American Politics Journal

Julie Hiatt Steele
Our thanks to Julie Hiatt Steele and Bartcop.com for permission to reprint this article.
Final Report
on the Office of Independent Counsel

by Julie Hiatt Steele

Sunday, March 10, 2002

The Office of Independent CounselC only now admits that Kathleen Willey was a liar because they have to explain why, if she had been anything else, they did not indict President Clinton on the "strength" (?) of her testimony and her grope allegation. What they fail to point out is that they were so driven to remove a twice elected President from office that they were covering for her all along. They point out only the tip of the iceberg in terms of her discrepancies. In fact, she was unable to keep any of her long and over-complicated stories straight.

The grope alone was material for a game of Clue. Did it happen in the study, the dining room, the hallway? Take your pick: at one time or another it happened in all three.

Then there was what "he said" or what "she said," never the same thing twice.

And never mind the famous jogger story, that one was right over the edge. We were to believe that pre-dawn, in pouring rain, post surgery, she could not sleep on that early winter morning and went walking with a neck brace and three dogs. There, in that pre-dawn, pouring-rain, January cold, waited a jogger clad in black, face somewhat obscured by pre-dawn light, hopeful she would not be able to sleep and would walk his way with three dogs and a neck brace. There he was, just waiting to scare her.

What a guy, what a story!

Sometimes he was identified as Jack Palladino, other times as Cody Shearer. Sometimes it was Nate Landeau that sent the mysterious jogger, other times it was the Clinton White House. The last time she spoke of this incident we did not get to hear the identity of the jogger, only that "evil Hillary" ("evil," sound familiar?) sent him. Naturally his words varied as well.

Sometimes it was, "You are just not getting the message are you Kathleen?" Other times it was, "Aren't you getting the message?" Sometimes he called her children and the cat by name, sometimes he didn't. One time he threw in her attorney's name along with the names of the attorney's children for good measure. His purpose, in case by now you wonder, was to explain the difference, MATERIAL difference, in testimony in at least four venues.

The first being Jones V Clinton -- where she "didn't know" or "couldn't recall" 63 times and going on through FBI interviews, Grand Jury appearances -- and of course the tearful performance that was 60 Minutes. He scared her into becoming inconsistent!

Naturally she didn't call the police or tell anybody about the mean old jogger, at least not until she was asked about the many differences in her account of events she had alleged as fact(S). But it gets better. Did you know that the jogger is alleged to have killed the missing cat? Well, that is what she said.

Naturally she did not tell anybody at the time about this one either. It seems that the jogger turned up two days before her Jones deposition and the dead cat's skull turned up on her porch one day after the deposition. She did not want to tell anybody it seems because the cat was such a real member of the family that it would be too painful for anybody to hear about. You can just imagine how hurt the police would have been had she called them!

Instead of inflicting that kind of pain, she just bravely, and quietly, buried the skull in her backyard. Wasn't that thoughtful? But no, the FBI would not be able to recover it because the dogs dug it up.

She then had to throw poor old Bullseye's skull over the fence and into the woods. Determined, nevertheless, the FBI dispatched a forensic team (your tax dollar at work) to Richmond to scour the woods. They managed to uncover bones but after hauling them back to Washington, it turned out that they had retrieved raccoon bones and no remnant of the "missing cat" was ever found. Heck, no wonder her testimony was all over the board with terror surrounding her like that!...

The real question for the OIC, and for every news organization in this country, is why was it necessary to nearly destroy my life and that of my son because I dared to dispute the words of a woman they absolutely knew was lying when she alleged that President Clinton had "groped" her. They tore our lives apart all the while knowing that Willey, their star witness, was a liar and that I had told the truth. Of course they don't mention the "star witness" part either. Let me do that for them...

There is no "high road" that Ray wants us to believe he had taken. Are you kidding? What part of that even makes sense?

They admit to more than $65 million of your tax dollars going to the "cause" and then try to tell us that they have grounds for an indictment of the last elected President but are too kind hearted to use them!

I own the Golden Gate Bridge and want to sell you shares if you believe any part of this nonsense! The fact is that they NEVER expected to be able to indict President Clinton on the strength of the Paula Jones civil case deposition. And, for that matter, I have seen the entire Paula Jones case as part of my pre-trial discovery. It was an absolute sham, designed to cripple President Clinton. The grand jury, with its Federal venue, was always their planned and "best odds" ticket to destroying the President. They needed one thing to happen for that to be orchestrated successfully.

They needed to convict me and lock the truth away in prison for forty years. The result would be the raising of Willey's credibility and a chance to indict the President for "perjury" in his August 17, 1998 grand jury testimony regarding Willey. As it stood, the President and I were saying the same thing, "it did not happen, there was no grope". We were saying the same thing because it happened to be the truth. The OIC knew that from day one, and still they threatened, bullied, punished, and ultimately prosecuted me because I dared to stand up to them and to tell the truth despite their best efforts to silence me.

The problem was that they did not get a conviction, not even in the notoriously conservative Fourth Circuit were they able to convict. They could not get a conviction with the Foreman, a Freeper who posted on the Internet via a buddy during the trial (and yes, Pete Yost of the AP, quoted in the report knew that -- and so did Judge Hilton). They could not get a conviction when another juror (as an example of the Fourth Circuit jury pool) was the wife of a CIA attorney, the mother of an intern with Bob Barr, who herself worked for an extreme right wing "right to life" group. They still could not get a conviction -- and the "party" was over as a result. Starr packed it in and Robert Ray was left to explain their overzealous prosecution of me.

Or, he could take the path he chose and explain why they did not use Willey as a tool to indict the President. He could not do both and save any shred of the OIC's credibility. He could not say they believed Willey and came after me in true Nazi form -- but then decided not to indict the President for speaking the same words I had spoken and I been indicted for speaking. That would never fly. They had to admit that Willey was a liar to explain not using her testimony for their ultimate goal. And if you notice, they carefully avoid admitting why they needed her and why they went to such lengths to protect her.

They are still protecting themselves by protecting her, even with the admissions made in the report. For your information, the result of her first polygraph question about me was not "inconclusive" and did not involve only one "confusing" question as she has stated. The results were "CONSISTENT WITH DECEPTION." The Government not only lied about these results, but allowed my grievance against Ken Starr in the eighth Circuit to be partly determined and thrown out of court on the strength of this lie. This lie, and that of Michael Isikoff who claimed I kept changing my story.

I assume that reporters are under oath as they write and that Michael Isikoff was not influenced by the $600,000 check he had in his pocket as an advance on the book he was writing about a story he certainly had no need to influence. Nevertheless, the claim that I kept changing my story was never even attempted by the OIC. In fact, Robert Ray and David Barger (my prosecutor) before him were careful to say that I was consistent. A "consistent serial liar" was Barger's description of me.

Robert Ray, who inherited a mess, did not go that far. He simply stated that I was consistent and described the various venues where I said the same thing over and over. Having admitted to at least some of Willey's lies, having admitted that she would not hold up in court but not that she was their only chance in court, the OIC was backed into a corner. They simply made my prosecution a footnote in the Willey story and offered no explanation beyond a feeble attempt to make me sound guilty based on the lies of witnesses they attempted to use in order to bolster their case.

Had these witnesses been credible, including Willey, they would have retried my case in a heartbeat! They weren't, and the OIC knew that. My attorneys did not even need to present a defense.

They knew that would happen only once -- they knew because Nancy Luque, Esq. told them so. She told them that the next time their witnesses would be lucky to "slither out of court on their bellies , especially Willey who crawled out the first time." They opted to forego a second trial because they knew she could do it, there was no case and no crime.

Speaking of "crime," do you actually know what the charges were for or about? I was charged with three counts for "Obstruction of Justice," and one count for "False Statements." All four counts were for the same "crime" and would net forty years in Federal prison per Federal guidelines for criminal conviction. When asked, I told the FBI agents who came to my door that Willey did not come to my house as she was still claiming, that she never told me anything about a grope, and that I did not believe it happened. That was Count one, "false statements" to Federal Agents.

When asked by the prosecutor to do so, I repeated this same thing, the truth, in two Grand juries, once in the District and once in VA. That brought about two more counts, this time for "Obstruction of Justice." It seems I was somehow impeding justice in the Jones case when I said Willey hadn't come to my house or told me about her alleged "grope."

And that was not even the end of my so-called crime spree, no sir, I went right on the "Larry King Show" and said all of it all over again! This time it appears that I was trying to influence potential jurors all over the country. These were the jurors who might have presided over Jones V Clinton and would certainly have been influenced by an ordinary American that most of them, if the case had ever gone to trial, had probably never heard of in August, 1998. The power of my spoken word might even be impressive except for one little thing, I was telling the truth and the OIC knew that.

They, not I, had the real power, the power to indict, the power to destroy. They were protecting Willey and they could not afford my honesty or credibility. They had become an out-of-control freight train driven by Ken Starr and his partisan allies. It was a train loaded with all of the power and resources of the United States government, it was also headed straight for me. I never even saw it coming.

So, you tell me, why am I sitting here in a rented second-floor walk-up, albeit at the beach, awaiting the outcome of possible condemnation resulting from six violations of the city housing code? The owner has made no effort to make repairs or to even get bids on the work. I want to know why is it okay for me to be fifty-five years old, the single parent of an eleven year old son, and be left like this, damaged and forced to "start over." We are a long way from our former life on Arsenal Drive. Is this America today?

Please tell me in a way I can understand: why has a government I once respected made Adam and me their "collateral damage" in a failed coup to overthrow two elections? And why does the media continue to look the other way? They might write that Willey lied, but where is the part about the havoc caused, and lives nearly destroyed, by those lies and an over zealous prosecutor who was willing to cover them up?

Do they have ANY idea, could anybody REALLY know, of the damage that has been done to us? I think not. One thing is clear though: Ken Starr "got out while the getting was good." He left Robert Ray to clean up after him -- are we surprised? Again, I think not. The real question here is will the media be willing to step to the plate and write the truth, the jury is still out on that one.

I thank you for the opportunity to address at least some of the issues that extend far beyond the "final report." I ask you to think about them and about the aftermath in the context of your own lives. If this could happen to me, it could happen to any one of us.

We need to throw down our partisan swords and work together to make certain that it doesn't happen to one more American citizen. None of us is safe from a government with too much power and too many of our resources. Think about it...

Respectfully submitted,
Julie Hiatt Steele

Click Here to e-mail Julie Hiatt Steele


Copyright © 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, American Politics Journal Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. Read our privacy policy. Contact us.
ISSN No. 1523-1690