A L S O+T O D A Y Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Starr By Gary Kamiya When the real Kenneth Starr finally stood up before the House, he turned out to have a split personality Starr Wars By Joan Walsh The Democrats strike back Nothing has changed Compiled by Lori Leibovich and Fiona Morgan The consensus of political experts is that no minds were changed by Starr's day in court Dear Ken The full text of ethics advisor Sam Dash's letter of resignation to Kenneth Starr Starr speaks The full text of independent counsel Kenneth Starr's House Judiciary Committee testimony A dozen questions Congress should ask Kenneth Starr By David Talbot, Murray Waas and Joan Walsh (11/18/98)   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 By Joshua Micah Marshall New leadership can't mend the rifts among Republicans in Congress (11/19/98) Reply to C.D. Ellison By David Horowitz It's time for blacks to have a two-party system, too (11/19/98) Toppling Saddam By Frank Smyth Clinton wants a new government in Baghdad, but he and the Iraqi opposition are unlikely to be up to the task (11/18/98) Brother on brother By Murray Waas Whitewater witness David Hale attempted to suborn perjury by his own brother by asking him to falsely corroborate illegal acts by President Clinton (11/17/98) The mark of Cain: a tale of two brothers By Murray Waas Though they traveled the same path from the family dirt farm through law school, the Hale brothers turned out different as night and day (11/17/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S A L O N E M P O R I U M FREE! 12-ounce bag of Salon Blend with a purchase of $30 or more. While supplies last.
		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 - - - - - - - - - - HYDE: The committee will come to order. The chair now recognizes the president's counsel, Mr. Kendall, to examine the witness for 30 minutes, should he choose to do so. Mr. Kendall? KENDALL: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Conyers, members of the committee. My name is David Kendall. I am the personal attorney for President Clinton. My task is to respond to the two hours of uninterrupted testimony from the independent counsel, as well as to his four-year, $45 million investigation, which has included at least 28 attorneys, 78 FBI agents, and an undisclosed number of private investigators; an investigation which has generated, by a computer count, 114,532 news stories in print, and 2,513 minutes of network television time, not to mention 24-hour scandal coverage on cable, a 445-page referral, 50,000 pages of documents from secret grand jury testimony, four hours of videotaped testimony, 22 hours of audio tape, some of which was gathered in violation of state law, and the testimony of scores of witnesses, not one of whom has been cross- examined. And I have 30 minutes to do this. It's a daunting exercise, but let me begin with the simple but powerful truth that nothing in this overkill of investigation amounts to a justification for the impeachment of the president of the United States. Mr. Starr, good evening. STARR: Good evening. How are you, David? KENDALL: I'm very well, Ken. You have the book of exhibits before you, do you not? STARR: I do. KENDALL: Would you turn to Tab 5, which is a press release which your office issued under your name on February 5, 1998. Do you see that? STARR: I do. KENDALL: I want to direct your attention to your statement, and you're addressing the fact that you've not been able to talk to Ms. Lewinsky yet. And you say in your press release, "We cannot responsibly determine whether she's telling the truth without speaking directly to her. We found that there is no substitute for looking a witness in the eye, asking detailed questions, matching the answers against verifiable facts, and if appropriate, giving a polygraph test." Did you issue that press release saying that, Mr. Starr? STARR: Yes, I did. KENDALL: And questions have been addressed to you today about the credibility of various witnesses, including Ms. Lewinsky. It's true, is it not, that you were not present when Ms. Lewinsky testified before the grand jury? STARR: That is true. KENDALL: And you were not present at her deposition? STARR: At her deposition? MR. KENDALL: Yes. Were you aware that Ms. Lewinsky was deposed -- MR. STARR: Oh, I'm sorry. In our deposition -- yes. I'm sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, I was not present. MR. KENDALL: You were not present on any occasion when she was interviewed by FBI agents, were you? MR. STARR: That is correct, I was not. KENDALL: And you've never really exchanged words with Ms. Lewinsky, have you? STARR: That's correct. She -- the answer is yes, I have not had occasion to meet or otherwise to look her in the eye myself. KENDALL: The same is true for her mother, Marsha Lewis, is it not? STARR: Yes, that is true as well. That is true. KENDALL: The same is true for Betty Currie? STARR: Yes. KENDALL: The same is true for Vernon Jordan? STARR: Well -- oh, in connection -- I happen to know Jordan. But yes, in connection with this, yes -- KENDALL: In connection with this case, though, were you present during his grand jury testimony? STARR: No, I was not. KENDALL: And were you present at any interview of him? STARR: No, I was not. KENDALL: Would the same be true for Podesta? STARR: The answer is the same with respect to Podesta, yes. KENDALL: And indeed, Starr, there are 115 individual grand jury transcripts which your office submitted to the House, and with the exception of the deposition of the president of the United States, you were present at none of those grand jury proceedings, were you? STARR: That is correct. KENDALL: Likewise, there were 19 depositions submitted, and you were -- at least the reporter doesn't show you being present on any of those. Is that correct? STARR: I think that's right. There were -- I need to reflect on some of the Secret Service matters, but I think you're correct that I was not actually present for any of the depositions themselves, including of Secret Service officers. KENDALL: And there are 134 FBI Form 302 interviews submitted. You're not shown as being present at any of those, are you? STARR: That's correct. I would ordinarily not be present for an interview of a witness. KENDALL: Starr, I bring this out not to cast any aspersions or to question your use of time but you are here as -- and I believe you've already said this, you are not a fact witness; is that correct? STARR: That is correct, because as I have said the decision with respect to the referral is the product of career prosecutors who came together from around the country. And I tried to make sure that the committee understood that the individuals who were involved in assisting me and in guiding me are career Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys Office prosecutors from around the country. But ultimately this is, David, my judgment. KENDALL: You're here really as an advocate for this referral, are you not? STARR: I view myself -- no, I think that's not right. I do believe in the referral. I try to answer questions with respect to the referral, although many questions did not relate to the referral but related to other matters. But I do believe in it. But the reason that I should not be advocating is because it is this committee's judgment that they will come to by virtue of the submission of this in writing with the supporting materials, and then it's up to the committee to determine do they want to call additional witnesses and the like. Our -- KENDALL: I -- I'm sorry. STARR: Yes, our task was to put before them the information that we found met the statutory standard of substantial and credible information. KENDALL: In your testimony today you indicated that you had exonerated the president with regard to the travel office, if I heard you correctly. Is that correct? STARR: Yes. What I indicated was that we had no information that related to his involvement, although I also made it clear that that investigation is continuing and we hope to announce decisions or actions very soon. KENDALL: The travel office firings which you are investigating occurred in 1993 -- is that correct? STARR: Yes, the firings were in 1993. KENDALL: Also, if I heard you correctly this morning you indicated that you had exonerated the president with respect to the FBI files matter which had arisen in 1996. Was that correct? STARR: Yes, that jurisdiction did come to us in 1996 from the attorney general, and yes we have found, as I indicated, no evidence of any wrongdoing by anyone who is relevant to -- I believe at least in my assessment -- I can't speak for the committee -- that would be relevant to the committee's assessment of our referral. KENDALL: Starr, when did you come to those conclusions? STARR: With respect to the travel office I would frankly have to search my recollection to see exactly where we were and when we were there. As I indicated with respect to the travel office, we have in fact had to put part of the travel office investigation -- and I am now talking about the travel office -- I'll come to the FBI files. We had to put part of the travel office investigation on hold as it were because of issues over privileged litigation which we did not prevail in the Supreme Court. And there are other matters which we are presently examining and of which I can't talk about here. KENDALL: Were the two exonerations you announced today, did you come to those conclusions before or after November 1, 1998? STARR: Before November -- what, of this year? Well, I would say that we have not had information that would guide us to the view that we should be concerned about the president in respect of those two matters, and that's why of course there is no mention of either of those matters in the referral. But both matters were in fact continuing, and no final prosecutorial decisions had been made with respect to either the travel office matter or now to address the FBI files matter. With respect to that there is, as I have indicated, an unresolved question with respect to one position -- I've not named that position -- but I do not have -- it remains unresolved. And so it's a predictive judgment, Kendall, that nothing that we are likely to achieve in either of those investigations will be relevant to this committee's inquiry. And that's what I view my duty as being. KENDALL: And today was the first time you've announced that with respect to these two matters, is it not, Starr? STARR: Yes, it's the first time that we have viewed it as appropriate to speak to issues that are still, David, under investigation. We are still investigating both matters, and I hope I have made that point clear. Both investigations have very live active elements to them. And we will make those decisions promptly. But I felt it was my duty to inform this committee of the state of the record with respect to the president of the United States because the committee has been asking me, "Do you have any other information that is relevant?" I have received a lot of correspondence. And Conyers has -- KENDALL: Starr, I have only 30 minutes, if I could, I think you've adequately answered my question. Let me return to a question asked by Congressman Wexler this afternoon, and that Julie Hiatt Steele. Have your investigators investigated the adoption of her eight-year-old child she adopted from a Romanian orphanage? STARR: Kendall, my investigators work very hard and diligently to find relevant evidence. I believe that the questions -- and I've conducted no specific investigation -- and you've just spent a good deal of time establishing that I don't go with my FBI agents on every single interview. And indeed I don't go -- may I finish? You asked the question. I don't go with them on interviews. They have a fair amount of discretion as professionals as to what is appropriate to inquire into. But let me simply say this: there is an enormous amount of misinformation and false information that is being bandied about with respect to that particular witness and the circumstances of questioning, and I will look for it at the appropriate time to be able to demonstrate that to any fair-minded person beyond any reasonable doubt. KENDALL: Starr, I'm asking the question for the fact. I'm not casting aspersions, again -- STARR: But, Kendall, you just said you were not present for the following persons -- Ms. Lewinsky, Marcia Lewis and Vernon Jordan. And you are now asking me did FBI interviews -- and you talked about how many witnesses there were. And now you are asking me specifically was a specific question asked of a particular witness. I will be happy to find that out if it seems to be relevant to this committee. KENDALL: Starr, I don't think it's unfair to try and find out the fact, because there's been considerable publicity about Ms. Steele's claim that that is in fact what your investigators have been doing. I was simply asking to clarify the record. STARR: Well, in respect of some of her claims -- some of her claims -- and I'm going to say this, even though there is an active part of our investigation under way -- utterly without merit, and utterly without foundation, utterly without factual foundation. KENDALL: Is this one of those claims? STARR: No, I did not say that, Kendall. I am aware -- (laughter). I am aware of certain -- the specific question that you asked goes to whether one or a series of questions were asked of one witness. And my point is, I thought that what we were here today to discuss is a referral which we believe contains substantial and credible information of potential impeachable offenses by the president of the United States. What a particular witness's demeanor was or what a particular FBI agent asked is, to my mind, quite far removed from the sober and serious purposes that I thought brought us here together. And the final thing that I would say in this respect, if there is an issue with respect to the way a witness is treated, that's why courts sit. I was privileged to serve as a judge. That's why judges work. Kendall, if there's an issue with respect to the treatment of a witness, let's take it to court and have the court resolve it in an orderly way, just as the Supreme Court of the United States said that this particular individual is entitled to an orderly disposition of her claims. KENDALL: In your testimony this morning, Starr, you said, "We go to court and not on the talk show circuit. We're officers of the court who live in the world of law. We've presented our cases in court." That's at page 36 of your testimony. Now, Charles Bakaly, your press spokesman and public relations adviser, has been on, by my count, 10 talk shows and is on "Nightline" tonight. I'd be happy to read them to you. This is from late April. But does that sound about right, that he's been on 11 talk shows? STARR: That probably sounds about right, but I would have to do the count. But let me say that no lesser authority than Archibald Cox talked about, very eloquently and movingly, the public information function of a prosecutor's office. Not only do we have the right, we have the duty to engage in a proper public information function because this is the public's business. We must do so in order at times to combat misinformation that is being spread about, including frequently by lawyers who claim that their clients have been grossly mistreated, which is what criminal defense lawyers are paid to do. KENDALL: Starr, I take it there would be no disagreement that you, as a United States prosecutor, are under a legal obligation to protect the secrecy of the grand jury process? STARR: Yes, there's no dispute whatsoever. KENDALL: No dispute. Indeed, if you'll turn to Tab 17 of the materials, you wrote me a letter on February 6, 1998. And if I could direct your attention to the second paragraph of that letter. I had complained about leaks of grand jury information. You had replied: "From the beginning, I have made the prohibition of leaks a principal priority of the office. It is a firing offense, as well as one that leads to criminal prosecution." And you say also that you've reminded the staff that "leaks are utterly intolerable." Am I reading that correctly? STARR: Yes, you are reading it correctly. KENDALL: And has anybody been fired from your office, Starr, for leaking? STARR: No, because I don't believe anyone has leaked grand jury information, Kendall. KENDALL: On the day this story broke in the press, which was Wednesday, January 21, you issued a press release. Do you recall that press release? STARR: Could you say that again? On January -- KENDALL: On January the 21st, the day the Washington Post story ran, you issued a press release about your information policy. STARR: Do you have that here? KENDALL: Yes, I do. Let me direct your attention to 27. STARR: Twenty-seven. KENDALL: And also we have a blow-up of this press release on the easel. Now, it's a very short press release, but I'll give you a moment to read it. Have you read it? STARR: I have. KENDALL: Good. In your testimony this morning, you described the litigation that your office has been involved in. At page 36 you said you faced an extraordinary number of legal disputes on issues of privilege, jurisdiction, substantive criminal law and the like. Do you see that? It's at the top of your testimony. STARR: Yes, I do. I do see that. KENDALL: You did not mention leak litigation in that list, I observed. STARR: Yes, that's correct. KENDALL: In fact, we have litigated on a number of occasions, producing, by my count, at least five district court opinions, which have all been unsealed and in the binder, and one court of appeals decision on this matter, have we not? STARR: Yes. And, in fact, with respect to that -- and we did, Kendall, and I think you will agree, that we prevailed in the court of appeals with respect to the issue that you're talking about. And I want to be careful about what I say, because I have found that some lawyers are very quick to suggest that certain comments made by prosecutors may run afoul of confidentiality requirements. I think I can say this. The DC circuit unanimously concluded that the procedures that you had urged were entirely inappropriate, improper, unauthorized by law, and that there had to be an orderly process that was protective of very vital interests. That was a unanimous opinion by the DC circuit, overturning a process that you had urged upon the district court in your effort to find out as much information inside the prosecutor's office as you possibly could. So that is -- I hadn't even thought of that as one of the 17, but you're absolutely right. That is part of our litigation record. And we are now in the process, as you well know, of additional litigation. And I think that judgment should be withheld. Judgment should be withheld with respect to this question until such time as there is a judgment, an ultimate judgment in this case, because I am confident that we have abided by our obligations. I'm confident of that. KENDALL: I take it you would agree with Chief Judge Johnson that enforcing Rule 6(e), which enforces grand jury secrecy, is of the utmost integrity to the grand jury process? STARR: Yes. Chief Judge Johnson has made it abundantly clear, and I agree with that, that the value of confidentiality of matters occurring before the grand jury is very important. KENDALL: And she's also ruled, has she not, that due to the serious and repetitive prima facie violations of Rule 6(e), a thorough investigation is necessary and is now being conducted? Just let me direct your attention to it. It is Tab 24, and that's her opinion, which was just unsealed. STARR: Tab 24. KENDALL: Tab 24, page 20. STARR: Yes, this is the October 30 and then the redacted version. And there -- pardon me -- and I think this is -- fundamental fairness requires this body to know that the law of this circuit permitted Kendall to say, "Here are articles. Look at the sourcing. We get to ask the prosecutor to come forward and to show that the prosecutor is not the source of this grand jury" -- or, "this information." And that's the process that's underway now. We're at phase two. But the law of this circuit, under the Barry case, with which you're intimately familiar, is essentially a hair trigger. All it takes is a letter from Kendall saying, "Here's an article with ambiguous sourcing. I believe it may relate to the grand jury matters, and a prima facie case, as is said in the law, may be established." And in this district, I think this is a major issue for the administration of justice. In high-profile cases -- Congressman Rostenkowski, Mayor Barry -- again and again, the criminal defense bar of this jurisdiction is rushing into court and saying, "There are grand jury leaks." N E X T+P A G E+| "That's an accusation and it's an unfair accusation. I completely reject it." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Become a Salon member. Click here.