THE explosive Willey interview on CBS television has thrown the sex scandal story involving President Clinton into a new dimension. On March 16, former White House volunteer, Kathleen F. Willey, 51, claimed, on the 60 Minutes programme, that the president had groped her against her will during a November 1993 meeting in a room near the Oval Office where she had gone to ask for paid employment.
The interview, broadcast to some 30 million viewers, stunned the nation. Unlike the other cases involving former White House intern Monica Lewinsky and other women, sexual harassment not consensual sex was being charged in this, the nth episode in the Clinton sex story. Willey's allegations could strengthen the case of Paula Jones—who is suing the president for sexual harassment—as well as provide more grist to the mill for independent counsel Kenneth Starr and his investigation into the charges against the president.
Clinton, according to Willey's televised statements, had kissed her, touched her breast and placed her hand on his genitals. The president, she alleged, had "taken advantage of" her emotional distress at a time when her family faced financial strain and her husband was in a crisis. The reason she had now decided to air her allegations publicly, Willey told her TV audience, was because of the dishonesty surrounding her. "Too many lies are being told. Too many lives are being ruined. I think it's time for the truth to come out." Asked if Clinton had committed perjury by denying sexual contact with her during a January 17 deposition in the Jones case, Willey said, "Yes."
바카라 웹사이트During that deposition Clinton had stated that the meeting with Willey involved no sexual overtones. The president's lawyer Robert Bennett has obtained an affidavit from a former Willey friend, Julie Hiatt Steele, who said Willey asked her to lie about what she knew of the incident. When asked about Steele's affidavit, Willey replied that Steele "was pressured" by the White House which "wanted... to discredit me".
Willey could be a more troublesome witness for the President than the other women claiming sexual encounters. Besides the fact that her claim centres around a non-consensual encounter, she is also a longtime Democrat and, unlike Jones who has aligned herself with conservatives, cannot be dismissed as part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy". More worrisome to the White House is the fact that Willey testified before a grand jury as a cooperating witness in Starr's investigation.
Willey's story first emerged in public last year, after Jones' lawyers learned about her and tipped off Newsweek magazine. Linda Tripp, who worked at the White House with Willey and would later turn over to Starr secret tape recordings of her own conversations with Lewinsky, told Newsweek about running into Willey on the day of the incident with the president. Tripp said Willey told her about the sexual encounter but seemed "joyful" about it, contradicting Willey's account that she was shocked and angry. During her 60 Minutes interview, Willey claimed that Tripp had misinterpreted her mood.
After her meeting with the president, Willey was given a part-time paid position in the White House counsel's office where Tripp also worked, while Tripp was eventually transferred to the Pentagon against her will.
WILLEY'S account of her Oval Office encounter has drawn strong reaction from feminist leaders, who till now have not been harshly critical of the president for his alleged sexual indiscretions. Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organisation for Women, said on CNN's Late Edition: "It is a pretty serious charge if true and it is a very big problem". On the same show, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin G. Hatch said that if Willey is telling the truth, "then I think this presidency would be over".
Willey led a life of affluence and social prominence in Richmond, where her husband, Edward Willey, was a real estate lawyer. However, by November 29, 1993—the day of the meeting with Clinton—her husband was mired in deep legal and financial troubles that he had confessed to his wife. While his wife was at the White House, Edward Willey shot himself in the head.
The story gets murkier still. Around the time Willey was testifying to the grand jury, her lawyer was seeking a book deal for his client's autobiography. A Beverly Hills publisher Michael Viner has said that Willey's lawyer contacted him in January saying that Willey would require above $300,000 for a book because she needed that much to cover her husband's debts. No book deal was ever reached and Viner said he is no longer interested. Willey's lawyer claims that, had she been concerned primarily with money, she would not have gone ahead with the 60 Minutes interview because she had been told that such an appearance would diminish the marketability of a book. Yet, whether or not Willey succeeds in publishing her story, her lawyer's efforts form an intricate pattern of events and possible motivations that could have a strong bearing on the case.
In yet another development, Willey has accused Democratic fund-raiser Nathan Landow of trying to influence her testimony and get her to change her story. Landow, who denies Willey's accusation, is expected to be summoned before Starr's grand jury.
Willey's allegations have elicited strong reactions from President Clinton who pronounced himself "mystified and disappointed". The president suggested that her account should not be believed because it has emerged "in three different incarnations," changing crucially in tone when told by different people. Clinton advisors are depicting Willey as a woman who craved the president's attention even after their purported encounter. Though Willey's part-time paid position with the White House counsel's office only lasted a few months, in the year that followed she participated at government expense—and at the behest of the White House—in US delegations to two international conferences. And was later appointed to the governing board of the United Service Organisations.
A collection of notes and letters that Willey sent Clinton after the November 1993 meeting has been released by the White House, including one in which she called herself his "number one fan". Several of the messages are gushing testimonials about Clinton's speeches or his re-election victory. Others sought jobs, including an ambassadorship she was never given. According to a senior official, "far from being angry and shocked by Clinton's behaviour, Willey eagerly sought work on his 1996 re-election campaign".
What motivated her to keep plying the White House with job requests, despite the alleged incident, is uncertain. Some observers say she is a woman in financial trouble trying to take advantage of friends in high places. Others depict her as an angry victim of sexual harassment, using the president's indiscretion as leverage.
"Something may have happened" between Willey and Clinton, friends of the president are telling reporters, but she was "lying about how she felt about it". Such a minimalist defence reflects the White House's assessment of public opinion. Presidential advisors have concluded that Clinton's standing with the public is not hurt by allegations of adultery—as long as his behaviour does not cross the line into harassment. They have been proved right so far. Gallup polls taken after the Willey interview show that the public still has a favourable opinion of Clinton.
Meanwhile, Lewinsky's testimony has been put on hold while the judge deliberates on her lawyer's motion to enforce what he says was a binding immunity deal with Starr that the latter reneged on. A college friend of Lewinsky, Catherine Davis, was flown in from Japan to testify before the grand jury. And Starr has brought in other Lewinsky confidants, some of who have reportedly told investigators that Lewinsky shared details with them of a relationship with Clinton. Such a collective testimony could contradict Lewinsky's January 7 affidavit denying sexual relations with the president. If Starr can prove Lewinsky lied in the affidavit, he could charge her with perjury.
Until now, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has shown no appetite for an impeachment inquiry. Congressional sources say there would need to be a sharp downturn in the president's popularity and a decision by at least some Democrats to abandon him before the Republicans would consider impeachment.
