We are the 99%

November 28, 2007

Heard on Fred Honsberger's Show Yesterday

Kathleen Willey has written a book. And for that, she was on Fred's air. You can listen to the interview here and here.

For those who don't remember, in 1998 Kathleen Willey accused then-President Clinton of sexually assaulting her in the White House in 1993.

During the interview with Fred, she stated that she'd been offered a great deal of money from the tabloids for her story. She didn't take that money because she felt that it would damage her credibility.

Oops. Too late.

Take a look at what the Office of Independent Counsel (the good folks who spend tens of millions of dollars investigationg the Clinton White House in the late 90s) had to say about Willey's honesty.

Page 7:
The Independent Counsel agreed not to prosecute Willey for any offense arising out of the investigation, including false statements in her Jones deposition, so long as she cooperated fully and truthfully with the investigation. Following that first immunity agreement, Willey gave false information to the FBI about her sexual relationship with a former boyfriend, and acknowledged having lied about it when the agents confronted her with contradictory evidence. Following Willey’s acknowledgement, the Independent Counsel agreed not to prosecute her for false statements in this regard.
She acknowledged lying to the OIC and the FBI.

And then there's the contradictions with other OIC testimony. For instance Linda Tripp's. This is from Salon.com:
Tripp testified she saw Willey "a lot" the day of her meeting with Clinton. "A lot," she repeated. And she met Willey after the meeting, as planned, and described her as being "very excited, happy, but flustered and completely overwhelmed by the event." Tripp said her face was "flushed," and she "smiled from ear to ear." Tripp said Willey related that she told Clinton "something to the effect that she was throwing herself" on his mercy, when he suddenly kissed her forcefully. "'His tongue was down my throat'" and "'I think I kissed him back,'" Tripp quoted Willey as saying. "His hands were all over her backside," and "he put her hand on his penis," Tripp claimed Willey told her. That night Willey and Tripp "discussed whether Willey would be a girlfriend of the president," said Tripp.
Hardly good news for Bill, but a far far cry from a sexual assault. And given the context of the feeding-frenzy at the time, why would Linda Tripp tell this story and not an assault story if she knew the assault story? Why wouldn't Kathleen Willey tell Linda Tripp the assault story?

According to the salon.com article, Willey and Tripp had been working together for months to somehow get Clinton to return Kathleen Willey's flirtatious affections.

Finally there's this from the OIC:

Willey and President Clinton, the only two percipient witnesses to the alleged encounter, substantially and materially disagree on what occurred. The burden of proving what actually occurred in a case against President Clinton rests on the prosecutor, and Willey would be the government’s principal witness. In the Independent Counsel’s judgment, the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the President’s deposition testimony about his conduct with Willey was false.

Linda Tripp’s testimony that Willey had a previous romantic interest in President Clinton (and appeared to view his alleged advances positively) departed from Willey’s testimony. Tripp’s cooperation with this Office in the Lewinsky investigation ultimately yielded evidence about President Clinton’s conduct with Monica Lewinsky that was contrary to the President’s testimony. Thus, evidence supplied by Linda Tripp regarding Willey that was consistent with President Clinton’s testimony would likely be favorably received by a jury.

Even assuming Willey’s testimony was truthful about the incident with President Clinton, her testimony at trial would be subject to further challenge based on the differences between her deposition and grand jury statements, as well as her acknowledgement of false statements to the Office of the Independent Counsel. Concerns about the probative effect of Willey’s testimony would likely be sufficient to negate a conclusion that “the person [charged] probably will be found guilty by an unbiased trier of fact.”

In short, 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 of potential criminal wrongdoing relating to Willey’s allegations is now closed.

This is the OIC talking here. In short, Kathleen Willey has some serious credibility problems. None of which made it onto Fred's show, of course. In fact, he did say on the show that he believes Kathleen Willey. Ugh.

Fred also made mention of Yassir Arafat "waiting in the Rose Garden" during one of the Clinton/Lewinsky encounters. Uh, not so fast, Fred. This is from the Committee of Concerned Journalists. The CCJ's mission is described here:

The Starr Report differed in some key areas from the Drudge Report. Lewinsky testified to using the cigar sexually and to Clinton then putting it in his mouth and commenting on it. But according to Lewinsky's testimony there was no mutual masturbation and the meeting was in general less sordid than the leaks. There is also no support in the Starr Report for Drudge's allegation that Yassir Arafat was waiting in the Rose Garden when an encounter took place (the Drudge Report is not clear about what encounter it is writing about)[emphasis added]

So Fred was channelling the Drudge Report?? Oh, Fred. You gotta do better than that.

Oh, and Fred also reran the discredited Juanita Broaddrick story.

All in all, standard Fred.

Every now and then it's good to go home.

9 comments:

djh said...

The OIC report did get mentioned on the show.

I read directly from it at the 5pm hour until he hung up on me.

Anonymous said...

Yes...this woman must be a liar. Bill Clinton would never do anything like this. His reputation with women is squeaky clean.

Apparently only women get sexually assualted by Republicans.

As a rape survivor, I am absolutely insulted that you don't give this woman the benefit of the doubt.

djh said...

Anon -

From the federal investigation into her claims:

"Willey's Testimony to the Grand Jury About the Alleged Incident Differed Materially from Her Deposition Testimony Given in Jones v. Clinton," It also notes that Willey "said at her deposition ... that [Clinton] did not fondle her."

Independent Council Robert Ray also found that Willey contradicted herself on whether she had told others about the alleged incident, and asserted that Willey gave false information to the FBI.

This was investigated by the government and her claims were found to be contradictory as she testified under oath on two separate occasions.

In addition, she stated that Clinton did not fondle her under oath, thus no assault occurred by her own admission.

She now has written a book several years after the fact with many claims that she contradicts with prior testimony.

The government gave her the benefit of the doubt and found her claims had no merit. Just because she writes a book years later as another Clinton runs for high office doesn't mean we should not look at what she said in the past regarding the same claims.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: You lefties are ready to convict police officers on someone's allegation and yet give Bill Clinton a complete pass on this. Man is the left in denial on this issue. Face it lefties, Bubba was a rapist and you can't explain it away. Put him back into the white house and it will be funny watching you lefties excuse his behavior.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Talk about denial! Ain't it funny how the nuttiest Wingnuts even turn on their own investigators when the evidence doesn't please them?

This is one example, Scooter is another.

Now that's an excuse for LOL.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: The question that has alwayas baffled me is how does Bubba get away with it. The answer is because you lefties allow it. Look in the mirro and wonder just what type of behavior you tolerate. By the way, the cop you lefties wanted to hang, will only have to go to anger management. At least there are some adults making rulings among us. Good thing the cops name wasn't Clinton because then his wife and kid would be serving time on some trumped up charge.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Maybe if you just keep saying it, it will become true, John. Try clicking your heels together while you say it over and over.

I am puzzled, however, about why you keep attacking one of your own.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Watch out shitrock, you aren't Bubba. The guilotine may be coming for you. LOL LOL LOL Let Bubba slide along.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

What John K really says is, "La la la la la. I can't hear you! Don't you dare try to confuse me with the facts!"

You are precious, John -- you make even stupid libs look good.

(This is especially true since you and I are the same person!)

By the way, what makes you think I'm NOT Bill Clinton? Is it just because I'm a liberal and he's a conservative?