Browning Vs Clinton, Plaintiff’s expedited motion for leave to perpetuate testimony of threatened witnesses, Case No. 98-1991, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broaddrick, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Elizabeth Gracen, Kathleen Willey, Julie Steele, Sally Perdue
Browning Vs Clinton, Plaintiff’s expedited motion for leave to perpetuate testimony of threatened witnesses, Case No. 98-1991, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broaddrick, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Elizabeth Gracen, Kathleen Willey, Julie Steele, Sally Perdue
“IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DOLLY KYLE BROWNING, et al.,
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, et al.,
) Case No. 98-1991 (WBB)
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPEDITED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PERPETUATE TESTIMONY OF THREATENED WITNESSES OR,
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO COMMENCE LIMITED DISCOVERY
Plaintiffs, by undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), 27(c), and 30, and the inherent authority of this Court, hereby respectfully move to perpetuate the testimony of certain crucial witnesses in this case. These witnesses are all women who have direct, personal knowledge of information harmful to the Clinton Administration. As a result, they have been intimidated and threatened, and fear for their safety. To preserve their testimony, Plaintiffs must take their depositions upon oral examination without delay. They request leave to perpetuate the testimony of these witnesses or, in the alternative, to commence limited discovery to take their depositions. As grounds therefor, Plaintiffs state as follows:
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
On September 14, 1998, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint alleging in Count VI that William Jefferson Clinton (“Clinton”) and Bruce Robert Lindsey (“Lindsey”), individually and in concert with others, engaged and conspired to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. See Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 124-35. This pattern of activity includes, inter alia, threatening and intimidating women to prevent them from truthfully testifying and publicly revealing information about Clinton’s various transgressions.See id. at ¶¶ 131-34. Plaintiffs allege that concealing this information from the American public was essential for Clinton and Lindsey to acquire and maintain control of the Office of President of the United States. See id. at ¶¶ 124-30.
Plaintiff Dolly Kyle Browning has been intentionally and maliciously threatened by Clinton and his agents, including Lindsey. See id. at ¶¶ 131-33. They threatened to “destroy” her if she told the media about her sexual relationship with Clinton. See id. at ¶ 131. They also warned her not to publish her book, Purposes of the Heart, which depicts that 30-year relationship. See id. In addition, Clinton, acting through Lindsey, threatened and intimidated Mrs. Browning into severely limiting her public statements about her relationship with Clinton. Id.
Most significant to the instant motion, Clinton and Lindsey also knowingly used threats and intimidation to prevent Mrs. Browning from testifying in the Paula Jones civil rights/sexual harassment lawsuit (“the Jones case”). They directed Clinton’s lawyers to draft a motion to quash her deposition subpoena, and pressured Mrs. Browning to file it with the court. See id. at ¶¶ 61-64. Mrs. Browning, a member of the Texas Bar and officer of the court, refused to comply, and was deposed in the Jones case on October 28, 1997. See id. at ¶¶ 2, 64-65. Clinton and his agents then followed through on their threats against Mrs. Browning. Among other things, they defamed her, publicly branding her a liar out to “get” the President, and knowingly circulating false and derogatory information about her character and motivations.See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 67, 69, 71-74, 79-81.
Remarkably similar threatening tactics have been directed at other women who, like Mrs. Browning, have personal knowledge of Clinton’s misconduct and were sought as witnesses in official proceedings against Clinton. See id. at ¶ 134. Plaintiffs referred in their Amended Complaint to the threats and retaliation by Clinton and his agents against Kathleen Willey and Linda Tripp when they were called to testify in the Jones case and the Independent Counsel’s investigation of the Lewinsky affair. Indeed, the number of women who have suffered from these “Clintonian” tactics is significant. On March 11, 1999,Investor’s Business Daily reported that at least nine (9) women have now charged that Clinton “personally assaulted them or, through his ‘agents’ or ‘people,’ threatened to do them or their families physical harm.” The list includes Dolly Kyle Browning, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Corbin Jones, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, Sally Perdue, and Elizabeth Ward Gracen. “And all of them say they’re afraid for their safety so long as he remains in power.”
Because of the threats, intimidation, and retaliation directed at these women, their fear for their safety, and the enormous power and means available to Clinton and Lindsey, Plaintiffs must perpetuate the testimony of these women without delay. Their testimony will substantiate Plaintiffs’ RICO allegations, and is both competent and highly relevant to Plaintiffs’ case. As RICO witnesses against the highest officials in our government, these women are at enormous risk. Every moment of delay provides Clinton and Lindsey with additional opportunities to threaten them and/or their families, and enhances the chances that their testimony will be lost forever. Plaintiffs cannot obtain the testimony of these witnesses through the ordinary course of discovery in this case as all discovery has been stayed pending the Court’s ruling on the outstanding motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully move the Court for leave to perpetuate the testimony of these witnesses or, in the alternative, to commence limited discovery to take their depositions.
As the Supreme Court recognized in Arizona v. California, efforts to perpetuate the testimony of witnesses are proper even when litigation is pending before a court:
No bill to perpetuate testimony has heretofore been filed in this Court; but no reason appears why such a bill may not be entertained in aid of litigation pending in this Court, or to be begun here. . . .
[I]t must appear that . . . depositions of the witnesses cannot be taken and perpetuated in the ordinary methods . . . because the then condition of the suit (if one is pending) renders it impossible . . .; and that taking of the testimony . . . is made necessary by the danger that it may be lost by delay.
By the Court’s express language, where, as in this case, the condition of the lawsuit renders routine discovery impossible, an action to perpetuate testimony is appropriate.
In addition, federal courts have broad authority under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to permit the perpetuation of testimony. Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(c) expressly states that the rule “does not limit the power” of a court to entertain perpetuation actions. In 1972, this Court explained the purpose of Rule 27(c) in In re Fitzgerald. Writing for the Court, the Honorable Judge Bryant stated:
The court believes that the purpose of Rule 27(c) is to give the court flexibility in the use of its equity powers and to permit the court to order a deposition to be taken when a person appears before the court and shows good cause for needing one.
16 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1052, 1053-54 (D.D.C. 1972) (emphasis added). Leading scholars agree with and extensively quote Judge Bryant’s “good cause” reasoning.
Indeed, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“DC Circuit”) recently elaborated and went further stating that a court “shall permit . . . depositions to be taken” if it finds that perpetuation of a witness’ testimony “may prevent a failure or delay of justice.” Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1371, 1374 (D.C. Cir. 1995). According to the Court, a party need not demonstrate that litigation is an absolute certainty; nor, reasoning by extension, that it will survive a dispositive motion. Moreover, Rule 27 does not require a Court to express any opinion on the merits of the claims being made, only on whether there is probative evidence of those claims that is in danger of being lost.
In a Rule 27 perpetuation action, the party seeking testimony must show that it is competent and material, that it cannot be obtained through routine discovery, and that a failure or delay of justice may result if it is not presently obtained. The identity of the person(s) to be examined must be provided, as well as the substance of the proposed testimony and the reasons for desiring to preserve it. If the court is satisfied that perpetuation of the testimony may prevent a failure or delay of justice, it must permit the depositions to be taken.
Plaintiffs respectfully submit that they easily meet all these requirements. First, the present condition of this lawsuit does indeed render routine discovery impossible. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d), “a party may not seek discovery . . . before the parties have met and conferred.” Although Plaintiffs contacted Defendants and requested such a meeting, at Defendants’ request, the Court ruled during a February 16, 1999 Status Conference that the meet-and-confer conference would be stayed pending its ruling on the outstanding motions to dismiss. As a result, all discovery in this case has been prevented and, after several months, there is still no indication it will commence in the near future.
Also, there is no question that these witnesses are able to testify from direct, personal knowledge, and are therefore competent to testify in the requested perpetuation proceeding. Their testimony is also material to Plaintiffs’ case as it will substantiate Plaintiffs’ RICO allegations and show a pattern of racketeering activity by Clinton and his agents, including Lindsey.
Finally, the risk that this testimony will be lost if not quickly obtained is significant and cannot be overstated. As the facts below plainly show, the safety of these witnesses (and that of their families) has been most seriously threatened around the time they are expected to give testimony in legal proceedings against Clinton. As prospective witnesses in this case with personal knowledge of racketeering activities by Clinton and Lindsey, as well as others, the risk to their safety is substantial and immediate.
Plaintiffs demonstrate below that perpetuating the testimony of these witnesses is critical because it is highly probative evidence that Clinton and Lindsey, in concert with others, engaged and conspired to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962. This pattern of racketeering activity includes and the testimony of these witnesses will show, inter alia, obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503; obstruction of a criminal investigation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1510; tampering with a witness or victim in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512; and retaliating against a witness or victim in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513. The witnesses and the substance of the testimony that Plaintiffs expect to elicit from them are as follows:
Ms. Gennifer G. Flowers
Plaintiffs seek to question Ms. Flowers about her testimony in the Jones case that Clinton instructed her not to testify truthfully in an Arkansas investigation of allegations that she obtained her state job because of an adulterous affair with Clinton. Plaintiffs also want to question her about repeated break-ins to her home, threats both she and her mother received, and the brutal beating of her neighbor who witnessed Clinton entering her apartment.
In an interview published in The Washington Post in August 1998, Ms. Flowers stated that she met Clinton in 1977 when she worked for a Little Rock television station and he was Attorney General of Arkansas. A 12-year affair followed. The Post reported that the affair became public when she was identified in a lawsuit by a state employee alleging that Clinton was using state funds for adulterous affairs. Ms. Flowers testified in the Jones case that Clinton “instructed [her] not to be honest” in the state proceeding investigating that matter. This is further confirmed in her recorded telephone conversation with Clinton in October 1991 wherein he states “[i]f they ever asked [sic] if you’d talked to me about it [the state job], you can say no.”
Additionally, in January 23, 1998, Flowers was a guest on Larry King Live just after Clinton admitted an adulterous relationship with her during his deposition in the Jones case. Flowers stated on that broadcast that she was “very scared,” because “[her] home had been ransacked, I had received threats. My mother received threats. People were getting beaten. I was afraid for my life basically.” Flowers’ testimony in the Jones case also indicates that these calls were “physically threatening.” In fact, in the threatening call that her mother received the man said “[w]ell, I think she’d [Gennifer] be better off dead.”
Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Flowers’ expected testimony is probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice by Clinton in violation 18 U.S.C. § 1503; tampering with and harassing a witness by Clinton and his agents in violation 18 U.S.C. § 1512; and threatening to retaliate against a witness by Clinton and his agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513.
Ms. Juanita Broaddrick
Ms. Broaddrick recently came forward with allegations that she was the victim of a brutal rape by Clinton in 1978. Plaintiffs seek to question her about telephone calls she stated she received from Clinton between1978 and 1979 subsequent to the rape incident, and whether the substance of those calls was in the nature of a threat to stay silent. In addition, Plaintiffs want to question Ms. Broaddrick about her statements that she was followed days before her interview with House impeachment investigators, and that her house was broken into, the tape from her answering machine stolen, her three cats set loose, and her telephone tampered with in early 1998. Plaintiffs want to know whether she felt that these incidents were also meant to threaten or intimidate her into silence. Further, Plaintiffs wish to ask her if the reason that she did not come forward earlier with her allegation of rape was because her business, Arkansas nursing homes for the elderly and mentally retarded, which are subject to state regulation for licensing and government funding, were at risk from retaliation by Clinton-appointed state regulators.
As recently reported by NBC News, Ms. Broaddrick has claimed that Clinton raped her in Little Rock in the Spring of 1978, while she attended a nursing home conference. She also told Lisa Myers that Clinton called her a half dozen times at the nursing home after the rape, and then unexpectedly appointed her to a state advisory board in 1979. She had no further face-to-face contact with him until 1991, when she attended a meeting in Little Rock with two friends. Broaddrick said she was suddenly called out of the meeting and, to her astonishment, there was Clinton standing in the hallway.
[H]e immediately began this profuse apology, saying, ‘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?
When asked why she did not report the rape and signed an affidavit in the Jones case denying that anything ever happened, Broaddrick stated: “I was also afraid what would happen to me if I came forward. I was afraid that I would be destroyed like so may of the other women have been.” The Washington Times also reported that “[f]riends and others in Arkansas say she is fearful for her family’s business interests, two homes for the elderly and mentally retarded in Fort Smith and Van Buren, Ark., which are licensed by the state of Arkansas and which receive government payments.”
Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Broaddrick’s expected testimony is probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice by Clinton and his agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503; prevention of a criminal investigation by Clinton in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1510; and victim intimidation and harassment by Clinton in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512.
Ms. Linda R. Tripp
Plaintiffs seek to question Ms. Tripp about the threats she stated she received from the White House via Monica Lewinsky just prior to her testimony in the Jones case, and via Bruce Lindsey after she raised concerns with him about certain activities in the White House Counsel’s Office. Ms. Tripp was an employee in the White House Counsel’s Office before being removed by the Clinton Administration to the Pentagon.
Ms. Tripp told NBC’s Today Show’s Jamie Gangel that her fear of Clinton stems from a meeting she heard Clinton had about her in July 1997. She also said that Clinton called Lewinsky the night of July 14, 1997 to ensure that Tripp had become “a team player,” and would lie for him in the Jones case. Tripp stated that she was afraid for her livelihood, and because of threats that had been made to her life and the lives of her children. Gangel asked if she believed Clinton was threatening her life, and Tripp replied:
I believe that that was the message I was supposed to receive. Be a team player or else. . . . If you don’t lie, you are being set up for perjury and jail. And who will believe you? You will lose your job and worse. That’s what I was facing.”
Further, Ms. Tripp recently testified in a proceeding before this Court that Monica Lewinsky twice left on her office chair a list of people around Clinton who had died mysteriously. She stated under oath that both times she believed it was an attempt by Clinton to influence her testimony with regard to Kathleen Willey, and she took it as a serious threat.
Importantly, Tripp also testified about a threat she received directly from Lindsey when she told him of her concern “that enemies [of the Clinton Administration], real or perceived, were in danger of information coming out [on them] in one way or another by the [A]dministration. Tripp testified that at the end of the conversation Lindsey said to her “talk like that will get you destroyed. You will be destroyed. He said it with a smile.” Tripp stated that this scared her and she feared that “perhaps an accident would befall [her].”
Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Tripp’s expected testimony is probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice by Clinton in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503; witness tampering by Clinton and Lindsey in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512; and threatening to retaliate against a witness by Clinton and Lindsey in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513.
Ms. Monica S. Lewinsky
Plaintiffs wish to question Ms. Lewinsky about statements she made on the now infamous tapes of telephone conversations between her and Linda Tripp. On one such tape made public by The New York Times last October, Ms. Lewinsky is reported to have stated: “I would not cross those people for fear of my life.” Speaking of Clinton she also stated on the tapes that “my mother’s big fear is that he’s going to send someone out to kill me.” Plaintiffs wish to probe these and other statements with Ms. Lewinsky to ascertain the basis for her fears of retaliation. Plaintiffs also wish to question her about the “death list” left on Linda Tripp’s office chair, and her conversation with Clinton about Tripp being a “team player.” Plaintiffs also want to question Ms. Lewinsky about Clinton’s efforts to secure a job for her to ascertain whether those efforts were intended to influence her testimony in the Jones case and Independent Counsel investigation.
Ms. Lewinsky’s expected testimony is probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice, obstruction of a criminal investigation, witness tampering, and threatening to retaliate against a witness by Clinton and his agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1510,1512 and 1513.
Ms. Paula Corbin Jones
Plaintiffs seek to question Ms. Jones about her statements that she is fearful for her life, the threat she perceived from Clinton’ s lawyer and Defendant in this case, Robert S. Bennett, and her stated belief that Clinton ordered the IRS tax audit initiated against her.
On Larry King Live, Ms. Jones stated:
KING: Paula, do you think you were audited because of who you are?
JONES: Absolutely – Clinton ordered it.
KING: Sarasota, Florida – Hello.
CALLER: Yes, Paula thank you for your courage. And I’d like to ask you: Have you ever been threatened, or do you fear for your life?
JONES Yes, I mean, through this whole thing I’ve felt very scared, and want to watch where I’m going all times, never really be alone. . . . Bennett threatened me himself. . . .
KING: So you – are you actually – Linda Tripp said the other night that she – you actually feared for your health.
JONES: Absolutely. . . .
JONES: . . . I want to tell whole world . . . I don’t drive crazy, so I won’t run off the road; and I’m not suicidal, I love my life, I love my children and everything; so I’m not going kill myself. So we all got that clear on national TV that I would never do that.
On April 16, 1999, Ms. Jones again stated her fears on Hannity and Colmes:
HANNITY: You stated in the past that you at times, like Linda Tripp has stated as well, that you have feared for your life. You even went on to say that you want the whole world to know that you are not suicidal, that you love life, you love your children, you’d never kill yourself. And you wanted to say that to a national audience. Why? What did you fear?
JONES: Well, I mean, there’s been a lot of people that’s come up dead in Arkansas. And I’ve had a lot of people ask me, ‘Aren’t you scared for your life?’ And actually, I have been.
Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Jones’ expected testimony is probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice, victim/witness tampering, and victim/witness retaliation by Clinton and his agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512 and1513.
Ms. Elizabeth Ward Gracen
Plaintiffs wish to question Ms. Gracen about numerous anonymous telephone calls she stated she received where the caller warned her to keep quiet about her relationship about Clinton, the threats and ultimate occurrence of an IRS audit, her statements about being “staked out” after her initial disclosure of her sexual involvement with Clinton, and how she, her family, and friends have been threatened.
After denying any sexual involvement with Clinton for six years, Ms. Gracen told The New York Daily News in April 1998 that she had “sex with Bill Clinton.” Gracen explained that the incident took place at a Little Rock hotel room in 1983, a year after her reign as Miss America, and when Clinton was in his second term as Govenor. Gracen’s admission came in response to rumors of a sexual assault by Clinton, precipitated by the deposition of her friend, Judy Stokes, in the Jones case.
In September 1998, in the midst of the Impeachment hearings, and months after her initial disclosure, Gracen told The Toronto Sun:
I think Clinton is a very dangerous, manipulative man and I’ve had to be very careful. . . . There was a lot of pressure of my family and friends, people being staked out. I was afraid for my safety at one point. It’s just not an area where you’re safe. I would never have said what I just told you a month ago.
Later that month, Gracen elaborated on her statement, and told The New York Post about ominous telephone calls she received in 1997 and 1998:
[T]his year, late last year, I started receiving calls that made things fall into place. Some friendly calls telling me to get out of town to dodge a subpoena from Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Some nasty calls saying my character was about to be assassinated. . . . My friends were being asked mystery questions about tapes . . ..
Gracen also described a strange incident in which her hotel room was broken into and ransacked while on vacation. “They were looking for tapes that did not exist. The gentleman looking after our room said he saw two men in suits enter the place and one man in a suit waiting outside. He didn’t challenge them, he thought they were our friends.” Id. After that incident, she stated that the telephone calls started again, and she attributed them to the Clinton Administration:
Yes, I was physically scared. We are talking about the presidency of the country here, and between the friendly calls on one hand telling me to get out of town for my own good and then talking about smear tactics on the other, I got scared. There were always veiled threats. . . .
In January 1999, through her attorney, Gracen alleged that the Clinton Administration instituted an IRS audit against her in retaliation for her refusing to stay silent. Gracen’s lawyer, Vincent Vento, told theThe New York Post that weeks after Gracen’s interview with The Toronto Sun in which she spoke of her involvement with Clinton, Gracen received a telephone call in which the caller stated: “You should really keep your mouth shut about Bill Clinton and go on with your life. You could be discredited. You could have an IRS investigation.” Id. Vento also stated that a few weeks after the telephone call, the letter from the IRS arrived, sent to her parents home, which is not listed on her tax filings. Id.
Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Gracen’s expected testimony is probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice, obstruction of a criminal investigation, victim/witness tampering, and victim/witness retaliation by Clinton and his agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1510, 1512 and1513.
Ms. Kathleen Willey
Plaintiffs seek to question Ms. Willey about threatening incidents she said occurred before her deposition in the Jones case. The incidents — nails in her car tires, the disappearance of the family cat, and an unknown (at the time) jogger who questioned her about the prior two incidents, asking “Don’t you get the message?” – were apparently an effort to intimidate her from giving truthful testimony in the Jonescase. Plaintiffs also want to question her about her statements that Clinton lawyer, Robert Bennett, threatened her suggesting she should plead the Fifth Amendment and hire a criminal defense lawyer before her Jones deposition. Plaintiffs also want to inquire about private investigator Jared Stern who, at the behest of Martin Landow, Democratic Party contributor, was hired to conduct a “noisy” investigation of her during the Jones case and Independent Counsel investigation.
Ms. Willey worked in the White House as a volunteer in 1993. In early 1998, she claimed that she had been sexually groped by Clinton on November 23, 1993, in the same Oval Office room where he later had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. In an interview with 60 Minutes’ Ed Bradley, she stated that Clinton embraced her, kissed her, touched her breast, and placed her hand on his genitals. Willey also told ABC News that two weeks before her January 11, 1997 deposition in the Jones case, she found masses of nails in three of her car tires. Shortly thereafter, her cat, which she had had for many years, disappeared. Then, just before she testified in the Jones case, a jogger stopped her and asked her about her tires, her cat, and her children — by name. “Don’t you get the message?” he asked, and then jogged off. The jogger was recently identified as Cody Shearer, the brother-in-law of Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott and long-time friend of Clinton.
Willey confirmed and elaborated upon her account of this incident in a recent interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews. She described in more detail her encounter with the mysterious jogger in her Virginia neighborhood on January 8, 1998, just days before her deposition in the Jones case:
WILLEY: . . . I went out for a walk. I had my three dogs with me, and I saw a man coming towards me. And I at first thought that he was a neighbor. . . . And he was coming towards me, and he called my – out my name, and he said, ‘Kathleen.’ And I stopped and I said, ‘Yes?’ And he said, ‘Did you ever find your cat?’ And I said, ‘No.’ . . . I’d asked a couple of neighbors to keep an eye out for this family pet, a 13-year-old cat. I’d never told anybody his name. I just described him to these neighbors, and I thought that maybe word had gotten around in the neighborhood . . ..
And so he asked me, ‘Did you ever find your cat?’ And I said ‘No, I didn’t.’ And I said . . . ‘Not – no, I haven’t, and we – we really miss him.’ And then he said, ‘Did you ever get those tires fixed on your car?’ And I said ‘No.’ And that’s when the hairs started standing up on the back of my neck.
And he said . . . ‘That – that cat of yours, he was a nice cat.’ And he said . . . ‘Bullseye was his name, wasn’t it?’ ‘He was a really nice cat.’ And I said ‘How do you know my cat’s name? I mean, what – how do you know anything about this?’ And then I said, ‘And how do you know about my car and how do you know about the tires?’ And he said, ‘Well, did you ever get them fixed?’ And I said ‘yes, I did.’ . . . It was – it was a very insidious thing, and it was meant to scare me.. . .
MATTHEWS: And it did, to some extent. You testified a couple of days later in a kind of hesitant manner.
WILLEY: He asked me about my children by name. ‘How are your children? How are Shannon and Patrick?’ . . .
WILLEY: He asked how they were and, at the – at this point, I started asking him who he was and what he wanted.
WILLEY: And he just looked me right in the eye and he said, ‘You’re just not getting the message, are you?’ And I turned around and – and ran. I had no business running, and probably ran about 100 yards, I was so frightened, and I turned around and he was gone.
Willey later stated to Matthews that she recognized the man from pictures shown to her by ABC News reporter Jackie Judd. When asked by Matthews if it was Cody Shearer, Willey said that she couldn’t say, citing the Independent Counsel’s investigation. Id. NewsMax.com reports that Willey later told Matthews off camera that the stranger was in fact Clinton operative Cody Shearer.
Willey also told 60 Minutes that she felt pressured by Clinton’s lawyer Bob Bennett. She said that Bennett suggested she plead the Fifth Amendment and hire a criminal lawyer. According to Willey, “the insinuation to me was that Mr. Bennett was implying that I was going to face some kind of a criminal charge for perjury or – or something else, and that I would need an inside the loop – an inside Washington criminal lawyer, and . . . I didn’t and I don’t.”
Willey also stated that Nathan Landow tried to pressure her to keep her story secret. ABC News reported that Landow poured over $247,000 and raised over $600,000 for Clinton’s presidential campaigns. He reportedly pressured Willey in the weeks before and after her Jones deposition to deny her accusation that Clinton groped her, and to state that nothing had in fact happened.
ABC News also reported that a private investigator, Jared Stern, was hired by Landow’s lawyer “to pull Willey’s phone records, to find out what medications Willey might be taking and to conduct a ‘noisy’ investigation aimed at making sure Willey knew she was being watched.” Stern’s lawyer stated that Stern “perceived a situation where he was being asked to do something he wasn’t comfortable with.” As a result, Stern called Willey and left a message – using an alias – warning her that someone wanted to do her harm.
Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Willey’s expected testimony is probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice, obstruction of a criminal investigation, victim/witness tampering, and victim/witness retaliation by Clinton and his agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1510, 1512 and 1513.
Ms. Julie Hiatt Steele
Plaintiffs wish to question Ms. Steele on the reason(s) she changed her story about Kathleen Willey’s having confided to her the details of Clinton’s sexual assault, first stating and then denying that Willey told her about the incident immediately after it happened. Additionally, Plaintiffs also want to ask her whether former United States Trade Representative, Commerce Secretary and longtime Clinton operative Mickey Kantor threatened her to change her story by questioning the conditions surrounding the adoption of her child. Finally, Plaintiffs want to inquire about her friend, Mary Earl Highsmith’s, recent testimony in federal court that Steele told her she was “afraid it would be to her detriment” to take a position against Clinton.
In her May 11, 1999 interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews, Kathleen Willey stated that 60 Minutes Producer Michael Radutzky told her that Mickey Kantor had threatened her friend, Julie Hiatt Steele, to change her story. “[T]hey told me that — that my friend, Julie Steele, had been approached by a very high ranking member of the Clinton [A]dministration questioning her about the — the conditions of her adoption of her child.” Willey said that Radutzky told her that Kantor pressured her friend, Julie Steele, to change Steele’s corroboration of Willey’s encounter with Clinton:
MATTHEWS: . . . But its your belief that the [A]dministration used that child as – as a hostage, in effect, to get her to turn around?
WILLEY: That’s what I was told. . ..
MATTHEWS: By whom?
WILLEY: Well, by – I was told it was Mickey Kantor that went and threatened her with that.
MATTHEWS: Who told you that?
WILLEY: Michael Radutzky at “60 Minutes.”
The next day on Larry King Live, Willey explained that it was this act of intimidation by the White House that motivated her to do the 60 Minutes interview last year:
WILLEY: That’s what turned me. I didn’t go on “60 [M]inutes” to talk about the incident in the Oval Office. I was so outraged that they had – supposedly, that the White House had sent one of their minions to intimidate Julie with this adoption; I thought, well, regardless of what she’d done to me, regardless of how she had said that I had asked her to lie, I just thought that no mother should be threatened with her child. . . .
KING: “60 [M]inutes” misled you. They were going to do a story about Julie Hiatt Steele and lying, and they did a story instead about groping?
KING: So why then do you believe them on Kantor?
WILLEY: Because I think that’s they way the White House operates. I think they try to intimidate people and scare them. They tried to scare me.
Given this information, Plaintiffs submit that Ms. Steele’s expected testimony is probative of, inter alia, obstruction of justice, obstruction of a criminal investigation, witness tampering, and threatening to retaliate against a witness in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1510, 1512 and 1513.
Ms. Sally Perdue
Plaintiffs would also like to question Ms. Sally Perdue, a former Miss Arkansas, about her claim that a known Democratic Party operative tried to hush her up during the 1992 campaign about an alleged affair with Clinton. She says that the man stated to her that “they knew that I went jogging by myself and he couldn’t guarantee what would happen to my pretty little legs.” On information and belief, Ms. Perdue has left the United States because of such threats and is presently in China. Plaintiffs seek leave to depose her as soon as she is located or otherwise becomes available.
The threats, intimidation, and retaliation directed against these women by Clinton and his agents are so similar in nature that each of their accounts renders the next more credible. Indeed, when high government officials are behind such horrific tactics, the fear engendered is particularly agonizing. Here, we see that it was so widespread it kept Ms. Broaddrick from coming forward with her allegations of rape against Clinton. She explained in no uncertain terms that one of the reasons she maintained her silence was because she feared she would be “destroyed” like “the other women” if she came forward and revealed Clinton’s brutal conduct. It is this pervasive atmosphere of fear and intimidation that best demonstrates just how effective the RICO enterprise that meted out threats against these women has been.
Moreover, it is quite apparent from the facts that these women (and their families) were most seriously threatened around the time when they were expected to give testimony in official proceedings against Clinton. As prospective witnesses in this case with personal knowledge of racketeering activities by Clinton, Lindsey, and others, these women are subject to substantial and immediate risks to their physical safety and psychological well-being. No one can predict when or if an accident or change of mind may affect the availability of testimony from any particular witness, but reasonable people can infer that the testimony of a witness who has been assaulted, threatened and intimidated stands the greatest risk of “disappearing.” And, unfortunately, no one can predict the extent to which these Defendants will go to prevent the revelation of unlawful racketeering activities by them and others acting on their behalf. Given all the circumstances in this case, Plaintiffs and the aforementioned witnesses need the Court’s intervention to register and perpetuate their testimony before it is lost forever. There is no doubt that the Court’s intervention “may prevent a failure or delay of justice” in this case. As such, and in accordance with the D.C. Circuit’s recent ruling in Penn Mutual, this Court must, respectfully, permit Plaintiffs to take their depositions without delay.
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
Larry Klayman, Esq.
DC Bar No. 334581
Deborah E. Berliner, Esq.
DC Bar No. 422238
Vincent A. Mulloy, Esq.
DC Bar No. 451280
501 School Street, S.W., Suite 725
Washington, DC 20024
Attorneys for Plaintiffs”
Attorney Matthew DePerno: Four Shocking Discoveries from the Dominion Machines Audit in Antrim County Michigan Including Ties with China
Attorney Matthew DePerno: Four Shocking Discoveries from the Dominion Machines Audit in Antrim County Michigan IncludingRead More
Who is Kamala Harris, really? Ask her sister Maya, Washington Post July 23, 2019, Scrubbed from WP Jan 2021, ‘A morsel of food please’
Who is Kamala Harris, really? Ask her sister Maya, Washington Post July 23, 2019, ScrubbedRead More