 |
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
BARR: Thank you Mr. Chairman. As the day draws longer, the charges become more absurd. I think I heard, maybe I was mistaken, that we were going in the direction in the last line of questioning, with Monica entrapping the president. Now, there's a rich one. I suppose that's the same as the president being trapped into perjury. As a matter of law, is it not well established, Judge Starr, that there is no such thing as being trapped into perjury? STARR: Yes, that is true. BARR: One can never be forced to tell a lie before a grand jury or a federal court. Is that correct, legally? STARR: There is no excuse for telling a lie, you are correct -- I mean, under oath. BARR: Let me offer up several presumptions and then ask you a question. Let's presume, Judge Starr, that Linda Tripp is a really nasty person. Let's presume further, Judge Starr, for purposes of a hypothetical, that Lucianne Goldberg is a crafty manipulator. Let's presume that Monica is an over-sexed blabber mouth. Let's presume that there really is a vast right-wing conspiracy out there somewhere, maybe at work here today. Let's presume that Paula Jones was interested just in the money. Let's presume that the independent counsel is not a perfect statue, and let's presume that, horror of horrors, you use tobacco products. Let's presume all of those awful things. Would any of that, in your professional judgment, change the conclusions contained in your referral, and in your testimony today, that there is substantial and credible evidence that President William Jefferson Clinton may have committed impeachable offenses? STARR: It would not change it. The facts have a real power to them. And it was Justice Brandeis who said: "Facts, facts, facts; give me facts." And that's what we've sought to do, congressman, in this referral. BARR: You have, and I commend you for standing up to the nonsense, and that's putting it mildly, that you have had to put up with today, in questions by the other side. And -- in the last several years. And I really do commend you for your ability to stand up in the face of that, and stick to the facts and stick to the law. Talking briefly about the law, Judge Starr, we are not limited, here in this committee, just to what you present to us? Are we in considering whether or not pursuant to the House resolution directing that we look into the possible impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, to just what you have presented, are we? STARR: Not at all. I had a statutory duty, but you have a constitutional duty. BARR: Thank you. I do have one quick question, then I'd like to -- if we could have my paper distributed, please, to the members and Judge Starr. But before I refer to that, with regard to your reference to the FBI File case on page-47 of your written testimony, Judge Starr; has your office interviewed or deposed Mac McLarty with regard to Filegate? STARR: I cannot recall, off the top of my head, whether we conducted that particular interview or not. I will say this, and I can check and again get back to the committee, but my evaluation and assessment, based on the professional prosecutors who carried this out, is that it was thorough, but I would have to check on that. BARR: OK. I would appreciate it because that -- your conclusion there left me a little bit concerned because I hear a great deal from the American people of concern about abuse by the FBI in Filegate, and it's my understanding that there are a number of people that have not yet been deposed or fully deposed in that case, and I really would appreciate it if you would check on that and so we don't completely close the door on that. There is a document which I believe has been distributed. This is a document that I will introduce into the record with my written comments, by Jerome Zeithman (ph) -- the former chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee in 1973 and 1974. And it is rather extensive and I have no -- I'm not going to make you read it today. I would respectfully ask that you do take a look at it, 'cause Mr. Zeithman (ph) raises a very interesting question, and that is something also that you touched on in your written testimony, and that is bribery. Under 18 USC 201, which you're very familiar with, one, I think, could very legitimately make the case that with regard to the Webb Hubbell payments of several hundred thousands of dollars involving -- including from foreign sources, which is part of the pattern of activity that you talked about earlier, which we see also in what appears to be an effort to buy either the silence of Monica Lewinsky -- obviously unsuccessful -- or her offering a job to have her save her testimony in some way. Is it not correct that if you do look at 18 USC 201, which is the bribery statute, that it would appear that many of the allegations concerning the payoffs and the evidence relating thereto could fall within 18 USC 201 and could also form the basis for an impeachment article? STARR: Well again, we have given you our legal assessment, and I know that prosecutors and obviously members of Congress can look at the law. We have not taken it through an analysis with respect to the bribery statute, and I think I should, if you would permit me to do that, withhold judgment in terms of the legal analysis so that I'm not making an off-the-cuff statement, notwithstanding my familiarity with the statute, in light of the various elements of the offense -- set forth in the bribery statute. But I do think that at a minimum, very serious questions are raised that are now here for you to evaluate in your own way. HYDE: Mr. Delahunt ... BARR: And this would also go to the ... HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Delahunt. DELAHUNT: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Starr, you consider yourself a prosecutor now, don't you? You don't consider yourself an independent counsel. STARR: I have never prosecuted before in this DELAHUNT: No, but I'm just saying, in your current capacity, you consider yourself a prosecutor. STARR: We have to -- that is certainly an important dimension to our ... DELAHUNT: Thank you, thank you. And I want to get to another question, and you can see how the time is so limited. STARR: Yes, sorry. DELAHUNT: I'll be brief. You know, Mr. -- I think it was Mr. Canady that talked about due process. And I think -- and I dare say everyone in this room today is concerned about due process. My colleague from Massachusetts talked about the fact, and it is a reality -- I think it's important that the American people understand that the witnesses that you dealt with, none of them were subject to cross-examination and you know that because you are a prosecutor and because you have -- you referenced them many times today -- career prosecutors. So that in terms of their credibility, their memory it has never been tested in an adversarial fashion. And you know that really is a concept that is embedded in our American jurisprudence. Would you agree with that? STARR: Absolutely, cross-examination is very important. DELAHUNT: Thank you. One other reference -- I think it was my friend from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, who referred to the Claiborne -- Judge Claiborne being removed from office, because -- and I think it was the chairman himself, who elucidated for us it was as a result of filing under the pains and penalties of perjury -- an income tax return. And I think that you agreed with that statement. But I think it is important to remember, that this same committee back in 1974, when there was an article of impeachment presented before the committee, in terms of President Nixon's -- allegations against President Nixon regarding the very same offense -- signing under the pains and penalties of perjury. It was this committee back then that voted against an article -- an article of impeachment on that particular, on that particular matter. I think it's really important that the American people understand that. So there was a difference. There was a difference. I'm just going to ask you one or two questions, just to clarify some confusion in my own mind. You referred earlier to a letter dated June 16th, that you directed to the editor of "Brill's Content." STARR: Yes. DELAHUNT: And on page seven of your letter you noted that the Brill report stated and I'm quoting you here, "They were also going to try to get Lewinsky to wire herself and get Jordan and maybe even the president on tape obstructing justice." And I think that's an accurate reading. In response your letter and you then went on to state, and I'm quoting, "This is false. This office never asked Ms. Lewinsky to agree to wire herself for a conversation with Mr. Jordan or the president." And again I would suggest to you that is an accurate reading of your letter and I would hope that you would adopt it. I presume when you wrote that you took great pains to be accurate -- and before you particularly put such an unequivocal statement in writing -- do you stand by that statement? STARR: The specific statement on the wiring with respect to the president and Mr. Jordan. DELAHUNT: The statement that I just read to you. This office never asked... STARR: I'm sorry I don't have the letter before me and I'm trying to follow and you were reading fairly fast. DELAHUNT: Let me read it for you again and I will read it slowly and I apologize. "This office never asked Ms. Lewinsky to agree to wire herself for a conversation with Mr. Jordan or the president." STARR: Right. DELAHUNT: You stand by that statement. STARR: May I elaborate? Yes what we... DELAHUNT: STARR: These are serious questions. HYDE: You can try Judge Starr -- it's going to be tough. You can try to answer. DELAHUNT: If I can just indulge because that would seem to... (UNKNOWN MEMBER): Mr. Chairman I make a point of order that the witness should be allowed to answer the questions. This drive by questioning. DELAHUNT: I'm still not out of time. FRANK: That's not a point of order, Mr. Chairman, that's a complaint. HYDE: Elementary fairness dictates an opportunity for the witness to answer your complex questions. I think if you want to be fair you will let him answer. DELAHUNT: I will be fair then. And I would ask the chair to indulge me again. HYDE: I will indulge you for the answer. STARR: We explained to her at the Ritz Carlton what a cooperating witness would do. STARR: It is my understanding -- I was not personally there, but it's my understanding that is was stated at a high level of generality, with respect to what cooperating witnesses could be asked to do and that was one of the activities that could be included in what a cooperating witness would do once the witness has been evaluated in terms of her credibility and the like. DELAHUNT: So the statement in your letter to Mr. Brill is inaccurate? STARR: No, it went with respect -- that's why I wanted to be careful that I understood exactly what the question was. And I hope that I have made clear that we talked at a high level of generality not -- as I understand it -- not in a person specific way with respect to what a cooperating witness would do. DELAHUNT: You realize that Ms. Lewinsky testimony contradicts you? STARR: I am aware that there may be other perceptions, but that is what we in fact asked -- it's my understanding that what we asked her to do was to consider being a cooperating witness. And it was stated by our people at a fairly high level of generality. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Jenkins. JENKINS: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Starr I would like to thank you for being here and I would like to thank you for being very patient over a long, difficult day and I would like to say thanks for laboring diligently on behalf of the citizens of this country for many months -- you had a very difficult task. STARR: Thank you. JENKINS: And for the most part I would compliment this committee in so far as they have talked about and asked about the Constitution, the law, the facts, and the testimony that surround this case. This committee is to be complimented. But there have been some occasional departures from these subjects and I do not believe that those departures have necessarily been complimentary of this committee. So I would like to go back to a line of questioning that Mr. Inglis started. On page five in paragraph nine of your statement, you said that the president made false statements under oath to a grand jury on August 17th, 1998. As I understood the gentleman's testimony, Senator-Elect Schumer agreed with that statement. I noticed that you, in most of your characterizations of the evidence, you said that the evidence suggests, but in this particular instance you didn't even have that language in. You said that the president made false statements. Then you voiced an opinion in response to a question by Mr. Inglis that a reasonable person or a juror could find these statements to be material matter under the statute. Now I would like to read a statue -- it's Title 18, Section 1621. And I would like to ask you if it's pertinent to this case and an additional question or two. It reads in the pertinent part, "Whoever having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, that he will testify truly, willfully, and contrary to such oath states any material fact, matter which he does not believe to be true is guilty of perjury." Now, I know it's not your role to determine if a violation of that statue exists, or did exist in this case. But let me ask you the same question Mr. Inglis did, could a reasonable juror find that all of the elements were present in the evidence in this case, and that there had been a violation of that statue? STARR: It seems to me that a reasonable juror could, but obviously that would come at the conclusion of proceedings that would be a full trial. But it seems to me that based on the evidence that is here, if that were the full body of evidence that a reasonable jurist could so conclude. JENKINS: And I understand that we are the reasonable jurors to make that determination in this case. STARR: It is your judgment. JENKINS: Or at least eventually in the United States Senate, that decision is to be made. Now there has been some mention of, and some characterization of the testimony of the 19 distinguished witnesses who appeared before this committee, 19 professors and historians. Did you happen to see or hear or have you read the testimony of any of those witnesses? STARR: Some, but not all. JENKINS: Did you hear the characterization on the other side that very few felt that perjury is an impeachable offense? STARR: Yes, I did hear that. JENKINS: I personally heard differently when I heard those 19 witnesses. My recollection is an overwhelming majority of them testified that perjury can be or is any impeachable offense. Was that your understanding from the testimony that they gave? STARR: Well, I did not, I'm not sure. And the testimony will speak for itself. But I certainly no that certain individuals such as Professor McDowell with his elaborate common law analysis did come to the conclusion based on that history of the common law and then the history of the founding of the American republic, that to him and his scholarship, you know, head as he is of the Institute of U.S. Studies at the University of London, that that was in fact clear at common law, which of course was transplanted to this country. So, but I did not have a chance to evaluate all of the 10 individuals. JENKINS: Thank you very much, sir. HYDE: The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Wexler. WEXLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The founding fathers had infinite choices when they conceived our government. They considered placing impeachment in the realm of the courts, but instead they decided that impeachment should be a political process as well as a legal one. But the House of Representatives was uniquely qualified to deliberate on the removal of an elected president because we would take into account the views of the president's ultimate jury, the people of the United States of America. And make no mistake about it, that jury rendered its judgment loud and clear on November 3rd, and this committee did not listen. This committee is ignoring the will of the American people, and instead following the lead of this so-called independent counsel who has conducted a politically-inspired witch hunt in search of a crime to justify five years and $40 million in taxpayer's money. The American people do not approve, Mr. Starr. They know unfairness when they see it. They know in justice when they feel it. They know hypocrisy when they smell it. They know partisan politics when they are the victims of it. In their gut, they have figured this thing out. And still this committee does not listen. Here's what the American people have concluded. The president had an affair, he lied about it. He didn't want anyone to know about it. But he didn't bribe anyone. He didn't obstruct justice. He didn't commit treason, he did not subvert the government. And yet, the committee continues because they say, they fear for the rule of law. But as I listen to the questions of my Republican colleagues today, I do not hear their concern for the rule of law regarding Linda Tripp's illegally-recorded phone conversations. I do not hear their concern for the rule of law regarding the illegal leaking of grand jury testimony. And where is their concern for the rule of law about Ken Starr's team denying witnesses their basic and fundamental rights of due process? How we obtain information, and conduct investigations in this country does matter. The president is not above the law, and neither are you. That is why I must ask you the following questions about your investigation. And please let me read my four questions before you respond. On January 16, 1998, do you admit or deny that your agents threatened Ms. Lewinsky with 27 years in prison if she contacted her attorney as she testified? Do you admit or deny that your agents threatened to prosecute her mother if Ms. Lewinsky called her attorney as she testified? That your agents told Monica Lewinsky that she would be less likely to receive immunity if she contacted her attorney, as she testified? Do you admit or deny that your office threatened Julie Hiatt Steele, a witness in the Kathleen Willey matter, that they would raise questions about the legality of the adoption of her 8-year-old child unless she changed her testimony? If you would please, Mr. Starr, in the interest of time, please admit or deny -- did your agents threaten Ms. Lewinsky with 27 years in prison? STARR: Before I engage in an admission or denial, I would want to see the question and I would be delighted to receive the question. And I would then give you a written admission or denial. WEXLER: May I make it simple? STARR: I would be happy to respond... ROGAN: Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry please? HYDE: Gentleman will state his inquiry. WEXLER: Mr. Chairman, it's not on my time? HYDE: No, your time is almost expired, but we'll give you another minute. ROGAN: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a parliamentary inquiry with respect to the procedures. And perhaps it's only me, but I'm finding it very difficult, with this pattern of multiple questions being asked in a row, and then inviting multiple answers all gathered about at once. The answers ought to be in sync with the question, and I would suggest that the better practice would be question, answer, question, answer. FRANK: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. That's obviously not a parliamentary inquiry. HYDE: The chair states that that is not a parliamentary inquiry. A member who has five minutes can ask or assert whatever they want. It is curious that they all use the five minutes. We've done it too. And then, Mr. Starr has difficulty answering because there are further interruptions. I don't think this has been at all a fair proceeding. It hasn't been the chair's fault. But take what time you need to answer the speech of Mr. Wexler. STARR: With respect, three of the questions went... and if you ask me in writing, I will be happy to follow up. STARR: Three of the questions went to the events of the evening of January 16th. I will say that we conducted ourselves properly and lawfully. That determination has been made -- these issues get litigated in court. WEXLER: If I may, Mr. Starr... STARR: And if I could finish -- that we conducted ourselves in a proper and professional way, saying that we want the witness to cooperate under the circumstances of her engaging in felonious conduct. With respect to your fourth question -- and that's my response with respect to those. With respect to the fourth question on Ms. Steele as I said earlier that I believe that our agents are going about their work in a way that is appropriate to test credibility, to inquire as to areas that in their professional judgment go to credibility, but if there are issues with respect to how particular witnesses are handled -- and I have heard a number of those questions. I think the right thing to do is for the individual, especially one as Ms. Steele is, represented by counsel to go to court and to say I've been treated unfairly and to see what the remedy is. But for me to try to engage in almost an adjudicatory function here is somewhat odd -- to take certain selected facts and to come to an ultimate judgment... WEXLER: Mr. Starr, if I may. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. WEXLER: Mr. Chairman, you had indicated I had a minute. HYDE: The gentleman... WEXLER: Mr. Chairman you had indicated I had a minute before the other gentleman for California, right? HYDE: Don't you consider the time to answer your questions part of your time? WEXLER: Mr. Chairman I sat very diligently -- I will take 15 seconds. HYDE: Just a moment -- oh, God -- Mr. Wexler you may have 15 seconds. WEXLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Starr, I did not ask you about the legality of the actions of your agents. All I asked you is a factual question. Did your agents or did they not threaten Ms. Lewinsky with 27 years in prison? It's either yes or no -- not the legality. STARR: I know what Ms. Lewinsky has said. I would have to conduct an interview with my agents to know what the position of the office is. FRANK: Gentleman yield? WEXLER: Thank you, Mr. Starr. FRANK: The answer was, yes. HYDE: The gentleman from -- no, it's not. HYDE: The gentleman from Arkansas. HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Starr, in following up, am I correct that the appropriate District Court judge reviewed the conduct of the agents at the time they initially interviewed Monica Lewinsky and found that no due process was violated? STARR: Well, it was put in terms of a right to counsel, and there apparently are issues with respect to the orders. I'm doing my best to recall the judge's order. But the judge in fact determined that there was no violation of a constitutional right. That's my best recollection. But the order will speak for itself. HUTCHINSON: Well, I want to thank you for your willingness to appear here today. And going back to earlier in the day when we had the dispute over how much time, I do hope and welcome the president's counsel to have an equal time in presentation with what you have done today, and I trust that they will graciously submit to questions by the members of this body as you have done. I wanted to go back to your testimony, page 34 of your testimony you testified the Constitution provides for two separate proceedings, the impeachment trial and a separate criminal trial. And Mr. Boucher I believe asked some questions in regard to this. But would it be within your jurisdiction to pursue any criminal conduct if there was perjury that occurred in this case, or obstruction of justice? STARR: Yes, congressman, I believe that under the grant by the attorney general and the special division there would be jurisdiction in our office. REP. HUTCHINSON: And I assume the fact that you referred this to the Congress of the United States as substantial and credible evidence that obstruction of justice and perjury occurred, that that would have to be a consideration in your office as to whether criminal proceedings should be initiated? MR. STARR: That is exactly correct. REP. HUTCHINSON: And you have to make a determination whether that can be done during the president's term of office or after he leaves office? MR. STARR: That would certainly be an issue. REP. HUTCHINSON: And do you have an opinion in that regard? If you uncomfortable answering that, feel free to say so. MR. STARR: I am uncomfortable answering it. I think it is an enormously important issue on which there is a lot of difference of opinion in terms of what is appropriate in our constitutional order. So I am reluctant without the most careful thought to speak to that, if you would indulge me that. REP. HUTCHINSON: Well, the point I'm making obviously is that everybody says that the people in the country want to get this behind us, and I think that is established. And how do you get it behind us? We've had a gentleman from the other side of the aisle talk about the president committed perjury and he ought to be punished. Now, I haven't reached that conclusion yet, but if you reach that conclusion he ought to be punished and you don't believe it's an impeachable offense, that means that the independent counsel initiates criminal prosecution against the president of the United States, and I don't see how that gets behind us. And I think that's a heavy issue that I know that you have to weigh, as well as this committee has to weigh. Now, if we go on through that -- let me just go on to some other questions here. In your referral you referred on pages seven, eight and nine to a pattern of conduct, and that was really the basis on which you asked -- or that the attorney general gave you an expanded jurisdiction in the Monica Lewinsky case. That pattern of conduct you referred to involved Webster Hubbell -- am I correct? MR. STARR: That is correct. HUTCHINSON: And then in your testimony today at page 45 you indicate that there was in June of '94 $100,000 paid to Webster Hubbell from James Riady. And James Riady is represented -- the Riady Group in this country -- by John Huang. There have been published reports that John Huang is a cooperating witness. And so my question to you would be is John Huang a relevant witness in the pattern of conduct you referred to in the original report? And then I want to ask you this -- well, go ahead and answer that if you could. MR. STARR: I would prefer to reflect on that and answer that in a more sober way if I could, as opposed to an impromptu response, because that's, in terms of the relevancy of a witness at this stage, in light of, you know, our coming to judgment which we reached after a lot of deliberation, and we did not include him in the referral. So I would be happy to answer that. HUTCHINSON: Do we have all the material at the present time that's relevant to this referral and the pattern of conduct that you really based your jurisdiction on? MR. STARR: I believe that you do. I know there are still some issues, but they're -- but I believe that you do, congressman. HUTCHINSON: I think it's important, you know, that we have this information now, and not at the conclusion of the hearing process. So I know that you are laboring diligently for that, but I'd certainly urge you to get everything over to us that's possible, and out of respect for the chair I will stop. HYDE: God love you, Mr. Hutchinson. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rothman.
STEVE ROTHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement. We are here today to consider the rule of law in America. I am referring to the rule of law that should be applied fairly to everyone in America, including the president of the United States. That rule of law and fairness must also be applied by this committee and by you, Mr. Starr. Whether the president engaged in offensive conduct or deceptive conduct is not what we are here to decide. Whether the president can or will be brought up on civil or criminal charges is also not what we are here to decide. We are here to decide whether a United States president for the first time in over 200 years of American history should be judged to have committed treason, bribery or other high crime and misdemeanor, and whether it is necessary to remove our president from office. In yesterday's New York Times, Mr. Starr, your spokesman, Charles Bakaly, III, said, in describing your work, quote, "We make no judgments. We have simply gathered the facts," unquote. Well, Mr. Starr, that is not what your office has done. In truth, in your 450-page referral you selected for the most part the facts that tended to show the president in the worst light and those that would bring condemnation to the president, instead of revealing all the facts and the context that might have exonerated the president or shown the uncertainty and ambiguity of the evidence against the president. In fact, in my judgment much of your legal case, Mr. Starr, as set forth to date, rests on unfair innuendo and overreaching inference. For example, in your 450-page report you dismissed and did not even quote Monica Lewinsky's statement to the grand jury when she said, quote, "No one ever asked me to lie, and I was never promised a job for my silence," unquote. And it was left to a grand juror on his or her own initiative to raise that question, because no one from your office pursued this obvious line of questioning, which would have been beneficial to the president. In your 450-page report, Mr. Starr, with respect, I think you also failed the American people and this committee by omitting or misrepresenting the following facts that would have been favorable to the president, some of which include: that Betty Currie testified that taking back the president's gifts was her idea; that discussions about a job for Ms. Lewinsky were made more than five months before Ms. Lewinsky was even mentioned as a witness in the Paula Jones case; that Betty Currie was not a witness in any proceeding at the time you allege that President Clinton tried to influence her testimony; that it was the Secret Service and not the president who urged the court to prevent their agents from being subpoenaed; that both Ms. Lewinsky and the president have said that the president never asked her to submit a full affidavit. Mr. Starr, you are, as you have said, an eyewitness to nothing relevant to your referral. You have heard nothing first-hand. You saw nothing first-hand. You have no direct knowledge of any facts relevant to your case for impeachment. You have simply provided us with a one-side 450-page prosecutor's opening statement with unnecessary details of explicit sexual activity designed solely to humiliate and damage the president of the United States. What motives have driven you to pursue certain evidence only, to characterize that evidence in my opinion in a skewed way and to make the legal case for impeachment founded on innuendo and inference, and with whom you consulted in that process will not in the end determine whether or not I will vote for impeachment. But how you and your deputies have pursued this president, and the case you have set forth for his impeachment does lead me to seriously question the facts you have alleged and to seriously question the conclusions you would have us come to. HYDE: Your ROTHMAN: Mr. Chairman, may I have 30 seconds please? HYDE: Thirty seconds more, surely. ROTHMAN: Notwithstanding this, I will withhold my final judgment on impeachment until this inquiry is concluded. In the end, Mr. Starr, this committee's legacy will not be our decision regarding whether this president is the first in 200 years to be impeached on a finding of treason or bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors; that is Mr. Clinton's legacy. Our legacy will be how we arrived at our decision in faith with the Constitution. Finally, Mr. Starr, you say in your statement today that you live in the world of the law and you boast that you often win. But, Mr. Starr, this is not about winning and losing in the courtroom. This is not some personal or professional competition between you and Bill Clinton. This is not a legal game or a sport to win or lose. This is about the Constitution of the United States that has kept America strong and free for more than 200 years. HYDE: I thank the gentleman. Do you choose to respond? You're welcome to. MR. STARR: Well, let me say this -- and I'll be, I think for me, extremely brief. I believe, congressman, this is elaborately corroborated by -- if fair-minded people read it they will see that the vast majority of facts are not in dispute. It is for you to assess -- and this is where I think -- you are quite right, in terms of judgments it is your judgment. It is your judgment as to the significance of this. That is entrusted to yo. But we had an obligation to gather facts pursuant to a jurisdictional grant. We gathered them. We believe we were complete. And all the information from which the questions have been drawn with respect to why wasn't this there is all before you. In our judgment to say for example -- to take the one example that you especially emphasized about Ms. Lewinsky's statement, for me it is fair -- and you may disagree with this, and we can agree agreeably to disagree -- to say in referral Ms. Lewinsky has stated that the president never explicitly told her to lie, and to tell the entire story -- not a part of the story that she was interested in telling because of her understandable reluctance to in any way hurt the president of the United States. We told what we saw as the entirety of the relevant story, and we provided you with all of the additional information for you to evaluate. HYDE: The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pease.
PEASE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Starr, it's just recently been asserted that it was the Secret Service, and not the president, that asserted the novel notion of a protective privilege. But as I understand it, the president's personal attorney Mr. Bennett filed papers in the Jones case, which said among other things, quote, "President Clinton through undersigned counsel, emphatically expresses his support on behalf of himself, the Office of the Presidency, and all past and future presidents, for the motion for a protective order filed by the United States Secret Service in this matter," end quote. I'd appreciate your comment on that quote and whether that assertion of a privilege affected your pursuit of the facts in this matter? STARR: Yes. It is my understanding that there was in fact an embracing of the asserted privilege. And, yes, in my investigation -- our investigation, it was a source of material and considerable delay, and an enormous amount of litigation that ultimately went, as we all know, to the Supreme Court of the United States, when each judge who looked at it at the lower courts determined that there was no legal basis for the creation of the privilege under Rule 501. As I said in my opening statement, I think it was a very weak claim. It was not crafted -- and I think this is important for the people to understand -- it was not crafted to simply the protect the president. Rather, the privilege that was asserted was the protective-function privilege under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which looks to the common law, the experience of courts. It was a very broad and sweeping, but unmeritorious, claim. We had to litigate it. It also prevented our getting timely evidence from people whom we needed it from. PEASE: Thank you, Mr. Starr. Earlier today, I believe it was my colleague from Tennessee -- pointed out that in the case of the grand jury testimony, your referral was -- probably made a stronger statement than it did in some of the other matters, when it said, categorically, that the president gave false and misleading testimony under oath. Can you summarize for us the factual basis for that conclusion? STARR: Yes. I tried to do this in the opening statement to say that -- for example, the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the activities in terms of when they were together and the circumstances of their being together; the circumstances with respect to Mr. Jordan, and the responses with respect to whether Mr. Jordan and the president had had conversations about certain subjects. As we outline in the opening statement, I think in specific detail after specific detail there is very substantial reason to believe that the president did in fact not tell the truth under oath, and is contradicted, very substantially, we believe, by other undisputed evidence. PEASE: One of the -- thank you, Mr. Starr. One of the questions that was raised earlier, and for reasons that I understand from the chair we didn't go into, our colleague from California raised the whole issue of the credibility of witnesses as you drew your conclusi ns that were sent to us. But I would like to address, at least for a few moments, the issue of the credibility of Ms. Lewinsky. And we know, from your statements and others, that she made false statements. She was granted immunity, then made other statements. Why is it that we should believe some of those statements on which you rely, and we should not believe other statements that we know to have been false? STARR: Yes. The reason is corroboration. And I quite agree, a statement by a witness who has been known to lie should in fact be, then, examined and checked, and so you look at other evidence, and does the evidence corroborate it? And her evidence was very powerful and, indeed, we thought compelling, as I tried to mention earlier. When she could say that she was alone with the president -- he denied being alone -- that he received a phone call from a Florida sugar-grower whose name sounded like "(Anwell?)", and it was very close, including the time -- so we would check telephone records, and the like, movement logs, and we elaborately and thoroughly documented all of those issues for the very reason that a number of the witnesses in this matter had questions with respect to their credibility. That's why you don't go with the witness statement alone; you look to see what other evidence, if any, there is to corroborate, and here there was overwhelming evidence to corroborate. PEASE: Thank you, Mr. Starr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HYDE: The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett.
BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Starr, I believe President Clinton's actions were wrong and we must -- STARR: I beg your pardon? BARRETT: I believe President Clinton's actions were wrong, and we must decide as a Congress, as a country, how he should be held accountable. But I also believe that the ambivalence that this country feels, and that I feel about this matter, is colored in large part by the actions of your office and Linda Tripp. I'm going to ask you a series of questions, most of which have been asked by Mr. Lowell, and you've given longer answers to, so I would ask that you give short answers. In fact, I believe every one of these questions can be answered with a "yes" or "no." And I'm going to ask you and let you answer right after each question. Prior to being named independent counsel, you gave your opinion publicly on several occasions that Paula Jones' lawsuit should be allowed to go forward. Is that correct? STARR: I -- the implicit -- the answer to that, I think, is yes. BARRETT: It's an easy question, Mr. Starr. STARR: The answer to that -- I think the answer to that is yes. BARRETT: Okay. In fact, you even had several conversations with Gilbert Davis, Paula Jones' attorney, and discussed constitutional issues in this case. Correct? STARR: That is correct. BARRETT: Let's fast-forward to this year. Your offers -- your office entered into a written immunity agreement with Monica Lewinsky. Is that correct? STARR: That's correct. BARRETT: And this written immunity agreement contained a secrecy provision that prohibited her from talking about her testimony, including talking to the media. Is that correct? STARR: Yes, that's correct. BARRETT: And your office also provided an immunity letter to Linda Tripp. Is that correct? STARR: Yes, that is correct. BARRETT: But Linda Tripp's immunity letter had no secrecy provisions, did it? STARR: I believe that's correct. I have not -- Congressman, may I be permitted to say just a word? I have not reviewed the Linda Tripp letter in advance of this. But it's my understanding that it does not contain this. But that's my understanding and that's my best recollection. BARRETT: I'll read it. It's -- "This letter confirms the previous representations I have made to you regarding your client, Linda R. Tripp. As we have discussed, we agree on behalf of the United States that coextensive with the provisions of Title 18" -- blah, blah, blah -- "and no testimony or other information provided in this agreement or information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information may be used against Ms. Tripp in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury." That's the essence of the letter. So nothing in this immunity letter prohibited Linda Tripp from talking to the media. Is that correct? STARR: But again -- that is correct, but if I could say just a word -- BARRETT: I think you've answered it. I just want to get through my questions. And I think you've answered it -- STARR: Okay, but I need to get through my answer, and I simply need to say one sentence. This was a different kind of immunity -- BARRETT: I understand. STARR: -- than the immunity granted to Monica Lewinsky. BARRETT: You've explained to Mr. Lowell. STARR: Yes. Sorry. BARRETT: Now on January 13th, 1998, your office sent Linda Tripp, wired for sound, to meet with Monica Lewinsky at the Ritz- Carlton Hotel. Is that correct? STARR: That is correct. BARRETT: Indeed, after Linda Tripp had been wired, a reporter for Newsweek called your deputy, Jackie Bennett, and made inquiries about these activities. Isn't that correct? STARR: I believe the timing of that is correct. BARRETT: And following that call, there was nothing put in writing to Linda Tripp or her attorney limiting her from talking to the media. Is that correct? STARR: I think that is correct. I would have to review the record. But I think that your understanding is correct, subject to my review of the record. BARRETT: And nothing in the written immunity agreement prohibited Linda Tripp from talking to or working with Paula Jones or her attorneys, is that correct? STARR: That is correct, and we then made it clear, when it was evident that the -- I'm sorry. BARRETT: I'm talking about the written agreement. And on the eve of the president's deposition in the Jones suit, Linda Tripp met with Miss Jones' lawyers, is that correct? STARR: That is my understanding now. It was not our understanding or information at that time. BARRETT: I understand. And at that point, on January 16th, she was an agent for your office and the same day she met with Paula Jones' attorneys? STARR: That is correct. BARRETT: Well, I would -- I'm not asking if you liked it or whether you approved of it. I'm just asking factually whether that's true. STARR: (Inaudible due to cross talk) -- that she was being a witness for us and she was, in fact, providing certain information to us. What we were seeking under this immunity agreement was the information that she said existed. BARRETT: I'm just asking whether it's true; whether she had acted as an agent for you that day and whether she met with Paula Jones' attorneys that night. STARR: She had acted as a cooperating witness in connection -- BARRETT: Fine. A cooperating witness. STARR: Well -- well, she was acting in collaboration with us and if I could be permitted to answer this -- BARRETT: Let me just finish, and I'll ask the chairman to give me a little time, if I could. But she was free to do that because there was nothing in the immunity agreement to prohibit her from doing that. STARR: Again, the purpose of the immunity agreement was different -- and you're right. BARRETT: Okay. I just wanted to -- STARR: There was nothing in the immunity agreement because the very nature -- BARRETT: Now, the next day, the next day was, of course, the day that President Clinton was deposed, and there was a question asked of him about whether he had tried to bribe Monica Lewinsky or other things, and he was very surprised by this. And James Fisher (sp), her attorney, responded, and this is from Time Magazine, "I think this will come to light shortly, and you'll understand." Now, what this tells me, Mr. Starr, is that we start out and you, four years earlier, show your support for not having the president be immune from lawsuit. And in the end we have the attorney for Paula Jones knowing exactly what your office is doing and having one of the key witnesses in your case cooperating not only with you, but with Paula Jones' attorneys. That's why this country feels -- HYDE: The gentleman's time is up. The witness may answer. STARR: Yes, if I could respond briefly. There are a number of premises in your last question that I just respectfully but fervently disagree with. I do not believe that my position with respect to the constitutional immunity of the president, which I discussed with a variety of persons, including Mr. Fiske, Mr. Davis and others, has the slightest bearing or relevance on the questions that were before us in 1998. You may disagree with that, but that was my judgment. And I would simply say that the position that I took was vindicated by the Supreme Court nine to nothing. That suggests that the particular principle -- BARRETT: I don't quarrel with that at all -- just so you understand, I don't quarrel with that at all -- HYDE: The gentleman is answering. STARR: But it is also because the issue that had engaged my attention, the possibility that Bob Fiske would file an amicus brief in the Paula Corbin Jones civil case, was likewise information that I did not think had a bearing on the issues that were before us in a criminal case. And that was my judgment. And what we did bring to the Justice Department, to make sure that the department knew what we were doing, was the information that we had, and we said we want to make all information that's available to you, ask questions. And my involvement in 1994 had been very public and, indeed, I had been on various news programs espousing that very position. BARRETT: Again, Mr. Starr, I don't -- I don't dispute -- CANNON: Regular order. HYDE: The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.
CANNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Starr, this has been a long and very tough hearing. Although I, for one, have thoroughly enjoyed your answers. Your name, I think, has been slandered around the country for a year and more, and there have been many factual bases for that slander. We've gone now through, I think, some of the best and brightest -- alleged for that slander, let me say -- of the people in Congress, many of whom have participated in that, in what I would call the president's "Pro- Defamation League." And you know what? They whiffed today; they've gotten nothing. Your answers have been so good that I don't think they've found even colorable impropriety on your part. And the answers that you've given being relatively difficult for them, it's easy to see what they've reverted to. We've had a series of repeated, unsubstantiated and, frankly, embarrassing bombasts directed at you with great intensity; then one to four questions leveled at you, sometimes very complicated, with follow-up interruptions that have made your answers difficult. And I might say that -- just point out that the chair has been a lot more gracious with the Democrats than with the Republicans in this hearing today. I now see why the pit bulls of this administration have been unleashed on you. You have done a great job and, frankly, I believe that every pundit in America will believe and conclude that your presentation today has changed the nature of this debate from you to the president's acts. Let me just clear up a couple of things that I have heard today. You talked earlier about the civil perjury in the Jones deposition, and the issue of materiality came up, and you used the term "bogus." Would you just clarify -- did you mean to say that default statements made in the Paula Jones deposition were in fact material and that any argument that they weren't material was bogus? STARR: Yes. I wasn't sure -- and you'll forgive me -- because I am not recalling in what specific or particular -- I used that term, and that is a strong term. But I do think that the matters that were there and that you have been analyzing do satisfy a reasonable juror's view with respect to the question of materiality, which again, as I have said, is ultimately a jury question. And I think one of the issues, therefore, that you would assess is, "What would I, as a juror, do?" although I hasten to note that your function of course here is ultimately a constitutional function and not an ultimate fact-finding function, although obviously you have great and unbridled and unfettered discretion in terms of how you will define the project or the mission in order to fulfill your constitutional duty. CANNON: And that is in the context of the civil action? STARR: Yes. And that's in the context of a civil action. I am sorry. CANNON: According to the sworn declaration of White House counsel Charles Ruff, the president personally directed him to assert executive privilege to prevent you from questioning some of his assistants. When he was in Africa, the president -- President Clinton denied knowing about the assertion of executive privilege. Which is it: Did Mr. Ruff ever amend his declaration, or is the president lying to the public on his Africa trip? STARR: To my knowledge, Congressman, there was never an amendment to the declaration. And the declaration was filed on March 17 -- the declaration may be dated March 17 -- and then the president's statement in Africa was on March 24th. So they both can't be right. Either the president had discussed with Mr. Ruff the invocation of executive privilege, or he had not. Both cannot be true. CANNON: And I understand that certain White House officials asserted executive privilege with respect to portions of conversations with Vernon Jordan, a private citizen. Is this true? And on what basis could such a claim be made? STARR: There was an invocation of executive privilege early on, and we believe -- with respect to conversations with Vernon Jordan. They were withd , but we believe that that is part of the pattern of the lavish and, we believe, unfounded invocation of executive privilege. How can a conversation with someone who is outside the government and relating to matters involving an affidavit in a private civil case and securing a job at Revlon for someone, how can that possibly justify a good-faith invocation of executive privilege? Perhaps others disagree with me. I gather from the testimony that you've heard, others do disagree with me. But to me, when you look at the totality of the invocation and the withdrawal of executive privilege, I conclude that there is a pattern of abuse. CANNON: Thank you, Mr. Starr. I think that 1998 is going to be the year of McGwire, Sosa and Starr. I yield back. HYDE: Thank you very much. The gentleman from California, Mr. Rogan.
BERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one question, with a possible follow-up, depending on the answer. Did the 23 members of the grand jury sign off on this referral? STARR: No. We did not asked -- ask -- excuse me -- the grand jury to review the referral. We briefed them on our obligations. It was our view of the statute, it's our reading of the statute, that it's the judgment of our our office. BERMAN: No, I understand the statute in no way obligates that. My follow-up, given that they didn't sign off on it: Did they vote on or review the allegations, the credibility determinations, or the inferences that the referral draws? STARR: No, we did not ask the grand jury to make specific judgments on specific witnesses. These were our assessments. These are our evaluations. BERMAN: Thank you very much.
N E X T+P A G E+| "Is it Watergate or 'Peyton Place'?" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Become a Salon member. Click here. |
|
