Salon Newsreal | Starr on the stand

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.

spacer

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
- - - - - - - - - -
CONYERS: Mr. Chairman and my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, we meet today for only the third time in the history of our nation to take evidence in an inquiry of impeachment against a president of the United States.
Today's witness, Kenneth W. Starr, wrote the tawdry, salacious and unnecessarily graphic referral that he delivered to us in September with so much drama and fanfare. And now the majority members of this committee have called that same prosecutor forward to testify in an unprecedented desperation effort to breathe new life into a dying inquiry.
It is fundamental to the integrity of this inquiry to examine whether the independent counsel's evidence is tainted, whether conclusions are colored by improper motive.
In short, it is relevant to exam the conduct of the independent counsel his staff, for their behavior impacts directly on the credibility of the evidence in the referral.
For example, the committee must understand whether Mr. Starr improperly threatened witnesses if they did not provide incriminating evidence against the president of the United States, whether Mrerial to humiliate the president.
Mr. Chairman and members, contrary to the views that have been expressed by Chairman Hyde that you expressed in letters to me this week as well, these are not collateral issues at all. They go to the very heart of Mr. Starr's referral. To turn a blind eye to these is to continue an unfair and partisan process.
Now no one defends the president's conduct, but even Republican witnesses at our hearing only last week testified that even if the alleged facts are proven true, they simply do not amount to impeachable offenses. The idea of a federally paid sex policeman spending millions of dollars to trap an unfaithful spouse or the police civil -- or the police civil litigation would have been unthinkable prior to the Starr investigation.
Let there be no mistake -- it is not now acceptable in America to investigate a person's private sexual activity. It is not acceptable to force mothers to testify against their daughters; to make lawyers testify against their clients; to require Secret Service agents to testify against the people they protect; or to make book stores tell what books people read.
It is not acceptable for rogue attorneys and investigators to trap a young woman in a hotel room, discourage her from calling her lawyer, ridicule her when she asked to call her mother. But the record suggests, I'm sorry to say, that is precisely how Kenneth W. Starr has conducted this investigation.
An independent counsel must do justice both in the specific matter he's investigating and through the system of justice as a whole. While an independent counsel can and should pursue a case with vigor, I and many others believe that Mr. Starr has crossed that line into obsession.
And when I talk about obsession, sir, I wonder why Mr. Starr encouraged Linda Tripp to continue to betray and entrap her young, unsuspecting friend and to allow her to continue her illegal tape recordings without court approval.
And when I talk about obsession, I wonder why Mr. Starr ignored his ethical obligations and failed to disclose his involvement in the Paula Jones' case which could have disqualified him from this point of the investigation.
Is it just coincidence that even before he was appointed independent counsel Mr. Starr was already in contact with lawyers for Paula Jones? Is it just coincidental that Mr. Starr, until recently, drew $1 million a year salary from his law firm that represents the tobacco industry, which is fighting President Clinton's effort to deter teen smoking? Is it just a coincidence that this independent counsel accepted a prestigious job at a university funded by one of the president's most persistent and vocal critic, Richard Mellon Scaife?
Is it just a coincidence that the independent counsel failed to provide this committee with important exculpatory evidence in his referral, casually glossing over the central part of Monica Lewinksy's testimony when she clearly stated that -- quote -- "No one promised me a job; no one asked me to lie" -- unquote -- about her relationship.
Perhaps Mr. Starr will persuade us not to be concerned about these matters. But he surely carries the burden of showing us and the American people that these things did not affect his fairness nor his impartiality.
Nor do I understand why Mr. Starr declined to provide the Democratic members of the committee with copies of documents that we've repeatedly requested. Mr. Starr even says that the president should be impeached because he invokes privilege. But he is quick to raise the privilege argument when questioned about his own conduct. And did so this week when Democrats sought documents concerning his conduct.
Over the course of this investigation the independent counsel complained publicly and still does that a lack of cooperation was impeding his investigation. And yet he has now afforded members of the committee the same treatment about which he has complained. This causes us to question Mr. Starr's motives and to lack confidence in his referral.
His conduct over the past week has only reinforced my doubts. On Friday, Mr. Starr shipped two new boxes of documents to us and announced an indictment dating back to events occurring before Bill Clinton was even president -- pre-1992.
On Tuesday, the same day that our Republican colleagues suggested that they might want to expand this impeachment inquiry, contrary to the chairman's stated desire to close it down, Mr. Starr shipped four new boxes of documents to us.
And last night, we learned that Mr. Starr's now sees it fit for this committee to consider Whitewater or other alleged improprieties that he didn't see fit to mention in his referral.
The sense of desperation in the face of a failed impeachment inquiry is palpable.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss in my duties if I did not observe that to date our committee process has not been bipartisan nor fair. All this committee has done since September 9th is to in a partisan manner dump salacious grand jury material on a public that doesn't want it. It was you, Mr. Chairman Hyde, who said this process could not proceed unless it was bipartisan.
We need to do better than 11th-hour unilateral decisions to subpoena witnesses having little to do with the underlying referral. We need to do better in offering the president a full and fair opportunity to participate in these hearings.
We have many questions about the way you conducted your investigation, Mr. Starr. Fairness dictates that the committee and the American people learn whether you have created a climate for the purpose of driving a president from office who has twice been elected by the people of this great nation.
HYDE: I thank the gentleman. Today, our witness is Judge Kenneth W. Starr.
On August 5th, 1994, the Special Division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appointed Judge Starr to investigate what has become known as the Whitewater matter. Since that time, Attorney General Reno and the Special Division added several other matters, including the White House Travel Office and the FBI files matters to Judge Starr's jurisdiction.
After his submission of evidence, they further added what has become known as the Lewinsky matter. Judge Starr has a bachelor's degree from the George Washington University, a master's degree from Brown University and a juris doctor degree from Duke University.
He then clerked for Judge David Dyer (ph) of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and Chief Justice Warren Burger of the Supreme Court of the United States.
After serving on President Reagan's transition team, Judge Starr served as counselor to Attorney General William French Smith from 1981 to 1983. In 1983, President Reagan nominated him tneral of the United States. As solicitor general, Judge Starr was responsible for representing the United States before the Supreme Court.
In November 1993, Democrats on the Senate Ethics Committee chose him to serve as a hearing examiner to review Senator Packwood's diaries for relevant information.
Since August 1994, Judge Starr has conducted the investigation of Whitewater and the other matters that have been assigned to him by Attorney General Reno and the Special Division.
That investigation has led to the conviction of 14 persons, including a sitting governor of Arkansas, in two separate cases; the former No. 3 person in the United States Department of Justice; and two former business partners of the president. Six other indictments are currently pending in the courts.
HYDE: More pertinent to today's hearing, Judge Starr's investigation has led to the first-ever impeachment referral under section 595(c) of the independent counsel statute. That referral has given rise to the impeachment inquiry we are now conducting.
N E X T+P A G E+| "Is your mike on?"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Become a Salon member. Click here.

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 - - - - - - - - - - CONYERS: Mr. Chairman and my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, we meet today for only the third time in the history of our nation to take evidence in an inquiry of impeachment against a president of the United States. Today's witness, Kenneth W. Starr, wrote the tawdry, salacious and unnecessarily graphic referral that he delivered to us in September with so much drama and fanfare. And now the majority members of this committee have called that same prosecutor forward to testify in an unprecedented desperation effort to breathe new life into a dying inquiry. It is fundamental to the integrity of this inquiry to examine whether the independent counsel's evidence is tainted, whether conclusions are colored by improper motive. In short, it is relevant to exam the conduct of the independent counsel his staff, for their behavior impacts directly on the credibility of the evidence in the referral. For example, the committee must understand whether Mr. Starr improperly threatened witnesses if they did not provide incriminating evidence against the president of the United States, whether Mrerial to humiliate the president. Mr. Chairman and members, contrary to the views that have been expressed by Chairman Hyde that you expressed in letters to me this week as well, these are not collateral issues at all. They go to the very heart of Mr. Starr's referral. To turn a blind eye to these is to continue an unfair and partisan process. Now no one defends the president's conduct, but even Republican witnesses at our hearing only last week testified that even if the alleged facts are proven true, they simply do not amount to impeachable offenses. The idea of a federally paid sex policeman spending millions of dollars to trap an unfaithful spouse or the police civil -- or the police civil litigation would have been unthinkable prior to the Starr investigation. Let there be no mistake -- it is not now acceptable in America to investigate a person's private sexual activity. It is not acceptable to force mothers to testify against their daughters; to make lawyers testify against their clients; to require Secret Service agents to testify against the people they protect; or to make book stores tell what books people read. It is not acceptable for rogue attorneys and investigators to trap a young woman in a hotel room, discourage her from calling her lawyer, ridicule her when she asked to call her mother. But the record suggests, I'm sorry to say, that is precisely how Kenneth W. Starr has conducted this investigation. An independent counsel must do justice both in the specific matter he's investigating and through the system of justice as a whole. While an independent counsel can and should pursue a case with vigor, I and many others believe that Mr. Starr has crossed that line into obsession. And when I talk about obsession, sir, I wonder why Mr. Starr encouraged Linda Tripp to continue to betray and entrap her young, unsuspecting friend and to allow her to continue her illegal tape recordings without court approval. And when I talk about obsession, I wonder why Mr. Starr ignored his ethical obligations and failed to disclose his involvement in the Paula Jones' case which could have disqualified him from this point of the investigation. Is it just coincidence that even before he was appointed independent counsel Mr. Starr was already in contact with lawyers for Paula Jones? Is it just coincidental that Mr. Starr, until recently, drew $1 million a year salary from his law firm that represents the tobacco industry, which is fighting President Clinton's effort to deter teen smoking? Is it just a coincidence that this independent counsel accepted a prestigious job at a university funded by one of the president's most persistent and vocal critic, Richard Mellon Scaife? Is it just a coincidence that the independent counsel failed to provide this committee with important exculpatory evidence in his referral, casually glossing over the central part of Monica Lewinksy's testimony when she clearly stated that -- quote -- "No one promised me a job; no one asked me to lie" -- unquote -- about her relationship. Perhaps Mr. Starr will persuade us not to be concerned about these matters. But he surely carries the burden of showing us and the American people that these things did not affect his fairness nor his impartiality. Nor do I understand why Mr. Starr declined to provide the Democratic members of the committee with copies of documents that we've repeatedly requested. Mr. Starr even says that the president should be impeached because he invokes privilege. But he is quick to raise the privilege argument when questioned about his own conduct. And did so this week when Democrats sought documents concerning his conduct. Over the course of this investigation the independent counsel complained publicly and still does that a lack of cooperation was impeding his investigation. And yet he has now afforded members of the committee the same treatment about which he has complained. This causes us to question Mr. Starr's motives and to lack confidence in his referral. His conduct over the past week has only reinforced my doubts. On Friday, Mr. Starr shipped two new boxes of documents to us and announced an indictment dating back to events occurring before Bill Clinton was even president -- pre-1992. On Tuesday, the same day that our Republican colleagues suggested that they might want to expand this impeachment inquiry, contrary to the chairman's stated desire to close it down, Mr. Starr shipped four new boxes of documents to us. And last night, we learned that Mr. Starr's now sees it fit for this committee to consider Whitewater or other alleged improprieties that he didn't see fit to mention in his referral. The sense of desperation in the face of a failed impeachment inquiry is palpable. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss in my duties if I did not observe that to date our committee process has not been bipartisan nor fair. All this committee has done since September 9th is to in a partisan manner dump salacious grand jury material on a public that doesn't want it. It was you, Mr. Chairman Hyde, who said this process could not proceed unless it was bipartisan. We need to do better than 11th-hour unilateral decisions to subpoena witnesses having little to do with the underlying referral. We need to do better in offering the president a full and fair opportunity to participate in these hearings. We have many questions about the way you conducted your investigation, Mr. Starr. Fairness dictates that the committee and the American people learn whether you have created a climate for the purpose of driving a president from office who has twice been elected by the people of this great nation. HYDE: I thank the gentleman. Today, our witness is Judge Kenneth W. Starr. On August 5th, 1994, the Special Division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appointed Judge Starr to investigate what has become known as the Whitewater matter. Since that time, Attorney General Reno and the Special Division added several other matters, including the White House Travel Office and the FBI files matters to Judge Starr's jurisdiction. After his submission of evidence, they further added what has become known as the Lewinsky matter. Judge Starr has a bachelor's degree from the George Washington University, a master's degree from Brown University and a juris doctor degree from Duke University. He then clerked for Judge David Dyer (ph) of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and Chief Justice Warren Burger of the Supreme Court of the United States. After serving on President Reagan's transition team, Judge Starr served as counselor to Attorney General William French Smith from 1981 to 1983. In 1983, President Reagan nominated him tneral of the United States. As solicitor general, Judge Starr was responsible for representing the United States before the Supreme Court. In November 1993, Democrats on the Senate Ethics Committee chose him to serve as a hearing examiner to review Senator Packwood's diaries for relevant information. Since August 1994, Judge Starr has conducted the investigation of Whitewater and the other matters that have been assigned to him by Attorney General Reno and the Special Division. That investigation has led to the conviction of 14 persons, including a sitting governor of Arkansas, in two separate cases; the former No. 3 person in the United States Department of Justice; and two former business partners of the president. Six other indictments are currently pending in the courts. HYDE: More pertinent to today's hearing, Judge Starr's investigation has led to the first-ever impeachment referral under section 595(c) of the independent counsel statute. That referral has given rise to the impeachment inquiry we are now conducting. N E X T+P A G E+\| "Is your mike on?" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Become a Salon member. Click here.