The basic facts bear repeating. In August 1997, Newsweek reported Willey's claim that President Clinton had groped her in the Oval Office. Reporter Michael Isikoff talked to Steele, who said Willey had told her about the incident at the time. But before Isikoff's article ever appeared, Steele changed her story: Her friend Willey, she told Isikoff, had asked her to spread the story of harassment, but she admitted the story was a fabrication.

Newsweek printed both versions. Eventually, Julie Steele -- a registered Republican active in charitable work and social service -- found herself interviewed by Ken Starr's FBI agents and subpoenaed before two of his grand juries. Each time, she repeated her recantation of the initial story. Each time, the pressure increased: Starr called her brother, her former lawyer and her adult child. And Steele charged in the media -- most notably on the Larry King show -- that Starr's staff even asked questions about the legality of her adoption of a Romanian infant, her son Adam, now 8.

Is this about resurrecting Willey? Certainly, Steele stood in the way of Willey being more than a footnote to the Starr Report or the House's articles of impeachment. Yet even if Steele reversed herself tomorrow, it would not do much to make Willey a credible witness against the president at his trial -- and Starr's staff knows it.