Robert,
I pulled the following from the same site that you were pointing to.
I have no idea if this ABC News memo is real or not.
Verbatim ABC News memo follows:
From: Isham, Chris Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 1998 12:45 PM
To: Friedman, Paul E.; Dunlavey, Dennis; Murphy, Bob
Subject: Broaddrick
Forwarding a memo by Josh Fine which is a good summary of the
Juanita Broddrick (Jane Doe #5.) Her case MAY have tipped some
moderate Republicans to vote yes on impeachment and MAY be
introduced in the Senate proceedings.
Juanita Broaddrick was subpoenaed in the Paula Jones case. She
filed an affidavit that said "These allegations (that Clinton had made
unwelcome advances towards her) are untrue." The allegations are
that she met Clinton in 1979 when he was attorney general and that
he raped or assaulted her. She owned nursing homes in Northwest
Arkansas and was in Little Rock for a convention. Clinton met her
in the afternoon and they made plans to meet later that night. He
said the best place to meet was in her room (at the Camelot Hotel)
since that way no one would see them (he was, after all, married).
They then went up to her hotel room in Little Rock and evidently
had sex. It is unclear if he raped or assaulted her but that is the
allegation made by Phillip Yoakum. Yoakum is a Fayetteville man
who says Broaddrick told him in 1992 that she was raped by
Clinton in the late 70's. I interviewed Yoakum in March and found
him entirely uncredible. He had facts wrong, was a total
Clinton-hater, and his claims to being friends with Broaddrick are
untrue. The other person who supposedly knows about what took
place is Norma Rogers-Kelsay, a friend of Broaddrick's who went
to the convention with her in Little Rock and drove back with her to
Van Buren where they live). Tamara Lipper spoke with Rogers on
the phone in March. Rogers said that Yoakum was telling the truth.
She was with Broaddrick before and after the incident and said that
she was in "quite bad shape after."
In 1991 Broaddrick was at a nursing home convention in Little
Rock and a man pulled her out of a meeting (this is all according to
Rogers-Kelsay). The man took her to Bill Clinton and he apologized
for hurting her and asked if there was anything he could do. She
didn't understand at the time why he had taken that step but soon
realized the real reason after he announced his candidacy for
President a few months later. In the 1992 campaign these rumors
began to circulate and Sheffield Nelson, a longtime Arkansas
Clinton-hater, tried to get her to come forward. She did not.
Yoakum evidently was at a meeting with Rogers and Broaddrick
where they discussed the incident and whether or not Broaddrick
should talk publicly about it. Evidently Broaddrick was worried no
one would believe her (similar to what happened with Gennifer
Flowers).
That was the last anyone heard of her until she was subpoenaed in
the Jones case. Apparently Lisa Myers went to Van Buren and
spoke with Broaddrick about her giving an interview. I also spoke
with Broaddrick. She made it abundantly clear that she had no
interest in her name getting out and didn't want to talk about it. She
also made it clear that she was not denying that something had
happened.
Last month the Schippers group sent two investigators to talk to
her. One of them was Diana Woznicki, a Chicago police sergeant
who is on loan to the investigation. We're not sure who the second
person was. The conversation took place at the office of
Broaddrick's attorney, Bill Walters, in Greenwood, AR. Walters
says that the ground rules for the interview was that there would be
no discussion of the underlying incident. The only topic that could
be discussed was the possibility of obstruction. According to
Walters, there is no obstruction despite the claims in the Yoakum
letter. The Yoakum letter claims that Broaddrick's husband Dave
said he was going to get a few favors from Clinton for keeping his
wife silent.
Late last week Republicans began to stream over to the Ford
building to look at the materials. According to a source of mine
there were about two dozen members who went to look at the
material on Thursday and Friday. Many Republicans were talking
up the new material as evidence that could come up at trial because
it would show a pattern and practice of behavior (paying off or
influencing women to keep quiet). According to Rep. Inglis under
federal rule of evidence 441(B) something showing a pattern or
practice can be admissible in a trial. But it is unclear if Rehnquist
would rule this admissible since it isn't a typical trial.
There is some question whether there is actually new evidence from
the Woznicki interview or members are just seeing the
Yoakum/Rogers evidence for the first time and consider it new. The
big question is what does Broaddrick say. If she won't talk about
the incident then there is only Yoakum and Rogers to show that she
was raped/assaulted. If she won't say she was obstructed it would
be hard to prove that. Still, the potential that a rape charge could be leveled at the President makes the story one that can't be totally
ignored.
I'm told by two senior Republican members of Congress that
Stephen Buyer (IN), Jim Ramstad (MN), and Steve Chabot (OH)
were encouraging their colleagues to look at the materials. I'm also
told George Radanovich (CA) took a special interest in the
Broaddrick interview. Rep. Hayworth told me on background that
the materials make Clinton out to be a "sexual predator."
There were rumblings from some Democrats (none of whom have
seen the materials) that there was pressure put on undecided
Republicans to vote for an article of impeachment based on the new
materials. But two of the members rumored to be swayed, John
Porter of Illinois and Jay Dickey of Arkansas told Ariane and I that
they never went to view the materials.
Call me if any of this isn't clear. I've put down some links to a
couple helpful documents: Broaddrick's affidavit
Yoakum's Letter
|
