Fondlee, Kathleen: Isikoff on the Stand?
A potentially significant conflict is opening up between Michael Isikoff,
the Newsweek reporter who's been a driving force in the Flytrap scandal,
and Julie Steele, the erstwhile friend of Kathleen Willey who says Willey told
her to lie to Isikoff. As discussed in Chatterboxes for 2/3 and 2/18, Isikoff
reported as long ago as last August that Steele initially told him (Version #1)
that Willey had told her about an unwanted Clinton pass on the day it happened.
Isikoff also reported, in the same August story, that Steele then recanted, and
told him (Version #2) that Willey had only "told her about the incident weeks
after it happened, saying only that the president had made a pass at her." Now
Steele claims that Willey didn't mention anything at all about a pass, wanted
or not--Steele has signed an affidavit (Version #3) claiming that Willey "never
said anything to suggest that President Clinton made sexual advances toward
her." What's more--and this is the key point--Steele, through her lawyer
denies telling Isikoff what he reported she told him last summer after
her recantation, namely that Willey had still talked of a "pass," if not an
unwanted pass.
This is a direct conflict; the question isn't what Willey told Steele but
what Steele told Isikoff. Isikoff says Steele told him Willey talked of a
"pass." Steele denies telling Isikoff this. (In effect, she says there was no
Version #2) ... But there's more: Isikoff also reported, in the March 9 issue
of Newsweek , that Steele had told him a second time that Willey had
indeed mentioned a sexual advance. He wrote: "Just two weeks ago, however,
Steele repeated to Newsweek that Willey had told her about a sexual
'overture' by Clinton." Does Steele deny telling Isikoff this as well?
Presumably yes. (Her lawyer, Nancy Luque, said she would try to reach her
client and call Chatterbox back. Chatterbox is still waiting.) ...
Unless Willey's credibility is somehow destroyed, this isn't a petty side
dispute. It bears directly on Steele's credibility--has she changed her story
to exculpate Clinton?--and Steele is currently the main witness undermining
Kathleen Willey. Whom to believe? Isikoff is standing by his story. "We have no
intention of printing any retraction," he says. Chatterbox doesn't know Julie
Steele; it does know Isikoff. Chatterbox's money is on him. This doesn't sound
like something he'd make a mistake about, and he wouldn't print an untruth. ...
Could it be a case of confusion and miscommunication? A lot depends on the
specifics of just how Isikoff grilled Steele, which he presumably did. Which
brings us to ...
A second issue: If Willey remains important, it's hard to see why
Kenneth Starr shouldn't try to get Isikoff's testimony regarding what Steele
told him. But will Isikoff testify if subpoenaed? ... Chatterbox's unsolicited
advice: Spill your guts out, Mike! It's not as if you'll be protecting the
identity of a confidential source. Reporters, like other citizens, have an
obligation to testify. The alternative view, that reporters have a special role
and special rights, is snooty corporatism! (See Chatterbox 2/26) ... But
probably Isikoff will resist ...
A third issue: why doesn't the press report Steele's purported change
of story? If you read Time you have no idea that there was an issue
regarding Steele's Version #2. ( Time just reports that Steele says
"Willey didn't describe it as sexual.") Maybe Time doesn't want to get
into a pissing match with a rival Newsweek reporter. (Oh, go ahead!).
But what's the New York Times ' excuse? Times reporter John
Broder's front page story on the Steele recantation manages to run about 24
inches, not counting a reprint of the Steele affidavit, without mentioning this
significant factual dispute .... That's the second time Broder has embarrassed
himself in three weeks. (The first? His sophomoric sneering at Sidney
Blumenthal. See Chatterbox 3/1) ...
