 |
A L S O+T O D A Y
Starr Wars Nothing has changed Dear Ken Starr speaks A dozen questions Congress should ask Kenneth Starr T A B L E+T A L K
Discuss Ken Starr and his testimony in the Politics area of Table Talk
R E C E N T L Y
Same Old Party Reply to C.D. Ellison Toppling Saddam Brother on brother The mark of Cain: a tale of two brothers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
|
 ![[ Newsreal: A plan to topple Saddam ]](/news/1998/11/src/20newslinks.gif) |
|
 |
STARR SPEAKS | PAGE 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
CANADY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Starr, I want to thank you for coming today. I appreciate your testimony. And as I have listened to the questions this afternoon, and as I've observed the response to your referral and the response to your investigation over the course of this year and actually prior to this year, I've been reminded of something a lawyer said about 2,000 years ago, giving advice to other lawyers. He said, and I paraphrase, "If you don't have an argument, abuse the other side." Lawyers today I think are all familiar with advice that if the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. And if the law and the facts are against you, just argue like the devil. And I think what we're seeing here... HYDE: Would the gentleman yield? CANADY: I'd be happy to. HYDE: I think the punchline on that is "beat up on the lawyer." CANADY: That's a variation on the same theme. And I think what we're seeing here is a desperate attempt to get away from the facts of the case against the president. Now, I understand that, because I find that the facts are particularly compelling. I think your referral sets forth in great detail a pattern of calculated and sustained misconduct by the president of the United States. And I understand why the president's friends would instinctively react to defend him. But what is going on in attacking your investigation is not right. It is not consistent with respect for the rule of law. And I believe that the attacks that have been launched against you are without substance. They don't have merit. And even if we could accept, for the purpose of argument, that some of these attacks had some merit, it's obvious that they do not bear in any way on the reliability or the credibility of the facts of the case against the president. Now, if someone could show me evidence of misconduct that actually went to the credibility of the evidence, if they could show me that the evidence was not reliable because of misconduct, and they could prove the misconduct, I think that would be appropriate for us to consider. But we're not hearing that. What we're hearing here is just a grab bag, anything that occurs to try to undermine your credibility. And, of course, this committee's process has been attacked in the same way. Anytime we come to the point of talking about the facts of the case with respect to the conduct of William Jefferson Clinton, some people cry "Unfair." I think it's fair to talk about his conduct. I think that's what we need to focus on. I think that's our responsibility. And it would be a dereliction of our responsibility if we allowed ourselves to be diverted from that fundamental task that has been given to us by the House of Representatives in the resolution that they adopted. So, that I make by way of a general comment about what's going on. CANADY: I'm struck by the concern that has been expressed about due process. And I think we should all be concerned about due process. I think that's very important. But I must ask: Where is the concern for due process in a person who lies under oath in a deposition? Where is the concern for due process in a person who withholds evidence and attempts to encourage others to withhold evidence? Where is the respect for due process in someone who coaches a potential witness? Where is the concern for due process in the whole course of conduct, which you have outlined in your referral, with respect to the president of the United States? I see a stunning lack of respect for the due process of law in the conduct of the president of the United States, as it is set forth in your referral, and for which we seem to have no rebuttal -- no significant rebuttal offered. I want to know if there's going to be a rebuttal offered to these facts. So far, we're not hearing that. And so far in the questions that are being directed to you, the focus is not on the facts of the case. Occasionally, they'll touch on that. But the focus is on other things diverted to -- designed to divert attention from the facts of this case. And I felt compelled to say that because this is a process that needs to be on track. And all of us need to focus on the critical questions here. Did the president of the United States lie under oath in his deposition? Did the president of the United States lie to the grand jury? Did the president of the United States obstruct justice? And did the president of the United States engage in an abuse of his office in the way that you have outlined? Now, there's not time for you to respond to that, and that's not really meant as a question to you. It's meant as an observation on where this proceeding should be going, and on the attempts that are being made to divert this proceeding from its proper goal. HYDE: I thank the gentleman, his time is up. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I have to first note that the witness today -- Mr. Chairman, I first have to note that the witness today is the prosecutor in the case. Most prosecutors begin their presentations in court with an admonition that what they say and what defense counsel says is not evidence. Evidence will be heard from witnesses. As Mr. Conyers has said in his opening remarks, many of us have questions involving prosecutorial misconduct, illegal leaks, conflicts of interest -- questions which are relevant to our oversight responsibility of the Justice Department and independent counsel, but irrelevant to the question of shall the president be impeached, which is the issue of today's hearing. So I hope we don't have to discuss the unfairness and absurdity of basing an impeachment of the president of the United States on a presentation from the prosecutor and a review of written statements, many of which were not under oath, and none of which were subject to cross examination. So the fairness of these proceedings continues to be an issue. Fairness was an issue when we didn't give the president an advance copy of the report so his response could appear on the Internet along with the allegations. Fairness was an issue when we voted to begin the inquiry of impeachment before we'd had the hearing on what constitutes an impeachable offense. Fairness was an issue when we were denied the opportunity to take depositions so we could properly prepare for today's hearings. And you can see how difficult it is to get the -- use the five minutes effectively when you don't know what the answers are. Fairness is an issue when the scope of the inquiry was expanded one night before the evidentiary hearing. So fairness has always been an issue. Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank you and Mr. Canady for finally convening a hearing on the history and background of impeachment, so at least we now have a framework in which to review the allegations before us. That hearing was necessary because we heard from 400 historians and received a letter from 400 constitutional authorities; another letter from 200 constitutional law professors, which warned us that not one of Mr. Starr's allegations constituted an impeachable offense. We heard discussion today about the rule of law. At the hearing, we heard that the Constitution restricts our legal authority to impeach the president to those offense which constitute treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. At the hearing, we dealt with issues such as the historic difference between impeachment of judges and impeachment of presidents. We addressed the question of when perjury can constitute an impeachable offense and when it should not constitute an impeachable offense. And we worked to evaluate a standard for impeachment and specifically considered the -- whether commission of a crime which would violate the presidential oath to faithfully execute the laws -- whether that could be an appropriate measure. At our hearing, we -- the entire first panel of witnesses, including the majority of which were invited by the Republicans, agreed with the phrase -- agreed that the phrase "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors" does not cover all felonies. And that is, that the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to remove a sitting president based on the standard that he committed a crime, and therefore failed to faithfully execute the laws. Remember, as my colleague from Virginia said, that the president will be subject to criminal prosecution after he leaves office. But they all agreed that we do not have the legal authority to remove the president based on Mr. Starr's suggestion that he failed to faithfully execute the laws. And so the rule of law restrains our impeachment authority to consideration of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, and that therefore at the hearing, both Democrats and even many Republican witnesses, raised serious questions about our constitutional authority to use any or all of the charges as a basis for presidential impeachment. Mr. Van Alstyne, a Republican witness, described the allegations as low crimes and misdemeanors, and further said that the impeachment pursuit of Mr. Clinton may well not be particularly worthwhile. When I asked the entire second panel about the Starr referral count 11(a), executive privilege, the clear consensus on the panel was that the executive privilege charge was not an impeachable offense. For example, Mr. Cooper, a Republican witness said that I do not think that invoking executive privilege, even frivolously, and I believe it was frivolous in this circumstance, but I do not believe that constitutes an impeachable offense. And so some of the -- some said that none were impeachable offenses, but there was a clear consensus that at least some of the allegations are too flimsy to pursue. This sentiment was reflected in majority counsel's presentation last month, which left out some of the allegations. Mr. Chairman's public suggestion that we should focus on two or three allegations, and several Republican members of this committee ... HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. SCOTT: Could I have about 40 additional seconds, Mr. Chairman? HYDE: Thirty seconds, without objection. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Several Republican members of this committee, who have publicly raised questions about some of the allegations. Because of the confusion over which allegations are actually worth pursuing, it is absurd to participate in fact finding when some allegations may well be dropped even if they're determined to be true. That's why I joined ranking member Mr. Conyers in a letter requesting that we call an end to the confusion and determine which, if any, of the allegations before us, even if true, might constitute an impeachable offense. Unfortunately, that request was denied, and now we have the situation in which we have an open-ended, never-ending committee in search of high crimes, and participating in the spectacle of having the prosecutor serve as our witness. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HYDE: The -- did -- are you awaiting an answer, or are you -- was that rhetorical? It was rhetorical? SCOTT: It was rhetorical.
HYDE: Do you have anything you need to respond to that do you feel? STARR: No. I think I understood Mr. Scott's presentation. HYDE: Very good. It was an interesting lecture. The gentleman from...
... the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to yield to me very briefly. INGLIS: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. HYDE: Yes, I just want to, sort of, respond to what my friend from Virginia said. I don't characterize your office as an "independent prosecutor." You're not a prosecutor; you're independent counsel. As a matter of fact, you have just given the president a pass on Filegate, on Travelgate, on all sorts of things -- Whitewater. And so, as far as I'm concerned, that's what an independent counsel should do: find where people are guilty, find where they're not guilty, and announce it. Let the chips fall where they may. Insofar as judges, we impeach judges for perjury. We impeached Judge Claiborne. I participated in that, all the way through to the Senate floor. We impeached him for perjury. We impeached Judge Nixon for perjury. Now, when you say, "Judges are different; they have a different standard," I direct you to the Constitution, that says, "The president, vice-president, and all civil officers" -- that's judges -- "shall be removed -- shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." I can tell you, in the Judge Nixon case and in the Judge Claiborne case, it was perjury. Now, if perjury could get a federal judge off the bench, and the country can survive with a corrupt judge here and there, how much more one worries about the one man who is head of the executive department, the whole executive department, commander-in-chief and all of that. So I just think that's a response that I would like to make to the gentleman... SCOTT: Mr. Chairman... HYDE: ... and I thank Mr. Inglis for yielding to me. SCOTT: ... would the gentleman yield for 30 seconds? HYDE: Mr. Inglis has the time. SCOTT: And I would ask unanimous consent that his time be restored after the 30 seconds. HYDE: You want 30 seconds? If the gentleman doesn't mind we'll... SCOTT: And I would ask that his time -- full time be restored, so he'd have his full five minutes. INGLIS: Never started, anyway. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I think one of the questions that we dealt with was the circumstances underlying the behavior. For example, some of the allegations -- some of the people that were convicted or impeached for perjury, the perjury was lying about bribes and other serious and grievous abuse of their official powers, so I think -- I would like to continue the discussion, which I can't do in 30 seconds, but I think that was the reason we had the hearing: to flush out all of those underlying situations. HYDE: All right, I thank Mr. Inglis. You'll get five minutes. Thank you. INGLIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Starr, I have two things to thank you for, and then two things to ask you about. First of all: the two thank yous. As I have read and actually heard some of the things that various political figures have said about you, it makes me wonder why anyone would be willing to accept an appointment like you've accepted.
And really it shows, I think, the tremendous service that you do to the country, and I certainly appreciate the fact that you have been willing to come out of a very successful law practice to spend time doing this. I mean, like you pointed out in your testimony, you'd like to get back to private life, and for people like you, willing to serve our country in this way, it really is wonderful service, and we all should thank you. And I hope that... STARR: Thank you. INGLIS: ... over the years, somehow, all of that is forgotten, of all of these things that have been said about you. I understand people wanting to defend a president, but they needn't attack the attacker. They needn't attack the prosecutor -- the special independent counsel that's appointed here, and as Mr. Canady was saying, that undermines the process, it seems to me. So first of all, thank you for your work. STARR: Thank you. INGLIS: Second of all thank you for your very passionate defense of the rule of law in the last three paragraphs of your testimony. I think it is just a very eloquent statement that I hope is studied for years to come, in law schools and other schools in our country, because truly it is a great statement and a patient statement in the importance to the rule of law. That gives rise to my questions. We had a hearing here recently and there is some discussion about this point, about what constitutes an impeachable offense in the context of whether there is a violation of the rule of law, and it seems to me the rule of law has at least two components. One is an adherence to due process. And the second adherence to the principle of equal application of law, which is something you expounded on in these last three paragraphs. I know that there are some people who would say that perjury is not an impeachable offense. We heard a rather erudite discussion of that here a week or so ago. There's a very sophisticated view that perjury is not an impeachable offense. Let me ask you -- we -- I think, we know these things about the president. We know who the president is. The question is who are we? We know that the president has admitted to lying. He has admitted to lying under oath. Now, if he were here, I think he would say that he has not technically committed the crime of perjury because it was an immaterial fact. Now, Mr. Canady, I believe it was, illicited some response -- no, it was Mr. Gallegly possibly, -- illicited some responses from you about the deposition testimony. But let me ask you about the grand jury testimony. In your mind, were those material facts that the president was testifying to in the grand jury testimony, and are the elements of perjury met in the referral on the point of the testimony in the grand jury situation? STARR: Well, Congressman, again, I have been somewhat reluctant to go all the way to say in, light of the purpose of the referral, to say that all elements of a crime have been satisfied. But let me say that, in my own judgment, although this is a jury question -- materiality, the Supreme Court has held is a jury question -- but I certainly think a reasonable person could very reasonably conclude that the elements were, in fact, present in the grand jury testimony, by virtue of, as we have tried to outline in the referral, the number of statements that we believe were knowingly untrue -- that I think that is a reasonable conclusion to reach. Again, our mission, or our responsibility, in submitting this referral, was to say that there is substantial and credible information that an impeachable offense may have been committed. And that, of course, is the state of the record as it comes to you. But, yes, I do think that a reasonable juror could come to that determination. INGLIS: And let me ask, as to the rule of law and the issue of whether -- whether perjury is an impeachable offense, I gather from your testimony, and you would restate here, that in your mind perjury is an impeachable offense. STARR: Yes. I think with all due respect to scholarly commentary and the like, that perjury is not only an impeachable offense as a matter of theory and doctrine, and as a matter of common law. I think it's demonstrable at common law that it was viewed as a high crime or misdemeanor -- but also as the chairman has indicated, the very practice. So the common law of the Congress of the United States suggests that it is in fact an impeachable offense because judges have been removed. The offense is the despoiling and the attack on the integrity of the judicial system. The response may be, on the other side, well, we want to find out what the perjury is about and we'll take some perjuries more seriously than others. And that is a view. I will say as a former judge, any judge worth his or her judicial salt would say: "Not in my court. Witnesses tell the truth; it doesn't matter what the underlying subject matter is." Once you're in court under oath, you tell the truth. That's the way judges look at the world, and perhaps that's why no judge, being subjected to impeachment for perjury, has dared suggest: Don't worry about it. It's not an impeachable offense. It is. It's been viewed that way by this very body. HYDE: The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt. NADLER: Mr. Chairman? HYDE: The gentleman from New York? NADLER: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if this is a point of order or a point of information, but I'll ask the indulgence of the chair. Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago in response to my questions, the -- Mr. Starr referred to a case In Re Grand Jury Proceedings (ph), an in re sealed case which he characterized as the judge okaying the propriety of what they had done in the subject matter we discussed. Now, these cases are in the possession of the committee under seal, and I would like to be able to talk publicly about them and I'd like to be able to know publicly whether the judge -- whether Mr. Starr correctly or incorrectly characterized this. So I would like to know, since Mr. Starr has now referred to them and characterized them, whether they are no longer under seal. And if they are still under seal, I would like to move that they no longer be under seal. HYDE: I understand they're still under seal. NADLER: Then I would ask that they -- that the committee change that status. HYDE: Objection has been heard. NADLER: I didn't ask for unanimous consent. I asked for -- I made a motion, I think. HYDE: Well, I think it takes unanimous consent to take something out of... UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSMAN: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the motion is not an order. HYDE: Well, I understand, but I -- if the gentleman has something to say, I want to hear it, but... NADLER: Well, it's very simple... HYDE: We'll talk about it later. It's -- it's really not your turn. I'll not recognize for purposes of removing things from under seal... FRANK: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry? HYDE: Yes? FRANK: We are going to have a session later to vote on subpoenas. Would it be in order for that motion then to be made at that time? HYDE: Yes, it would. FRANK: Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HYDE: Now, the gentleman from North Carolina will not hold against me the fact that Mr. Nadler intervened. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. WATT: I wanted to make a parliamentary inquiry before I... HYDE: Yes, sir. WATT: ... start the five minutes, because I have some questions to ask Mr. Starr about information that has been given to the committee and has not been released to the public. If I ask questions about that, would I be in violation of the rules? HYDE: Parliamentarian tells me you can ask the question, but you can't refer to the material. I don't know how you do that.
WATT: I'll tread very lightly, Mr. Chairman. FRANK: Mr. Chairman, if you permit, I think it means that you don't say that you are referring to the material. You don't identify the material. Just ask the question. WATT: I will tread very lightly, and if the chairman thinks that I am outside the bounds, I am sure that somebody will call it to my attention. HYDE: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. WATT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to thank Mr. Starr for coming over. I enjoyed your speech very much. STARR: Thank you. WATT: Let me just be clear on one thing, though, about this -- on pages 55 to 57 of your testimony, you give us information that clearly is within your personal knowledge -- that's your biographical information. I was following you through the rest of this, and I think it has been implicitly said but not explicitly said. Is it correct that you don't have personal knowledge of anything that is related -- I mean you've got some opinions. You have reviewed the stuff. I respect those, but as far as personal knowledge, and your knowledge of this information as a person, I take it you would say you don't have any personal knowledge. STARR: In the large main, you are absolutely right, Congressman Watt. That is -- I am sorry. WATT: Let me go back, then, briefly, to a appointment, Mr. Gallegly raised, and I don't want to get into the credibility -- you assessing the credibility of witnesses because as the chairman pointed out, when Mr. Gallegly tried to get you into that, that's not a place that you need to be. That's really a place for us, I take it, to assess the credibility of witnesses who know the facts. Would you agree that the credibility of the president and the -- and Betty Currie and Monica Lewinsky would be important for us to evaluate in this committee in any respect? STARR: Yes, Congressman Watt. It does seem to me... WATT: Then I want to -- if you agree with that -- there are a couple of things that you failed to include in your referral that seem to me to bear, very directly, on the credibility of Ms. Lewinsky, and these are the issues that I was concerned about, because they are not public yet. STARR: I see. WATT: One is the testimony of a woman who works at -- is a vice- president, apparently, at Revlon, a woman by the name of Nancy Risden (ph), who said to your interviewers, during her statement, that Ms. Lewinsky had told her that she had lunch with Hillary Clinton the previous week, and that Mrs. Clinton had offered her help in finding an apartment in New York. Are you familiar with that? STARR: Yes. WATT: You didn't send that information over with your referral. I take it that would have a major bearing on the credibility of Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, at least it would for me, if she made that kind of representation, which I think is just completely off the reservation, so to speak. STARR: May I respond? WATT: I am going to give you a chance to respond. I want to ask the other one. STARR: Thank you. WATT: The second occasion which you failed to give us in your referral was the interview of a woman named Catherine Profit (ph), who testified that Ms. Lewinsky had exaggerated to her the depth of her relationship, Ms. Lewinsky's relationship with a young man at the Department of Defense. You're familiar with that, Mr. Starr? STARR: I'm not familiar with that specific... WATT: But you don't, you... STARR: I'm not... WATT: It's in the information... STARR: I'm not quarreling at all. WATT: It's in the information you sent over. That seems to me also would go directly to the credibility of Ms. Lewinsky as a witness. Yet, neither one of those pieces of information was included with your referral. And I'm wondering how you went about picking and choosing he things, I mean the chairman has referred to you as an independent counsel, not an independent prosecutor. There is some question about that. But what I'm concerned about is why didn't we get the information that we need to make the kind of credibility judgments as members of this committee, a full evaluation of credibility from your office, when you made this referral? STARR: Congressman Watt, I believe that you do have the information. And we might assess the information, the relevancy of it differently, let me be very specific. Ms. Lewinsky made it quite clear that she knew how to lie. She was encouraging others to lie. She also says, and this is in the referral... WATT: So now you're impeaching your own witness now. I mean, I take it that what you're doing, you've called her a lie on a couple of occasions, but a substantial portion of your case, isn't it, Mr. Starr is based on the credibility of Ms. Lewinsky. And she told you, this is the second time you've done that today -- I would say -- she told you under oath, at the grand jury that nobody asked her to lie... (UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, point of order. WATT: And nobody offered her a job in exchange for anything, you say that's a lie. She said, you think she was lying then. So how are you picking and choosing what you believe from Ms. Lewinsky? And isn't that our job as members of this committee? STARR: I can answer with one word, corroboration. She is vastly corroborated with her phenomenal memory. When she would say, I was with the president of the United States, she could identify a phone call coming in with a member of Congress who's nickname was, she could recall a phone call coming in from someone in Florida who was a sugar grower and tie it to a specific date. STARR: That gives you corroboration that the event that she is giving... WATT: What kind of corroboration do you have for a... HYDE: The gentleman's time has... WATT: ... witness who says that nobody asked me to lie? HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. GOODLATTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Starr, thank you for appearing before the committee today. I think it is very helpful for the committee and the American people to have the opportunity to hear you respond to the questions from the other side regarding the conduct of this investigation. I agree very wholeheartedly with the gentleman from Florida that they have not focused on the substance before this committee, which is whether or not the president of the United States committed offenses, including perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and tampering with witnesses that may be impeachable offenses if proven to be true. But I do think it's important to let people know how this investigation was conducted. Nonetheless, I think that it's important that we return back to those issues, and I would, Mr. Chairman, ask that an excerpt from the Congressional Record in 1986, as a part of Judge Claiborne's impeachment trial in the Senate, be made a part of the record. HYDE: Without objection, so ordered. GOODLATTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As many may recall, in 1986, Judge Claiborne, a federal judge, was under investigation. This committee voted out articles of impeachment against him which were adopted by the full House of Representatives, and he stood trial in the Senate. During that trial, he raised as a defense some very serious charges of prosecutorial misconduct -- far, far more serious than anything that has been raised by folks on the other side of the aisle today, including spearheading -- that the prosecutor spearheaded an illegal burglary in his home; that exculpatory evidence was withheld; that witnesses were unfairly coached; and other serious charges. During the trial of that matter, one senator, reviewing these serious matters, in fact stating that if the claims have merit, steps should be taken to rectify the wrong, also noted remedial measures, however, will in no way abrogate the finding that Claiborne has engaged in impeachable conduct. The senator who made that statement is now the vice president of the United States, Senator Al Gore. And I think it's important to note that in a sense of bipartisanship and in a sense of seeking justice, and in a sense of upholding the rule of law, that that same type of demeanor and that same type of search for the truth should lead us today. Judge Starr, do you know what Judge Claiborne was charged with? What his impeachable conduct was? STARR: Tax offenses, is my recollection. GOODLATTE: Actually, my understanding is it was perjury and lying under oath. But in any event, I... HYDE: Will the gentleman yield? STARR: I stand corrected. HYDE: It was signing a false income tax return. GOODLATTE: Lying under oath. HYDE: Yeah. GOODLATTE: OK. I thank the chairman. I would like to look at the obstruction of justice issue, if I may, Judge Starr. You have indicated that the evidence that you've gathered shows that the president tried to aid in obtaining a job for Ms. Lewinsky in order to prevent her from telling the truth in a judicial proceeding arising from a civil rights claim of sexual harassment in which he was the named defendant. There are those who have said, including some here today on the other side of the aisle, that the president's efforts could be interpreted as merely helping an ex-intimate or ex-friend without concern for her testimony. And I don't think you've been given the full opportunity to indicate why it is that you came to the first conclusion rather than the second. And I'd like to give you that opportunity now. STARR: Yes, thank you. The effort to provide a job for her did, as has been noted, began early on -- an effort to assist her in a possible United Nations job. But Ms. Lewinsky made it very clear that she was not interested in that UN job, and she, in fact, turned it down even though Ambassador Richardson offered it to her. She then made it quite clear that she wanted a job in the private sector. The early efforts, with respect to that project, did not go well, they did not go quickly in November of 1997, after she had made her October decision not to seek -- or not to take, I should say -- the job that was offered to her by Ambassador Richardson. After that point, the evidence suggests that there was a significant uptick in activity, specifically by Mr. Jordan, to find her a job weighing in including with Mr. Perelman, the chairman of the board, which was quite unorthodox and unusual, according to Mr. Perelman's testimony which is before you. One of the most wealthy and powerful people in the country. Mr. Jordan reached out to Mr. Perelman only after it became clear, as of December 5, 1997, that Ms. Lewinsky was on the witness list. Moreover, Mr. Jordan kept the president informed -- by his, Mr. Jordan's, testimony, which could not be clearer -- that he was keeping the president apprised, not keeping Betty Currie apprised; his mission was to keep the president of the United States apprised of activity in two arenas. One: the affidavit, which was perjurious, and secondly: the job. And when he secured the job for her at Revlon, after her first interview at Revlon had not gone well, Mr. Jordan then interceded, all on behalf of the president's effort to find a place for Ms. Lewinsky. That second round of interviews resulted in, in fact, a job, and when it did -- or a job offer, when that job offer was then extended, Mr. Jordan, according to his own testimony, indicated he called the president of the United States and said, "Mission accomplished." Now to us, that suggested, in light of the December 5 witness list, her being subpoenaed and the like, and the ongoing conversations with Ms. Lewinsky, that there is reason to believe that there is a relationship -- a connection between the job and what she was doing and what it was anticipated that she would do in the litigation itself. HYDE: The gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren. LOFGREN: Mr. Chairman, there's no doubt that this is one of the most embarrassing chapters in American history. Certainly the president's sexual misconduct was embarrassing to him and his family, and it was embarrassing for all of us to be bombarded with what seemed to be limitless details about it. But also embarrassing has been the reaction of Congress to the referral made by Mr. Starr in September. What we should have done was this: ask how these allegations, if true, could destroy our American constitutional system of government, something Mr. Starr did not address in his over-450 pages in the report. But it is the central -- indeed, it is the only question that is before Congress, because impeachment is a constitutional remedy for constitutional threats. What do we have instead? We've seen the independent counsel investigating the sex life of the president. We've seen titillating details leaked to the press, leaks that were prejudicial, and in stark contrast to the evidence confidently submitted by the special prosecutor, Mr. Jaworski, 24 years ago, and I would note that it is prosecution; Ms. McDougal was not counseled into a jail cell. After we tossed the independent counsel's X-rated material all over the airwaves and onto the Internet, this committee did hardly anything. The House acted to refer to this committee September 11th. Today November 19th, over two months later we are having our first and, so far, only noticed full committee hearing, where we are hearing our only witness, the prosecutor. LOFGREN: This would never be allowed in a court proceeding, and there are ethical questions in my mind about the propriety in these proceedings as well. We have the chief prosecutor testifying as a fact witness. More than that, we have the prosecutor vouching for one witness over another. Ignored is testimony by witnesses that favors the president. Ms. Lewinsky's statement that she was never asked to lie; that there was no bargain for a job; Miss Currie's statement. We have cafeteria advocacy -- only those statements that fit the getting the president, not the exculpatory. We want to exalt justice and the rule of law, but there's not been a mention of the intimidation or abuse of witnesses to get statements damaging to the president. I agreed to listen this morning to Ms. Sarah Hawkins (ph) in my office. And she came in and she was obviously one of those uncomfortable people who've been addressed by the special prosecutor's office. She was repeatedly threatened with prosecution in an effort to get her to cooperate -- threats that were reinstated after she spoke in criticism to the press; after being told twice by the prosecutors that there wasn't evidence to prosecute her. She lost her business. Her career is ruined. Her family is hurt. She never had her day in court. And I wonder about the rule of law for her. Much of America believes this investigation is the living embodiment of what Justice Scalia warned against in his dissent in the case of Morrison v. Olson, upholding the independent counsel statute. Justice Scalia warned that the independent counsel could be a foe of the president with a staff full of refugees from a defeated administration -- the worst kind of danger of abuse of prosecuting power. There's no question that the president did not tell the American people the truth about Ms. Lewinsky. He admitted that. We allege in the report that he lied under oath. But I note that you, Mr. Starr, are under oath yourself this morning, and on page 36 of your testimony, you swear that you go to court, not on the talk show circuit. This very morning, you appeared on Good Morning America. Isn't that a false statement under oath? And should you be prosecuted for perjury because of this false statement? Given your answer to Mr. Inglis, I would think so. However, I would not urge that. I think that's preposterous. That cannot be what is meant by the founding fathers in impeachment. You know, I wasn't going to ask any questions, but because you're here and you might have knowledge about this one thing, I do want to pose really two -- really three quick questions. First, when did you first hear any information to the effect that a tape recording existed of a woman, any woman, who claimed to have had a sexual contact with President Clinton? Two, in or about November, 1997, did you discuss with any person the possibility that a tape recording might exist on which a woman claimed to have had sexual contact with President Clinton -- yes or no. And finally, I know, we all know, that there was an investigation into leaks from your office to the press. Reporters promise confidentiality to sources and they're very serious about that. I'm asking you today: Will you release the press from their vow of confidentiality to you and your deputies so that this can be fully investigated? STARR: Well the -- you've asked a number of questions. Let me go back to... LOFGREN: Three. STARR: Yes. The second question I frankly did not understand. I honestly did not get. I was trying to take notes. LOFGREN: I'll read it really quickly. In or about November 1997 did you discuss with any person the possibility that a tape recording might exist on which a woman claimed to have had sexual contact with President Clinton? STARR: I am not recalling that, the specificity of your question suggests that there may be information and I'm happy to respond to information if that is -- if that's... LOFGREN: Is there any possibility that the answer is yes? STARR: I have no recollection of it, but I am happy to search my recollection. This is the first time anyone has asked me such a question, and you are asking... LOFGREN: It was possible it was before January then? STARR: Yes. But you said very specifically November of 1997, so that's... SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Chairman... STARR: I will search my recollection. SENSENBRENNER: Does the young lady have information that the independent counsel's office had this information? LOFGREN: I would like an answer to my question. I've been asked these questions and I think the gentleman is under oath and he can answer the question. SENSENBRENNER: Does the young lady have information to this effect? LOFGREN: I'm asking the question. I'm not a witness. HYDE: The witness will respond. STARR: Yes. I do not have a recollection of that, but I am happy to now search my recollection and to go back in light of the specificity of your question and provide the committee with the information. LOFGREN: So you would agree to answer that under penalty of perjury if we followed up in a written request after you've had time to reflect upon it? STARR: Well, I am happy to consider any question, and if it is viewed as germane to what is before you -- if this is an effort to try to search my recollection and to see if there's something that perhaps I'm not able to recall... LOFGREN: If I may... STARR: Excuse me. May I answer this question? LOFGREN: Certainly. HYDE: The young lady from California will allow Judge Starr to answer the question without interruption. STARR: Yes. I beg your pardon. It does seem to me that if there is an issue that you view as germane I am happy to consider it, and I will evaluate it. I've given you my best answer now. Now with respect to... LOFGREN: I believe it is germane and I would like an answer to the question. HYDE: The young lady from California asked Judge Starr three questions. Could she please give Judge Starr the courtesy of allowing him to answer the questions. LOFGREN: I would love to get an answer to the questions. STARR: I have concluded what I need to say, thank you. HYDE: The witness has concluded. The young lady's time has expired. FRANK: You gave one answer. There are two answers missing. LOFGREN: What about the two other question sir. FRANK: There was only one answered, there were three questioned. HYDE: The witness will respond. LOFGREN: The first question... STARR: Yes the first question was... HYDE: The witness will respond. STARR: What was the first question, I'm sorry. LOFGREN: The first question was when did you first hear any information to the effect that a tape recording existed of a woman, any woman, who claimed to have had a sexual contact with President Clinton. STARR: I'm unable to answer that question without -- I will have to -- you are saying any information relating to any -- I would have to search my recollection. I prepared today for questions that go to this referral. So I will have to -- search my recollection. LOFGREN: I will look for an affidavit on that, too. And I think you did discuss the opening and the expansion of this yourself. SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Chairman point of order, the gentlewoman's time long ago expired and those of us who are still awaiting an opportunity to question the witness would appreciate members remaining within their time frame. LOFGREN: Mr. Chairman, the practice has been to allow the witness to answer. HYDE: Regular order -- everybody will suspend. FRANK: The third question. HYDE: Does the witness have any further answer to the questions that have been posed by the gentlelady from California? STARR: Not at this time. HYDE: The gentlelady's time has expired. FRANK: You can't ask the prosecutor tough questions. HYDE: The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Buyer. BUYER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have several thoughts I'd like to convey and then I have some specific questions for Judge Starr. Some of us here have also been prosecutors, and we've served as also defense lawyers and we kind of can recollect on our own experiences, but none of us could ever come close, not even close to the attacks that have come upon you and your office and your character, and the character of those in your office by not only some of my own colleagues that are here, some associates of the president, some of the president's own criminal defense lawyers. And it's unfortunate, but I suppose it's part of the process in America. But you've kept your head up high and you've maintained your intellect here today, and I appreciate that. STARR: Thank you. BUYER: There are two things for which I also feel very strong about as I represent my constituents of Indiana, because they also take great pride in our heritage. And so we have reverence in our heritage. And it's one that the Supreme Court has held consistently that no one is above the law. Secondly, that the courthouse door is open to everyone in our society. But the courthouse in America is not meant just for the wealthy or the powerful. The courthouse door is also open to the powerless, to the needy and to the poor. And so, when I look at this case that you have now referred to Congress, I look at this and say that the courts were never meant to be manipulated by the powerful over the powerless. And what do we have here, in front of us? What happened? We had the most powerful individual on the face of the earth of the greatest country this world has ever seen finds himself as a defendant in a civil rights case. It boggles my mind to hear some people who claim that they are true advocates of civil rights now somehow claim that it's OK to lie in a civil rights case. That just boggles my mind. What message do we want to send unto our society? So what do we have? We have the president, he took an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the land. The president has a constitutional duty to do just that. It is alleged the president is a defendant in a sexual harassment civil rights case in federal court, committed perjury in his deposition before a federal judge. One of my questions to you is, did Judge Susan Webber Wright ever discuss with your office a referral for perjury that was before her in person? Also the allegations of suborning or perjury of others knowing that these government agents would be witnesses before your grand jury and repeat these lies. This lying under oath before the grand jury is very serious. Tampering with witnesses who also gave us witness testimony before your grand jury, the obstruction of justice by entering into a conspiracy with others to hide evidence, does that not corrupt the legal process? Does that not deny the powerless the opportunity to a fair trial in our system? BUYER: I ask that as a question of you. I'll keep on going... STARR: The courts take the truth... BUYER: Hold that thought. STARR: Oh, I'm sorry. BUYER: Hold that thought. We also have then the allegations of the abuse of power by the most powerful person in our country, by using government resources, his own staff, the cabinet and make these presidential privileges for his own personal gain because he was a defendant in a civil rights case, in a civil case where he could lose monetary, lose money. So he chose deception and deceit because he wanted to protect his own wallet, his own image, and further from embarrassment. So we had testimony by legal scholars that also said, impeachment of judges are also the same as impeachment of presidents. If true -- here's another question I have for you -- if truth and fairness are foundations of our justice system, if fairness is the bedrock of justice and truth is the water that runs through it, and we want to make sure that never is the water -- in our advocacy of our legal system, we want the pursuit of clarity and of truth. And we never want it to be polluted by those who seek to deceive. And if in fact this standard that we have to go by is to defend the Constitution, if treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors, in fact, is our standard, is not bribery of such a felony of wickedness and deceit and willful and corruption to manipulate others, it's contrary to the legitimacy of our judicial system, isn't also pollutant then to our bedrock of fairness and truth? And it is of their similar character of bribery, and therefore would warrant the serious capacity of this impeachment proceeding. Those are my three questions. SENSENBRENNER: The witness will answer. STARR: I believe Congressman, that perjury does take the same dimension in our law as bribery because it is a corruption of the court system. And in response to your second question, courts do indeed, as I was starting to say, take the truth very seriously. And they want the truth, that is the object of the process so that the truth will come out, so it's not the party with the most clever lawyer, but that the facts will come out. Our adversarial system is based on the truthful statement of testimony under oath and the compliance with court order and the like. You asked the first question, and I would refer with respect to Judge Wright to answer any question only in executive session. BUYER: Thank you, Judge. SENSENBRENNER: Gentleman's time has expired. The gentle woman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. JACKSON LEE: I thank the chairman very much. And I thank Mr. Starr for being here, and I acknowledge Mr. Starr, that this has been a long day. I noticed that you went to the, to Duke University and just having gone to law school just up the road, I will not compete with you today from the University of Virginia. But I have to disagree with some of my colleagues. One I want to restate the fact that we are not here to undermine you. And I also would like to repeat the chairman's notice given that it appears that the president has been cleared, the chairman used passed on Whitewater, Filegate and Travelgate. I think that is an important announcement today. But I do want to refer you to the words of Congressman Butler of Massachusetts who indicated in defining the impeachable offenses in the instance of Andrew Johnson that, high crimes and misdemeanors would be one in its nature or consequences subversive of some fundamental or essential principle of government, or highly prejudicial to the principle interests, and this may consist of a violation of the Constitution. I am going to make some comments and then have a brief question, if you would indulge me. I noticed also that you have lifted, for our attention, your referral of September 11, 1998. During my questioning, I want to lift for our understanding, the Constitution. And I say that because in reflection of what we're doing, I have read over and over our late colleague's comments in 1974, Barbara Jordan who said, "my faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete and it is total." I understand her now even better, her being a child of a segregated South, I understand what she meant. But Felix Frank (ph) further said also, "one who belonged to the most vilified and persecuted minority in history is not likely to be insensitive to the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution." I ask you Mr. Starr, do you believe that the president, as any other citizen, has the privilege of the Fifth Amendment? I just want a yes. STARR: Yes. JACKSON LEE: And that would go for Monica Lewinsky and Sarah Hawkins (ph), who happened to have appeared as a witness or was questioned. Is that accurate. STARR: Yes. JACKSON LEE: Monica Lewinsky's mother, Mrs. Lewis? STARR: Yes. JACKSON LEE: And of course, Susan McDougal? STARR: Yes. JACKSON LEE: Would be subject to the rights and privileges of the Fifth Amendment. STARR: Yes. JACKSON LEE: On page 30 of your testimony, when you went in for expanded jurisdiction, 30 and 31, it was a recounting of what occurred. And I noticed in that recounting, there was not one time that you mentioned Paula Jones. Yet as I understand it, you had a lawyer at a law firm that you were associated with. Were you associated with the firm of Kirkland & Ellis? STARR: Yes. JACKSON LEE: Was Mr. Richard Porter associated with the firm of Kirkland & Ellis? STARR: Yes. JACKSON LEE: And I note that Mr. Richard Ellis was asked to serve as council to Ms. Jones. Now he did not serve as that, as I understand. Further, I understand that Kirkland & Ellis prepared pro- bono legal documents for what we called the women's legal forum. Is that correct? STARR: With respect to the latter question, yes. And if I could, very briefly... JACKSON LEE: Would you briefly, my time is short. STARR: Because that is the area that I do have personal information and knowledge on, with respect to the Independent Women's Forum. JACKSON LEE: I would simply say just in the answers that you have given today, and with the understanding of due process, I would say to you Mr. Starr, that it seems quite shocking to me that in the course of seeking expanded jurisdiction, that you did not include those contacts, although you noted on the record today, oh, I thought that was so widely known that it would not need mentioning. But put yourself in a courtroom setting where the prosecutor did not divulge particularly devastating conflict of interest matters to a defendant, and I think due process would come into play. Let me quickly move to my next question keeping in mind the shortness of my time. Would you tell me Mr. Starr, are you a member of the Virginia Bar? Virginia's Bar? STARR: Yes, I'm an inactive member of the Virginia Bar. JACKSON LEE: But you are a member of the bar, of the Virginia Bar? STARR: Yes. JACKSON LEE: And I am likewise, an inactive member of that bar. Have you ever been or are you a member of the American Bar Association? STARR: I am. JACKSON LEE: With that in mind, let me draw your attention to the Virginia Code of Ethics, and might I read it very quickly. If after undertaking employment in contemplating or pending litigation, a lawyer learns or it is obvious that he or a lawyer in his firm ought to be called as a witness on behalf of his client, he shall withdraw from the conduct of the trial and his firm. JACKSON LEE: The ABA code of professional responsibility says in considering ethics, the roles of an advocate and off a witness are inconsistent. The function of an advocate is to advance or argue the cause of another, while that of a witness is to state facts objectively. Take a judge for example. SENSENBRENNER: Gentlewoman's time has expired. JACKSON LEE: I ask the chairman to indulge me 30 seconds, if you he would. I thank the chairman very much. SENSENBRENNER: The chair will time the gentlewoman. JACKSON LEE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me simply paint the picture for you. I've served as a judge. I've been a somewhat of a prosecutor on a select committee on assassinations and you've done many things. But I would simply say to you how can you move from the prosecutor's chair to the judge's chair, to the witness chair in any court in America, Mr. Starr. I cannot believe that any American would perceive any justice as the constitution so says of having to defend against a prosecutor who acts as a judge and who acts as a witness. With that, Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. SENSENBRENNER: The gentlewoman's time has expired and the witness will answer the question. STARR: I believe that we have in fact and that I personally have complied with applicable ethical codes. I would happy to focus on any specific issue under the Virginia code. JACKSON LEE: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I thank the witness. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant. BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Judge Starr. Quickly let me refer to a column by David Broder in reference to this 400 professors of history letter. Mr. Broder says, "When academics decide to become activists they sometimes bring badly needed wisdom and perspective to a raging political debate. But when they plunge in heedlessly they risk looking ridiculous." He says, "But the House is following the process set forth in the Constitution. This tenure trashing of Congress for meeting its responsibility says more about the state of the history profession than about the law of the land." I'm glad that we can at times today return back to the facts in this case. And Judge Starr, you have -- I want to commend you for setting forth a clear documented, compelling case against the president. You have provided a road map for us to see how and when the president chose deception rather than truth at many important crossroads in our judicial system search for the truth. I must say that I've seen this before, but you mentioned it again in your statement -- I think it's one of the most chilling episodes, I think I can imagine in American history occurred with Dick Morris. And again I will read from your statement -- an account of Mr. Morris' testimony. But this is one of the choices you refer to on page 21 at the bottom -- one of the choices the president makes. After the public disclosure, the president's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and the ongoing criminal investigation, the president faced a decision -- would he admit the relationship publicly, correct his testimony in Mrs. Jones' case and ask for the indulgence of the American people or would he continue to deny the truth. This question the president consulted others -- according to Dick Morris the president and he talked on January the 21st. Mr. Morris suggested that the president publicly confess. The president replied, "But what about the legal thing? You know the legal thing? You know Starr and perjury and all." Mr. Morris suggested they take a poll. Mr. Morris suggested they take a poll. The president agreed. Mr. Morris called in with the results. He stated that the American people were willing to forgive adultery, but not perjury or obstruction of justice. And our president of the United States, the chief law enforcement officer of this country, the one who hires the attorney general, and the 93 U.S. attorneys who enforce all the federal laws against you and me, this president said: "Well, we will just have to win then." That is chilling. That is absolutely scary, that we've got that mentality in the position of being the chief law enforcement officer. As -- a former prosecutor, and I know you have tremendous credentials, I know it frightens me to have these circumstances existing. I have two questions for you. I don't know what the answer is to that, and I think that's one of the reasons we are here today. Two questions. I'm not going to have the opportunity to, perhaps cross-examine the president. I don't know if he's going to take our invitation, and I don't know if he's going to respond. And I don't think it's appropriate that I question his lawyers here today. But one thing, I have a question on this assertion of privilege. They make the claim that this is private conduct that underlies this, but yet they go out and file documents asserting an executive privilege claim, which you and I both know is rooted in the constitution and is meant to protect presidential communications regarding official decision making; in other words, public conduct. Is this not talking out of both sides of their mouth, how they can assert a privilege for public conduct, while saying it's really private conduct? STARR: I... BRYANT: And the second -- let me get the second question, so you can answer them both, as I will let you have the balance of the time. I've alluded to the fact that I feel that your credentials are impeccable and that based upon your experience and the experience of the many prosecutors you have referred to today, is tremendous. And based upon all of this, I question you from -- do you have an opinion, not saying whether or not these are impeachable offenses, but as to the quality of this case in terms of criminal law violations? Is it circumstantial case, but is it a weak case, a strong case or something in between? STARR: With respect to your first question on assertion of privilege, I do agree with you that it is odd I think it's irregular to both contend that this is entirely a matter involving personal conduct and at the same time invoke executive privilege to prevent fact witnesses, who are being asked facts with respect to that matter. So I think there is an incoherence, and an inconsistency with the position. With respect to the quality of the case, my own judgment Congressman Bryant, is that the evidence is strong. SENSENBRENNER: The gentleman's time has expired. And I think it now is now proper to take a 10-minute recess. I would like to ask the audience to remain in the room, until Judge Starr exits the room and ask the members of the committee, either to stay in the room or not go too far away. The committee stands in recess until 6:10. HYDE: Now ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to announce sort of a schedule. Things are kind of ad hoc up here. We're going to finish with the members' questioning under the five minute rule. Then when that happens, we're going to take a half hour dinner break. I -- it's unfortunate we just took a break, but maybe it was fortunate for some of you. But anyway, we will at the end of the completion of the members' questioning, we will take a half-hour break. And then we will come back and Mr. Kendall I believe will question Mr. Starr. We'll start out with a half hour, and then if Mr. Kendall needs more time, as I suspect, we will be liberal in allowing that so that he can ask what he wants to ask or needs to ask. And then Mr. Schippers will question, if he desires to. And then we will let Mr. Starr go home with three medals and purple heart.
STARR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HYDE: Then we go to a full committee meeting, but you needn't stay for that, although God knows you're welcome. So the next -- the next questioner is the distinguished gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters. WATERS: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, let me just start, before I get into the areas that I would like to pay attention to, I'd like to help out my friend from California, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. She asked you, would you be willing to release the press from their confidentiality pledge to you and your office so that we can get the leaks investigated that are in question. STARR: I believe that it would, Congresswoman Waters, be unwise and inappropriate for me at this time in this setting -- and I'm delighted to pursue this in executive session. WATERS: That's OK. Your answer today is you would be unwilling to do that. STARR: I believe it would be unwise at this time, with litigation under seal still proceeding. I'm very respectful of the orderliness of that proceeding and it seems to me that that... WATERS: OK. I just don't want to take up a lot of time with it. STARR: I'm sorry. WATERS: I just wanted to know if you would do it or not. The answer is no. STARR: I -- excuse me... WATERS: What would you say... STARR: ... if... WATERS: Yes, and I understand. STARR: At this time... WATERS: I understand. STARR: ... because of the pendency of the litigation. WATERS: Let me just go on. I only have five minutes. STARR: Yes. I'm sorry. WATERS: I have been one of your harshest critics and you know it. I have been appalled by what I consider the gross unfairness of the procedure; of the way in which you have conducted yourself. I've been very critical of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle because of the way that they received these referrals and then dumped into the public domain without any opportunity for the administration, the White House to review the information. So I make no bones about it. I think that some of the tactics that have been used are unacceptable. I think that the moment it was understood that you were going to remain, for example, on the payroll of your law firm where you would be representing the tobacco companies, for example, while the president of the United States had made them a number one target in his administration for dealing with -- trying to discontinue the smoking by youth in our society and dealing with all of the health risk. And I think that it is just totally unacceptable that as late as 1995, you were representing the tobacco interest in your law firm at the same time that you were working for us. As I -- how long did you work for your law firm representing the tobacco interest? And how much did it overlap with this investigation, starting with Whitewater? STARR: I had two representations. One was an appeal on a class action, which was in the time frame, Congresswoman Waters, of 1995, and 1996. Prior to that time, I believe it was 1994 -- I would have to reconstruct this -- I took on a specific representation again on an appeal, which as you may know, is what I typically do. That was in the 1994 time frame. The issues that I took on were in one a instance, constitutional issues and the second was a federal civil procedure issue. WATERS: Did you ever feel you were in conflict of interest by working for your law firm at the same time that you were working as independent counsel? STARR: Congresswoman Waters I did not. I had ethics advice both at the law firm and in the independent counsel's office. And our effort has always been in our office to make sure that we are addressing these issues carefully. WATERS: So you do normally seek the advice so that you will not get into ethical problems, is that right? STARR: Yes. We do... WATERS: Let me just ask you, you did take the oath of office here today and you mentioned in your testimony that the president took the oath of office to tell the truth; however, when you were asked about how you conducted yourself when you sought to expand your jurisdiction in this matter, you literally did not disclose the information that may have a caused the attorney general to rule differently. What's interesting about it -- the way that you presented it today -- when you were asked very specific questions, you said I don't recall; I don't quite remember; I'm not so sure; I will have to search my memory -- those kinds of answers. Yet when the president of the United States responded in that way, you outright called him a liar. Now, am I to assume that your inability to recollect your involvement -- for example, how many hours did you spent on the brief that you did for the Independent Women's Forum? STARR: Congresswoman Waters, the answer to the question is I did no brief for the Independent Woman's Forum. And I also respectfully but firmly disagree with your characterization. I try to put before this committee the events with respect to the -- January of 1998 and why it was that certain things that I had been involved with such as the in Independent Women's Forum... WATERS: What did you do for them? STARR: I beg your pardon? WATERS: What did you do for the Independent Woman's Forum? STARR: I considered, as I did for Bob Fiske, as I also indicated, doing an amicus brief solely limited to the proposition that the president of the United States is just like the rest of us in that, as a private citizen, he must in fact, respond in court to lawsuits against him. WATERS: You didn't consider that was a possible information that you should have disclosed to the attorney general when you were seeking to expand your jurisdiction? STARR: May I respond briefly? HYDE: Please. STARR: As I indicated, that information with respect to the Independent Women's Forum was -- I believed then, and I continue to believe, was publicly reported -- what I have indicated today to the committee is the Bob Fiske inquiry had not been in the public domain. But I also didn't think that was of issue of relevancy to the attorney general eventhough, frankly, perhaps I should have thought of that in as much as that was the Department of Justice -- through Bob Fiske, the independent counsel appointed by the Department of Justice. HYDE: The gentlelady's time has expired. WATERS: Yes, but I would ask you for 30 seconds. I have just one issue I have to get in here about abuse of power. There's a whole list of items that I would like to discuss with you. Much of them said about what happened Monica Lewinsky over in the shopping center at the hotel, but there are others that I am very concerned about. Are you familiar with Ms. Steele and what she's alleging about what you're doing? Did your investigators ask for her tax records, her bank records, her credit report, her telephone records and question the adoption of a child to try and find out whether it was legal? Did they treat her that way? STARR: Congresswoman Waters the answer to the first question is, if I have the questions right you asked a series of question. What was your first question? I think it was, yes. WATERS: Tell me about Ms. Steele. What do you know about her? Did you know your investigators had asked for her tax records, her bank records, her credit reports, her telephone records all because supposedly she was told something by one of the targeted witnesses in the tapes. STARR: I now understand the question. We have asked through FBI investigators a variety of questions to individuals that in the judgment of professional experience investigators have a bearing on the witnesses credibility. WATERS: Did you know she felt abused by you and your investigators? STARR: I am aware that there are issues that she has raised. WATERS: OK. Fine, OK. I just wanted to know if you knew and finally... HYDE: The gentle lady's time -- if your not going to give him a chance to answer your time has expired. WATERS: Well, let me just take this. You may take the time to answer, but there is one more sixteen year old boy who was subpoenaed at school that you sent your investigators to school to get because you were trying to get his father and you know who I'm talking about. (UNKNOWN MEMBER): Mr. Chairman, regular order. HYDE: The gentlelady really give Mr. Starr WATERS: OK. All right. HYDE: ... chance to answer and please don't ask more questions. WATERS: All right. OK. STARR: I can be brief. WATERS: Yes. STARR: That was in the Arkansas phase of our investigation. The individual in question we believe had relevant information. No subpoena as I understand it was in fact served, but the agent in question did go to the school. In my judgment that was a misjudgment. I don't think he should have even gone to the school, but it's my best understanding that he did not, in fact, effect the service of the subpoena on the young person there. If I am mistaken then I will say this, no, he should not have gone to the school, but could I add this? We have had in this investigation jurisdiction granted to us in a wide variety of areas that has cost when I took for Bob Fiske, he had a presence of about 120 people in Little Rock. Congresswoman Waters there may be steps along the way that you would say, well, why was that particular judgment made. Gosh, that wasn't a very wise thing to do and I do think it is unwise to go to a school. I completely agree with that. WATERS: And about the subpoena of the 80 year old grandmother. HYDE: The gentlelady's time... WATERS: The same gentleman, you've subpoenaed an 80-year-old grandmother . HYDE: The gentle lady's time has expired. Will you please follow the chair. Mr. Chabot is recognized. WATERS: Let him answer that one. HYDE: Mr. Chabot is recognized. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Is this on? Is this mike on? I don't think this mike's on. HYDE: The mike should be on. CHABOT: OK, that's on now. It seems pretty clear to me that there's a strategy by Bill Clinton and his allies to demonize anybody who gets in their way -- Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Henry Hyde, you Judge Starr, this committee, even the press to some extent. It's everybody else's fault, and everybody else is to blame, everybody except Bill Clinton, except the president. Now in criminal cases, and I think Mr. Canady referred to this, it's a pretty common practice to do this. If the facts of the case are against you, if your client is pretty clearly guilty, put the police on trial. They planted the evidence, the police are corrupt, they forced your client to sign the confession, anything to get your client off the hook. Judge Starr my question to you is this, how difficult is it for you as an independent counsel to do your job when you're up against this onslaught, particularly, when you're limited in your ability to defend yourself and to defend the other prosecutors under you and to defend your staff in a public forum, limited that is until today? STARR: Well I think it is inherently a challenge, and I must say that it does in my judgment raise questions about the relationship between the independent counsel, the Congress of the United States, and I'm speaking generally, and also the Justice Department. But I can only give you my philosophy. I think it's my obligation to follow the rules. And that's what we seek to do. That's why I reached out and tried to get the right kind of ethics advise and the like to make sure that some of these difficult judgments were in fact done the right way. And that's all we can do. But for example, we cannot set up a congressional liaison shop. We just don't have the resources to do that. We can't set up an effective public information apparatus the way the great departments of government do. So I think it is inherently a grave challenge for an independent counsel to be told, go set up shop and you're out there on your own. And we just look eventually to some report or a conclusion and the like. And you're a bit of the lone ranger, as it were in terms of are you part of any entity and structure. And that's one of the reasons that congressman, what I tried to do was to create mechanisms whereby we had not only a deliberative process, so that the kinds of issues that are being raised here today, we can respond to and say, yes we did have a process in place. Yes, when there are questions raised about what you did on January 16th at Ritz Carlton, we consulted with the Justice Department. We had experienced prosecutors evaluating it. They were very familiar with the ethics rules. And they made judgments based upon good faith determinations of what the appropriate procedures were. But we had to create that mechanism all by ourselves, and I've tried to do that to the best of my ability. CHABOT: Early in the investigation of the Lewinsky matter, President Clinton promised to fully cooperate with the investigators stating that he wanted to divulge more rather than less, and sooner rather than later. How cooperative has the administration been in your investigation? STARR: With respect to this phase of the investigation, the administration has been uncooperative. STARR: To the contrary, it has litigated numerous issues, although in fairness, I think of the things that we have litigated. In fairness, the administration has produced a goodly number of records and the like. And so, I would say at a routine level, requests for subpoenas, for documents and so forth, there certainly has been that and I don't want to be unfair about saying that. But there is a marked distinction between the cooperation that we received for example, and the FBI files matter and the cooperation or lack thereof that we received in this and in other phases of our investigation. And to me, one of the markers is the invocation of privileges that may very well be that the considered judgment of this body is any privilege can be invoked no matter how unmeritorious one thinks it is, that that's not an abuse. Perhaps we live in such a litigious age that that's the new way of doing things. I disagree with that. I think if privileges are invoked for the purposes of delay and have the intended effect of delay, and I think that is what happened here, when they lose, I've heard complaints about the tactics of the investigation and yet, we go to court. And as I indicated earlier, 17 visits to the courts of appeal thus far, we have prevailed in each of those. That sounds like an investigation that's getting it right. CHABOT: Let me just conclude by referring to your report, towards the end of it. And you stated, and I'll quote, "given the hurricane force political winds swirling about us, we were well aware that no matter what decision we made, criticism would come from somewhere." As Attorney General Reno had said, in a high profile case like this, "you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. So you'd better just do what you think is right, what is the right and fair thing." HYDE: Gentleman's time ha expired, I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Meehan. MEEHAN: Mr. Starr, as a former judge and appellate litigator, I'm sure you know how important your own credibility is in the decisions that this committee must make. The key fact finding in this investigation has been done exclusively by you and your deputies. All of the important grand jury testimony or Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp and President Clinton was illicited under your direction and never subject to cross-examination. You and you alone, decided who to immunize and what to investigate. So if your credibility is tainted by bias or poor judgment on your part, this committee and the American people, must at the very least, treat the many inferences that you draw in your referral with extreme caution and must question whether your referral is indeed, the whole story. What do we see Mr. Starr, when we look at your personal involvement in the issues before us? Well we've heard a lot of them this afternoon. Among other things, we see that you consulted with Paula Jones' attorneys at least a half dozen times in the summer of 1994, about how to frame an argument against presidential immunity; something you apparently failed to disclose at the Justice Department when you sought to expand your jurisdiction in January 1998. And something that might have influenced the attorney general to appoint someone other than you to carry out this part of the investigation. During the same summer, you appeared on PBS' "New Hour" to argue against the president's position in the Jones case. For most of your tenure, it's been indicated here as independent counsel, you remained a partner in a private law firm receiving $1.2 million in salary per year. MEEHAN: While at the same time, one of your law partners was leaking an affidavit in the Jones case to the Chicago Tribune in November of 1997, as well as steering Linda Tripp to you so that she could entrap the president without becoming entrapped herself in an illegal tape recording charge. You represented Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company in the 1995 class action litigation -- a company that had a major stake in the failure of the Clinton Administration, of its initiatives to keep kids from smoking, and the Justice Department criminal investigation of big tobacco. You made a commitment in February of 1997 to become the dean of Pepperdine University's new School of Public Policy -- a school whose creation owes in large part to a $250,000 donation from a newspaper publisher with a habit of funding anti-Clinton Administration publications and also an Arkansas-based dirt-digging operation. You made a $1,750 contribution to your firm's political action committee in January of 1995 -- a PAC that in turn contributed to four Republican candidates for president who were running against President Clinton in 1996. You were hired as a consultant to the Bradley (ph) Foundation in the summer of 1995 on the issue of school vouchers -- a foundation that provides funding to some of President Clinton's harshest critics. And now, Mr. Starr, when we read your referral, we see that you found the time and the space to specifically mention that one of the days that the president and Monica Lewinsky got together was Easter Sunday, but you chose not to include the critical statement from Ms. Lewinsky's grand jury testimony: "No one ever asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my silence." Mr. Starr, your own ethics adviser, Sam Dash, is on the record stating that while your conduct in many of these respects violated no technical legal ethics rules, that conduct, and I quote "does have an odor to it." Further, Mr. Dash said on another occasion, "I can understand how responsible reporters and reasonable people could question Ken's judgment." Mr. Starr, in light of these facts and opinions, is it your position that there is no basis whatsoever for the American people to question the credibility of your work? STARR: My answer is the credibility should be assessed by the evidence that is contained herein. This is an elaborately documented... MEEHAN: Excuse me, Mr. Starr, but you made inferences... you're asking us to rely... HYDE: I'm ask -- Mr. Meehan... MEEHAN: ... on the credibility of witnesses. HYDE: ... Mr. Meehan, your time has expired. Give the witness some time to answer the long... MEEHAN: But this isn't just about the evidence. This is about the credibility. Wouldn't you agree? (UNKNOWN MEMBER): Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order... HYDE: Would you let the witness answer. Please take such time as you need, Mr. Starr. STARR: Congressman, you may disagree, but what has been submitted to you is an elaborately documented product of professional prosecutors. These are professional prosecutors from around the country, some of whom are on detail from the Justice Department. With respect... MEEHAN: I'm a former prosecutor myself. STARR: ... yes, I'm aware of that -- with respect to the practice of law, I think that is a serious question. Should independent counsel's do it; and I know my judgment has been called into question by some. And I think Sam was very honest. Sam said: I just don't think you should be practicing law at all. May I say this? The statute contemplates that independent counselors are going to be drawn out of private practice and I've lost count, but at one time, 17 of the 18 independent counsels did in fact carry on private practice. STARR: And if I may say, that was part of the original understanding, that I was going to continue with my private law practice, while giving this, as I have always sought to do, the top priority. With respect to issues about the firm. It's a very large firm with large number of offices in several cities, and with a number of lawyers. MEEHAN: But you have a duty under the code of professional responsibility... HYDE: Mr. Meehan, please. (UNKNOWN MEMBER): Order. MEEHAN: ... to know that. HYDE: Mr. Meehan, will you please. MEEHAN: ... recognize that. It's not just the people in the firm. HYDE: Mr. Meehan, will you withhold, please. WATERS: That's why we should have more than five minutes. MEEHAN: Mr. Chairman, these are complicated issues. We can't just get it and fly home. BARR: Than let him answer. STARR: I think I concluded my answer, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. HYDE: The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr. N E X T+P A G E+| "I commend you for standing up to the nonsense" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Become a Salon member. Click here. |
|
