpetuation of dominance and control rather than partnership and cooperation. In a fundamental sense, any division among human beings along lines of dominance tends to leave women on the losing end, simply because of the biological fact of men's superior physical strength. If the "two halves of humanity," [1] males and females, are ranked instead of linked, women will land on the lower rung.

Drawing on cultural transformation theory, feminist scholar Riane Eisler posits that there are two fundamental ways to organize society, variously phrased as: ranking or linking; domination or partnership; control or cooperation. In her widely acclaimed book The Chalice and the Blade, Eisler argues that throughout prehistory and history, society has arranged itself mostly along a dominator model, but persistent attempts recur to align it along a partnership model, [2] Eisler views efforts to establish a partnership model as critical for the survival of humanity because a dominator society leads to male dominance over women, violence, and authoritarianism. [3]

Borrowing Eisler's terminology, [4] modern liberalism promotes values that would urge society to rearrange along a partnership model but it promotes methods that perpetuate our alignment based on a dominator model. Even with respect to eliminating gender discrimination, liberalism's fundamental internal contradiction precludes it from achieving what it seeks. Using the state (even when it is a representative democracy like our own) to enforce notions of gender equality will perpetuate violence over peace, domination over partnership, control over cooperation. That ideological flaw will continue to assist liberal misogynists like Bill Clinton in degrading and dominating women on a personal level, even as he promotes so-called women's rights on a political level.

Is there any way to advance liberal values like gender equality while avoiding the paradox of modem liberalism? Yes. It may feel like a slower, less efficient route, but it is possible. Our political system must accept a limited but vital role in human affairs. It must establish some basic ground rules designed to protect and vindicate our rights vis-a-vis each other, leaving us free to work with each other on mutually agreed-upon terms toward whatever goals we choose, including gender equality. That process doesn't guarantee progress because it leaves progress in the hands of millions of individual people, some of whom won't care to work for it. But banning force from the process ensures that the results which emerge are the product of voluntary, cooperative action rather than compelled behavior, giving us each the right and responsibility to develop and practice our own moral values.

For truly moral precepts like gender equality to have a shot at actualization in our society, those of us who cherish that ideal must use every nonviolent method of persuasion at our disposal to reach the hearts and minds of men and women. We must have the courage to resist using the political system as a short cut for imposing on others the moral precept of gender equality. The same holds for all other moral values, whether they are espoused by liberals, conservatives, moderates, libertarians, or anyone else.

So long as the people who hold our political offices insist on utilizing political force to impose their moral values, we will not escape our current political climate: a perennial battle over whose moral values get imposed. The left will continue to use politics to force us to adopt moral values like gender and racial equality and sanctity of the environment, while the right will use the same system to advance an anti-abortion platform and unequal treatment of gays and lesbians. What gets lost in this process is the realization that neither liberals nor conservatives have the right to force their moral values upon the nation, and any attempt to do so negates the existence of genuine morality because it strips us of our ability to choose our morality.


Responsibility for electing leaders who will advance genuine morality by restraining use of the political system falls on each of us as informed citizens. Responsibility for eradicating the disturbing misogyny demonstrated by former President Clinton (and practiced by many men and women less prominent than he) also belongs to each of us. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. The women profiled in this book have done what they can to be part of the solution by calling attention to Clintonian misogyny and encouraging appropriate public response to it. There are others, however, who have chosen to remain silent.

Revisiting the stories of Elizabeth Gracen, Sally Perdue, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky, and Juanita Broaddrick, omits the stories (and rumors) of others who have had similar experiences with Bill Clinton. One such woman (we'll call her "Mary") has never personally given interviews about her experience with Bill Clinton. Her name has been linked to his by other journalists and in the Paula Jones lawsuit, but she refuses to tell her story. One can only surmise that she has learned from watching Elizabeth, Sally, Gennifer, and the others suffer through smear campaigns that it is not advisable to cross swords with the former leader of the free world. Through a close friend, "Mary" declined an interview for this book, choosing instead to remain one of the countless women whose lives have been impacted by romantic involvement with Clinton, outside the glare of public and media scrutiny.

It's hard to blame her for keeping quiet. If she truly loved Clinton and desires personal security and a peaceful existence, staying silent is the best course of action. Her silence, however, and the silence of so many other women, is part of the problem that permits misogyny to linger and damage to be done to the women brave enough to speak out about their experiences with men like Clinton. But we cannot be too critical of "Mary." There is one other woman who could have done far more to stop Bill Clinton's misogynistic behavior, but has instead chosen to join him in attacking his female conquests.


The only politician on the horizon who could mean more to left-wing feminism and politicized "women's rights" than Bill Clinton is his wife. Perceived by most as even more liberal than her husband, Hillary Rodham Clinton has a realistic shot at winning the Democratic Party's nomination in 2008.

The thought of Hillary being nominated as a presidential candidate by a major political party gives me mixed feelings. From a feminist perspective, I want desperately for this particular glass ceiling to be shattered. Sometimes symbolism is valuable, and the symbolism of an American electorate ready and willing to put into the Highest Office in the Land a qualified person who is not a white male will, I believe, stand as a triumphant advance for gender equality in our country. But as Rush Limbaugh says trenchantly, liberals too often champion symbolism over substance.

When it comes to electing our first female president, we can do better than Hillary Clinton. We need to do better than Hillary Clinton, or the symbolism of a woman as president will be marred by electing a woman who has done almost as much to inflict mistreatment on real-life women as her misogynist husband.

By all accounts, Hillary Clinton is not a hapless wife victimized by her husband's philandering. Rather, it appears she long ago accepted his "weakness" and consciously decided to go the distance to protect their political careers. When this required public appearances hand in hand with Bill, she obliged. When it required solo television interviews deflecting attention away from Bill and onto his Republican enemies, she stepped up. Why did she make these choices? Should she have denounced his misdeeds publicly, or perhaps divorced him? It really isn't our place to judge her, her marriage, or her relationship with Bill. But it is our responsibility to pay attention to the choices she's made, particularly since she appears to be angling for our presidential vote in the near future.

When it comes to mistreatment of women, Hillary Clinton's behavior seems to be motivated by fear of losing power and prestige, not by misogyny per se. You'll understand, however, if women like Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick fail to appreciate this fine distinction, because the results on the lives of real-life women are the same. Hillary Clinton's choices and actions severely impacted the women whose stories we've looked at in this book. She always defended her husband publicly against each and every woman who leveled charges against him or disclosed consensual affairs with him. She never gave these women a shred of credibility or expressed anything but contempt for them. That much is, perhaps, excusable. She was married to Bill, after all, and had no personal attachment to any of the women profiled in this book. It is not surprising that she would stand by his side.

Yet a paradox emerges. Hillary Clinton, standing alone, appears to be a solid feminist, committed to gender equality and respect for women's independence and autonomy. But she is married to a man who mistreats women on a regular basis, and that marriage is the cornerstone of her own political success. Thus she faces a conflict of values. On the one hand, her intellectual belief in women's rights; on the other hand, the importance of her own political career. Her choices consistently seem to favor the latter at the expense of the former. Not only will she excuse Bill's behavior, she will lead the smear team in discrediting and ruining women who come forward against him.

If Bill were not in her life, I doubt Hillary Clinton would mistreat her fellow women or act out misogynistically. But her choice to stand by a man who does -- to protect, defend, and even facilitate that behavior -- leaves her vulnerable to charges of misogyny by association. Those of us with no personal connection to the Clintons have had only our voices and votes with which to influence Bill's behavior. But a wife has far more influence than even a voting booth. Hillary could have ameliorated the negative effects of Bill's misogyny by calling attention to it, chastising him privately and publicly, and encouraging all of us to recognize it for what it was and fight it. But Hillary opted not to use her position for that purpose. Instead she chose, at various times, to stay quiet, defend him ardently, trash talk his accusers, and deflect the public's attention from Bill's misogyny onto the motives of Bill's political enemies.

Eight years of President Hillary Rodham Clinton would mean eight more years of losing the fight for genuine gender equality. It would mean eight more years with the leader of this country selling out the interests of real-life, individual women whenever they threaten political damage. It would mean eight more years of symbolic political measures designed to advance women's rights by a First Couple who don't hesitate to mistreat women who get in their way. Ask Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, or Juanita Broaddrick which means more to them: a politician who fights for passage of stricter equal pay laws, or a leader who truly treats women with dignity and respect. With the Clintons, you can't have both. With the Clintons, you get leftist policies that supposedly advance women's rights hand in hand with leaders who have demonstrated intense disrespect for women in their personal lives. Voting for Hillary Clinton as a way of breaking the glass ceiling in American politics shatters the glass in the name of biology, but not in the name of meaningful advancements for women.

Before rushing into another Clinton Administration, I hope we take some time to reflect on what Bill Clinton brought to our culture in terms of women's rights. For all his political support for left-wing feminists' goals, he did nothing to promote a culture of respect for women as individuals. Hillary Clinton's defense of her husband and refusal to acknowledge his behavior leave her in an uncomfortable bind: she's either as misogynistic as he is, or she's content to sell out gender equality for her own political career. Either way she is hardly a woman who deserves to carry the torch lighting the way to America's first female president.

Supporting Hillary, the politician closest to liberal misogyny's brightest star (Bill), is a slap in the face to women like Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick. And if you find their stories half as credible as I do, it's a slap in the face to all women and to the very concept of true gender equality. Just as those women deserved better than Bill Clinton, we deserve better than Hillary. We can let another Clinton expand the use of political force knowing she has little compunction about her husband using personal force on women, or we can insist on leaders who actually walk the walk and demonstrate respect for women in their personal lives. It' s our choice, and it's an important one.
Site Admin
Posts: 32020
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Their Lives: The Women Targeted By the Clinton Machine

Postby admin » Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:25 am

Part 1 of 2


Chapter One

1. David Liep, Dave Liep's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, http://www.uselectionatlas. org (accessed June 11, 2004). In 1920, Harding won with 60.32%; in 1936, FDR won with 60.80%; in 1964, Johnson won with 61.05%; and in 1972, Nixon won with 60.67%.

2. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Living History (New York: Scribner, 2003), 52.

3. David Maraniss, First In His Class: The Biography of Bill Clinton (n.p.: Touchstone, 1996), 460.

4. Ibid, 439-440.

5. Ibid.

6. Melanie C Falco, "Comment: The Road Not Taken: Using the Eighth Amendment to Strike Down Criminal Punishment for Engaging in Consensual Sexual Acts," 82 N.CL. Rev. 723 734, 744 (2004). "Today, adultery remains a crime in 23 states and the District of Columbia." Ibid,744.

7. Bill Clinton, My Life (New York: Random House, 2004), 332.

8. Ibid, 332-333.

9. Ibid, 460-461.

10. Ibid, 372-73.

11. Ibid, 372.

12. Arizona Department of Public Safety's Crime Victim Services Unit Web site, (accessed June 12, 2004).

13. Richard Goldstein, "Bush's War on Women: Stealth Misogyny," The Village Voice, March 5-11, 2003, ... dstein.php (accessed June 12, 2004.)

14. Psychiatric Times, October 1998, Volume XV, Issue 10.

15. Joe Sharkey, "The Nation; 'Enabling' Is Now a Political Disease," The New York Times, September 27, 1998.

16. Counseling Net, Web Information for Psychological Wellness Presented by the Adirondack Institute and Dr. Don Fava, "Sex Addiction," http://www.counselingnet. com/clinton.html (accessed June 11, 2004).

17. Letter from Patricia Ireland to the media about portrayal of NOW. Reprinted in USA Today, April 4, 1998, and The New York Post, April 9, 1998, 98/letter-ed.html (accessed June 11, 2004).

Chapter Two

1. Clinton, My Life, 86.

2. Ibid, 40.

3. Ibid, 46.

4. Ibid, 58. Ellipses in original.

5. Ibid, 73.

6. Ibid, 173.

7. Ibid, 209.

8. Ibid, 821.

9. Suzi Parker, Sex in the South: Unbuckling the Bible Belt (Boston: Justin, Charles & Co., 2003), xiii.

10. Ibid, xii.

11. Ibid, xiii.

12. Rodham Clinton, Living History, 21. On page 27, she writes, "I arrived at Wellesley carrying my father's political beliefs and my mother's dreams and left with the beginnings of my own."

13. Ibid, 56.

14. Ibid.

15. Statement by Senator George McGovern (D.-South Dakota) announcing candidacy for the 1972 Democratic presidential nomination, January 18, 1971, http://www. (accessed June 13, 2004).

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Joe Klein, Primary Colors (New York: Warner Books, 1996).

20. Daniel Frankel, "'I Had Sex With Clinton: Says TV Actress:' EJOnline, March 31, 1998.

21. Jean Sonmor, "Beauty Queen Trapped in 'Zippergate," The Toronto Sun, April 12, 1998, (accessed June 13, 2004).

22. Tom Squitieri, "Kantor had talks in '92 about Clinton, beauty queen," USA Today, April 1, 1998.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid.

25. Helen Kennedy, "Former Miss American Tells N.Y. Daily News She Had Sex With Clinton," Daily News (New York), March 30,1998.

26. Alastair Robertson, "The Playboy Highlander:' Sunday Times (London), November 22, 1998.

27. Carl Limbacher, "Clinton's Next Kathleen Willey?" The Washington Weekly, March 23, 1998, reprint available at .html (accessed June 13, 2004).

28. Helen Kennedy. "Former Miss American tells N.Y. Daily News she had sex with Clinton," Daily News (New York), March 30,1998.

29. "Women in the Clinton era: Abuse, intimidation and smears," Capitol Hill Blue, June 1999, http://www.capitolhillblue.comlJuneI999 ... 061099.htm (accessed June 13, 2004).

30. "Ex-Miss America's Clinton Encounter," Time, March 31, 1998, http://www. (accessed June 13, 2004).

31. Kennedy, "Former Miss American Tells N.Y. Daily News She Had Sex with Clinton."

32. Ibid.

33. "Former Miss America Elizabeth Gracen Admitting She Had a One-Night Stand with Bill Clinton 15 Years Ago," CNBCs Rivera Live, March 31, 1998 (airdate).

34. "Former Miss America Apologizes to First Lady,", April 25, 1998, ALLPOLITICS/I998/04/25/clinton.gracen/(accessed June 13,2004).

35. Ibid.

36. Tracy Connor, "Actress Who Claimed Sex with Bill Says IRS is Hounding Her," The New York Post, January 13, 1999.

37. Ibid.

38. Brian Blomquist, "Juanita Latest Bill Foe to be Audited," The New York Post, May 31, 2000.

39. Steve Dunleavy, "I Was Victim of Clinton Reign of Terror: Actress Harassing Phone Calls After One-Night Stand," The New York Post, September 27, 1998.

40. "I'm not Xena, quoth The Raven," The Toronto Star, August 16, 1998.

41. Jean Sonmor. "Beauty queen trapped in 'Zippergate,'" The Toronto Sun, April 12, 1998,!aprI2~racen.html (accessed June 13, 2004).

42. Claire Bickley, "Gracen Paid Her Bill: On Clinton, Encounter is Ancient History for Star of TV's Highlander: The Raven," The Toronto Sun, September 17, 1998.

43. Jean Sonmor, "A Tangled Tale Among the Jet Set," The Toronto Sun, October 25, 1999.

44. "Jail's Home to 'Raven' Star's Ex:' The New York Post, December 16, 1999.

45. Suzi Parker, "Blood Money:', December 24, 1998, com/news/1998/12/cov _23news.html (accessed February 13, 2005).

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid.

50. Suzi Parker, "Dumping Scandal: The Export of Bad Blood:', February 25, 1999, (accessed February 13, 2005).

51. Will Gibson, "The Arkansas connection:' Alberta Report (Canada), August 16, 1999.

52. Ibid.

53. Alastair Robertson, "The Playboy Highlander:' Sunday Times (London), November 22, 1998.

54. The National Center for Self-Esteem, esteem.shtml (accessed June 14, 2004).

55. Ibid.

56. Available online at (accessed June 14, 2004).

Chapter Three

1. Howard Rosenberg, "It's Raphael's Patriotic Duty to Tell:' Los Angeles Times, July 20, 1992.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Michael Isikoff, "Clinton Team Works to Deflect Allegations on Nominee's Private Life," The Washington Post, July 26, 1992.

7. Karen Ball, "Curtain Call," The Washington Post, January 28, 2001.

8. Isikoff, "Clinton Team Works to Deflect Allegations on Nominee's Private Life."

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. "Former beauty queen says she had an affair with Clinton," Agence France Presse, January 23, 1994.

15. Ibid.

16. Dave Shiflett, "Media Selective With Its Scandals," Rocky Mountain News (Denver), February 21,1994.

17.Tony Gallagher, "Clinton 'Mistress' Demands Inquiry Into His Sex Trysts." Daily Mail (London), January 24, 1994.

18. Ibid.

19. "The Press and Whitewater; Shhhh," The Economist (U.K. edition), February 26, 1994, 62.

20. Geordie Greig, "Fomigate," Sunday Times (London), May 1, 1994.

21. Alex Beam, "Whitewater: What It Boils Down To," The Boston Globe, March 9, 1994.

22. Howard Kurtz. "Brits Keep Tabs on Clinton Sex Life; London Papers Trumpet Tawdry Allegations about the President," The Washington Post, May 3, 1994.

23. Roger Morris, Partners in Power: The Clintons and Their America (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 1996).

24. Discussed at length in a review of Partners in Power by Kevin Phillips, "Prelude to a Presidency," The Washington Post, June 16, 1996.

25. "The Politics of Sex in Clinton's America; U.S. President Has a Long History of Womanizing, Says New Bestseller," The Toronto Sun, July 28, 1996.

26. Paul Sperry, "A Bully in the White House?" Investor's Business Daily, March 11, 1999.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid.

30. Joe Conason and Gene Lyons, The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000).

31. Matt Labash, "Women of the Clinton Scandals; Whatever happened to Paula and Gennifer and Monica and Connie and Sally and Dolly and Susan and [... ]," The Weekly Standard, January 15, 2001.

32. Russell Miller, "Indecent Exposure," The Australian, June 3, 1996.

33. Jim Smith, "Suit: Clinton Tryst Cost Me My Job; Claims Affair Led to Abuse by Quakers," Philadelphia Daily News, October 29, 2004.

34. Ibid.

35. Maraniss, First In His Class, 440.

36. Ibid, 440.

37. Ibid, 441.

38. Ibid.

39. Chuck Baldwin, interview of David Horowitz, June 6, 1997, http://www.chuck (accessed June 17, 2004).

40. For a fascinating account of David Horowitz's life experience and transformation from Communist radical to conservative icon, see David Horowitz, Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey (New York: Touchstone, 1997). The book also tells the story of the far left's walkout on the Democratic Party in 1948 (due to anger at Harry Truman's international efforts to resist Communism), Communists' formulation of the Progressive Party in 1948 and reentry into the Democratic Party through candidate George McGovern in 1972. McGovern's first big political campaign involvement had been as an activist campaigning for Henry Wallace, the Progressive Party candidate against Truman in 1948. McGovern gave Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham their first taste of national politics and remained a hero to Bill Clinton throughout his political life.

41. Chuck Baldwin, interview of David Horowitz.

42. Ibid.

43. Ludwig von Mises, Bureaucracy (Spring Mills, PA: Libertarian Press, 1993), 99. This is a reprint of the famous book originally published by Yale University Press in 1944.

44. John W. Bums and Andrew J. Taylor, "A New Democrat? The Economic Performance of the Clinton Presidency," The Independent Review, Winter 2001, 387-408.

45. Ibid, 403.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid, 404.

49. Maraniss, First In His Class, 381, 376-381.

50. Ibid, 416.

51. Mises, Bureaucracy, 6.

52. Ibid.

Chapter Four

1. Maraniss, First In His Class, 462.

2. David Maraniss, "Image Questions Bewilder Clinton, Longtime Friends; Allies Describe Candidate's 'Constancy:" The Washington Post, April 12, 1992.

3. David Lauter, "Clinton: Healer or Waffler?" Los Angeles Times, January 14, 1992.

4. Ibid.

5. Maraniss, First In His Class, 398-399.

6. Ibid, 400-401.

7. Ibid.

8. Adam Pertrnan, "Bill Clinton: Mediator Who Loves Politics." The Boston Globe, January 10, 1992.

9. Steve Daley, "Clinton Challenging Long-Time Party Ideals," The Chicago Tribune, October 6, 1991.

10. Maraniss, "Image Questions Bewilder Clinton, Longtime Friends; Allies Describe Candidate's 'Constancy.'''

11. Ibid.

12. Lauri Githens, "Buzz," The Buffalo News (New York), November 5, 1992.

13. David Maraniss and Bill McAllister, "For Clinton, the Toughest Character Tests Seemed Past," The Washington Post, February 16, 1992.

14. Official Web site for the city of Brinkley, Arkansas, http://www.brinkleyar. com/index.htm! (accessed June 19, 2004).

15. Ibid.

16. Maraniss and McAllister, "For Clinton, the Toughest Character Tests Seemed Past."

17. Gennifer Flowers, Passion and Betrayal (Del Mar, CA: Emery Dalton Books, 1995), 7.

18. Glynn Wilson, "Gennifer Flowers Readies New Club for First Mardi Gras," The Southerner, 2002, Vol. 3, No. 1.

19. Ibid.

20. Mark Mayfield, "Anger in Arkansas," USA Today, January 31, 1992.

21. Lorraine Adams, "Into the Spotlight," The Washington Post, August 9, 1998.

22. Transcript, Larry King Weekend, August 5, 2001 (airdate), http://cnnstudentnews. (accessed June 20, 2004).

23.Declaration of Gennifer G. Flowers, March 12, 1998,Jones v. Clinton, Civil Action No. LR-C-94-290(ED. Ark.).

24. Ibid.

25. C. Rempel and Douglas Frantz, "Troopers Say Clinton Sought Silence on Personal Affairs; Arkansas: The White House Calls Their Allegations About The President's Private Life 'Ridiculous:" Los Angeles Times, December 21, 1993.

26. Larry King Weekend, August 5, 2001.

27. Flowers, Passion and Betrayal.

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

31. Marilyn Schwartz, "Repentance Not Enough to Sell Flowers," The Dallas Morning News, August 15, 2000.

32. Ibid.

33. Flowers, Passion and Betrayal.

34. Ibid, 77.

35. Ibid.

36. Schwartz, "Repentance Not Enough To Sell Flowers."

37. Ibid.

38. "Clinton: That Other Woman Won't Go Away," Sunday Herald Sun (Australia), July 26, 1992.

39. Martin Kasindorf, "Ex-Boyfriend's Story; Says He, Flowers Broke Up Over Her Affair with Clinton:' Newsday (New York), January 26, 1992.

40. Ibid.

41. Ibid.

42. Dan Balz and Howard Kurtz, "Clinton Calls Tabloid Report Of 12-Year Affair 'Not True:" The Washington Post, January 24, 1992.

43. Timothy Clifford and Shirley E. Perlman, "The Flowers Job; Officials' Changes Gave Her an Advantage:' Newsday (New York), February 6, 1992.

44. Balz and Kurtz, "Clinton Calls Tabloid Report of 12-Year Affair 'Not True.'''

45. Declaration of Gennifer G. Flowers.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid.

48. Clifford and Perlman, "The Flowers Job; Officials' Changes Gave Her an Advantage."

49. Ibid.

50. Ibid.

51. Ibid.

52. Larry King Weekend, August 5, 2001.

53. Ibid.

54. Sperry, "A Bully in the White House?"

55. Timothy Clifford, "Flowers: Clinton's Lying; She insists they were lovers, says tape shows his deceit," Newsweek (New York), January 28, 1992.

56. Ibid.

57. "The Politics of Sex in Clinton's America; Us. President Has a Long History of Womanizing, Says New Bestseller."

58. Maraniss, First In His Class, 457-458.

59. Peter Stothard, "Wild Bill Ambushed By Sex Pack on Campaign Trail," Times (London), January 18, 1992.

60. Ibid.

61. Howard Kurtz, "Clinton Denies Affairs Report Linked To Suit; Democratic Hopeful Ridicules Tabloid:' The Washington Post, January 18, 1992.

62. Myron S. Waldman, "Would-Be Prez Denies Affairs; Clinton Calls Allegations Rehash Of Lawsuit 'Trash:" Newsweek, January 18, 1992.

63. Kurtz, "Clinton Denies Affairs Report Linked To Suit; Democratic Hopeful Ridicules Tabloid."

64. James Adams, "Wild Bill dogged by the affairs of state:' Sunday Times (London), January 19, 1992.

65. Clinton, My Life, 360.

66. Ibid, 385.

67. Basil Talbott and Lynn Sweet, "Dem Opponents Pounce on Clinton in Debate:' Chicago Sun-Times, January 20, 1992.

68. Ibid.

69. Elaine K. Swift and Kenneth Finegold, "Has Clinton Said Enough?; A Yes or No Will Do," The New York Times, January 23,1992.

70. Ibid.

71. Ibid.

72. Larry King Weekend, August 5, 2001.

73. Ibid.

74. Ibid.

75. Adam Nagoumey and David Colton, "Tapes Still Entangle Clinton." USA Today, January 30,1992.

76. "Ex-L.A. Times Reporter Sues Private Eye," The Hollywood Reporter, June 3,2004, http: // .jsp?vnu_ content_id= 100052 3657 (accessed June 21, 2004).

77. Balz and Kurtz, "Clinton Calls Tabloid Report of 12-Year Affair 'Not True.'"

78. Myron S. Waldman and Susan Page, "Clinton's Crisis; Denies woman's account of sex, lies and audiotape," Newsday (New York). January 24, 1992.

79. Ibid.

80. David Lauther and Robert Shogan, "Clinton Denies Tabloid Story of 12-Year Affair," Los Angeles Times, January 24, 1992.

81. Susan Yoachum, "New Flareup Over Singer's Claim of Affair With Clinton," The San Francisco Chronicle, January 24, 1992.

82. Balz and Kurtz, "Clinton Calls Tabloid Report of 12-Year Affair 'Not True.'"

83. Ibid.

84. Yoachum, "New Flareup Over Singer's Claim of Affair With Clinton."

85. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 31.

86. Balz and Kurtz, "Clinton Calls Tabloid Report of 12-Year Affair 'Not True.'"

87. Gwen Ifill, "Clinton Defends His Privacy And Says The Press Intruded," The New York Times, January 27, 1992.

88. Dan Balz, "Clinton Concedes Marital 'Wrongdoing'; In TV Interview, Presidential Hopeful Asks Public to Drop Questions," The Washington Post, January 27, 1992.

89. Ifill, "Clinton Defends His Privacy And Says The Press Intruded."

90. Timothy Clifford, "Flowers: Clinton's Lying; She insists they were lovers, says tape shows his deceit," Newsweek, January 28, 1992.

91. Ibid.

92. Dave Kehr, '''Feed' shows media amid the political frenzy,''' Chicago Sun-Tribune, October 16, 1992. This review of the political documentary observed: "Most disturbingly, there is some uncensored footage of Gennifer Flowers at her New York press conference, in which her bemused reaction to a couple of extremely tasteless questions betrays the presence of a formidible [sic] sense of humor. She seems both fun and smart, qualities that didn't come across in print, and qualities that might explain her attractiveness to a powerful politician."

93. Mary McGrory, "Flowers and Dirt," The Washington Post, January 28, 1992.

94. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 54.

95. David Von Drehle. "Clinton Accuser Defends Story, Plays Tapes," The Washington Post, January 28, 1992.

96. Clinton, My Life, 386.

97. Ibid.

98. Ibid, 387.

99. "The Specter of Scandal," Newsweek, November 1992 (Special Election Issue).

100. Ibid.

101. Waldman and Page, "Clinton's Crisis; Denies Woman's Account Of Sex, Lies And Audiotape."

102. Lauter and Shogan, "Clinton Denies Tabloid Story of 12-Year Affair."

103. Jean Sonmor, "Why Is This Man Smiling? Clinton's Long History Of Sexual Risk-Taking May Be His Undoing," The Toronto Sun, January 25, 1998.

104. Lorraine Adams, "Into the Spotlight," The Washington Post, August 9, 1998.

105. Ibid.

106. Lorraine Adams, "Flowers Feels Vindicated By Report; Similarities Seen In Relationships," The Washington Post, January 23, 1998.

107. David Von Drehle, "Clinton Accuser Defends Story, Plays Tapes; But Flowers Refuses to Discuss Apparent Discrepancies in Account She Sold to Tabloid," The Washington Post, January 28, 1992.

108. Ibid.

109. Paula Span and Laurie Goodstein, "The Bright and Slimy Star; Checking Out the Tabloid That Ran With the Clinton Story," The Washington Post, January 28, 1992.

110. Ibid.

111. Ibid.

112. Mayfield, "Anger in Arkansas."

113. Ibid.

114. Michael Sneed, "Tipsville," Chicago Sun-Times, February 14, 1992.

115. Ibid.

116. Githens, "Buzz."

117. Martin Kasindorf, "Ex-Boyfriend's Story; Says he, Flowers Broke Up Over Her Affair With Clinton," Newsday (New York), January 26, 1992.

118. Gwen Ifill, "The 1992 Campaign: Democrats; Clinton, Cheered by New Polls, Again Assails Bush on Economy," The New York Times, January 29, 1992.

119. Ibid.

120. Ibid.

121. Adam Nagourney and David Colton, "Tapes Still Entangle Clinton," USA Today, January 30,1992.

122. Ibid.

123. Maraniss and McAllister, "For Clinton, The Toughest Character Test Seems Past."

124. Kathy O'Malley and Dorothy Collin, "Flower Girl," Chicago-Tribune, October 30, 1992.

125. Duncan Campbell, "Gennifer Flowers Discovers Life After Bill In The Big Easy," The Guardian (London), February 5, 2002.

126. Jeff Zeleney, "Starting over as a New Orleans Clubowner, Gennifer Flowers Still Has A Knack For Getting Close To People In High Places," Chicago Tribune, January 31, 2002.

127. Rick Bragg, "After the Glare of Scandal, The Soft Glow of Celebrity," The New York Times, January 15, 2002.

128. Adams, "Into the Spotlight."

129. Ibid.

130. "Daily Briefing," The Seattle Times, September 18, 1998.

131. "Clinton's Former Mistress Warns Students Against Affairs," The Examiner (Ireland), February 20, 1999, ... /fhead.htm (accessed March 17, 2005).

132. Larry King Weekend, August 5, 2001.

133. Karen Ball, "Curtain Call," The Washington Post, January 28, 2001.

134. Adams, "Flowers Feels Vindicated By Report; Similarities Seen In Relationships."

135.Adams, "Into the Spotlight."

136. Ibid.

137. Ibid.

138. Larry King Weekend, August 5, 2001.

139. Ibid.

140.Wilson, "Gennifer Flowers Readies New Club for First Mardi Gras."

141. Ibid.

142. Ibid.

143. Ibid.

144. Les Carpenter, "Bright Lights Big Easy," The Seattle Times, January 29, 2002.

145. Zeleney, "Starting over as a New Orleans clubowner, Gennifer; Flowers still has a knack for getting close to people in high places."

146. Ibid.

147. Adams, "Into the Spotlight."

148. Transcript available through Washington Post Web site at http://www.washington /politics/speciallpjones/docs/ciintondep031398.htm#flowers (accessed June 22, 2004).

149. Ibid.

150. "Clinton's Grand Jury Testimony, Part 10," available at http://www.washington /poli tics/special/clinton/stories/bctest092198 _10.htm (accessed July 17, 2004).

151.Susan Faludi, "The Power Laugh," The New York Times, December 20, 1992.

152. Ibid.

153. Ibid.

154. Ibid.

155. Richard Goldstein, "Stealth Misogyny," The Village Voice, March 5-11, 2003.

156. Kim Gandy, National NOW Times, Summer 2002, 2002/viewpoint.html (accessed June 9, 2004).

157. Dina Rabadi, "U.S. drags feet on ratifying UN treaty on women's rights," Chicago Tribune, June 13, 2004.

158. Ibid.

159. Goldstein, "Stealth Misogyny."

160. Arianna Huffington, "Suspension of logic is essential in D.C. follies," Chicago Sun- Times, March 25, 1998.

161. Ibid.

Chapter Five

1. John King, "Clinton's Star Rises, as Does Cleveland's; Dems Recall Reagan Rhetoric," The Associated Press, May 8, 1991.

2. Rodham Clinton, Living History, p. 98.

3. Dan Balz and David S. Broder, "Democrats Argue Over Quota Clause; Meeting to Reshape Party Image Opens," The Washington Post, May 7,1991. (Emphasis added.)

4. Ibid.

5. Clinton, My Life, 366.

6. Maraniss, First In His Class, 456.

7. King, "Clinton's Star Rises, as Does Cleveland's; Dems Recall Reagan Rhetoric." 8. "Clinton's Speech Brings Delegates to Their Feet," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock), May 7, 1991.

9. Ibid.

10. Michael Isikoff, Charles E. Shepard, and Sharon LaFraniere, "Clinton Hires Lawyer as Sexual Harassment Suit Is Threatened; Former State Employee in Arkansas Alleges Improper Advance in 1991," The Washington Post, May 4, 1994.

11. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 41.

12. Ibid, 40.

13. Ibid, 41.

14. Ibid, 78-79.

15. Ibid, 345, n.5.

16. Ibid, 11-12.

17. Ibid, 20.

18. Bill Nichols, "Paula Jones Says She's No Pawn," USA Today, June 17, 1994.

19. John M. Broder and Thomas B. Rosenstiel, "Clinton's Accuser Goes on the Interview Circuit," Los Angeles Times, June 17, 1994.

20. Clinton, My Life, 565.

21. Bill Nichols, "In up-down year, Clinton looked homeward," USA Today, December 22, 1993.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid.

24. "Sexual adventures by Clinton detailed in magazine story," The Washington Times, December 21, 1993. (Emphasis added.)

25. "Two Troopers Say Clinton Used Security Staff to Facilitate Trysts," The Associated Press, December 19, 1993.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid.

28. CNN, News 5:57 p.m. ET, Transcript # 619-1, December 19, 1993.

29. "Sex and the art of the 'statement:" The Washington Times, December 21, 1993.

30. Mara Liasson, "Clinton's Christmas woes," All Things Considered (National Public Radio), December 21, 1993.

31. Mickey Kaus, "Old News," The New Republic, March 7, 1994 (quoting Newsweek correspondent Joe Klein). See also Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 14.

32. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 8.

33. Ibid.

34. Ibid, 9.

35. Kaus, "Old News."

36. Ibid.

37. Lloyd Grove, "It Isn't Easy Being Right; At the Conservative Confab, Out of Sorts About Who's in Power," The Washington Post, February 14, 1994.

38. Michael Hedges, "Another trooper says he found women for Clinton; Spectator story describes a Hillary-Foster romance," The Washington Times, April 12, 1994.

39. Ibid.

40. Ibid.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid.

43. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 73-74.

44. Harold Johnson, "Paula Jones Wants Clinton Exposed," Orange County Register (California), April 12, 1994. The article was reprinted there with permission from National Review.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid.

49. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 77-78.

50. Johnson, "Paula Jones Wants Clinton Exposed."

51. Isikoff, Shepard, and LaFraniere, "Clinton Hires Lawyer as Sexual Harassment Suit Is Threatened; Former State Employee in Arkansas Alleges Improper Advance in 1991."

52. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 83.

53. Ibid, 48-49.

54. Ibid, 75.

55. Ibid, 82.

56. Isikoff, Shepard, and LaFraniere, "Clinton Hires Lawyer as Sexual Harassment Suit Is Threatened; Former State Employee in Arkansas Alleges Improper Advance in 1991."

57. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 62-63.

58. Ibid, pp. 59-61.

59. Clinton, My Life, 595.

60. Ibid, 595-596.

61. Ibid, 596.

62. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 83-84.

63. Ibid, 88.

64. Ibid.

65. Joel Williams, "Former Arkansas Employee Files Suit Against Clinton:' The Associated Press, May 6, 1994.

66. Mike Royko, "Talking Trash; The Class Warfare Against Paula Jones Is A Media Disgrace," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, January 19, 1997.

67. Nichols, "Paula Jones Says She's No Pawn."

68. Roger Simon, "Calling Paula Jones a Slut Doesn't Exonerate Clinton:' The Baltimore Sun, October 26, 1994.

69. Ibid.

70. Ibid.

71. Lynn Rosellini and Greg Ferguson, "The Woman Who Sued the President," Rocky Mountain News (Denver), June 12, 1994. Note: The article was reprinted from U.S. News & World Report.

72. Ibid.

73. Howard Schneider, "Paula Jones and A House Divided; They Believe Sis. It's Her Motives They Don't Buy," The Washington Post, June 9, 1994.

74. "Too Much Immunity in the Jones Case," The New York Times, December 30, 1994.

75. Rodham Clinton, Living History, 257.

76. Ibid.

77. Ibid.

78. "Vowing He'll Run In '96, Clinton Seeks Middle-Class Tax Aid; President Will Continue Pushing for Health Reform," Chicago Tribune, December 30, 1994.

79. Ruth Marcus, "Court Says Suit Against Clinton May Proceed; Appeals Panel Rejects Immunity Claim in Case Alleging Sexual Harassment in 1991," The Washington Post, January 10, 1996.

80. Martin Kasindorf, "For Better, Worse / Prez defends Hillary, says legal fees are breaking them," Newsday (New York), January 12, 1996.

81. "Whitewater Convictions Bode III for Clintons:' The San Francisco Chronicle, May 30, 1996.

82. "Top Court Clears Way For Jones Lawsuit; Justices Rule That Office Doesn't Shield President," The New York Times, May 27,1997.

83. Peter Baker, "Lawyers for Paula Jones Trying to Prove Pattern by President; Former Clinton Aide's Attorney Denounces Subpoena Tactic," The Washington Post, August 1, 1997.

84. Ibid.

85. David G. Savage and Robert L Jackson, "Paula Jones's Lawyers Quit, Citing Disagreement," Los Angeles Times, September 9, 1997.

86. "Jones Says She'll Attend Deposition," Detroit Free Press, January 8, 1998.

87. Clinton, My Life, 769.

88. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 165-166.

89. Ibid.

90. Clinton, My Life, 769.

91. Ibid.

92. James Bennet, "Pasts Are Prologue as Jones v. Clinton Moves Nearer to Trial," The New York Times, November 9, 1997.

93. "Trial of Paula Jones's lawsuit seems inevitable, Clinton says," Fort Worth Star- Telegram (Texas), January 14, 1998.

94. Michael Kelly, "The President's Past," The New York Times, July 31, 1994 (quoting from Virginia Kelley's memoirs).

95. Peter Baker, "President Faces His Accuser; Clinton Questioned Under Oath for 6 Hours on Allegations of Harassment," The Washington Post, January 18, 1998.

96. "President Clinton's Deposition; Cross-Examination by Clinton Lawyer Robert Bennett," available at: /politics/special/pjones/ docs/clintondep031398.htm#crossbe (accessed July 17, 2004).

97. Ibid.

98. Peter Baker, "Jones v. Clinton Suit Dismissed; Judge Finds 'No Genuine Issues for Trial,''' The Washington Post, April 2, 1998.

99. Clinton, My Life, 220-221.

100. Ibid, 221.

101. Peter Baker, "Looms Over Scope of Clinton Trial Inquiry," The Washington Post, January 19, 1998.

102. Peter Baker, "Appeals Court Hears Arguments in Jones Harassment Case," The Washington Post, October 21, 1998.

103. Ibid.

104. Peter Baker, "Clinton, Jones Reach Settlement; President to Pay $850,000 to End Harassment Suit, Without Admission or Apology," The Washington Post, November 14, 1998.

105. Kevin Newman and Lisa McCree, "Paula Jones's Settlement," ABC's Good Morning America (Transcript # 98111605-j01), November 16, 1998.

106. Ibid.

107. "Source: Paula Jones' marriage ends in divorce,", June 8, 1999, http://www. (accessed July 2, 2004).

108. Tracy Moran, "Seen enough of Paula Jones?" USA, October 25, 2000, ... n/tm28.htm (accessed July 2, 2004).

109. Jan Crawford Greenburg, Bill Crawford, and John O'Brien, "Paula Jones Perils, Penthouse and a Stopoff in Chicago," Chicago Tribune, November 1, 1994.

110. Thane Burnett, "All the president's Women," The Toronto Sun, December 10, 1994.

111. "Clinton Accuser Loses Her Case to Penthouse," The New York Times, December 2, 1994.

112. "Newsmakers," The Houston Chronicle, July 16, 1995.

113. Anita K. Blair and Kate Kennedy, "The Two Faces of Paula Jones," Women's Quarterly, Winter 2001, ... K/is_2001_ Wntr/ai_ 71837543/print (accessed July 2, 2004).

114. Ibid.

115. Transcript, Larry King Live, "Paula Jones Discusses Why She's Posing For Penthouse", October 24, 2000 (airdate), (accessed July 2, 2004).

116. Josh Grossberg, "Celeb Boxing KO's Ratings,", March 15, 2002, ... ewsrellink (accessed July 2, 2004). The article reported: "Of the three bouts, the Harding-Jones contest was the most watched, if not the most competitive. As Nancy Kerrigan might have predicted, Harding thrashed Jones, who appeared to be overly protective of her surgically trimmed nose. The fight was over by the second round, a TKO win for the former ice queen, who didn't even need a lead pipe."

117. Simon, "Calling Paula Jones a slut doesn't exonerate Clinton."

118. J.E. Bourgoyne, "Talk Show Host Objects to Ex-Girlfriend's Tales," Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA), July 9, 1994.

119. Ruth Marcus, "Clintons Establish Fund to Meet Legal Expenses; Lobbyists Among Those Allowed to Contribute," The Washington Post, June 29, 1994.

120. Ibid.

121. Ibid.

122. Ibid.

123. Lynn Sweet, "Paula Jones complains feminists not on her side," Chicago Sun-Times, March 17, 1997.

124. Andy Rooney, "If Election Were This Week, Forget It," Buffalo News (New York), April 5, 1997.

125. Ibid.

126. Robin Givhan, "Paula Jones's Revamped Image; Her Sleek Look May Be a Fashion Statement, but It Says a Lot About Power, Too," The Washington Post, January 16, 1998.

127. Times Wire Reports, "Papers Report Nose Job for Paula Jones," Los Angeles Times, July 20, 1998.

128.Givhan, "Paula Jones's Revamped Image; Her Sleek Look May Be a Fashion Statement, but It Says a Lot About Power, Too."

129. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 96-97.

130.Leora Tanenbaum, "Paula Jones's Reputation Was Trashed," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, February 3, 1997.

131.Andrew Sullivan, "Is This the Woman to Hit Clinton Where it Hurts?" Sunday Times (London), November 17, 1996.

132. Available, among other places, at government/jones/jones_complaint.html (accessed June 28, 2004).

133. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 20-24.

134. Stuart Taylor, "Her Case Against Clinton," American Lawyer, November 1996, as reprinted in Palm Beach Daily Business Review, November 4, 1996.

135. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, html (accessed June 28, 2004).

136. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 23.

137.Nina Burleigh, "Can Clinton Get The Venus Vote? Women Worry He's From Mars," The Washington Post, May 21, 1995.
Site Admin
Posts: 32020
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Their Lives: The Women Targeted By the Clinton Machine

Postby admin » Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:25 am

Part 2 of 2

Chapter Six

1. Roger Simon, "Ex-Aide: Clinton Fondled Me; Accusation May Be Most Serious Yet Against President," Chicago Tribune, March 16, 1998.

2. Michael Isikoff, "A Twist in the Paula Jones Case," Newsweek, August 11, 1997.

3. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 112.

4. "Final Report of the Independent Counsel In Re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association," Robert W. Ray, Independent Counsel, May 18, 2001, 88, (accessed July 5, 2004)

5. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 109.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid, 109-110.

8. Angie Cannon, "Those Who Met Willey Cite the Odd and Classy," The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 19, 1998.

9. Ibid.

10. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 109.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. "Kathleen Willey, 'I Just Thought It Was Extremely Reckless,''' The Washington Post, March 16, 1998.

14. Ibid.

15. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 109.

16. "Kathleen Willey: 'I Just Thought It Was Extremely Reckless.'"

17. Jeff Leen, "The Other Woman in Jones Case; Kathleen Willey's Chance Encounter with Tripp Changed Her Life," The Washington Post, January 29, 1998.

18. Michael Isikoff, "A Twist in the Paula Jones Case," Newsweek, August 11, 1997.

19. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 110.

20. Leen, "The Other Woman in Jones Case; Kathleen Willey's Chance Encounter With Tripp Changed Her Life."

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid.

24. Transcript, Larry King Live, "Kathleen Willey Details Sexual Harassment Accusation Against President Clinton," May 12, 1999 (airdate), Transcript # 99051200V22.

25. Isikoff , "A Twist in the Paula Jones Case."

26. Ibid.

27. Leen, "The Other Woman in Jones Case; Kathleen Willey's Chance Encounter With Tripp Changed Her Life."

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

31. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 111.

32. Ibid, pp. 111-112.

33. Ibid, p. 112.

34. Ibid.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid, p. 113.

37. "Final Report of the Independent Counsel In Re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association," 90.

38. Larry King Live, May 12, 1999.

39. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 114.

40. Leen, "The Other Woman in Jones Case; Kathleen Willey's Chance Encounter With Tripp Changed Her Life."

41. Larry King Live, May 12, 1999.

42. Ibid.

43. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 115.

44. Larry King Live, May 12, 1999.

45. Ibid.

46. Clinton testified that he was aware she got a paid position in the White House Counsel's office after her husband's death but had no clue how she got the job; maybe it was Nancy Hemreich who helped her get it, he mumbled. See "President Clinton's Deposition; Regarding Kathleen Willey," available at http://www.washingtonpost. com/wp-srv /politics/special/pjones/docs/clintondep031398.htm#willey (accessed July 17, 2004).

47. Amy Goldstein, "Willey's Career Path Had a Sharp Upturn; From Volunteer to U.S. Delegate," The Washington Post, March 15, 1998.

48. Leen, "The Other Woman in Jones Case; Kathleen Willey's Chance Encounter With Tripp Changed Her Life."

49. Michael Isikoff, "A Twist in the Paula Jones Case," Newsweek, August 11,1997.

50. Goldstein, "Willey's Career Path Had a Sharp Upturn; From Volunteer to U.S. Delegate."

51. Leen, "The Other Woman in Jones Case; Kathleen Willey's Chance Encounter With Tripp Changed Her Life."

52. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 115.

53. Leen, "The Other Woman in Jones Case; Kathleen Willey's Chance Encounter With Tripp Changed Her Life."

54. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 115.

55. Leen, "The Other Woman in Jones Case; Kathleen Willey's Chance Encounter With Tripp Changed Her Life."

56. Ibid.

57. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 99-100.

58. Ibid, 104.

59. Ibid, 106-113.

60. Ibid, 114-115.

61. Ibid, 116, 126-128.

62. Ibid, 123.

63. Larry King Live, February 15, 1999.

64.Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 134-35.

65. Ibid, 138.

66. Ibid.

67. Ibid, 143.

68. Ibid, 141.

69. Ibid, 144.

70. Peter Baker, "Ex-Clinton Aide Vows to Fight Jones Subpoena," Newsday (New York), August 1, 1997.

71. Peter Baker, "Clinton Unveils Agenda Heralding Contentious Fall," The Washington Post, August 7, 1997.

72. Ibid.

73. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 144-146.

74. Ibid, 147.

75. Ibid.

76. "Final Report of the Independent Counsel In Re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association," 91 n.42-44.

77. Isikoff, "A Twist in the Paula Jones Case."

78. Ibid.

79. Ibid.

80. Ibid.

81. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 152.

82. Isikoff, "A Twist in the Paula Jones Case."

83. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 152-153.

84. Ibid.

85. Ibid.

86. Ibid, p. 212.

87. "Kathleen Willey: 'I Just Thought It Was Extremely Reckless.'''

88. Ibid.

89. Ibid.

90. Ibid.

91. Ibid.

92. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 369-370 n. 5. Isikoff also details Kenneth Starr's efforts to identify the threatening thug.

93. Complaint filed on behalf of Kathleen Willey Schwicker in September 2000 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, available at ... n(accessed July5.2004).This case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff (Le., Willey) in October 2000.

94. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 369, n.5.

95. Ibid.

96. Ibid. Also see "The Personal Edge: Kathleen Willey's Story," The Edge With Paula Zahn, March 6, 2001 (airdate), Transcript # 030603cb.260.

97. Ibid.

98. Ibid.

99. Ibid.

100. David Stout, "Testing of A President: The Witness; Jones Lawyers Seek New Talk with Accuser," The New York Times, March 6, 1998.

101. "Excerpts of Kathleen Willey's Deposition," available at http://www.washington (accessed July 6, 2004).

102. Susan Schmidt, Peter Baker, and Toni Locy, "Clinton Accused of Urging Aide to Lie; Starr Probes Whether President Told Woman to Deny Alleged Affair to Jones's Lawyers," The Washington Post, January 21, 1998.

103. "Excerpts of Kathleen Willey's Deposition."

104. "President Clinton's Deposition," available at politics/spedal/pjones/docs/c1intondep031398.htrn#willey (accessed July 6, 2004).

105. Isikoff, "A Twist in the Paula Jones Case."

106. Arianna Huffington, "Slick Willie dodges another bullet," Chicago Sun-Times, August 10, 1997.

107. Isikoff, "A Twist in the Paula Jones Case."

108. Ibid.

109. R.H. Melton, "Clinton Tie to Va. Woman Led to Probe's Latest Angle," The Washington Post, January 22, 1998.

110. Ibid.

111. "Players in the Clinton Scandal," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, January 25, 1998.

112. Leen, "The Other Woman in Jones Case; Kathleen Willey's Chance Encounter With Tripp Changed Her Life.

113. Mark Lacy and Edwin Chen, "Clinton Under Fire," Los Angeles Times, January 23, 1998.

114. "Testing of a President," The New York Times, February 8, 1998.

115. Ibid.

116. Susan Schmidt and Toni Locy, "Starr Subpoenas Ex-White House Aide Who Said Clinton Groped Her," The Washington Post, February 18, 1998.

117. "Witness Comes Forward In Jones Case; Woman Says She Was Asked To Lie To Bolster Charge Against Clinton," Chicago Tribune, February 17, 1998.

118. Richard A. Serrano, "3rd Woman in Clinton Saga Maintains Her Silence," Los Angeles Times, March 1, 1998.

119. David Jackson and Ray Gibson. "Grand Jury Awaits Key Player," Chicago Tribune, February 24, 1998.

120. Richard T. Pienciak, "Willey Tale May Harm Bill," Daily News (New York), March 15, 1998.

121. Larry King Live, May 12, 1999.

122. Ibid.

123. Pienciak, "Willey Tale May Harm Bill."

124. Ibid.

125. Simon, "Ex-Aide: Clinton Fondled Me; Accusation May Be Most Serious Yet Against President."

126. Ibid.

127. Ronald J. Ostrow, "Willey Details Charge of Clinton Sexual Advance," Los Angeles Times, March 16, 1998.

128. Ibid.

129. "Clinton Strikes Back At Willey; White House Releases Letters From Her:' Sun- Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL), March 17, 1998.

130. "Kathleen Willey: 'I Just Thought It Was Extremely Reckless.'''

131. Simon, "Ex-Aide: Clinton Fondled Me; Accusation May Be Most Serious Yet Against President."

132. Ibid.

133. Ibid.

134. "Kathleen Willey: 'I Just Thought It Was Extremely Reckless.'''

135. Simon, "Ex-Aide: Clinton Fondled Me; Accusation May Be Most Serious Yet Against President."

136. Ibid.

137. "Kathleen Willey: 'I Just Thought It Was Extremely Reckless.'"

138. Ibid.

139. Associated Press. "Clinton: 'I Told Truth' In Willey Encounter; 'Nothing Improper Happened' Between Them, President Says:' Chicago Tribune, March 16, 1998.

140. Ibid.

141. Ibid.

142. Joanne Jacobs, "Defining Harassment: Will We Ever Get It Right? Find A Middle Ground Between Workplace Vixens And Virgins:' San Jose Mercury News (California), March 5, 1998.

143. CNN's Crossfire, October 10, 1991 (airdate), Transcript # 418.

144. Ibid.

145. Associated Press. "Willey Correspondence For 'Context': McCurry," Chicago Tribune, March 17, 1998.

146. Ibid.

147. Larry King Live, May 12, 1999.

148. Ibid.

149. "Clinton Strikes Back At Willey; White House Releases Letters From Her," Sun- Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL), March 17, 1998.

150. Larry King Live, May 12, 1999.

151. Pierre Thomas, "Starr quietly continues White House investigation,", February 19, 1999, ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/19/grand.jury/ (accessed January 26, 2005).

152. Ibid.

153. Brian McGrory, "White House fires back over Willey; Shows she wrote to Clinton after 1993 encounter," The Boston Globe, March 17, 1998.

154. Prose, Francine. "Facing Up to It; Distinctions That Women Draw," The Washington Post, March 22,1998.

]55. Ibid.

156. McGrory, "White House fires back over Willey; Shows she wrote to Clinton after 1993 encounter."

157. Maureen Dowd, "Liberties; Sinners and Spinners on the Equator," The New York Times, March 25, 1998.

158. Byron York, "A Courageous Man: Michael Kelly, R.I.P.," National Review On-Line, April 4, 2003, (accessed July 5, 2004).

159. Michael Kelly, "1 Believe," The Washington Post, February 4, 1998.

160. Ibid.

161. Michael Kelly, "1 Still Believe," The Washington Post, March 18, 1998.

162. Simon, "Ex-Aide: Clinton Fondled Me; Accusation May Be Most Serious Yet Against President."

163. Thomas B. Edsall and Terry M. Neal, "Strains in a Key Constituency; Some Women Reassess Clinton in Light of Willey Accusations," The Washington Post, March 17, 1998.

164. Ibid.

165. Ibid.

166. Ibid.

167. Ibid.

168. Jonathan Weisman, "Scandal throws women a curve; Democrats' reaction raises a question of double standard," The Baltimore Sun, March 17, 1998.

169. Ibid.

170. "Anita Hill, Steinem Make Case For Clinton," Buffalo News (New York), March 23, 1998.

171. Ibid.

172. Ibid.

173. Barbara A. Serrano, "Steinem Fires Back- The Feminist Icon Replies To Criticism Of Her Remarks Regarding The President, Monica, Paula And Others," The Seattle Times, April 17, 1998.

174. "Law in the Clinton Era; A Feminist Dilemma," The New York Times, March 24, 1998.

175. Ibid.

176. "White House Aides Are Trying To Undermine Willey With Quiet Attacks," St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri), March 18, 1998.

177. Ibid.

178. John F. Harris, "Quick Shift, White House Brandishes Facts; A Sudden Blitz of Facts About Willey," The Washington Post, March 18, 1998.

179. Ibid.

180. Ibid.

181. Ibid.

182."The President's Testimony: Part Eight of Eight," The New York Times, September 22, 1998. (Emphasis added.)

183. Karen Ball, "Curtain Call," The Washington Post, January 28, 2001.

184. Steve Campbell, "Collins met privately with a Clinton accuser, book reveals," Portland Press Herald (Maine), September 24, 2000.

185. Ibid.

186. Ball, "Curtain Call."

187. Ibid.

188. Larry King Live, May 12, 1999.

189."Final Report of the Independent Counsel In Re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association," 89, n. 21.

190. Ibid.

191. "Kathleen Willey Joins WND Speakers," World Net Daily, May 21, 2001, http:// (accessed July 5, 2004). 192.For example, see Kathleen Willey, "NOW's the Time to Speak Up," World Net Daily, July 31, 2001, ARTICLE_ID=23857 (accessed July 5, 2004).

193. Kathleen Willey, "The Cat's Meow," The Weekly Standard, February 19, 2001.

194. The complete text of the OIC's report is avajJable at http://icreport.access.

195. Ibid, p. 87, £n.2.

196. Ibid, p.94 (emphasis added).

197. Ibid, p. 93, fn.37 (emphasis added).

198. Ibid, p. 93.

199. Ball, "Curtain Call."

200. Ibid.

201. Associated Press. "Kathleen Willey says she needs a hero as president, supports McCain," February 29, 2000.

202. "Interview with Kathleen Willey Schwicker," Fox News Network, Hannity & Calmes, March 1, 2001 (airdate), Transcript # 030103cb.253.

203. "Kathleen Willey: Predator Clinton Will Strike Again," Federal Observer, (accessed July 5, 2004).

204. "Kathleen Willey Bombs as Radio Talk Show Host-Give Julie Hiatt Steele A Chance!,", ... ewatergate (accessed July 5, 2004).

205. The Edge With Paula Zahn, March 6, 2001.

206. "Kathleen Willey Schwicker discusses her allegations against President Clinton and her new radio talk show beginning tonight," Sunday Today, NBC News Transcripts, April 7, 2002 (airdate).

207. Melton, "Clinton Tie to Va. Woman Led to Probe's Latest Angle."

208. Thomas Eckes, "Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: testing predictions from the stereotype content model," Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, August 2002, available at: ... i_95514604 (accessed July 6, 2004). This theory is called Ambivalent Sexism Theory, or ABT.

209. Jacob Sullum, "The War on Fat: Is the size of your butt the government's business?" Reason, August/September 2004, 20-31.

210. Ibid, 30.

211. Ibid.

212. Ibid, 31.

Chapter Seven

1. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 155.

2. Ibid, pp. 155-56.

3. Ibid, pp. 335-36.

4. Despite the ramblings of former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who has drafted articles of impeachment against President Bush. See http://www.votetoimpeach.orgl (accessed July 12, 2004).

5. William L. Anderson and Candice E. Jackson, "Law as a Weapon: How RICO Subverts Liberty and the True Purpose of Law," The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy, Summer 2004,85-97. See also Anderson and Jackson, "Washington's Biggest Crime Problem," Reason magazine, April 2004; and Anderson and Jackson, "Derivative Crimes and Federal Injustice," Freedom Daily, March 2004, http://www. fff.orgifreedom/fd0403f.asp (accessed July 22, 2004).

6. William L. Anderson and Candice E. Jackson, "Martha Stewart and Our Shadow Legal System," March 10, 2004, (accessed July 22, 2004). See also Anderson and Jackson, "Wealthy Beyond A Reasonable Doubt," March 6, 2004, http://www.mises.orglfullstory.asp?control=1467 (accessed July 22, 2004).

7. "Arkansas disciplinary panel recommends Clinton disbarment,", May 23, 2000, ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/22/clinton.disbarred/ (accessed July 22, 2004). Judge Susan Webber Wright, who presided over (and dismissed) the Paula Jones lawsuit, must have felt especially annoyed by Clinton's intentional deceptions; she cited him for contempt of court and fined him $90,000 in 1999. Clinton accepted a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license and a $25,000 fine in January 2001 just before leaving office, which took effect in April 2001; in October that year the US. Supreme Court suspended Clinton from practicing before it, following, as it usually does, the state court's decision. See Anne Gearan, "Ex-President Clinton suspended from law practice before US. Supreme Court," Associated Press, October I, 2001. In November 2001 Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar to avoid the spectacle of permanent disbarment. "Investigating the President: The Tria!,", resources/1998/1ewinsky/ (accessed March 17, 2005).

8. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 337.

9. Lynda Gorov, "Ex-Intern: Past of Privilege, Hard Work; The Clinton Allegations," The Boston Globe, January 22, 1998.

10. "Lewinsky's Aug. 6 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 1" available at http://www.washing /poli tics/special/c1inton/stories/ml test080698_1.htm (accessed July 7, 2004).

11. Ibid. (one cite 9-13).

12. Ibid.

13. Clinton, My Life, 677.

14. "Lewinsky's Aug. 6 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 1."

15. Ibid.

16. Howard Kurtz, "Monica To The Nth; The Deluge: Stay Tuned For Still More," The Washington Post, March 4, 1999.

17. Bob Hohler, "Lewinsky Tells All In Book and On TV; Reveals Pregnancy By Pentagon Official," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 4, 1999.

18. "Lewinsky's Aug. 6 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 4" available at http://www.washing (accessed July 8, 2004).

19. "Lewinsky's Aug. 6 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 1."

20. Ibid.

21. "Lewinsky's Aug. 6 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 5" available at http://www.washing /politics/special/c1inton/stories/m1test080698 _5.htm (accessed July 8, 2004).

22. "Lewinsky's Aug. 6 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 3" available at http://www.washing ton /politics/special/clinton/stories/mltest080698_3.htm#TOP (accessed July 8, 2004).

23. "Lewinsky's Aug. 6 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 2" available at http://www.washing /poIitics/special/c1inton/stories/mltest080698 _2.htm> (accessed July 8, 2004).

24. "Lewinsky's Aug. 6 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 3."

25. Ibid.

26. "Lewinsky's Aug. 6 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 5."

27. Ibid.

28. "Lewinsky's Aug. 6 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 6" available at http://www.washing /poIitics/special/clinton/stories/mltest080698 _6.htm (accessed July 8, 2004).

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

31. "Lewinsky's Aug. 6 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 8" available at http://www.washing /poIitics/special/c1inton/stories/mltest080698_8.htm (accessed JuIY8, 2004).

32. "In Lewinsky's Words," USA Today, March 4, 1999.

33. "Lewinsky's Aug. 6 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 10" available at http://www.washing /politics/special/c1inton/stories/mltest080698 _10.htm (accessed July 8, 2004).

34. Ibid.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid. See also "Lewinsky's Aug. 6 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 11" available at http:// ... 698_11.htm (accessed July 8, 2004).

37. "Lewinsky's Aug. 6 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 11."

38. Ibid.

39. Ibid.

40. "Lewinsky's Aug. 6 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 12" available at: http://www.washing /poli tics/special/clinton/stories/mltest080698_12.htm (accessed July 8, 2004).

41. "Lewinsky's Aug. 6 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 11."

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid.

44. "Lewinsky's Aug. 6 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 14" available at http://www.washing /politics/special/clinton/stories/mltest080698_14.htm (accessed July 8, 2004).

45. "In Lewinsky's Words."

46. Ibid.

47. "Lewinsky's Aug. 6 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 14."

48. Ibid.

49. "Lewinsky's Aug. 6 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 15" available at http://www.washing /politics/special/clinton/stories/ml test080698_15.htm (accessed July 8, 2004).

50. "Lewinsky's Aug. 6 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 16" available at http://www.wash /poli tics/special/clinton/stories/ml test080698_16.htm (accessed July 8, 2004).

51. "Lewinsky's Aug. 20 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 2."

52. "Lewinsky's Aug. 20 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 4."

53. Ibid.

54. "Lewinsky's Aug. 20 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 5."

55. Susan Schmidt and Peter Baker, "Ex-Intern Rejected Immunity Offer in Probe; Independent Counsel Sought Her Cooperation; Apartment Is Searched," The Washington Post, January 24, 1998.

56. Ibid.

57. Ibid.

58. Ibid.

59. "Monica Lewinsky's Recent Interviews and Book Release," CNBC's Rivera Live, March 4, 1999 (airdate).

60. "Lewinsky's Aug. 20 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 7."

61. Schmidt and Baker, "Ex-Intern Rejected Immunity Offer in Probe; Independent Counsel Sought Her Cooperation; Apartment Is Searched."

62. Ibid.

63. "Lewinsky's Aug. 20 Grand Jury Testimony, Part 8."

64. Ibid.

65. Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, 332.

66. Susan Schmidt, Peter Baker, and Toni Locy, "Clinton Accused of Urging Aide to Lie; Starr Probes Whether President Told Woman to Deny Alleged Affair to Jones's Lawyers," The Washington Post, January 21, 1998.

67. Roger Simon and William Neikirk, "Cover-Up Charges Embroil Clinton; Taping of Intern Key to Inquiry," Chicago Tribune, January 22, 1998.

68. Schmidt, Baker, and Locy, "Clinton Accused of Urging Aide to Lie; Starr Probes Whether President Told Woman to Deny Alleged Affair to Jones's Lawyers."

69. Ibid.

70. Simon and Neikirk. "Cover-Up Charges Embroil Clinton; Taping of Intern Key to Inquiry."

71. Ibid.

72. John Harris, "FBI Taped Aide's Allegations; Clinton Denies Affair, Says He 'Did Not Urge Anyone' to Lie," The Washington Post, January 22, 1998.

73. "The President Under Fire; Excerpts From Statements by White House and President on Accusations," The New York Times, January 22, 1998.

74. Ibid. (Emphasis added.)

75. "Tell the Full Story, Mr. President," The New York Times, January 23, 1998.

76. Simon and Neikirk. "Cover-Up Charges Embroil Clinton; Taping of Intern Key to Inquiry."

77. Schmidt and Baker, "Ex-Intern Rejected Immunity Offer in Probe; Independent Counsel Sought Her Cooperation; Apartment Is Searched."

78. "Testing Of A President: In Her Own Words; What She Has Said," The New York Times, August 18, 1998.

79. Simon and Neikirk. "Cover-Up Charges Embroil Clinton; Taping of Intern Key to Inquiry."

80. Ibid.

81. Ethan Bronner, "The President Under Fire: The Media; Reports of Sexual Scandal Have Everybody Talking," The New York Times, January 23, 1998.

82. Mimi Hall, "White House tries to ride out the storm [;] Battle-tested staff sticks to routine," USA Today, January 22, 1998.

83. "Clinton Cabinet Counterattacks; Four Secretaries Defend Their Boss; Intern's Lawyer Cites 'Pressure' By Starr," Chicago Tribune, January 23, 1998.

84. John F. Harris, "FBI Taped Aide's Allegations; Clinton Denies Affair, Says He 'Did Not Urge Anyone' to Lie," The Washington Post, January 22, 1998.

85. Ibid.

86. E.J. Dionne, Jr., "Why Hand Them This Lethal Weapon?" The Washington Post, January 23, 1998.

87. Ibid.

88. Peter Baker and Susan Schmidt, "FBI Taped Aide's Allegations; Seeking Cooperation, Bureau Confronted Ex-White House Intern," The Washington Post, January 22,1998. 89. Jill Abramson and Don Van Natta, Jr., "The President Under Fire: The Friends; Friendship of 2 Women Slowly Led to the Crisis," The New York Times, January 22, 1998.

90. Jeff Leen, "Lewinsky: Two Coasts, Two Lives, Many Images," The Washington Post, January 24, 1998.

91. Margery Eagan, "Scandal Rocks Clinton: How will Bill spin out of this alleged bimboblunder?" The Boston Herald, January 22, 1998.

92. Ibid.

93. Michael Tackett and Jan Crawford Greenburg, "Lewinsky's Lawyer Seeks Immunity; Starr Targets Former Intern," Chicago Tribune, January 24, 1998.

94. Leen, "Lewinsky: Two Coasts, Two Lives, Many Images."

95. Ibid.

96. "An Unruly Mess," The Washington Post, February 25, 1998.

97. Richard Cohen, "Menace to Society," The Washington Post, September 24, 1998.

98. "Privacy -- 'Sluts and Nuts:" Daily Oklahoman (Oklahoma City, OK), February 3, 1999.

99. "America Is Listening, Mr. President," Daily News (New York), January 27, 1998. (Emphasis added.)

100. "In Lewinsky's Words:' USA Today, March 4, 1999.

101. "Discussion on the Latest Development of White House Crisis," CNN's Larry King Live, January 26, 1998 (airdate), Transcript # 98012600V22.

102. John F. Harris and Dan Balz, "Disclosure Lifts Long Siege at White House; As Day to Testify Approached, Clinton Reopened Door to Supportive Confidants," The Washington Post, August 18, 1998.

103. Maureen Dowd, "Liberties; D.C. Confidential," The New York Times, February 25, 1998.

104. "Investigating the President: What Will Cockell Testify Before the Grand Jury?" CNN's Larry King Live, July 20, 1998, Transcript # 98072000V22.

105. Tucker Carlson, "Trashing Kenneth Starr:' The Weekly Standard, June 29, 1998.

106. Ibid.

107. Roger Simon, "Clinton Admits 'Personal Failure: Assails Probe Of His Private Life; Statements End Months Of Denials:' Chicago Tribune, August 18, 1998.

108. Susan Schmidt and Ruth Marcus, "The Legal Gamble: To Say Just Enough; Clinton Relies on a Narrow Definition:' The Washington Post, August 18, 1998.

109. Debra J. Saunders, "Women Who Talk Too Much," The San Francisco Chronicle, July 14, 1998 (quoting Geraldo Rivera).

110. "Testing Of A President: In His Own Words; Last Night's Address," The New York Times, August 18, 1998. (Emphasis added.)

111. Clinton, My Life, 773-774.

112. Ibid, pp. 772-773.

113. Ibid, pp. 774-775.

114. Dan Balz, "Baring the Soul, Daring Prosecutor:' The Washington Post, August 18, 1998.

115. Michael Kelly, "A President Who Will Never Stop Lying ...," The New York Post, August 19, 1998.

116. Tom Shales, "Unfortunately Not the Last Word on the Subject," The Washington Post, August 18, 1998.

117. "Bill Clinton Speaks, a Little," The New York Times, August 18, 1998.

118. Ibid.

119. John C. Henry, "Lewinsky opens up in TV interview; Says she 'felt like ... trash,'" The Houston Chronicle, March 4, 1999.

120. Lloyd Grove, "Hung Out To Dry; Clinton Loyalists After The Spin Cycle Ends:' The Washington Post, August 18, 1998.

121. Ibid.

122. Richard Berke and Don Van Natta, Jr., "Testing Of A President: The Friends; One By One, The President Told His Closest Aides The Painful Truth," The New York Times, August 18, 1998.

123. Ibid.

124. Ibid.

125. Elizabeth Shogren and Ronald J. Ostrow, "Clinton confesses Lewinsky affair; 'It's nobody's business: president tells nation:' Chicago Tribune, August 18, 1998.

126. Michael Duffy and Monica Lewinsky, "Monica Up Close," Time, March 15, 1999.

127. Ibid.

128. Ibid.

129.John C. Henry, "Lewinsky opens up in TV interview; Says she 'felt like...trash,'" The Houston Chronicle, March 4, 1999.

130. Bob Hohler, "Lewinsky Tells All In Book and On TV; Reveals Pregnancy By Pentagon Official," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 4, 1999.

131.David Jackson, "Lewinsky blasts Starr's tactics 'Lewinsky's Story' describes thoughts of suicide, Clinton's vulnerability:' The Dallas Morning-News, March 4, 1999.

132. Hohler, "Lewinsky Tells All In Book and On TV; Reveals Pregnancy By Pentagon Official."

133. Duffy and Lewinsky, "Monica Up Close."

134. Ibid.

135. Ibid.

136. Ibid.

137. "Monica Lewinsky's Recent Interviews and Book Release," CNBC's Rivera Live, March 4, 1999 (airdate).

138. Associated Press, "Clinton 'United With Democratic Agenda' / Goal: Shaping A Legislative Plan:' Newsday (New York), March 4, 1999.

139. Hohler, "Lewinsky Tells All In Book and On TV; Reveals Pregnancy By Pentagon Official."

140.The Don Juan Center, July 11, 2004).

141. "Don Juan," MSN Encarta, Don-luan.html (accessed July 11, 2004).

142. Roger Schlobin, "The Femivore: An Undiscovered Archetype," The Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, Spring 1989, July 11, 2004) (quoting Sheri Tepper's 1987horror novel The Bones, which Schlobin credits with naming the "femivore" archetype).

143. Ibid, 179-184.

144. Ibid.

145. Steve Goldstein, "Other Lewinsky Affair Brought A Pregnancy / Her Book Reveals A Liaison With Another Man. Last Night, The Public Heard More," The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 4, 1999.

146. Alan Brinkley, "The Assault on Government:' in New Federalism Papers, ed. Alan Brinkley, Nelson W. Polsby, and Kathleen M. Sullivan (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1997), 19.

147. "The Retirement Dilemma of Generation X," New York Life, http://www.newyork,3254,11967,OO.html(accessed July 13, 2004).

Chapter Eight

1. Maraniss, First In His Class, 346.

2. Ibid, 351.

3. Ibid, 352-354.

4. Ibid, 357.

5. NBC's Dateline, February 24, 1999 (airdate), available at http://www.capitolhill (accessed July 13, 2004).

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

8. Dateline, February 24, 1999.

9. Lois Romano and Peter Baker, "'Jane Doe NO.5' Goes Public with Allegation; Clinton Controversy Lingers Over Nursing Home Owner's Disputed 1978 Story," The Washington Post, February 20, 1999.

10. Dorothy Rabinowitz, "Juanita Broaddrick Meets the Press," The Wall Street Journal, February 19, 1999.

11. Dateline, February 24, 1999.

12. Rabinowitz, "Juanita Broaddrick Meets the Press."

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. Dateline, February 24, 1999.

16. Rabinowitz, "Juanita Broaddrick Meets the Press."

17. Murray, Frank J. "House impeachment managers forgo using 'Jane Doe' accounts," The Washington Times, January 8, 1999.

18. "New Allegations That President Clinton Sexually Assaulted Juanita Broaddrick 20 Years Ago," NBC Nightly News, March 28, 1998 (airdate).

19. Ibid.

20. NBC's Meet the Press, March 29, 1998 (airdate).

21. Ibid.

22. William Goldschlag, "Nurse Tied to Latest Claim," Daily News (New York), March 29, 1998.

23. Peter Baker and Lena H. Sun, "Starr Seeks Records From Jones Team on Other Women; Four Are Named In Counsel Subpoena," The Washington Post, March 26, 1998. 24. Lois Romano and Peter Baker, '''Jane Doe No. 5' Goes Public With Allegation; Clinton Controversy Lingers Over Nursing Home Owner's Disputed 1978 Story," The Washington Post, February 20, 1999.

25. Timothy J. Burger, "Clinton Forced Sex On Me-Ark. Nurse Sez She Wants To Set Record Straight," Daily News (New York), February 20, 1999.

26. Frank J. Murray, "House impeachment managers forgo using 'Jane Doe' accounts," The Washington Times, January 8, 1999.

27. Rabinowitz, "Juanita Broaddrick Meets the Press."

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid.

33. Dateline, February 24, 1999.

34. Rabinowitz, "Juanita Broaddrick Meets the Press."

35. Dateline, February 24, 1999.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid.

38. Pete Yost, "Arkansas woman's sexual assault accusation against Clinton denied," Associated Press, February 20, 1999.

39. Dateline, February 24, 1999.

40. CNN's Larry King Live, March 8, 1999 (airdate), Transcript # 99030800V22.

41. Lois Romano and Peter Baker, '''Jane Doe NO.5' Goes Public With Allegation; Clinton Controversy Lingers Over Nursing Horne Owner's Disputed 1978 Story," The Washington Post, February 20, 1999.

42. Tony Snow, "Parsing the presidential denial," The Washington Times, March 1, 1999.

43. Ibid.

44. Howard Kurtz, "Clinton Accuser's Story Aired," The Washington Post, February 25, 1999.

45. Richard Cohen, "The Untouchables," The Washington Post, February 23, 1999.

46. Neftali Bendavid and Tim Jones, "Allegation Of Rape By Clinton Aired; Interviewed On TV, Arkansas Woman Claims Sexual Assault In 1978," Chicago Tribune, February 25, 1999.

47. Ibid.

48. Mary McGrory, "The Senate's Post-trial Glow," The Washington Post, February 25, 1999.

49. Michael Kelly, "MO for a President?" The Washington Post, February 25, 1999.

50. Richard Cohen, "A Lasting Look at Reagan," The Washington Post, June 17, 2004.

51. Cohen, Richard. "Who Is This Guy?" The Washington Post, March 2, 1999.

52. Ibid.

53. "Clinton Cabinet Counterattacks; Four Secretaries Defend Their Boss; Intern's Lawyer Cites 'Pressure' By Starr," Chicago Tribune, January 23, 1998.

54. John F. Harris, "Looking Past Scandal, Focusing on Future; President Dominates Policy Agenda Despite Issues of Private Behavior," The Washington Post, March 4, 1999.

55. Ibid.

56. Carlin Romano, "Critic From the Inside George Stephanopoulos Is Talking, and People Want To Listen To What the Former Presidential Aide and Author Of 'All Too Human' Has To Say," The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 15, 1999.

57. David Reinhard, "Feeling Broaddrick's Pain-Or Not," The Sunday Oregonian, February 28, 1999.

58. Jeff Jacoby, "Rape? Sounds like our Bill," The Boston Globe, March 1, 1999.

59. "The President's Missing Voice," The New York Times, February 27, 1999.

60. "Bill Bennett, Susan Estrich and Patricia Ireland Discuss the Allegations of Rape Made by Juanita Broaddrick Against President Clinton," NBC's Meet the Press, February 28, 1999.

61. "Mrs. Broaddrick's Story," The Washington Post, March 2, 1999.

62. "Dorothy Rabinowitz from Wall Street Journal And Alan Dershowitz, Professor of Law at Harvard University, Discuss The Credibility of Juanita Broaddrick's Story," NBC's Today, February 25, 1999 (airdate).

63. Ibid.

64. Ibid.

65. Bill Press, "Clinton Rape Charge Can't Be Proved; Juanita Broaddrick Tells A Familiar Story, But It Suffers In The Details," Los Angeles Times, February 26, 1999.

66. Howard Kurtz, "Clinton Accuser's Story Aired," The Washington Post, February 25, 1999.

67. Joyce Howard Price, "Feminists find rape claim against Clinton serious, disturbing," The Washington Times, February 25, 1999.

68. Ibid.

69. Ibid.

70. "Presidential Legal Troubles," Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, February 25, 1999 (airdate), Transcript # 022503cb.253.

71. "Rape Accusation Launches Debate on President Clinton's Morality," CNN's Larry King Live, February 25, 1999 (airdate), Transcript # 99022500V22.

72. Ibid.

73. Susan Faludi, "What can we learn from Clinton's accuser," The Ottawa Citizen, March 9, 1999.

74. Ibid.

75. Will Self, "The Interview: The Invisible Woman," The Independent (London), March 21, 1999.

76. Ibid.

77. Ibid.

78. Morton M. Kondracke, "Broaddrick Story Deserves Attention as Cultural Test," Roll Call, February 25, 1999.

79. Ibid.

80. Ibid.

81. John F. Harris, "The Mantra Is 'Move On: But Past Emotions Linger; President Reacts Strongly to Question on Truth-Telling," The Washington Post, March 20, 1999.

82. Ibid.

83. Ibid.

84. Ben Macintyre, "Clinton foes say they are victims of tax witch-hunt," The Times (London), June 1, 2000.

85. "Sexual Violence: Fact Sheet," National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, (accessed July 15, 2004).

86. "Impact of Rape: Common Reactions," Rape Treatment Center, UCLA Medical Center, (accessed July 15, 2004).

87. "Presidential Legal Troubles:' Fox News Network's Hannity & Colmes, February 25, 1999 (airdate), Transcript # 022503cb.253. When host Sean Hannity said that if he'd been accused of rape, he wouldn't just sit on his attorney's dry denial, he'd shout his innocence from the rooftops, Eleanor Clift, a Newsweek editor, said: "[F]irst of all, the word 'rape' never passed her lips ..." She continued, "Now, that's a fine point, but this is something ... that went on between two people 21 years ago .... I'm not questioning her memory or her recollection, but it is her memory and her recollection."

88. Charles Krauthammer, "A Hollow Presidency," The Washington Post, March 19, 1999. 89. "Presidential Legal Troubles," Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, February 25, 1999 (airdate), Transcript # 022503cb.253.

90. Jeff Jacoby, "Rape? Sounds like our Bill," The Boston Globe, March 1, 1999.


1. Riane Eisler, The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future, (New York: Harper- Collins Publishers, 1987), 60.

2. Ibid, xv-xvii.

3. Ibid, 153-155.

4. Ibid, 156-171, especially page 169. I should point out that Ms. Eisler would certainly take umbrage at the conclusions I draw using her terminology; she clearly supports leftist ideology, though she argues that it needs a severe shot of feminism before it can eradicate the evils of male domination.


The index for this book can be found at:  
Site Admin
Posts: 32020
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Their Lives: The Women Targeted By the Clinton Machine

Postby admin » Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:24 pm

The Clinton Chronicles

Site Admin
Posts: 32020
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to A Growing Corpus of Analytical Materials

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests