Segment 2 Of 2     Previous Hearing Segment(1)

 Page 251       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Claiborne has urged the Senate to permit him to call several dozen witnesses ranging from prosecutors and investigators to the trail judge in his criminal proceeding. He contends that their testimony will reveal a vendatta which led to his conviction, and an unwillingness of several dozen Federal judges to expose its illegality out of fear that public opinion would questionwhether the vendetta issue was a mere subterfuge erected to protect a fellow jurist.

    Even assuming all of Claiborne's allegations of governmental misconduct to be tyrue, the same conclusions as to his conduct obtain. No individual claim or combination of claims can or should detract from the conclusion that he willfully submitted false income tax rewturns in 1979 and 1980. The Senate need go no further than it already has in assessing the merits of these claims. Although Claiborne views thes theories as the overarching issue in this proceeding, he is mistaken.

    His contention seems to be that but for a vast conspiratorial vendetta, his innocence would have been proven or the charges would never have been brought. Claiborne contends that full consideration of his claims on this score leads to several conclusions which will exonerate him. specifically, he suggests that Federal prosecutors pursue him so relentlessly and unscrupulously that they bargained for perjured testimony from a known criminal and spearheaded an illegal burglary of his home in search of inculpatory evidence. He claims that exculpatory evidence was withheld and that witnesses were either intimidated or unfairly coached. If accurate, these claims warrant serious scrutiny and I have cosponsored legislation to establish a special subcommittee to investigate the issue further. If the claims have merit, steps should be taken to rectify the wrong. Remedial measures, however, will in no way abrogate the finding that Claiborne engaged in impeachable conduct.
 Page 252       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    He further asserts that he could not have had the requisite willful intent, given the predisposition of Federal prosecutors; that claim rests on the notion that no one whose every move is under intense scrutiny by Federal prosecutors would willfully violate the law or knowingly submit such faulty tax returns. This assertion is untenable, given the clear findings regarding Claiborne's conduct.

    Claiborne alleges that sympathy for prosecutors and fear of public criticism led several dozen Federal judges to gloss over his defenses. He points to two dissenting appellate opinions in his case suggesting that some of the members of the reviewing panel may have rendered their decision without fully examining the . . .

    Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As many may recall, in 1986 Judge Claiborne, a Federal judge, was under investigation. This committee voted out articles of impeachment against him which were adopted by the full House of Representatives and he stood trial in the Senate. During that trial, he raised as a defense some very serious charges of prosecutorial misconduct, far, far more serious than anything that has been raised by folks on the other side of the aisle today, including that the prosecutor spearheaded an illegal burglary in his home, that exculpatory evidence was withheld, that witnesses were unfairly coached, and other serious charges.

    During the trial of that matter, one Senator reviewing these serious matters, in fact stating that if the claims have merit, steps should be taken to rectify the wrong; also noted that remedial measures would in no way abrogate the finding that Claiborne had ngaged in impeachable conduct.
 Page 253       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The Senator who made that statement is now the Vice President of the United States, Senator Al Gore, and I think it is important to note that in a sense of bipartisanship and in a sense of seeking justice and in a sense of upholding the rule of law, that that same type of demeanor and that same type of search for the truth should lead us today.

    Judge Starr, do you know what Judge Claiborne was charged with, what his impeachable conduct was?

    Mr. STARR. Tax offenses is my recollection.

    Mr. GOODLATTE. Actually my understanding is it was perjury and lying under oath.

    Mr. HYDE. Would the gentleman yield? It was signing a false income tax return.

    Mr. GOODLATTE. Lying under oath.

    Mr. HYDE. Yes.

    Mr. STARR. I stand corrected.

    Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman. I would like to look at the obstruction of justice issue if I may, Mr. Starr. You have indicated that the evidence that you have gathered shows that the President tried to aid in obtaining a job for Ms. Lewinsky in order to prevent her from telling the truth in a judicial proceeding arising from a civil rights claim of sexual harassment in which she was the named defendant. There are those who have said, including some here today, on the other side of the aisle, that the President's efforts could be interpreted as merely helping an ex-intimate or ex-friend without concern for her testimony. I don't think you have been given the full opportunity to indicate why it is that you come to the first conclusion, rather than the second. I would like to give you that opportunity now.
 Page 254       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. Yes, thank you. The effort to provide a job for her did, as has been noted, begin early on, an effort to assist her in a possible United Nations job. But Ms. Lewinsky made it very clear that she was not interested in that U.N. job and she in fact turned it down even though Ambassador Richardson offered it to her.

    She then made it quite clear that she wanted a job in the private sector. The early efforts with respect to that project did not go well. They did not go quickly in November of 1997, after she had made her decision, not to seek or not to take, I should say, the job that was offered to her by Ambassador Richardson.

    After that point, the evidence suggests that there was a significant uptick in activity, specifically by Mr. Jordan, to find her a job weighing in, including with Mr. Perelman (the chairman of the board, which was quite unorthodox and unusual, according to Mr. Perelman's testimony, which is before you), one of the most wealthy and powerful people in the country.

    Mr. Jordan reached out to Mr. Perelman only after it became clear as of December 5, 1997, that Ms. Lewinsky was on the witness list. Moreover, Mr. Jordan kept the President informed by his, Mr. Jordan's testimony, which could not be clearer that he was keeping the President apprised, not keeping Betty Currie apprised. His mission was to keep the President of the United States apprised of activity in two arenas: One, the affidavit, which was perjurious; and, secondly, the job. And when he secured the job for her at Revlon after her first interview at Revlon had not gone well, Mr. Jordan then interceded, all on behalf of the President's effort to find a place for Ms. Lewinsky. That second round of interviews resulted in, in fact, a job, and when it did, or a job offer. When that job offer was then extended, Mr. Jordan, according to his own testimony, indicated he called the President of the United States and said, ''Mission accomplished.''
 Page 255       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Now, to us that suggests, in light of the December 5 witness list, her being subpoenaed and the like and the ongoing conversations with Ms. Lewinsky, that there is reason to believe that there is a relationship, a connection, between the job and what she was doing and what it was anticipated she would do in the litigation itself.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren.

    Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that this is one of the most embarrassing chapters in American history. Certainly the President's sexual misconduct was embarrassing to him and his family, and it was embarrassing for all of us to be bombarded with what seemed to be limitless details about it. But also embarrassing has been the reaction of Congress to the referral made by Mr. Starr in September.

    What we should have done was this: Asked how these allegations, if true, could destroy our American constitutional system of government, something Mr. Starr did not address in the over 450 pages in his report. But it is the central—indeed it is the only question—that is before Congress, because impeachment is a constitutional remedy for constitutional threats.

    What have we had instead? We have seen the Independent Counsel investigating the sex life of the President. We have seen titillating details leaked to the press, leaks that were prejudicial and in stark contrast to the evidence confidentially submitted by the special prosecutor, Mr. Jaworski, 24 years ago. I would note that Mr. Starr is indeed prosecutor. Ms. McDougal was not ''counseled'' into a jail cell.
 Page 256       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    After we tossed the Independent Counsel's X-rated material all over the airwaves and onto the Internet, this committee did hardly anything. The House acted to refer the report to this committee September 11th. Today, November 19th, over 2 months later, we are having our first and so far only noticed full committee hearing where we are hearing our only witness, the prosecutor. This would never be allowed in a court proceeding and there are ethical questions in my mind about the propriety in these proceedings as well.

    We have the chief prosecutor testifying as a fact witness. More than that, we have the prosecutor vouching for one witness over another. Ignored is testimony by witnesses that favors the President. Ms. Lewinsky's statement that she was never asked to lie, that there was no bargain for a job; Ms. Currie's exculpatory statements. We have cafeteria advocacy. Only those statements that fit getting the President, not anything that is exculpatory.

    We want to exalt justice and the rule of law, but there has not been a mention of the intimidation or abuse of witnesses to get statements damaging to the President. I agreed to listen this morning to Ms. Sarah Hawkins in my office, and she came in and she was obviously one of those uncomfortable people who have been addressed by the special prosecutor's office and she was repeatedly threatened with prosecution in an effort to get her to cooperate. Threats that were reinstated after she had spoken criticism to the press, after being told twice by the prosecutors that there wasn't evidence to prosecute her. She lost her business; her career is ruined; her family is hurt. She never had her day in court, and I wonder about the rule of law for her.

    Much of America believes this investigation is the living embodiment of what Justice Scalia warned against in his dissent in the case of Morrison v. Olson, in which the majority upheld the independent counsel statute. Justice Scalia warned that the independent counsel could be a foe of the President with a staff full of refugees from a defeated administration, the worst kinds of danger of abuse of prosecuting power.
 Page 257       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    There is no question that the President did not tell the American people the truth about Ms. Lewinsky. He admitted that. You allege in the report that he lied under oath. But I note that you, Mr. Starr, are under oath yourself this morning, and on page 36 of your testimony you swear that you go to court, and do not appear on the talk show circuit. This very morning you appeared on Good Morning, America. Isn't that a false statement under oath? And shouldn't you be prosecuted for perjury because of this false statement? Given your answer to Mr. Inglis, I would think so. However, I would not urge that. I think that is preposterous. That cannot be what was meant by the Founding Fathers regarding impeachment.

    I wasn't going to ask any questions, but because you are here and you might have knowledge about this one thing, I do want to pose three quick questions.

    First, when did you first hear any information to the effect that a tape recording existed of a woman, any woman, who claimed to have had a sexual contact with President Clinton?

    Two, in or about November 1997, did you discuss with any person the possibility that a tape recording might exist on which a woman claimed to have had had sexual contact with President Clinton, yes or no.

    Finally, I know we all know that there is an investigation into leaks from your office to the press. Reporters promise confidentiality to sources and they are very serious about that. I am asking you today, will you release the press from their vow of confidentiality to you and your deputies so this can be fully investigated.
 Page 258       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. Well, you have asked a number of questions. Let me go back to——

    Ms. LOFGREN. Three.

    Mr. STARR. Yes. The second question I frankly did not understand. I honestly just did—I was trying to take notes.

    Ms. LOFGREN. I will read it quickly. In or about November 1997, did you discuss with any person the possibility that a tape recording might exist on which a woman claimed to have had sexual contact with President Clinton?

    Mr. STARR. I am not recalling that. The specificity of your question suggests that there may be information, and I am happy to respond to information if that is——

    Ms. LOFGREN. Is there any possibility that the answer is yes?

    Mr. STARR. I have no recollection of it, but I am happy to search my recollection. This is the first time I think one has asked me such a question, and you are asking——

    Ms. LOFGREN. It was possible it was before January then?

 Page 259       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STARR. Yes, but you said very specifically November of 1997, and I will search——

    Mr. SENSENBRENNER [presiding]. Does the gentlewoman have information that the Independent Counsel's Office had this information?

    Ms. LOFGREN. I have asked these questions, and I think the gentleman is under oath and he can answer the question.

    Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentlewoman have information to this effect?

    Ms. LOFGREN. I am not a witness.

    Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The witness will respond.

    Mr. STARR. I do not have a recollection of that, but I am happy to now search my recollection and to go back in light of the specificity of your question and to provide the committee with information.

    Ms. LOFGREN. So you would agree to answer that under penalty of perjury if we followed up with a written request after you have had time to reflect upon it?

    Mr. STARR. Well, I am happy to consider any question, and if it is viewed as germane to—what is before you, if this is an effort to try to search my recollection and to see if there is something that perhaps I am not able to recall—excuse me, may I answer this question?
 Page 260       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California will allow Judge Starr to answer the question without interruption.

    Ms. LOFGREN. Certainly.

    Mr. STARR. I beg your pardon. Now, it does seem to me that if there is an issue that you view as germane, I am happy to consider it, and I will evaluate it. I have given you my best answer now.

    Now, with respect to——

    Ms. LOFGREN. I believe it is germane, and I would like an answer to the question.

    Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California asked Judge Starr three questions. Could she please give Judge Starr the courtesy of allowing him to answer the questions?

    Ms. LOFGREN. I would love to get an answer.

    Mr. STARR. I have concluded what I need to say. Thank you.

    Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The witness has concluded. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
 Page 261       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. FRANK. There was only one answer. There were three questions.

    Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The witness will respond.

    Mr. STARR. What was the first question? I am sorry.

    Ms. LOFGREN. The first question was when did you first hear any information to the effect that a tape recording existed of a woman, any woman, who claimed to have had a sexual contact with President Clinton?

    Mr. STARR. I am unable to answer that question without—I will have to—you are saying ''any information'' relating to ''any.'' I would have to search my recollection. I am prepared today for questions that go to this referral, so I will have to search my recollection.

    Ms. LOFGREN. We will look for an affidavit on that too. I think you did discuss the opening and expansion——

    Mr. ROGAN. Point of order. The gentlewoman's time long ago expired. Those of us waiting to cross-examine the witness would appreciate the gentlewoman following the time schedule.

    Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Everybody, regular order. Everybody will suspend. Does the witness have any furtherance to the questions that have been posed by the gentlewoman from California?
 Page 262       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. Not at this time.

    Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman's time has expired. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Buyer.

    Mr. BUYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have several thoughts I would like to convey, and then I have some specific questions for Judge Starr.

    Some of us here have also been prosecutors and some have served as defense lawyers. We recollect on our own experiences, but none of us has ever come close, not even close, to the attacks that have come upon you and your office and your character and the character of those in your office, by not only some of my own colleagues that are here, some associates of the President, some of the President's own criminal defense lawyers. It is unfortunate, but I suppose it is part of the process in America. But you have kept your head up high and you have maintained your intellect here today and I appreciate that.

    Mr. STARR. Thank you.

    Mr. BUYER. There are two things for which I also feel very strong about as I represent my constituents of Indiana, because they also take great pride in our heritage. One, that the Supreme Court has held consistently that no one is above the law. Secondly, that the courthouse door is open to everyone in our society. The courthouse in America is not meant just for the wealthy or the powerful; the courthouse door is also open to the powerless, to the needy, and to the poor.
 Page 263       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    So when I look at this case that you have now referred to Congress, I say that the courts were never meant to be manipulated by the powerful over the powerless. And what do we have here in front of us?

    We had the most powerful individual on the face of the Earth of the greatest country this world has ever seen finds himself as a defendant in a civil rights case. I am amazed to hear some people who claim that they are true advocates of civil rights, now somehow claim that it is okay to lie in a civil rights case.

    So what do we have? The President took an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the land and has a constitutional duty to do just that. It is alleged that the President as a defendant in a sexual harassment civil rights case in Federal court, committed perjury in his deposition before a Federal judge.

    One of my questions to you is did Judge Susan Webber Wright ever discuss with your office a referral for perjury that was before her in person? Also the allegations of suborning of perjury of others, knowing that these government agents would be witnesses before your grand jury, and repeat these lies. This lying under oath before the grand jury is very serious. The tampering with witnesses who also gave testimony before your grand jury, the obstruction of justice by entering into a conspiracy with others to hide evidence, does that not corrupt the legal process? Doesn't that deny the powerless the opportunity to a fair trial in our system?

    I ask that as a question of you. I will keep on going.
 Page 264       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. The courts take——

    Mr. BUYER. Can you hold that thought. We also have then the allegations of the abuse of power by the most powerful person in our country, by using government resources, his own staff, the Cabinet, and make these presidential privileges for his own personal gain because he was a defendant in a civil rights case, in a civil case, where he could lose money. So he chose deception and deceit because he wanted to protect his own wallet and image from further embarrassment.

    We had testimony by legal scholars who said impeachment of judges is also the same as the impeachment of Presidents.

    Here is another question I have for you. If truth and fairness are foundations of our justice system, if fairness is the bedrock of justice, and truth is the water that runs through it, and we want to make sure that never is the water in our advocacy of our legal system, polluted by those who seek to deceive, and if in fact the standard we have to go on, which is to defend the Constitution, if treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors in fact is our standard, is not bribery of such a felony of wickedness and deceit and willful corruption to manipulate others is contrary to the legitimacy of our judicial system, isn't it also polluting then to our bedrock of fairness and truth, and they are of similar character of bribery and therefore would warrant the serious capacity of this impeachment proceeding?

    Those are my three questions.

 Page 265       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The witness will answer.

    Mr. STARR. I believe, Congressman, that perjury does take the same dimension in our law as bribery, because it is a corruption of the court system.

    In response to your second question, courts do indeed, as I was starting to say, take the truth very seriously, and they want the truth. That is the object of the process, so that the truth will come out, not because it is not the party with the most clever lawyer, but that the facts will come out. Our adversary system is based upon the truthful statement of testimony, under oath, and the compliance with court orders and the like.

    You asked, the first question, and I would prefer with respect to Judge Wright, to answer any question only in executive session.

    Mr. BUYER. Thank you.

    Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the chairman very much, and I thank Mr. Starr for being here, and I acknowledge, Mr. Starr, and that this has been a long day.

    Mr. STARR. Thank you.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. I notice that you went to Duke University, and just having gone to law school just up the road, at the University of Virginia. But I have to disagree with some of my colleagues. Firstly, I want to restate the fact that we are not here to undermine you. I also would like to repeat the chairman's notice given that it appears that the President has been cleared, as to Whitewater, Filegate and Travelgate. I think that this is an important announcement today.
 Page 266       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    But I do want to refer you to the words of Congressman Butler of Massachusetts, who indicated in defining the impeachable offenses of Andrew Johnson that high crimes and misdemeanors would be subversive of some fundamental principles of government and this may violate the Constitution. I am going to make some comments and then I have a brief question, if you would indulge me.

    I notice that you have brought to our attention your referral of September 11, 1998. In reflecting on what we are doing, I have read over and over our late colleague's comments in 1974, Barbara Jordan, who said my faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, and it is total.

    I understand her now even better. She was a child of a segregated South, and I understand what she meant. Felix Frankfurter said one who belongs to the most vilified and persecuted minority in history is not likely to be insensitive to the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

    I ask you, Mr. Starr, do you believe that the President, as any other citizen, has the privilege of the Fifth Amendment?

    Mr. STARR. Yes.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. I just want a yes, yes. That would go for Monica Lewinsky and Sarah Hawkins, who happened to have appeared as a witness or was questioned, is that accurate?
 Page 267       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. Yes.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Monica Lewinsky's mother, Mrs. Lewis?

    Mr. STARR. Yes.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. And, of course, Susan McDougal?

    Mr. STARR. Yes.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. They would be subject to the rights and privileges of the Fifth Amendment?

    Mr. STARR. Yes.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. On page 30 of your testimony when you asked for expanded jurisdiction, on pages 30 and 31, I notice in that recounting there was not one time that you mentioned Paula Jones. Yet as I understand it, you had a lawyer at a law firm that you were associated with. Were you associated with the firm of Kirkland & Ellis?

    Mr. STARR. Yes.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Was Mr. Richard Porter associated with the firm of Kirkland & Ellis?
 Page 268       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. Yes.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. I note that Mr. Richard Porter was asked to serve as counsel to Ms. Jones. Now, he did not serve as that, as I understand. Further, I understand that Kirkland & Ellis prepared pro bono legal documents for what we call the Women's Legal Forum, is that correct?

    Mr. STARR. With respect to the latter question, yes. Very briefly——

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Very briefly, my time is short.

    Mr. STARR. That is the area I do have personal information and knowledge on, with respect to the Independent Women's Forum.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would simply say just in the answers that you have given today, and with the understanding of due process, I would say to you, Mr. Starr, that it seems quite shocking to me that in the course of seeking expanded jurisdiction, that you did not include those contacts, although you noted on the record today, although I thought it was so widely known that it would not need mentioning. Put yourself in a courtroom setting where the prosecutor did not divulge particularly devastating conflict of interest matters to a defendant, and I think due process will come into play.

    Let me quickly move to my next question, keeping in mind the shortness of my time. Would you tell me, Mr. Starr, are you a member of the Virginia bar?
 Page 269       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. Yes, I am an inactive member of the Virginia bar.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. But you are a member of the Virginia bar. I am likewise an inactive member of that bar. Have you ever been or are you a member of the American Bar Association?

    Mr. STARR. I am.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. With that in mind, let me draw your attention to the Virginia code of ethics, and might I read it very quickly. If after undertaking employment in contemplated or pending litigation a lawyer learns or it is obvious that he or a lawyer in his firm is to be called as a witness on behalf of his client, he shall withdraw from the conduct of a trial and his firm. The ABA code of professional responsibility says in considering ethics, the roles of an advocate and of a witness are inconsistent. The function of an advocate is to advance or argue the cause of another, while that of a witness is to state facts objectively.

    A judge for example.

    Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman's time has expired.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. I ask the chairman to indulge me 30 seconds.

    Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Chair will time the gentlewoman.

 Page 270       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me paint the picture for you. I have served as a judge. I have been somewhat of a prosecutor on a select committee on assassinations. You have done a similar thing. How can you move from the prosecutor's chair to the judge's chair to the witness chair in any court in America, Mr. Starr? I cannot believe that any American would perceive any justice, as the Constitution so says, in having a prosecutor who acts as a judge and who acts as a witness.

    With that, Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

    Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman's time has expired. The witness will answer the question.

    Mr. STARR. Both my office and myself, personally have, in fact, complied with applicable ethical codes, and I would be happy to focus on any specific issue under the Virginia code.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Witness.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]


    I would like to thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Conyers for giving me this opportunity to speak on this important subject.

 Page 271       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Yesterday, as I walked through the Capitol Building, I begin to think about this hearing, the November 3rd, election, my responsibility to uphold the Constitution, and my obligation to my constituents in Texas. As I turned to leave the building, I saw these words inscribed on the Capitol's ceiling in black letters, ''Here sir, the people govern.'' These words were used by Alexander Hamilton to refer to the House of Representatives at the New York federal Constitutional ratification convention. This is the people's house and they have spoken, their voices were heard loud and clear; it's time to put this divisive issue of impeachment in our past, it's time to prepare for America's future, it's time to move forward and develop solutions to America's problems, it's time to focus on healthcare, and it's time to direct our resources at our children's future.

    Unfortunately, there is a small group of individuals who are hellbent on continuing this divisive course of action under the guise of ''upholding their Constitutional duty.''

    Imagine a justice system where a prosecutor can present charges to a grand jury, obtain an indictment and then proceed to trial. During the trial, the prosecutor recognizes that he has a weak case and in desperation he calls himself as a witness, to testify about the defendant's prior bad acts and his rationale for charging the defendant. While testifying, he admits that individually and collectively, the charges are insufficient to meet the standard of crime, but he believes the defendant is guilty of a pattern of abuse to obstruct justice. Certainly, if this incident occurred and we lived in this state, we would be outraged at the waste of financial resources. In fact, we would call for this prosecutor to end this charade, immediately, because his conduct and abusive tactics would emasculate the system he is attempting to protect.
 Page 272       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Additionally, there is the risk that this testimony will not be objective; the prestige of his office will artificially enhance the testimony's credibility and the likelihood of confusion on the part of the jury. United States v. Birdman, 602 F.2d 547 (3rd Cir. 1979). Furthermore, the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility Rule DR 5–102(A), which states, ''If, after undertaking employment in contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer learns or it is obvious that he or a lawyer in his firm ought to be called as a witness on behalf of his client, he shall withdraw from the conduct of the trial.

    More importantly, this prosecutor's conduct may violate the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Responsibility. Rule 3.7 states, ''A lawyer shall not act as an advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness.'' The comment accompanying this Rule states,

  The roles of an advocate and of a witness are inconsistent; the function of an advocate is to advance or argue the cause of another, while that of a witness is to state facts objectively.

A prosecutor is not just an advocate, he is a ''minister of justice.'' Nowhere in the history of this country's system of jurisprudence have we allowed a prosecutor to take the witness stand to ''vouch for the credibility'' of the evidence presented during trial; to do so would be a miscarriage of justice.

    Simply put, an officer of the court is charged with preserving the public confidence in the process of justice. Ethical Canon 9 states, ''A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety.'' The commentary accompanying this rule states:
 Page 273       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

  Integrity is the very breath of justice. Confidence in our law, our courts, and in the administration of justice is our primary concern. No practice must be permitted to prevail which invites towards the administration of justice a doubt or distrust of its integrity. Erwin M. Jennings Co. v. DiGenova, 141 A. 866 (1928).

    Likewise, allowing Independent Counsel Starr to come before the Judiciary Committee to testify for 2 hours ''about a pattern of abuse to obstruct justice'' will eviscerate the purpose of the Independent Counsel Act. This Act was designed to provide a mechanism to prevent inherent conflicts of interest which could arise where the Executive branch of government must supervise or conduct an investigation of an individual associated with its office.

    Richard Porter, a member of Mr. Starr's law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, was acting in an advisory position for the Paula Jones legal team on her sexual harassment suit against President Clinton. Moreover, Mr. Starr contemplated writing a brief in support of the Jones suit prior to becoming Independent Counsel. More importantly, this information was not disclosed to Attorney General Reno at the time of his appointment to this neutral non-partisan post. Mr. Starr had an obligation to fully disclose his biases, prejudices and any relationships between his firm, Kirkland & Ellis, and the Paula Jones legal advisors.

The Bible teaches,

  For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. . . . No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.
 Page 274       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

Mr. Starr, you cannot serve the interest of the tobacco companies while maintaining your ethical obligation under the Independent Counsel Statute. Under the statute you are permitted to continue your private law practice; however, working for the interest of tobacco calls into question your motivation for authoring this salacious referral and your continuous assault on the Presidency.

    The Office of the Independent Counsel was created to promote public confidence and integrity in the judicial system. Section 595(c) authorizes the Office of the Independent Counsel to submit a referral to Congress to guarantee that its findings would not be thwarted by internal sources within that individual's branch of government. This concept which is consistent with the separation of powers doctrine was instituted to prevent unfettered authority in a single branch of government. Accordingly, each branch is vested with the power to check and balance the others.

    Article I, section 2 of the Constitution grants the House of Representatives the sole Power of Impeachment, while Article I, section 3, authorizes the Senate to try all Impeachments. Hence, the Legislative branch is charged with checking the Executive branch.

    Impeachable offenses are political, as they relate to injuries done immediately to society itself. The Framers never intended impeachment or the threat of impeachment to serve as a device for denouncing the President for private misbehavior or for transforming the United States into a parliamentary form of government in which Congress can vote ''no confidence'' in an executive whose behavior it dislikes. The President is elected by the people of the United States and it is not the prerogative nor duty of the House of Representatives to undo that election because of partisan politics.
 Page 275       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    It is not the fate of a particular individual that is at stake, it is not about this existing President, but the institution of the Presidency and the Constitutional process that must rise above the arena of partisan politics. The purpose of Impeachment is to curb breaches and abuses of the public trust. The Framers realized that impeachment is final and non-appealable.

    Professor Charles Black stated in Impeachment: A Handbook, that impeachment should be invoked only against ''serious assaults on the integrity of the processes of government and such crimes as would so stain a President as to make his continuance in office dangerous to the public order.''

    During the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, in 1867, Congressman Butler of Massachusetts, announced the following definition of impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors,

  . . . to be one in its nature or consequences subversive of some fundamental or essential principle of government or highly prejudicial to the public interest, and this may consist of a violation of the Constitution.

    Certainly, everyone agrees that the President's conduct was wrong. In fact, it was morally reprehensible, but it does not rise to an impeachable level. Impeachment is reserved for serious public wrongdoing of official acts, not private matters. In 1792, Alexander Hamilton was investigated by Congress for alleged misconduct. It was discovered that Hamilton was making financial payments to conceal an adulterous affair. After Congress heard Hamilton's testimony, it was concluded that the matter was private, and not impeachable. Similarly, President Clinton's conduct, although improper, should not be regarded as an impeachable offense because it was not the product of an illegal use of power.
 Page 276       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Twenty-five years ago, the House Committee on the Judiciary faced a similar responsibility; the impeachment of President Richard Nixon. The Constitution imposes a grave and serious responsibility on Congress to protect its fabric and integrity. It would be a dereliction of duty if we embarked upon a path that would alter the constitutional threshold for impeachable offenses.

    Today, the Members of the House of Representatives consult no common Oracle or Starr, but the Constitution. More importantly, we respect the rights of individual citizens. It's time to move forward, it's time to put foolishness aside, it's time for America's business.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant.

    Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Judge Starr. Quickly, let me refer to a column by David Broder in reference to this ''400 professors of history'' letter. Mr. Broder says: when academics decide to become activists, they sometimes bring badly needed wisdom and perspective to a raging political debate. But when they plunge in heedlessly, they risk looking ridiculous. He says the House is following the process set forth in the Constitution. This tenured trashing of Congress for meeting its responsibility says more about the state of the history profession than about the law of the land.

    I am glad that we can at times today return back to the facts in this case, and, Judge Starr, I want to commend you for setting forth a clear, documented, compelling case against the President. You have provided a road map for us to see how and when the President chose deception rather than truth at many important crossroads in our judicial system's search for the truth.
 Page 277       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I must say that I have seen this before, but you mention it again in your statement. I think one of the most chilling episodes I think I can imagine in American history occurred with Dick Morris, and again I will read from your statement and account of Mr. Morris's testimony. But this is one of the choices you referred to on page 21 that the President makes.

    After the public disclosure of the President's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and the ongoing criminal investigation, the President faced a decision. Would he admit the relationship publicly, correct his testimony in the Jones case, and ask for the indulgence of the American people, or would he continue to deny the truth?

    On this question, the President consulted others. According to Dick Morris, the President and he talked on January 21st. Mr. Morris suggested that the President publicly confess. The President replied, but what about the legal thing, you know, the legal thing, you know, Starr and perjury and all. Mr. Morris suggested they take a poll. Mr. Morris suggested they take a poll. The President agreed. Mr. Morris called in with the results. He stated that the American people are willing to forgive adultery, but not perjury or obstruction of justice. And our President of the United States, the chief law enforcement officer of this country, the one who hires the Attorney General and 93 U.S. Attorneys who enforce all the Federal laws against you and me, this President said, well, we will just have to win then.

    That is chilling. That is absolutely scary that we have got that mentality in the position of being the chief law enforcement officer. As a former prosecutor, and I know you have tremendous credentials, I know it frightens me to have these circumstances existing.
 Page 278       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I have two questions for you. I don't know what the answer is to that, and I think that is one of the reasons we are here today.

    Two questions: I am not going to have the opportunity to perhaps cross-examine the President, I don't know if he is going to take our invitation, and I don't know if he is going to respond, and I don't think it is appropriate that I question his lawyers here today, but one thing that I have a question on, on this assertion of privilege they make the claim that this is private conduct that underlies this, but yet they go out and file documents asserting an executive privilege claim, which you and I both know is rooted in the Constitution, and it is meant to protect presidential communications regarding official decision making, in other words, public conduct.

    Is this not talking out of both sides of their mouth? How can they assert a privilege for public conduct while saying it is really private conduct?

    Let me get the second question so you can answer them both, as I will let you have the balance of the time. I have alluded to the fact that I feel your credentials are impeccable, and based upon your experience and the experience of the many prosecutors you have referred to today, it is tremendous, and based upon all this, I question you, do you have an opinion, not saying whether or not these are impeachable offenses, but as to the quality of this case in terms of criminal law violations? Is it a circumstantial case, but is it a weak case, or a strong case, or something in between?

    Mr. STARR. With respect to your first question on assertion of privilege, I do agree with you that it is odd, I think it is irregular, to both contend that this is entirely a matter involving personal conduct, and at the same time invoke executive privilege to protect fact witnesses who are being asked facts with respect to that matter. So I think there is an incoherence and inconsistency with the position.
 Page 279       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    With respect to the quality of the case, my own judgment, Congressman Bryant, is that the evidence is strong.

    Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired. I think it now is proper to take a 10-minute recess. I would like to ask the audience to remain in the room until Judge Starr exits the room and ask the members of the committee either to stay in the room or not go too far away. The committee stands in recess until 6:10.



    As we embark on this important and solemn inquiry today, we must remind ourselves of what has brought-us to this point in our nation's history. We are here to look into allegations that our President has committed impeachable offenses by lying to a federal grand jury and obstructed a investigation into his alleged wrongdoing.

    There is no one in this room who would deny that our country is based on trust. The trust we have in our leaders, in our judicial system and our Constitution is what has made our country prosperous. Other countries have relied on our system of government to protect them from those who would break the laws for personal gain.

    When allegations of wrongdoing by the President are made, they need to be investigated for credible evidence. To ensure that process, we rely on the Attorney General to make the decision for an independent counsel and a three-judge panel to appoint the right person to begin an independent investigation.
 Page 280       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    And what has been brought before this committee is a referral charging that the chief law enforcement officer of our country, who took a solemn oath to abide by the laws and by our Constitution, has committed perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse his power as President. These are not minor offenses, but rather go to the trust Americans have in our system of government and the rule of law.

    These allegations are not minor offenses. They are a breakdown in the trust we have in our leaders, our judicial system and the office of the President. We are now faced with the very real fact that our chief law enforcement officer can break the very laws he has sworn to protect for his own personal gain. As a result, we are sending a message to those who believe in our system of government that we will turn away from our legal responsibilities to benefit those who break our laws.

    Today, I anticipate that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will use an old defense attorney tactic by shifting the focus of attention away from the President and on to the Independent Counsel. These questions will be brutal and accusatory, but in the end we must not lose sight of what our duty is in this hearing—to get to the truth of what the allegations are against the President.

    We also must remember that this hearing is to establish the facts in the case. We have established a fairness that gives the White House attorneys an opportunity to cross examine the Independent Counsel along with the Democrats' lead attorney. My hope is that all of the questions surrounding the referral can be answered and we can quickly come to a resolution on this matter.
 Page 281       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    As I said before, we must remember that this is a hearing into allegations against the President and we must stay focused on that if there is to be any final conclusion to this matter. What is hanging in the balance is our system of government and the entire trust our nation has on our laws.

    I thank the chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. The committee will come to order. The committee will come to order, please.

    Now, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to announce sort of a schedule; things are kind of ad hoc up here. We are going to finish with the members' questioning under the 5-minute rule. Then when that happens, we are going to take a half-hour dinner break. It is unfortunate we just took a break, but maybe it was fortunate for some of you, but anyway, we will, at the end of the completion of the members' questioning, take a half-hour break, and then we will come back, and Mr. Kendall, I believe, will question Mr. Starr. We will start out with a half-hour, and then if Mr. Kendall needs more time, as I suspect, we will be liberal in allowing that so that he can ask what he wants to ask, or needs to ask, and then Mr. Schippers will question, if he desires to, and then we will let Mr. Starr go home with three medals and a Purple Heart. And then we go to a full committee meeting, but you needn't stay for that, although God knows you are welcome.

    So the next questioner is the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters.
 Page 282       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, let me just start, before I get into the areas that I would like to pay attention to, I would like to help out my friend from California, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. She asked you, would you be willing to release the press from their confidentiality pledge to you and your office so that we can get the leaks investigated that are in question.

    Mr. STARR. I believe that it would, Congresswoman Waters, be unwise and inappropriate for me at this time in this setting, and I am delighted to pursue this in executive session.

    Ms. WATERS. That's okay. Your answer today is you would be unwilling to do that?

    Mr. STARR. I believe it would be unwise at this time with litigation under seal still proceeding, but I am very respectful of the orderliness of that proceeding, and it seems to me that that——

    Ms. WATERS. Okay. I just don't want to take up a lot of time with it. I just wondered if you would do it or not. The answer is no.

    Mr. STARR. Excuse me.

    Ms. WATERS. Yes, I understand.

 Page 283       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STARR. At this time, because of the pendency of litigation——

    Ms. WATERS. Let me just go on, because I have only 5 minutes. I have been one of your harshest critics, and you know it. I have been appalled by what I consider the gross unfairness of the procedure, of the way in which you have conducted yourself. I have been very critical of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle because of the way that they received these referrals and then dumped them into the public domain without any opportunity for the administration or White House to review the information, so I make no bones about it. I think that some of the tactics that have been used are unacceptable. I think that the moment it was understood that you were going to remain, for example, on the payroll of your law firm where you would be representing the tobacco companies, for example, while the President of the United States had made them a number one target in his administration for dealing with trying to discontinue the smoking by youth in our society and dealing with all of the health risks, and I think that it is just totally unacceptable that as late as 1995, you were representing the tobacco interests in your law firm at the same time that you were working for us.

    How long did you work for your law firm representing the tobacco interests, and how much did it overlap with this investigation starting with Whitewater?

    Mr. STARR. I had two representations. One was an appeal on a class action, which was in the time frame, Congresswoman Waters, of 1995 and 1996, and prior to that time, I believe it was 1994, I would have to reconstruct this, I took on a specific representation, again an appeal, which, as you may know, is what I typically do. That was in the 1994 time frame.
 Page 284       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The issues that I took on were in one instance constitutional issues, and the second was a Federal civil procedure issue.

    Ms. WATERS. Did you ever feel you were in conflict of interest by working for your law firm at the same time that you were working as Independent Counsel?

    Mr. STARR. Congresswoman Waters, I did not, and I had ethics advice, both at the law firm and in the Independent Counsel's Office, and our effort has always been in our office to make sure that we are addressing these issues carefully.

    Ms. WATERS. You do normally seek the advice so that you will not get into ethical problems; is that right?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, we do.

    Ms. WATERS. Let me just ask you, you did take the oath of office here today, and you mentioned in your testimony that the President took the oath of office to tell the truth. However, when you were asked about how you conducted yourself when you sought to expand your jurisdiction in this matter, you literally did not disclose information that may have caused the Attorney General to rule differently, and what is interesting about it, the way that you presented it today, when you were asked very specific questions, you said, I don't recall, I don't quite remember, I am not so sure, I will have to search my memory, those kinds of answers. Yet, when the President of the United States responded in that way, you outright called him a liar.
 Page 285       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Now, am I to assume that your inability to recollect your involvement—for example, how many hours did you spend on the brief that you did for the Independent Women's Forum?

    Mr. STARR. Congresswoman Waters, the answer to the question is I did no brief for the Independent Women's Forum, and I also respectfully, but firmly, disagree with your characterization. I tried to put before this committee the events with respect to January of 1998, and why it was that certain things that I had been involved with, such as the Independent Women's Forum——

    Ms. WATERS. What did you do for them?

    Mr. STARR. I beg your pardon?

    Ms. WATERS. What did you do for the Independent Women's Forum.

    Mr. STARR. I considered, as I did for Bob Fiske, doing an amicus brief solely limited to the proposition that the President of the United States is just like the rest of us in that as a private citizen he must, in fact, respond in court to lawsuits against him.

    Ms. WATERS. You didn't consider that that was possible information that you should have disclosed to the Attorney General when you were seeking to expand your jurisdiction?
 Page 286       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. May I respond briefly?

    Mr. HYDE. Please.

    Mr. STARR. As I indicated, that information with respect to the Independent Women's Forum was, I believed then and I continue to believe, publicly reported. What I have indicated today to the committee is the Bob Fiske inquiry had not been in the public domain, but I also did not think that was an issue of relevancy to the Attorney General, even though frankly, perhaps, I should have thought of that inasmuch as that was the Department of Justice through Bob Fiske, the Independent Counsel appointed by the Department of Justice.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentlewoman's time has expired.

    Ms. WATERS. Yes, I do believe—Mr. Chairman, I would ask you for 30 seconds, just one issue I have to get in here about abuse of power.

    There is a whole list of items that I would like to discuss with you. Much has been said about what happened with Monica Lewinsky over in the shopping center at the hotel, but there are some others that I am very concerned about. Are you familiar with Ms. Steele and what she is alleging about what you are doing? Did your investigators ask for her tax records, her bank records, her credit report, her telephone records, and question the adoption of a child to try and find out whether it was legal? Did they treat her that way?

    Mr. STARR. Congresswoman Waters, the answer to the first question is—if I have the questions right, you asked a series of questions. What was your first question? I think the answer was yes.
 Page 287       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. WATERS. Tell me about Ms. Steele. What do you know about her? Did you know your investigators had asked for her tax records, her banks records, her credit records, telephone records, all because supposedly she was told something by one of the targeted witnesses in this case?

    Mr. STARR. I now understand the question. We have asked, through FBI investigators, a variety of questions to individuals that in the judgment of professional, experienced investigators have a bearing on the witness's credibility.

    Ms. WATERS. Did you know she felt abused by you and your investigators?

    Mr. STARR. I am aware that there are issues that she has raised——

    Ms. WATERS. Okay, fine. I just wanted to know if you knew. Finally——

    Mr. HYDE. The gentlewoman's time—if you are not going to give him a chance to answer, your time has expired.

    Ms. WATERS. Let me just say this. He may take the time to answer, but there is one more, a 16-year-old boy who was subpoenaed at school that you sent your investigators to school to get because you were trying to get his father, and you know who I am talking about.
 Page 288       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. CANADY. Mr. Chairman, regular order.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentlewoman—really, give Mr. Starr a chance to answer, and please don't ask more questions.

    Ms. WATERS. All right, okay.

    Mr. STARR. I can be brief. That was in the Arkansas phase of our investigation. The individual in question we believed had relevant information. No subpoena, as I understand it, was, in fact, served, but the agent in question did go to the school.

    In my judgment, that was a misjudgment. I don't think he should even have gone to the school. But it is my best understanding that he did not, in fact, effect the service of the subpoena on the young person there. If I am mistaken, then I will say this: No, we should not have gone to the school. But could I add this: We have had in this investigation jurisdiction granted to us in a wide variety of areas that has caused—when I took over for Bob Fiske, he had a presence of about 120 people in Little Rock.

    Congresswoman Waters, there may be steps along the way that you would say, well, why was that particular judgment made? Gosh, that wasn't a very wise thing to do. And I do think it is unwise to go to a school. I completely agree with that.

    Ms. WATERS. What about the 80-year-old grandmother, the same woman who——
 Page 289       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. HYDE. The gentlewoman's time has expired. Will you please follow the Chair?

    Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chabot is recognized.

    Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    It seems pretty clear to me that there is a strategy by Bill Clinton and his allies to demonize anybody who gets in their way: Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Henry Hyde, you, Judge Starr, this committee, even the press to some extent. It is everybody else's fault, and everybody else is to blame, everybody except Bill Clinton, except the President.

    Now, in criminal cases, and I think Mr. Canady referred to this, it is a pretty common practice to do this. If the facts of the case are against you, if your client is pretty clearly guilty, put the police on trial; they planted the evidence; the police are corrupt; they forced your client to sign the confession—anything to get your client off the hook.

    Judge Starr, my question to you is this: How difficult is it for you as an Independent Counsel to do your job when you are up against this onslaught, particularly when you are limited in your ability to defend yourself and to defend the other prosecutors under you, and to defend your staff in a public forum; limited, that is, until today?

    Mr. STARR. Well, I think it is inherently a challenge, and I must say that it does, in my judgment, raise questions about the relationship between the Independent Counsel, the Congress of the United States, and I am speaking generally, and also the Justice Department. But I can only give you my philosophy.
 Page 290       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I think it is my obligation to follow the rules, and that is what we seek to do. That is why I reached out and tried to get the right kind of ethics advice and the like to make sure that some of these difficult judgments were, in fact, done the right way. And that is all we can do.

    But, for example, we cannot set up a congressional liaison shop. We just don't have the resources to do that. We can't set up an effective public information apparatus the way the great departments of government do.

    So I think it is inherently a grave challenge for an independent counsel to be told, go set up shop, and you are out there on your own, and we just look eventually to some report or conclusion and the like, and you are a bit of the Lone Ranger, as it were, in terms of whether you are part of any entity or structure. And that is one of the reasons that, Congressman, what I tried to do was to create mechanisms whereby we had not only a deliberative process so that the kinds of issues that are being raised here today we can respond to and say, yes, we did have a process in place; yes, there were questions raised about what we did on January 16th at the Ritz Carlton. We consulted with the Justice Department. We had experienced prosecutors evaluating it. They were very familiar with the ethics rules, and they made judgments based upon good faith determinations of what the appropriate procedures were. But we had to create that mechanism all by ourselves, and I tried to do that to the best of my ability.

    Mr. CHABOT. Early in the investigation of the Lewinsky matter, President Clinton promised to fully cooperate with the investigators, stating that he wanted to divulge more rather than less, and sooner rather than later. How cooperative has the administration been in your investigation?
 Page 291       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. With respect to this phase of the investigation, the administration has been uncooperative. To the contrary, it has litigated numerous issues, although in fairness, in fairness, I think of the things that we have litigated, and in fairness, the administration has produced a goodly number of records and the like, and so I would say at a routine level, requests for subpoenas or documents and so forth, there certainly has been that, and I don't want to be unfair about saying that.

    But there is a marked distinction between the cooperation that we received, for example, in the FBI files matter and the cooperation, or lack thereof, that we received in this and in other phases of our investigations. And to me, one of the markers is the invocation of privileges. It may very well be that the considered judgment of this body is that any privilege can be invoked no matter how unmeritorious one thinks it is, and that that is not an abuse. Perhaps we live in such a litigious age that that is the new way of doing things.

    I disagree with that. I think if privileges are invoked for the purposes of delay and have the intended effect of delay—and I think that is what happened here—they lose. I have heard complaints about the tactics of the investigation, and yet we go to court. And as I indicated earlier, 17 visits to the courts of appeals, thus far we have prevailed in each of those. That sounds like an investigation that is getting it right.

    Mr. CHABOT. Let me just conclude by referring to your report towards the end of it where you stated, and I quote, ''given the hurricane force political winds swirling about us, we were well aware that no matter what decision we made, criticism would come from somewhere. As Attorney General Reno had said, in a high profile case like this, you are damned if you do, and you are damned if you don't, so you better just do what you think is right, what is the right and the fair thing.''
 Page 292       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired. I thank the gentleman.

    The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Meehan.

    Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Starr, as a former judge and appellate litigator, I am sure you know how important your own credibility is to the decisions that this committee must make. The key fact-finding in this investigation has been done exclusively by you and your deputies. All of the important grand jury testimony of Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, and President Clinton was elicited under your direction and never subject to cross-examination. You and you alone decided who to immunize and what to investigate. So if your credibility is tainted by bias or poor judgment on your part, this committee and the American people must at the very least treat the many inferences that you draw in your referral with extreme caution, and must question whether your referral is indeed the whole story.

    What do we see, Mr. Starr, when we look at your personal involvement in the issues before us? Well, we have heard a lot of them this afternoon. Among other things, we see that you consulted with Paula Jones' attorneys at least a half a dozen times in the summer of 1994 about how to frame an argument against presidential immunity, something you apparently failed to disclose to the Justice Department when you sought to expand your jurisdiction in January of 1998, and something that might have influenced the Attorney General to appoint someone other than you to carry out this part of the investigation.

    During the same summer, you appeared on PBS's ''News Hour'' to argue against the President's position in the Jones case. For most of your tenure, it has been indicated here, as Independent Counsel, you remained a partner in a private law firm, receiving $1.2 million in salary per year, while at the same time one of your law partners was leaking an affidavit in the Jones case to the Chicago Tribune in November of 1997, as well as steering Linda Tripp to you so that she could entrap the President without becoming entrapped herself in an illegal tape recording charge.
 Page 293       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    You represented the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company in 1995 class action litigation, a company that had a major stake in the failure of the Clinton Administration, of its initiatives to keep kids from smoking, and the Justice Department's criminal investigation of big tobacco.

    You made a commitment in February of 1997 to become the dean of Pepperdine University's new School of Public Policy, a school whose creation owes in large part to a $250,000 donation from a newspaper publisher with a habit of funding anti-Clinton Administration publications, and also Arkansas-based dirt-digging operations.

    You made a $1,750 contribution to your firm's political action committee in January of 1995, a PAC that in turn contributed to four Republican candidates for President who were running against President Clinton in 1996.

    You were hired as a consultant to the Bradley Foundation in the summer of 1995 on the issue of school vouchers, a foundation that provides funding to some of President Clinton's harshest critics.

    And now, Mr. Starr, when we read your referral, we see that you have found the time and the space to specifically mention that one of the days that the President and Monica Lewinsky got together was Easter Sunday, but you chose not to include the critical statement from Ms. Lewinsky's grand jury statement, quote: ''No one ever asked me to lie, and I was never promised a job for my silence.''

 Page 294       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. Starr, your own ethics advisor, Sam Dash, is on the record stating that while your conduct in many of these respects violated no technical legal ethics rules, that conduct, and I quote, ''does have an odor to it.'' Further, Mr. Dash said on another occasion, quote, ''I can understand how responsible reporters and reasonable people could question Ken's judgment.''

    Mr. Starr, in light of these facts and opinions, is it your position that there is no basis whatsoever for the American people to question the credibility of your work?

    Mr. STARR. My answer is the credibility should be assessed by the evidence that is contained herein. This is an elaborately documented——

    Mr. MEEHAN. Excuse me. Mr. Starr, you made inferences, you are asking us to rely——

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Meehan, your time has expired. Give the witness some time to answer the long——

    Mr. MEEHAN. But this isn't just about the evidence, this is about the credibility; wouldn't you agree?

    Mr. HYDE. Would you let the witness answer? Please, take such time as you need, Mr. Starr.

    Mr. STARR. Congressman, you may disagree, but what has been submitted to you is an elaborately documented product of professional prosecutors. These are professional prosecutors from around the country, some of whom are on detail from the Justice Department.
 Page 295       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. MEEHAN. I am a former prosecutor myself.

    Mr. STARR. Yes, I am aware of that. With respect to the practice of law, I think that is a serious question, should independent counsels do it, and I know my judgment has been called into question by some. I think Sam was very honest. Sam said, I just don't think you should be practicing law at all.

    May I say this? The statute contemplates that independent counsels are going to be drawn out of private practice, and I have lost count, but at one time 17 of the 18 independent counsels did, in fact, carry on private practice. And if I may say, that was part of the original understanding that I was going to continue with my private law practice while giving this, as I have always sought to do, the top priority.

    With respect to issues about the firm, it is a very large firm with a large number of offices in several cities, and with a number of lawyers.

    Mr. MEEHAN. But you have a duty under the code——

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Meehan, please. Mr. Meehan, will you please——

    Mr. MEEHAN. If you would recognize that——

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Meehan, will you withhold, please.
 Page 296       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. WATERS. That is why we should have more than 5 minutes.

    Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, these are complicated issues. You can't just get to it in 5 minutes.

    Mr. HYDE. Have you finished?

    Mr. STARR. I think I have concluded my answer, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. Thank you.

    The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.

    Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    As the day draws longer, the charges become more absurd. I think I heard, or maybe I was mistaken, that we were going in the direction of the last line of questioning with Monica entrapping the President. Now, there is a rich one. I suppose that is 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?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, that is true.
 Page 297       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. BARR. One can never be forced to tell a lie before a grand jury or a Federal court; is that correct, legally?

    Mr. STARR. There is no excuse for telling a lie, you are correct; I mean, under oath.

    Mr. 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 oversexed blabbermouth. 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 really was interested just in the money. Let's presume that the independent counsel statute is not a perfect statute, 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?

    Mr. 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 is what we have sought to do, Congressman, in this referral.
 Page 298       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. BARR. You have, and I commend you for standing up to the nonsense, and that is 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, 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?

    Mr. STARR. Not at all. I have a statutory duty, but you have a constitutional duty.

    Mr. BARR. Thank you.

    I do have one quick question, and then I would 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 Mack McLarty with regard to Filegate?

    Mr. 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 have to check to that.
 Page 299       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. BARR. I would appreciate it, because 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 is 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 so we don't completely close the door on that.

    There is a document which I believe has been contributed. This is a document that I will introduce into the record with my written comments, by Jerome Zeifman, the former chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee in 1973 and 1974, and it is rather extensive, and I have no—I am not going to make you read it today.

    [The information follows:]


    Today's hearing may not change a single mind on this committee. We will spend the day asking Ken Starr questions, some of us motivated by a desire to learn, others motivated by a desire to score political points, and others driven by having a few minutes in the ever-shifting national limelight. When it's all over, those of us who think the President has committed impeachable conduct will continue to say so. Those of us who believe the President was the innocent victim of a vast conspiracy will continue to oppose impeachment.

    In many ways, this hearing is a paradigm for the illness ailing our Democracy. In the days of Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster, television cameras were absent. However, the words that soared in these chambers made their absence scarcely noticeable. These men were not forced to reach a distracted and disinterested public in the instantly vanishing banalities we call television sound bites. Their words were based on principles that sprang from their hearts, grew in their minds, and gained acceptance in the forge of debates that shaped an infant nation.
 Page 300       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Unlike the speeches many offer these days, the words of our predecessors had the power to persuade; because they were based on true ideas, and on an understanding of government and governing that is all but lost in most of what happens in the Congress of this last decade of the 20th Century. Debates mattered, and they actually swayed votes. Speeches enacted ideas.

    What has happened to us? Where has our capacity to think rationally gone? The report we have read, and that we will discuss today, remains unrebutted. Think about that. No one is questioning the facts.

    What do the facts in this case prove? They prove the President lied to the American people; and perjured himself before a federal court, and before a grand jury. They also prove he engaged in an effort to obstruct justice and tamper with witnesses. These un-rebutted facts conclusively prove that, as we begin this debate, a prosecutable felon sits in our nation's highest office.

    Additionally, I introduce into the record today a memo written by Jerry Zeifman, concluding the President has engaged in bribery. Mr. Zeifman, who served as counsel for Chairman Rodino in the Watergate hearings, is from a different political party than I am. We probably disagree on more than 90% of the major political questions. However, we share a reverence for the rule of law, and a desire to vindicate it.

    Sadly, I fear Jerry Zeifman may belong to another—vanishing—generation of political leaders; a generation willing to put partisanship aside in order to preserve the Constitution. Another leader of years gone by put it this way:
 Page 301       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

  Americans are free to disagree with the law but not to disobey it. For a government of laws and not of men, no man, however prominent and powerful, and no mob, however unruly or boisterous, is entitled to defy a court of law. If this country should ever reach the point where any man or group of men, by force or threat of force, could long defy the commands of our courts and our Constitution, then no law would stand free from doubt, no judge would be sure of his writ and no citizen would be safe from his neighbors.

    These words were delivered to the Nation by President Kennedy on Sept. 30, 1962. The President made these remarks regarding one of the greatest moral questions we ever faced as a nation. That question was whether an American's skin color should void his ability to obtain equal justice under law. Fortunately for us, we answered that question the right way, beginning a successful fight for justice that forged the opinions of many in this room today.

    We face the same question today. President Kennedy's words are no less applicable now than they were then. Bill Clinton may not agree with sexual harassment laws, but he must follow them. Bill Clinton may be a prominent person, but that does not give him license to lie in court.

    We have a huge responsibility as a Nation. We can close our eyes. But when we open them, the problem will still be there, looming before us with a brooding darkness. We can answer this question the wrong way. And allow the President to hold his office with the knowledge that he has committed multiple felonies. Or, we can answer this question the right way. The only right answer to the question is to respond to presidential felonies with impeachment. Regardless of whether the President is ultimately removed by the Senate, we must take this step in the House, as directed by our Constitution, in order to establish a precedent that will prevent future Presidents from engaging in similar conduct.
 Page 302       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  


MEMORANDUM to: Bob Barr, Member, House Judiciary Committee

FROM: Jerome M. Zeifman, Former Chief Counsel, House Judiciary Committee (1973–1974)

DATE: November 18, 1998

SUBJECT: Memorandum of Law and Facts on Bribery as an Impeachable Offense


    As described in chapter 18 of my book, ''Without Honor: The Impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot,'' in the summer of 1974 the House Judiciary Committee reported out three articles of impeachment. As characterized by then-Committee member William Hungate, the drafting of the articles was ''[a] distillation of the thought of many members from many areas, and of differing philosophies.''

    As I also described in chapter 18, the actual drafting of the articles was done by two drafting teams of the members themselves. One team was comprised of Democrats, headed by Representative Jack Brooks of Texas and Don Edwards of California. The other was referred to in the press as the ''Swing Seven'' and was comprised of three conservative Democrats from the south, and three moderate Republicans. Although in my book I gave the members of both groups credit themselves as the draftsmen, Tom Mooney (your present General Counsel) was the drafting counsel for the Swing Seven, and I the drafting counsel for the Democrats.
 Page 303       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Tracking the language and format of the Nixon articles as closely as possible, I am submitting for your consideration the text of my recommendations for a proposed Article of Impeachment against President Clinton for bribery, which follows:


    In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, William J. Clinton has given or received bribes with respect to one or more of the following:

  (1) Approving, condoning, or acquiescing in the surreptitious payment of bribes for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of Webster Hubbell as a witness or potential witness in criminal proceedings;

  (2) Approving, condoning, or acquiescing in the use of political influence by Vernon Jordan in obtaining employment for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of Monica Lewinsky as a witness or potential witness in civil or criminal proceedings; and

  (3) Approving, condoning or acquiescence in the receipt of bribes in connection with the issuance of an executive order which had the effect of giving Indonesia a monopoly on the sale of certain types of coal.


 Page 304       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Currently, the federal bribery statute, section 201 of the Criminal Code (Title 18), reaches the giving, receiving or acceptance of anything of value for contemplated acts by public officials or witnesses in judicial or congressional proceedings as well as for acts already performed. The essence of the offense is the giving, solicitation or receipt of the bribe. The giving, solicitation or receipt may be accomplished through an intermediary who need not be a public official. Conspiracy to commit bribery may be a separate criminal offense (18 U.S.C. 371).

    The crime of bribery consists of the voluntary giving or receipt of benefits in corrupt attempts to influence the actions of public officials or testimony of witnesses. The crime is completed on the giving, solicitation or receipt of the bribe itself, and there need be no delivery of the ''quid pro quo'' in order to convict.

    Under section 201 it is not necessary to show the official or witness who gave, solicited or received the bribe possessed criminal intent. Under a series of Supreme Court decisions, to obtain a conviction, it is only necessary to show the official or his intermediary or the witness gave, solicited, received or agreed to receive something of value with knowledge that the donor was compensating him or her for an official act or for testimony (or, non-testimony) as a witness in a judicial or congressional proceeding.

    More recent decisions of the Supreme Court have imposed even stricter prohibitions on public officials than those in existence at the time of the Nixon impeachment inquiry. In its 1992 opinion, Evans v. United States, the Court interpreted section 1951 of the criminal code (the Hobbs Act), holding:

  Passive acceptance of a benefit by a public official is sufficient to form the basis of a Hobbs Act violation if the official knows that he is being offered the payment in exchange for a specific requested exercise of his official power. The official need not take any specific action to induce the offering of the benefit. [HE483]
 Page 305       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    In my view—based on several centuries of impeachment precedents which I analyzed and published as Chief Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment inquiry, as well as Supreme Court decisions relating both to bribery and the complicity of government officials in the abuse of political influence—there is now clearly sufficient evidence already on the public record to impeach President Clinton for giving and receiving bribes. My understanding of the facts already on the public record follows.


Bribery Involving Whitewater and Webster Hubbell

    When Bill Clinton first ran for President, Whitewater became a national political issue. On March 8, 1992 during the Democratic primary campaign, reporter Jeff Gerth of the New York Times revealed the Clintons had received improper loans and filed false income tax returns; claiming deductions for interest they had not paid. During the same period, referring to Bill Clinton as the ''scandal-a-week candidate,'' former California governor Jerry Brown made similar Whitewater-related charges.

    As was later learned by congressional investigators, to help the Clintons respond to inquiries from the press and charges from other candidates, Vincent Foster. Mrs. Clinton's then-law partner, who was soon to become Bernard Nussbaum's Deputy White House Counsel, assembled all the information he could on Whitewater. Webster Hubbell, who was then also Mrs. Clinton's law partner and Bill Clinton's closest friend, secretly removed the firm's only copies of files relating to Madison Guaranty as well other as Rose Law Firm clients for whom Mrs. Clinton performed legal services.
 Page 306       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The files, which were legally the property of the clients, were removed without the firm's consent and were later stored in Hubbell's Washington home after he was appointed Associate Attorney General. In addition, Hubbell and Foster were able to obtain computer print-outs of the Rose Law Firm's billing records relating to Hillary Clinton's representation of Madison Guaranty.

    The records were later subpoenaed by Independent Counsel Robert Fiske in early 1994, and by the Senate Whitewater Committee in October 1995. But they were no longer to be found. As was noted in the report of the Whitewater Committee: ''At every important turn crucial files and documents 'disappeared' or were withheld from scrutiny whenever questions were raised.'' [HE2 p. 40, 41]

    Among Hillary Clinton's billing records that ''disappeared'' were those relating to another questionable land deal and loan exchange scheme of McDougal's, known as Castle Grande. The project benefitted Webster Hubbell's father-in-law, Seth Ward. In 1988, bank regulators had charged Castle Grande was a ''sham'' that cost federal taxpayers $4 million. [HE2 pp. 40, 41]

    In 1992 and 1993 Hillary Clinton had denied she had done any legal work for McDougal or Madison. In April 1994 it was learned some of the Rose Law Firm Whitewater-related documents had been shredded. When asked by reporters what she knew about the shredding, Mrs. Clinton said: ''Nothing . . . [It] didn't happen, and I know nothing about any other such stories . . . Absolutely not.''

 Page 307       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    In May 1995, Mrs. Clinton provided federal investigators written responses under oath. She denied any knowledge of Castle Grande, stating she had ''no recollection'' of doing legal work for Seth Ward. [HE2 pp. 40, 41]

    In January 1996, the First Lady admitted in written answers to federal banking officials that in 1988—the year in which regulators first began investigating Castle Grande—she had ordered the shredding of three Castle Grande files, stating: ''It appears that I cooperated with this effort [to dispose of the files].''

    As for the files that had not been shredded, Hillary Clinton was eventually to state through her attorney she ''may have'' reviewed them during the 1992 campaign, but denied any knowledge of their whereabouts. Hubbell was later to testify he last saw the records during the 1992 presidential campaign in the possession of Vincent Foster.

    On July 17, 1993 Foster was found dead in Washington's Fort Marcy Park and had apparently committed suicide. On the same day in Little Rock, the FBI had obtained a warrant to search the office of David Hale as part of its investigation of Capital Management Services, the company through which Hale had loaned Susan McDougal $300,000 at the request of James McDougal and then-governor Clinton.

    Following the discovery of Foster's body, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum initially promised Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann and Justice Department investigators full access to the files in Foster's office. However, the First Lady insisted investigators be denied ''unfettered access'' to Foster's files. After talking to one of Hillary Clinton's closest advisers, Susan Thomases, Nussbaum reversed himself, reneged on his promise to the Justice Department, and began to impede the investigation.
 Page 308       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Request by the Justice Department and Park Police to seal-off Foster's office were ignored, giving White House aides an opportunity to remove some of Foster's files. Nussbaum also asserted he alone would first examine Foster's files and decide which documents to make available to Justice Department investigators. He also asserted as White House Counsel he would be present at interrogations of witnesses by the FBI and the police.

    Congressional investigators learned that after Nussbaum had initially searched Foster's brief case he had declared it empty. Later one of Nussbaum's aides purportedly searched the brief case and found torn-up pieces of a note by Foster expressing bitterness about his life in Washington. When Nussbaum met with investigators and produced an envelope containing the pieces of the note the pieces fell out of the envelope on to the floor.

    Nussbaum and the White House soon clashed with Deputy Attorney General Heymann, who later quietly resigned to return to a teaching position at the Harvard Law School. Later, in sworn testimony to the Senate Whitewater Committee Heymman said he had objected to Nussbaum's conduct and asked him. ''Bernie, are you hiding something?'' Heymann also testified that, because of the obstruction of the investigation, he warned the Clinton White House of a ''major disaster brewing.''

    Heymann had argued Nussbaum ''should not decide . . . alone'' which papers in Foster's office could be reviewed by authorities, and that ''White House lawyers should not sit in on interviews of witnesses.'' Explaining that ''the player with significant stakes in the process cannot be a referee.'' Heymann testified he was ''very angry and very adamant'' in telling Nussbaum that career Justice Department officials should review the documents.
 Page 309       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    As congressional investigators continued to probe events related to Foster's death, they learned that in 1993 to Clintons were aware of a pending criminal investigation of McDougal's Madison Bank by the Resolution Trust Corporation, a federal regulatory agency that named Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker as a target and the Clintons as witnesses to, and beneficiaries of, illegal actions. [3/roadmap]

    Foster was engaged in preparing responses to expected Whitewater questions. He was also given the responsibility for the preparation of the Clintons' tax returns for 1992 to reflect properly the sale of their shares in Whitewater.

    Congressional investigators were also able to obtain evidence that Nussbaum was not alone in searching Foster's unsealed office on the night of his death. Others included President Clinton's aide Patsy Thomasson, and Margaret Williams, Mrs. Clinton's Chief of Staff. Although each denied under oath they had removed any documents, Ms. Williams' testimony was contradicted by a Secret Service agent who testified he saw her leave Foster's office on the night of his death with a stack of thick file folders.

    Five days after Foster's death Nussbaum, without preparing an inventory, turned over a number of files to Ms. Williams who transferred them to the White House residence. In the ensuing effort to obtain the missing files, a number of subpoenas were issued by congressional committees and independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Under subpoena to produce her billing records relating to the Madison Bank, Mrs. Clinton stated through her personal counsel she ''may have'' seen them during the 1992 campaign but did not know their present whereabouts.

 Page 310       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    In August 1995 the missing billing records were eventually found by presidential aide Carolyn Huber, in the ''book room'' next to Mrs. Clinton's office in the White House residence. Mrs. Huber was later to testify she did not realize what they were until she looked at them again five months later in sorting out several boxes of documents in her office. It was not until January 1996—two years after they were first subpoenaed—that the billing records were turned over by personal counsel for the President and Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Clinton then denied knowing how the records got to the book room, where access was limited mostly to the Clintons and several selected friends.

    The billing records contain handwritten notes and questions to Mrs. Clinton from both Foster and Hubbell. They also contradict public statements and sworn testimony by Mrs. Clinton that she had done little or no legal work for Madison and had no knowledge of Castle Grande. The records show she billed Madison for at least 60 hours of legal services over 15 months, had numerous meeting, with Hubbell's father-in-law, Seth Ward, and talked with Ward on the phone at least 14 times.

    The complicity of Hillary Clinton, Nussbaum, and other aides to the President in the obstruction of the investigations of Whitewater by Congress and the independent counsel now has a sad irony. Twenty years earlier on the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry staff, both Hillary Rodham and Bernard Nussbaum were aware the role of Nixon's White House counsel, John Dean, in the cover-up of Watergate was a basis for charging Nixon with an impeachable offense.

    In 1972, following the arrest of Watergate burglar Howard Hunt and others, John Dean alone had personally examined the contents of Hunt's White House safe, and had sat in on the interrogation of witnesses by the Justice Department. For his acts, Dean was charged with the felony of obstructing justice and served a prison term. In 1993, as Dean's successor, Nussbaum similarly interposed himself between the Justice Department's investigation of the files in the White House office of Vincent Foster.
 Page 311       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    At the time of Watergate, Nussbaum and Hillary Rodham were aware that for his complicity in Dean's acts and those of other White House aides, President Nixon was charged with an impeachable offense by the House Judiciary Committee and named as an ''unindicted co-conspirator'' by Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski. They were also aware of the legal principles of complicity relied on both by the Judiciary Committee and by Watergate prosecutor Jaworski. Under those principles, if the President establishes a policy of obstructing investigations, he becomes accountable for the acts of his aides in the pursuit of that policy.

    Under the same principles, President Clinton now warrants impeachment for bribery; as well as for the cover-up of Whitewater by Bernard Nussbaum, Hillary Clinton, other White House aides, and the President's best friend, Webster Hubbell. As concluded in the 650-page final report of the Senate Whitewater Committee released on June 18, 1996:

  By the time of Vincent Foster's death in July 1993, the Clintons had established a pattern of concealing their involvement with Whitewater and the McDougals' Madison Guaranty S&L. The actions of senior White House officials and other close Clinton associates in the days and weeks following Mr. Foster's death . . . were but part of a pattern that began in 1988 of concealing, controlling and even destroying damaging information concerning the Whitewater real estate investment and the Clintons' ties to James and Susan McDougal and the Madison Savings and Loan. Indeed, at the time of Mr. Foster's death, the Clintons and their associates were aware that the Clintons' involvement with Whitewater land deal, the McDougals, and the Madison S&L might subject them to civil liability and even criminal investigation.

    In 1997, further evidence came to light that was also reminiscent of the Nixon impeachment proceedings. Based in part on the arrangement by White House aides of payments of ''hush money'' to Howard Hunt and other Watergate burglars, the first article of impeachment adopted by the Judiciary Committee at the time of Watergate, charged President Nixon with nine offenses, two of which included:
 Page 312       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

  Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses, or individuals who participated in . . . illegal activities; and

  Making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that . . . with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct.''

    Similarly, there is now compelling evidence that, after Webster Hubbell resigned as Associate Attorney General to face criminal charges of fraud, President Clinton also acted through White House aides to arrange payments of ''hush money'' to Mr. Hubbell. There is likewise persuasive evidence that to deceive the public, President Clinton has made false statements.

    Early in 1994, then-Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Fiske discovered Hubbell had overbilled his clients at the Rose law firm $482,410, and that he owed $143,437 in unpaid federal income taxes. [HE2 p. 24] Initially, it was reported that in the nine months between his resignation and his guilty plea, Hubbell received payments of $400,000, of which $100,000 came from the Riadys. Later, House investigators found evidence that Hubbell received $1 million or more, of which $300,000 came from the Riadys.

    When the first reports of the Riady payments to Hubbell appeared in the press in January 1997, President Clinton was asked at a White House news conference whether he found the Riady payment unusual or suspicious, and what steps he had taken to find out whether it had been hush money. His response was:
 Page 313       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

  I can't imagine who could have ever arranged to do something improper like that and no one around here knew about it. We did not know anything about it, and I can tell you categorically that did not happen. I knew nothing about it. None of us did before it happened. I didn't personally know anything about it until I read about it in the press.'' [HE2 pp. 26, 27; 3/roadmap]

    On April 3, 1997, again commenting on White House knowledge of payments to Hubbell, President Clinton stated:

  Let me remind you of the critical fact. At the time that it was done, no one had any idea about whether any—what the nature of the allegations were against Mr. Hubbell or whether they were true. Everybody thought there was some sort of billing dispute with his law firm. And that's all anybody knew about it. So no, I do not think they did anything improper.

    Several days afterwards, in a radio appearance Hillary Clinton stated that in resigning Hubbell had assured her and the President he had done nothing wrong, and that ''at the time we had no reason to disbelieve his denials of wrongdoing.'' Later, the public record was to include clear and convincing evidence the statements of the President and the First Lady were lies.

    It was later learned that after he resigned to face criminal charges Hubbell visited the White House on March 18, 1994. He had a private meeting with Hillary Clinton in the White House in July 1994. He also met at least 17 times with Associate White House Counsel William Kennedy, another former partner in the Rose Law Firm.
 Page 314       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    In the summer of 1994, Hubbell made at least two trips to Camp David to visit the Clintons and had a golf match with the President and Texas oil man Truman Arnold, who made a payment to Hubbell during that period. He also met frequently with Gerald Stern, who was then in charge of the division of the Justice Department responsible for prosecuting financial institution fraud, and who later told the Washington Post his meetings with Hubbell were ''strictly social.''

    By May 5, 1997, the evidence the President had lied about his knowledge of the payments to Hubbell was already so compelling the New York Times—which had long tended to defend the Clintons against charges of wrong doing—published an article by its editor, A.M. Rosenthal, stating:

  It [is now] impossible for me to believe it happened the way President Clinton and his wife said it had. I [have] rejected, for myself, the story . . . that neither they nor anybody else at the White House knew that when their good friend Webster L. Hubbell resigned as Associate Attorney General in 1994 he was facing the likelihood of criminal accusations that could land him in jail. They did.

  If the President did know, then after the resignation he opened himself to possible charges of obstructing justice by approving White House job-hunting for Mr. Hubbell. It would not take a particularly suspicious mind—let alone a prosecutor's—to see high-paying jobs as hush money to keep a defendant silent. Why would he take that risk?

  In [this] paper Jeff Gerth and Stephen Labaton of the New York Times Washington bureau reported that before Mr. Hubbell resigned, David E. Kendall, the personal lawyer of the Clintons, and James B. Blair, one of their closest Arkansas confidants, received certain information form the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock. . . . The information was that the firm had ''pretty strong proof of wrongdoing'' by Mr. Hubbell while he was a partner. The Times account said Mr. Blair then warned the Clintons that Mr. Hubbell had to resign, fast. Mr. Kendall was also involved in getting the resignation.
 Page 315       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

  Until the Times report, I found it hard to believe the Clintons would take the risk of an obstruction of justice charge, the accusation that led to Richard Nixon's resignation—and down the same road of stonewalling.

  And like most Americans. I think, I was and remain sick at the thought of the damage to the U.S. of the destruction in office of another Presidency.

    The facts cited in the New York Times article were but a small portion of the evidence of obstruction of justice and false statements by the President. Congressional investigators and reporters have also amassed other compelling evidence, much of which the White House has subsequently confirmed.

    The White House eventually acknowledge that a campaign to give employment to Hubbell while criminal charges were pending against him was mounted by: Thomas F. McLarty, then Mr. Clinton's chief of staff; Mickey Kantor, then the U.S. Trade Representative; Erskine B. Bowles, then head of the Small Business Administration; Vernon Jordan, a Washington lawyer and close friend of President Clinton; and Truman Arnold, a Texas business man who is also a long-time friend of the President.

    The White House also admitted that in March 1994, President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton met with their advisers to discuss Hubbell's legal troubles and impending resignation. In later describing the meeting McLarty stated he told Mrs. Clinton, ''I'm going to try and help Webb.'' He also stated he remembered ''saying something to the President to the same effect.''
 Page 316       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Investigators also discovered a written ''task list'' prepared by then-White House Special Counsel Jane Sherburne, assigning a team of government lawyers to ''monitor his [Hubbell's] cooperation with Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.'' It was also learned that after Hubbell's resignation Martha Scott, a White House aide and long time friend of President Clinton, kept in close touch with Hubbell. In addition, other White House aides closely monitored news reports and other available information relating to Hubbell's prosecution. By June 1994, Hubbell reportedly was cooperating with the prosecutors. However, in late June he changed his policy and began withholding Whitewater-related documents and personal financial records.

    During the same period in which Hubbell stopped cooperating, with the prosecutors James Riady had responded to a White House request to provide financial support for Hubbell. Secret Service records later obtained by investigators show he visited the White House every day from June 21st to June 25th, and saw President Clinton at least twice. On June 23rd, Riady had a breakfast meeting with Hubbell and then visited the White House. Later that day Hubbell and Riady then had a midday luncheon meeting at Washington's Hay-Adams Hotel.

    On Monday, June 27th, the first day of the new work week after Riady had visited Clinton, a Riady company, Hong Kong China Ltd., sent Hubbell $100,000. Hubbell had initially been expecting four quarterly installments of $25,000, but after Riady's meetings with Hubbell and the President, Riady decided to accelerate the payment into a lump sum.

    The next weekend, the Fourth of July holiday, the President and the First Lady went to Camp David and asked Hubbell to join them, as was later confirmed by the White House. According to Hubbell, ''The president asked me if I'd done something wrong, and I didn't tell him the truth.'' [AP] On Tuesday, July 5th, Hubbell wrote to one of Riady's top executives in Hong Kong, acknowledging the $100,000 he had received the previous week. [3/Hubbl5.nyt]
 Page 317       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    In December 1994, Hubbell pleaded guilty to fraud and tax charges. Although he had previously entered into a plea bargain agreement to cooperate with the Whitewater prosecutors, at his sentencing prosecutors took no steps to have his sentence reduced—presumably because of his lack of cooperation. Prosecutors have been reportedly frustrated by Hubbell's inability to recall transactions involving Mrs. Clinton's role as a lawyer with Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan. [3/roadmap]

    In the spring of 1995, a few months after his fraud conviction, at a dinner at Washington's Palm Restaurant, Hubbell and his wife asked Mark Middleton, a recently retired White House aide, whether the Riady family would be keeping him on its payroll even as he faced prison. According to Robert Luskin, Middleton's lawyer, Middleton told the Hubbells to take their question to the Riady family itself or to John Huang, who was then a trade official at the Commerce Department. It is not known whether Hubbell ever followed up on Middleton's suggestion.

    During the nine months between his resignation and his guilty plea, Hubbell received a total of more than $500,000 from a dozen enterprises, many of which were controlled by Clinton associates or major Democratic donors. In that period, White House chief of staff McLarty had talked to Truman Arnold, a leading fund-raiser for the DNC about hiring Hubbell. According to the New York Times. Arnold paid Hubbell an undisclosed sum to help arrange a dinner party for top fund-raiser. President Clinton attended the dinner.

    Arnold also helped persuade three other Texans to hire Hubbell: Bernard Rapoport, an insurance executive, who paid Hubbell $18,000; Wayne Reaud, a lawyer; and C.W. Conn Jr., an appliance store owner. [gerth] During the same period, Hubbell was also hired at a salary of $8,500 per month for five months to do lobbying work for the Los Angeles Airport Commission, a job that put him in frequent contact with another top White House aide, John Emerson. [gerth; HE2 p. 25]
 Page 318       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Hubbell was likewise employed by the Consumer Support and Education Fund, a nonprofit Los Angeles foundation that paid Hubbell $45,000 to write essays on the ethics of public service, which Hubbell never wrote. After the payments were disclosed, Hubbell returned the money. [HE2 p. 25]

    While he was still under indictment, the Sprint Corporation hired Hubbell in November 1994 at a salary of $15,000 per month to help win federal approval for a European venture. According to Sprint official Bill White, Hubbell was paid ''less than $90,000'' in total. At the same time, in possible violation of American Bar Association rules against conflicts of interest, Hubbell was also employed by Pacific Telesis, a competitor of Sprint, for undisclosed duties and compensation. [HE2 p. 25] The Time-Warner corporation likewise hired Hubbell.

    The Mid-America Dairymen Association—whose political action committee contributes heavily to Democratic candidates—also hired Hubbell for unknown duties and compensation. The association's spokesman, Dan Reuwee, has told the Los Angeles Times that it is ''nobody's business what we hired him for.'' In addition, Sun America, Inc., a California financial services company run by Eli Broad, a friend of President Clinton, paid Hubbell an undisclosed sum to help promote a national retirement savings policy. [HE2 pp. 25, 26]

    While under indictment Hubbell also received other benefits from other persons with close ties to the Clinton White House. [HE2 p. 25] Michael Cardozo, executive director of the Presidential Legal Expense Trust, arranged to provide Hubbell with office space and a receptionist. In addition, former U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor persuaded the Federal National Mortgage Association to hire Hubbell's son, Walter.
 Page 319       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    As was later confirmed by the White House, Clinton administration official Erskine Bowles contacted still another company, Allied Capital Corporation, to hire Hubbell. At the time of the contact, Bowles was head of the Small Business Administration, which licensed Allied and had regulatory authority over the company. In 1997, Bowles became White House Chief of Staff.

    Faced with incontrovertible evidence that administration officials had solicited payments to Hubbell from a number of companies regulated by the federal government, President Clinton abandoned his earlier denials of January 1997. By the Spring of 1997 he no longer denied ''categorically'' that they had been solicited by anyone at the White House; and no longer characterized such payments as ''improper.'' Instead, when asked again about the solicitation by his key aides of financial help for Hubbell the President's explanation became:

  From what I know about them, they were just—they were people who were genuinely concerned that there was a man who was out of work who had four children. And I understand it, they were trying to help him for no other reason than just out of human compassion. [Seper, WT, April]

    Even if President Clinton were correct that the solicitations by government official of payments to Hubbell were made out of compassion, such solicitations would nevertheless be improper. Since the persons and firms solicited were subject to regulation by the Clinton administration, each official had conflicts of interests, and participated in an unethical, if not criminal, act.

 Page 320       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    That the solicitation of payments to Hubbell were the culmination of prolonged White House efforts to conceal evidence relating to Whitewater, provides even more compelling reasons for the impeachment of President Clinton. After the death of Foster, Hubbell was singularly in possession of evidence of wrongdoing by the President and Mrs. Clinton dating back to Arkansas; some of which still remains concealed.

    Just as Congress and the public was never to learn all the facts related to Watergate, so too the cover-up of Whitewater by President Clinton and his key aides may well remain at least partially successful. Yet, as in the case of President Nixon, there is now more than sufficient evidence on the public record to sustain an article of impeachment against President Clinton for the obstruction of justice.

Bribery Involving Monica Lewinsky

    Based on the same legal authority described above, in my view the facts alleged in Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's referral to the Congress are substantial evidence that in approving acquiescing and condoning the use of political influence by Vernon Jordan to obtain employment for Ms. Lewinski, President Clinton has committed the impeachable offense of bribery as well as obstruction of justice.

Bribery of President Clinton by Asian Interests

    Of the more than $3 million of illegal or questionable campaign contributions that were refunded after the 1996 elections, most came from foreign donors with financial ties to Asian countries. There is compelling evidence on the public record of bribery with respect to a variety of policy decisions by the President which were influenced by campaign contributions. One example relates to contributions from the Riady family [2/lippo.lim], which was also involved in the payment of ''hush money'' to Webster Hubbell.
 Page 321       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Under the umbrella of the Lippo Group, the Riady family owns mining rights to Indonesian deposits of so called ''clean-burning coal.'' The Indonesian coal has sufficiently low sulfur content to meet strict environmental standards promulgated during the Clinton administration by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Indonesian deposits of environmentally safe coal are the second largest in the world.

    The world's largest deposits of such coal are in the United States. They are located in southern Utah, include more than 62 billion tons of coal, and are estimated to have a value of $1.2 trillion. On September 18, 1996, six weeks before the presidential election—under circumstances suggestive of influence by Riady—President Clinton signed an executive order converting 1.7 million acres in southwestern Utah that contain the coal into a park area the size of Connecticut. This was the ''Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument.''

    A few weeks after the signing of the executive order, a person inexplicably identified as an unemployed gardener, gave the Clinton campaign $400,000. It was not until the President's reelection that the Democratic National Committee promised to refund the money; after it was revealed it had come from Arief Wiriadinata and his wife Soraya, whose father is an executive of the Lippo Group. [verify, get dates, etc.]

    At a televised press conference in Utah six weeks before his election, President Clinton proclaimed the need to preserve the natural beauty of the remote area, describing it as a ''beautiful, exotic place.'' By election time the only published report suggesting the President's concerns might have been other than aesthetic appeared in an obscure mining newsletter, in which an unknown reporter, Susan Foster, wrote:
 Page 322       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

  With a stroke of his pen he wiped out the only significant competition to Indonesian coal interests in the world market.

    On election day 1996, the public was still unaware the President's order permanently prohibited the mining of the most high quality clean-burning coal in the world, and gave the Riady family's Indonesia-based Lippo Group a world-wide monopoly on the sale of such coal. It was not until after the President's re-election that an Associated Press reporter, Karen Gullo, was the first to break the story in the national media. In an article published December 26, 1996, Ms. Gullo noted that ''Jakarta-based Lippo corporation has business interests related to coal'' and that in signing the Executive Order in Utah the President ''dashed plans to tap a huge reserve of environmental-friendly coal.'' [3/coal.wt 3/coal2; 3/coal3]

    Subsequently, the public record became replete with evidence that the signing of the executive order by the President was influenced by the financial and political support of the Riady and the Lippo Group, which had previously contributed illegally more than $1.5 million to his campaign.

    Environmentalists and local residents of the area who had long urged protection for some lands in Utah dispute that the selection of the site specified in the executive order was to preserve ''a beautiful and exotic place.'' According to environmentalists, members of the Western States Coalition, and local residents, ordinary desert land with no significance or unique natural features was included in the order solely to prohibit mining of the coal deposits; while other important environmental sites that the local residents wanted protected were left outside the 1.7 million acre park. [3/coal2]
 Page 323       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The President's decision to issue the order was made without prior consultation with Utah Governor Michael Leavitt or any members of Utah's congressional delegation. It stunned Utah's lone congressional Democrat, Bill Orton, in whose district the clean-burning coal is found. It also came as a shock to Louise Liston, the commissioner from Escalante County, who asked:

  President Clinton has locked up a treasure house that could be used for our children and to boost our economy. Why he would want to do that: we don't know. Why would he put our nation at risk? [also HE 6/18/97 p. 5]

    The adverse effects of the executive order on the economy are multiple and staggering. It has been estimated that $20 billion in federal revenue from mining Utah coal will never be realized. The 62 billion tons of coal now locked permanently in the Utah desert land would provide enough environmentally safe coal to keep non-nuclear Utah power plants running for another 400 years. Coal mining, as a source of revenue and power for Utah, is virtually shut down and jobs that would have been available in coal mining no longer exist.

    Of particular concern to local educators and officials such as County Commissioner Liston, President Clinton's order cuts off major sources of revenues traditionally relied on to fund public education. When Utah was admitted to the Union, portions of the vast federal lands in the new state were placed permanently in trust to provide funds for education. In the words of County Commissioner Liston:

  When Utah became a state, under the enabling Act, the government allowed them four sections out of every township so that when they have all these federal lands, that school kids would not be left without some way of funding the schools. So they allowed those four sections out of every township to be trust lands.
 Page 324       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Particularly distressed by the effects of the executive order on local schools that could no longer obtain revenues from mining, County Commissioner Liston added:

  We're still kind of reeling from the effects of it, and sincerely feel like he has no idea what he has laid upon two counties in Southern Utah.

    President Clinton's general response to environmentalists and government officials who were shocked by his executive order ignored the unique nature of the environmentally safe coal at the Utah site. Giving the impression that similar coal was available elsewhere in the United States, he said:

  I am concerned about a large coal mine proposed for the area. Mining jobs are good jobs and mining is important to our national economy and to our national security. But we can't have mines everywhere and we shouldn't have mines that threaten our national treasures.

    Respecting the concerns of Commissioner Liston and educators in Utah on the adverse effect on local schools, President Clinton has promised to trade the school trust land within the monument with comparable land in other parts of Utah, stating:

  I will say again—creating this national monument should not and will not come at the expense of Utah's children.

That it is a promise he cannot keep, is indisputable. In that regard, the official who heads the project tasked with finding comparable land has stated:
 Page 325       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

  We can't find enough coal, in Utah, to compensate for the school trusts, and if we start adding oil and gas fields, other mineral deposits, we still have a tough time finding enough federal resources in the entire state of Utah to trade for just the school children's coal within the monument, let alone their other resources.

    In June 1997 the Schools and Institution Trust Lands Association of Utah, which manages the trust fund, filed a lawsuit against the Clinton administration charging the executive order is illegal. In a separate lawsuit the Utah Association of Counties has claimed the executive order exceeds the powers granted to the President under the 1906 Antiquities Act, which was first used by Theodore Roosevelt to set aside the Grand Canyon as a national monument. The lawsuit also charges President Clinton violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Land Management Policy Act, which require him to consult with state officials and obtain the approval of Congress; procedures he avoided. [HE 7/18/97 p. 5]

    That President Clinton may have simply made an unwise policy decision that has adverse economic effects on our economy is not, in itself an impeachable offense, even though Congress is not bound by the rules of evidence applied in the criminal courts. [See, Selected Materials, etc.] However, even if Congress were to comply with criminal rules of evidence, the fact that President Clinton signed the executive order under such questionable conditions is substantial circumstantial evidence that the Escalante National Monument is a ''quid pro quo'' related to the receipt of illegal canpaign contributions from the Riadys, the Lippo Group, and others with financial interests in Indonesia.

    More and more as President Clinton's fund-raising tactics have become exposed, he has asserted what is at best a political defense. He has blamed ''the system.'' Arguing that the election laws enacted after Watergate have created a corrupt system, some of the President's defenders now refer to campaign contributions as ''legalized bribery.'' [NY Times Editorial, 4/9/97]
 Page 326       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    To suggest even metaphorically that President Clinton could legally receive bribes, overstates the case for fund-raising reform and trivializes the meaning of the term ''Bribery'' in the Constitution, which holds the President to a much higher standard than those spelled out under the election laws. As an act punishable only by removal from office and not by a fine or imprisonment, the Impeachment Clause was intended by the Founding Fathers to make it much easier for Congress to impeach a President for bribery than to convict a public official of bribery as a felony.

Constitutional History

    In 1787 the Founding Fathers had compelling reasons, based on English precedents, for defining ''Bribery'' as a specific ''High Crime.'' For several centuries under the English common law, bribery was among the highest crimes against the state (as was Perjury). [R. Berger, Impeachment, p. 62 et seq. 1973] At the very time the U.S. Constitution was being drafted, impeachment charges brought by Edmund Burke against King George III's minister, Warren Hastings, for both giving and receiving bribes from political leaders in India were pending in the House of Lords. Our Founding Fathers who previously had their own grievances against George III, noted Burke was chastising Hastings for giving the King a reputation as ''head of a robber band.''

    Also in the minds of the Founding Fathers, and noted in Madison's journal of 1787, was the bribery of George III's predecessor. Madison wrote:

  One would suppose that the King of England would be well secured against bribery. He has as it were [the ownership of] a fee simple in the whole Kingdom. Yet Charles II was bribed by Louis XIV. [Selected Materials on Impeachment, 93rd Cong. Committee Print, House Judiciary Committee, pp. 6, 11]
 Page 327       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Recalling that Charles I and other earlier corrupt kings had been beheaded, Alexander Hamilton noted that, in imposing no more punishment than the removal from office, the Madison-drafted Impeachment Clause ''[s]ubstituted the gentle majesty of the law for the swift justice of the sword.''

    In his journal, Madison reiterated several times the concern of the founders, a future president might ''betray his trust'' through bribes. Explaining why Bribery as a High Crime had even more applicability to the President than to Members of Congress, he wrote:

  The case of the Executive Magistracy was very distinguishable from that of the Legislative . . . It could not be presumed that all or even a majority of an Assembly would be bribed to betray their trust . . . And if one or a few members only should be seduced the soundness of the remaining members would maintain the integrity and fidelity of the body . . . In the case of the Executive Magistracy which was to be administered by a single man, corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and might be fatal to the Republic.'' [Selected Materials on Impeachment, 93rd Cong. Committee Print, House Judiciary Committee, pp. 3–7]

    The constitutional standard for impeachment for Bribery as a ''High Crime,'' like all other ''High Crimes,'' does not require the commission of a felony; or proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Just as the standard imposed for Nixon's impeachment by the House Judiciary Committee was not based on the commission of a felony by the President himself, so too in 1989 the Committee relied on precedents that were more than 200 years old to bring impeachment charges for the High Crime of bribery against Judge Alcee Hastings, whose namesake, Warren Hastings, had been impeached for Bribery by Edmund Burke in the 18th century.
 Page 328       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    In 1983 Judge Hastings, who had been appointed by President Carter, was acquitted by a Florida jury of charges he had received a bribe of $150,000. In 1989, based on the same charges, he was impeached by the House, convicted by the Senate and removed from office.


    Just as the House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach President Nixon—and later Judge Hastings— for offenses that fell short of felonies, but which clearly involved evidence thereof, so too the current House of Representatives now has the authority to impeach President Clinton for Bribery as a High Crime without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, it can, again similar to criminal cases, do so based on logical inferences from compelling circumstantial evidence.

    Impeachment of a President is a civil remedy and not a criminal one. As exemplified by the impeachment of Judge Hastings—and even more dramatically by the successful case against O.J. Simpson—the evidentiary standard of proof in civil proceedings is much less stringent than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard applicable in our criminal courts. In the case of President Clinton, in constitutional terms, there is substantial evidence that he should be impeached for ''Bribery'' and ''other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.''

    Mr. BARR. I would respectfully ask that you do take a look at it, because Mr. Zeifman raises a very interesting question, and that is something also that you touched on in your written testimony, and that is bribery.

 Page 329       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Under 18 USC 201, which you are 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, and 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 shave 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?

    Mr. 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 am not making an off-the-cuff statement, notwithstanding my familiarity with the statute, in light of the various elements of the offense—or 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.

    Mr. BARR. And this would also go to the——

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.

    Mr. Delahunt.

 Page 330       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Starr, you consider yourself a prosecutor now, don't you? You don't consider yourself an Independent Counsel?

    Mr. STARR. Um, I have never prosecuted——

    Mr. DELAHUNT. No, but I am saying in your current capacity, you consider yourself a prosecutor.

    Mr. STARR. We have to—that is certainly an important dimension of——

    Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you. I want to get to another question, and you can see how the time is so limited, and I will try to be brief.

    I think it was Mr. Canady who talked about due process, 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, and I think it is 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—and you have referenced them many times today—career prosecutors in your office. 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?

 Page 331       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STARR. Absolutely. Cross examination is very important.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. One other reference, I think it was my friend from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, who referred to Judge Claiborne being removed from office because of—and I think it was the chairman himself who elucidated for us, it was as a result of filing an income tax return under the pains and penalties of perjury, 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 the laws and articles of impeachment presented before the committee regarding allegations against President Nixon concerning the very same offense, signing a tax return under the pains and penalties of perjury, it was this committee back then that voted against an article of impeachment on that particular matter. I think it is really important that the American people understand that.

    So there was a difference. There was a difference.

    I am just going to ask you one or two questions here, 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 the Brill report.

    Mr. STARR. Yes.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. And on page 7 of your letter you noted that the Brill report stated, and I am 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.
 Page 332       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    In response, your letter went on to state, and I am 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 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 particularly before you put such an unequivocal statement in writing. Do you stand by that statement?

    Mr. STARR. The specific statement on the wiring with respect to the President and Mr. Jordan?

    Mr. DELAHUNT. The statement that I just read to you. This office never had——

    Mr. STARR. Yes. I don't have the letter before me, and I am trying to follow it.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me read it to you again, and I will read it slowly. ''This office never asked Ms. Lewinsky to agree to wire herself for a conversation with Mr. Jordan or the President.''

    Mr. STARR. Right. Yes.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. You stand by that statement?

 Page 333       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STARR. May I elaborate? Yes. What we—may I—these are serious questions, if I could——

    Mr. HYDE. You can try, Judge Starr. It is going to be tough. You can try to answer.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. If I could just go on, because——

    Mr. CANADY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the witness should be allowed to answer the questions. This drive-by questioning is not right.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. I would ask the chairman to allow me to continue.

    Mr. HYDE. Well, elementary fairness dictates an opportunity for the witness to answer your complex questions, and I think if you want to be fair, you will let him answer.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. I will be fair then, and I would ask the Chair to indulge me again——

    Mr. HYDE. I will indulge you for the answer.

    Mr. STARR. We explained to her at the Ritz Carlton what a cooperating witness would do. It is my understanding—I was not personally there, but it is my understanding that it was stated at a high level of generality with respect to what cooperating witnesses could be asked to do, and that 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.
 Page 334       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. DELAHUNT. So the statement in your letter to Mr. Brill is inaccurate?

    Mr. STARR. No. It went with respect to the—and that is why I want 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.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. You realize that Ms. Lewinsky's testimony contradicts you.

    Mr. STARR. I am aware that there may be other perceptions, but that is what we, in fact, asked—it is 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.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.

    The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Jenkins.

    Mr. 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 at a very difficult task.
 Page 335       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. Thank you.

    Mr. JENKINS. For the most part, I would compliment this committee insofar as they have talked about and asked about the Constitution, the law, the facts, and the testimony that surrounds 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, and so I would like to go back to a line of questioning that Mr. Inglis started.

    On page 5 and paragraph 9 of your statement, you said that the President made false statements under oath to a grand jury on August the 17, 1998. As I understood the gentleman's testimony, Senator-elect Schumer agreed with that statement. And 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 reasonable juror, could find these statements to be material matter under the statute.

    Now, I would like to read a statute. It is Title XVIII, section 1621, and I would like to ask you if it is pertinent to this case, and an additional question or two.

    It reads in 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.''
 Page 336       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Now, I know it is not your role to determine if a violation of that statute 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 statute?

    Mr. 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 be based on the evidence that is here, if that were the full body of evidence, that reasonable jurors could so conclude.

    Mr. JENKINS. And I understand that we are the reasonable jurors to make that determination in this case.

    Mr. STARR. It is your judgment.

    Mr. JENKINS. Or at least eventually in the United States Senate that decision is to be made.

    Now, there has been some mention 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?

    Mr. STARR. Some, but not all.
 Page 337       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. JENKINS. Did you hear the characterization on the other side that very few felt that perjury is an impeachable offense?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, I did hear that.

    Mr. JENKINS. I personally heard differently when I heard those 19 witnesses. My recollection is that an overwhelming majority of them testified that perjury can be, or is, an impeachable offense. Was that your understanding from the testimony that they gave?

    Mr. STARR. Well, I did not—I am not sure. The testimony will speak for itself, but I certainly know 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, as in his studies at the University of London, that that was, in fact, clear in common law—which, of course, was transplanted to this country. But I did not have a chance to evaluate all of the 19 individuals.

    Mr. JENKINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Wexler.

    Mr. 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; that 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.
 Page 338       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    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 5 years and $40 million of taxpayers' money.

    The American people do not approve, Mr. Starr. They know unfairness when they see it. They know injustice 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 is 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 did 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, Mr. Starr, 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.
 Page 339       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    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. Have your agents—did your agents threaten Ms. Lewinsky with 27 years in prison?

    Mr. 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 then I would then give you a written admission or denial.

    Mr. WEXLER. May I make it simple?

    Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry, please.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman will state his inquiry.

    Mr. WEXLER. I assume it is not on my time.

 Page 340       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HYDE. Your time has almost expired, but I will give you another minute.

    Mr. ROGAN. It is with respect to the procedures. Perhaps it is only me, but I am finding it very difficult to follow with this pattern of multiple questions being asked, and then inviting multiple answers at once. The answers ought to be in sync with the question, and I would suggest that the better practice would be to follow ''question, answer, question, answer.''

    Mr. FRANK. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. That is not a parliamentary inquiry.

    Mr. HYDE. The Chair states that that is not a
parliamentary inquiry.

    A member who has 5 minutes can ask or assert whatever they want. It is curious that they all use the 5 minutes, we have 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.

    Mr. STARR. Three of the questions went—and if you ask me in writing, I will be happy to follow up. 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 that determination has been made. These issues get litigated in court, and I think, 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.
 Page 341       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    With respect to your fourth question—and that is my response with respect to those.

    With respect to the fourth question on Ms. Steele, as I said earlier, 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 a particular witness is 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 say they have 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 ones and come to an ultimate


    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.

    Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, you had indicated that I could have a minute before the other gentleman from California.

    Mr. HYDE. Well, don't you consider the time to answer your questions part of your time?

    Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I sat very diligently—I ask for 15 seconds.
 Page 342       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. WATERS. It has been this way all day.

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Wexler, you may have 15 seconds.

    Mr. 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 was a factual question. Did your agents or did they not threaten Ms. Lewinsky with 27 years in prison? It is either yes or no, not the legality.

    Mr. STARR. I do not—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.

    Mr. FRANK. The answer was yes.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman from Arkansas.

    Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Judge Starr, 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?

    Mr. STARR. Well, it was put in terms of a right to counsel, and there apparently are issues with respect to the orders. I am 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 is my best recollection. But the order will speak for itself.
 Page 343       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. HUTCHINSON. I want to thank you for your willingness to appear here today. Going back to earlier in the day when we had the dispute over how much time, I do hope the President's counsel will have equal time to make a presentation similar to what you have done today, and I trust that the President's counsel will graciously submit to questions by the Members of this body, as you have done.

    I wanted to go back to your testimony. On page 34 you testified that 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. Would it be within your jurisdiction to pursue any criminal conduct for perjury or obstruction of justice?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, Congressman, I believe that under the grant by the Attorney General in the Special Division, there would be jurisdiction in our office.

    Mr. HUTCHINSON. In deciding to refer these charges to the Congress of United States as substantial and credible evidence that obstruction of justice and perjury occurred, I assume that there was consideration in your office as to whether criminal proceedings should be initiated?

    Mr. STARR. That is exactly correct.

    Mr. HUTCHINSON. You have to make a determination whether that can be done during the President's term of office or after he leaves office.

 Page 344       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STARR. That will certainly be an issue.

    Mr. HUTCHINSON. Do you have an opinion in that regard?

    If you feel uncomfortable answering that, feel free to say so.

    Mr. STARR. I feel uncomfortable answering that. I think it is an 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.

    Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, the point I am making is that everybody says that the country wants to get this behind us. And how do you get it behind us? We have had a gentleman from the other side of the aisle say that the President committed perjury, and he ought to be punished. Now, I haven't reached that conclusion yet, but if you reach the conclusion that he ought to be punished, and you don't believe this is an impeachable offense, that means that the only option is for the Independent Counsel to initiate criminal prosecution against the President of the United States, and I don't see how that gets it behind us. I think that is a heavy issue that I know you have to weigh, as well this committee has to weigh.

    Now, let me just go on to some other questions here. In your referral, you referred on pages 7, 8 and 9 to a pattern of conduct, and that was really the basis on which 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?

 Page 345       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STARR. That is correct.

    Mr. HUTCHINSON. Then in your testimony today at page 45, you indicate that in June of 1994 $100,000 was paid to Webster Hubbell from James Riady. James Riady is represented in this country, by John Huang.

    There has been published reports that John Huang is a cooperating witness. 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. In terms of the relevancy of a witness at this stage, and in light of, you know, our coming to judgment, which we reached after a lot of deliberation, we did not include him in the referral. So I would be happy to answer that.

    Mr. HUTCHINSON. Do we have all the material at the present time that is relevant to this referral and the pattern of conduct on which you based your jurisdiction?

    Mr. STARR. I believe that you do. I know there are still some issues, but I believe that you do, Congressman.

    Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think it is 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 to that end, but I would certainly urge you to get everything over to us.
 Page 346       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    And out of respect for the Chair, I will stop.

    Mr. HYDE. I love you, Mr. Hutchinson.

    The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rothman.

    Mr. 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 or 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.''

    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 contexts that might have exonerated the President, or shown the uncertainty and ambiguity of the evidence against the President.
 Page 347       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    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.''

    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 believe you also failed the American people and this committee by omitting or misrepresenting the following facts that would have been favorable to the President, including that Betty Currie testified that taking back the President's gifts was her idea; that discussions about a job for Miss Lewinsky were made more than 5 months before Miss 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; and that both Miss Lewinsky and the President have said that the President never asked her to submit a false affidavit.

    Mr. Starr, you are, as you have said, an eyewitness to nothing relevant to your referral. You have heard nothing firsthand. You saw nothing firsthand. You have no direct knowledge of any facts relevant to your case for impeachment. You have simply provided us with a one-sided 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.
 Page 348       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    What motives have driven you to pursue certain evidence only, to characterize that evidence, in my opinion, in a skewed way, and to make a 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.

    Mr. Chairman, may I have 30 seconds, please?

    Mr. HYDE. Thirty seconds more, surely.

    Mr. 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 or 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.
 Page 349       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman.

    Do you choose to respond? You are welcome to.

    Mr. STARR. Well, let me say this, and I will be, I think, for me, extremely brief.

    I believe, Congressman, this is elaborately corroborated. 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 you.

    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 this referral Miss Lewinsky has stated that the President never explicitly told her to lie, and to tell the entire story, not just 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 is the entirety of the relevant story, and we provided you with all of the additional information for you to evaluate.

 Page 350       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pease.

    Mr. PEASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Starr, it has 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.''

    I would appreciate your comment on that quote and whether that assertion of a privilege affected your pursuit of the facts in this matter.

    Mr. STARR. Yes. It is my understanding that there was, in fact, an embracing of the asserted privilege; and, yes, in 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; 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 as a constitutional privilege to 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.
 Page 351       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. PEASE. Thank you, Mr. Starr.

    Earlier today, I believe it was my colleague from Tennessee who pointed out that in the case of the grand jury testimony, your referral 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?

    Mr. STARR. Yes. I tried to do this in the opening statement. Considering, for example, the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, their activities 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 outlined in the opening statement 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.

    Mr. 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 that we didn't go into, our colleague from California raised the whole issue of credibility of witnesses as you drew your conclusions that were sent to us. But I would like to address, at least for a few moments, the issue of the credibility of Miss 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?
 Page 352       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. 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. So you look at other evidence and ask if the evidence corroborates it.

    Her evidence was very powerful and indeed we thought compelling, as I tried to mention earlier. When she could say that when 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 Fanjul, it was very close, including the time, so we would check telephone records and the like, and movement logs. 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 a witness statement alone. You look to see what other evidence, if any, there is to corroborate, and here there was overwhelming evidence to corroborate.

    Mr. PEASE. Thank you, Mr. Starr.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett.

    Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Page 353       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. Starr, I believe President Clinton's actions were wrong.

    Mr. STARR. I beg your pardon?

    Mr. 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 am going to ask you a series of questions, most of which have been asked by Mr. Lowell and to which you have given longer answers, 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 am 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's lawsuit should be allowed to go forward. Is that correct?

    Mr. STARR. I—the implicit—the answer to that is yes.

    Mr. BARRETT. It is an easy question, Mr. Starr.

    Mr. STARR. I think the answer to that is yes.

    Mr. BARRETT. In fact, you even had several conversations with Gilbert Davis, Paula Jones' attorney, and discussed constitutional issues in this case, correct?
 Page 354       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. That is correct.

    Mr. BARRETT. Let's fast-forward to this hearing. Your office entered into a written immunity agreement with Monica Lewinsky; is that correct?

    Mr. STARR. That is correct.

    Mr. 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?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, that is correct.

    Mr. BARRETT. And your office also provided an immunity letter to Linda Tripp; is that correct?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, that is correct.

    Mr. BARRETT. But Linda Tripp's immunity letter had no secrecy provisions, did it?

    Mr. STARR. I believe that is correct. I have not—Congressman, may I be permitted to say just a word?

 Page 355       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. BARRETT. Yes.

    Mr. STARR. I have not reviewed the Linda Tripp letter in advance of this, but it is my understanding that it does not contain this. But that is my—that is my understanding, and that is my best recollection.

    Mr. BARRETT. I will read it: 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 . . . 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 is the essence of the letter.

    So nothing in this immunity letter prohibited Linda Tripp from talking to the media; is that correct?

    Mr. STARR. Again, that is correct, but if I can say just a word.

    Mr. BARRETT. I think you have answered it. I just want to get through my questions, and I think you have answered it.

    Mr. STARR. But I need to get through my answer, and I simply need to say one sentence. This was a different kind of immunity than the immunity granted to Monica Lewinsky.
 Page 356       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. BARRETT. I understand. You explained that to Mr. Lowell.

    Mr. STARR. Yes. I am sorry.

    Mr. BARRETT. Now, on January 13, 1998, your office sent Linda Tripp, wired for sound, to meet with Monica Lewinsky at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel; is that correct?

    Mr. STARR. That is correct.

    Mr. 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?

    Mr. STARR. I believe the timing of that is correct.

    Mr. 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?

    Mr. 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.

    Mr. 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?
 Page 357       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. That is correct, and we then made it clear, when it was evident that the—I am sorry.

    Mr. BARRETT. I am talking about the written agreement now. And on the eve of the President's deposition in the Jones suit, Linda Tripp met with Miss Jones's lawyers; is that correct?

    Mr. STARR. That is my understanding now. It was not our understanding or information at that time.

    Mr. 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's attorneys. That is correct?

    Mr. STARR. Well, I would——

    Mr. BARRETT. I am not asking whether you liked it or you approved of it. I am just asking factually whether that is true.

    Mr. STARR. 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.

    Mr. BARRETT. I am asking whether it is true whether she had acted as an agent for you that day, and whether she met with Paula Jones's attorney that night.
 Page 358       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. She had acted as a cooperating witness.

    Mr. BARRETT. Fine, as a cooperating witness.

    Mr. STARR. Well, she was acting in collaboration with us, and if I could be permitted to answer that.

    Mr. BARRETT. Let me just finish.

    Mr. STARR. Okay.

    Mr. BARRETT. I would ask the chairman to give you 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.

    Mr. STARR. Again, the purpose of the immunity agreement was different, and you are right.

    Mr. BARRETT. Okay. I just want to know that.

    Mr. STARR. There was nothing in the immunity agreement because of the very nature.
 Page 359       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. BARRETT. 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, her attorney, responded, and this is from Time Magazine, ''I think this will come to light shortly, and you will understand.''

    Now, what this tells me, Mr. Starr, is that we start out, and 4 years earlier you have shown 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's attorneys. That is why this country feels as it does.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman's time is up. The witness may answer.

    Mr. 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 9 to 0. That suggests that the——
 Page 360       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. BARRETT. I don't quarrel with that at all. Just so you understand, I don't quarrel with that at all.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman is answering.

    Mr. 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 give all information that is available to you, and ask questions. And my involvement in 1994 had been very public, and indeed I had been on various news programs espousing that very position.

    Mr. BARRETT. Again, Mr. Starr, I don't think——

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.

    Mr. 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.

    Mr. STARR. Thank you.
 Page 361       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. CANNON. Your name has been slandered around the country for a year and more, and there have been many factual bases for that slander. We have gone now through, I think, some of the best and brightest—allegedly slander, I should say—of the people in Congress, many of whom have participated in that, and what I would call the President's prodefamation league. And you know what, they have whiffed today. They have gotten nothing. Your answers have been so good that I don't think they have found even colorable impropriety on your part. The answers that you have given being relatively difficult for them, it is easy to see what they have reverted to.

    We have had a series of repeated unsubstantiated and frankly embarrassing bombast directed at you with great intensity, and 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 in that to say that the false statements made in the Paula Jones deposition were, in fact, material, and that any argument that they weren't material is bogus?
 Page 362       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. Yes. I wasn't sure, and you will forgive me, 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.

    Mr. CANNON. That is in the context of a civil action.

    Mr. STARR. Yes, and that is in the context of a civil action. I am sorry.

    Mr. 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, however, 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?

    Mr. 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.
 Page 363       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    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.

    Mr. CANNON. 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?

    Mr. STARR. There was an invocation of executive privilege early on, and we believe—with respect to conversations with Vernon Jordan. They were withdrawn. 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 have 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.

    Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Starr. I think that 1998 is going to be the year of McGwire, Sosa and Starr.

    I yield back.
 Page 364       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. HYDE. Thank you very much.

    The gentleman from California, Mr. Rogan.

    Mr. ROGAN. My colleagues' characterization may be right. I just hate to guess what type of hall of fame you may end up in when this is all over, Judge Starr, but I do thank you for your staying power today and for joining us.

    I was particularly interested in the grave concern that has been repeatedly expressed by my colleagues across the aisle respecting your office's initial interview with Monica Lewinsky. I have been sitting here listening for several hours to the vigorous cross-examination that you have endured by those who are professing a desire to ensure that Monica Lewinsky was neither inconvenienced or intimidated by your office during your interview with her.

    I would note that if your office did violate any of her procedural due rights, there are legal remedies that she would enjoy to protect her from any legal liabilities or criminal liability.

    Mr. STARR. Yes. And could I just add one thing, Congressman, because this has arisen so frequently, that one of the reasons, in terms of reliability, whatever one thinks with respect to our activities on the evening of January 16th, not one piece of evidence in this referral relates to or depends upon what happened, because she chose at that time not to be a cooperating witness.

 Page 365       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Nothing in this referral is affected by the events at the Ritz-Carlton. So it is ultimately a very interesting academic question that embodies more a ''what can we attack the prosecutor?'' with than anything else. But ultimately, even the attacks on the prosecutor and the investigation are utterly without merit.

    Mr. ROGAN. Judge, I want to take this——

    Mr. STARR. Yes, excuse me.

    Mr. ROGAN. And I hate to interrupt, but my time is limited. I want to take this bipartisan concern over the potential victimization of Monica Lewinsky to the next step. Looking at the evidence, as Ms. Lewinsky testified to, that the President suggested she could sign an affidavit and use under oath deceptive cover stories. If, in fact, the President convinced Monica Lewinsky to engage in this pattern of conduct, what are the legal liabilities that Monica Lewinsky would face if this were uncovered and she were convicted?

    Mr. STARR. She would be facing possible criminal charges, at a minimum, for perjury, and additionally possibly subornation of perjury, and the penalty with respect to perjury alone is 5 years imprisonment maximum.

    Mr. ROGAN. This goes beyond mere inconvenience in an interrogation. You are talking about incarceration for up to 5 years? Is there a potential fine that is involved? Could she lose her voting rights in her home State? Are there other severe penalties that she could face?

 Page 366       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STARR. Yes, all those can flow. Fines can be imposed, and the sentencing guidelines guide this, and yes, there could be a loss of voting rights in her home State of California.

    Mr. ROGAN. And I raise that, Mr. Chairman, and Judge Starr, because as much as I appreciate my colleagues on the other side rising up in indignation over the bare suggestion that Ms. Lewinsky was incommoded or intimidated during your interview, I am absolutely dumbfounded by their heretofore silence on the very real and very permanent threat to her liberty and her rights as a citizen if her characterization of President Clinton's conduct is true. And I hope that will be addressed perhaps by the President's attorney when he joins us in a few minutes.

    Moving to the President's deposition in Jones v. Clinton, when he said ''I don't recall'' if he had ever given any gifts to Monica Lewinsky, and when he said ''I have no specific recollection'' of ever being alone in any room of the White House. Looking at those two sorts of answers, ''I don't recall,'' and ''I have no specific recollection'': what is the legal significance in a deposition or in a trial for a witness who swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to give an answer such as, ''I don't recall, or, ''I have no recollection,'' when, in fact, they do recall and they do have a recollection?

    Mr. STARR. That can be proven up to be perjury. That is to say, you have to give under the oath the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and if one does recall but says one does not; that may be a difficult issue, but one then looks to the circumstantial evidence. Is it likely that one would recall being in this room at some time in 1998? It is likely that one would recall that, especially if one is asked that in 5 weeks?
 Page 367       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    So what were the circumstances? And, yes, the circumstances were such that a reasonable human being, given our common human experience, would recall, and, yes, individuals have been prosecuted for the inability to recall that which is viewed as so straining credulity as simply to be a lie.

    Mr. ROGAN. The mark of a freshman Congressman is they always stop talking, Mr. Chairman, when their time really is up. I hope to maintain that philosophy during my sophomore year with this committee.

    Mr. HYDE. Very well.

    The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman.

    Mr. 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?

    Mr. STARR. No, we did not ask the grand jury to review the referral. We briefed them on our obligations. It was our view of the statute, it is our reading of the statute, that it is the judgment of our office.

    Mr. BERMAN. I understand the statute in no way obligates that.

 Page 368       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STARR. Yes.

    Mr. BERMAN. 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?

    Mr. STARR. No. We did not ask the grand jury to make specific judgments on specific witnesses. These were our assessments. These were our evaluations.

    Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Lindsey Graham.

    Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    If you can handle a couple more, we are about at the end here.

    One thing I have learned, Judge Starr, about impeachment, it is becoming more and more clear to me, I asked a question before to myself, really, is this Watergate or Peyton Place? And I learned that I dated myself because no one in my office knew what Peyton Place was about. So it should have been Melrose Place, I suppose.

    But one thing I have learned is without—we can talk academically and legalistically about crimes and punishment, but without public outrage, impeachment is a very difficult thing, and I think that is an essential component of impeachment. I think that is something that the Founding Fathers probably envisioned.
 Page 369       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    But the most bizarre thing to me, and it is odd times in which we live, that the public outrage is directed at you and not at the person who has allegedly done all of these things. Let me talk about that person for a second.

    Is it Watergate or Peyton Place? I can remember Watergate pretty well because I was in high school. And as I looked through this, you have got Mr. Hubbell, who is about to come testify or offer evidence to the government. Then you have a cast of characters on behalf of the President, maybe on his behalf. I don't know if it was on his behalf or not, but there are certainly acquaintances of the President, friends, donors and benefactors, who drop about $550,000 on this guy to do business for them, and he is getting ready to go to jail. The last time I checked, when you are getting ready to go to jail, marketability goes down.

    So I find it very difficult for me to sit here and believe that that amount of money going to that man at that time wasn't an orchestrated effort by somebody to get him to shut up to avoid one of the messes that the Clintons have created because a land deal went bad. But you are telling me you can't lay that at the feet of the President, so I am going to be stuck with that.

    We have now evidence about Kathleen Willey, a lady who says that she went to the President when times were bad to ask for a job, and something bad happened. And whether she is telling the truth or the President is telling the truth, I don't know, but if she is telling the truth, that tells me a lot about William Jefferson Clinton.

    Now you give me some information that an individual close to the President asked her to come down to his place, and now he takes the fifth amendment about what he did with her.
 Page 370       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    We have files turning up in the White House that you have been looking for a couple of years, that nobody can find, and a copy of them are in the loft of a dead guy, and you are telling me you can't lay this at the feet of the President.

    Now we will go to what—I think that is Watergate stuff—the Dick Morris secret police unit, from Bruce Lindsey and other people who have been loyal to the President and some private investigators, if you don't like Linda Tripp—and I can understand that. There are some people over there you shouldn't like either. The more you know about them, the less you will like. But this is not about liking anybody. This is about the law.

    As much as I dislike the President politically, and as much as I wonder about who he is and what kind of people represent him, we are going to play it straight. And we are going to play it straight, folks.

    If I bring you two perjurers, does it matter if one confessed and the one put the State through the pain and expense of a trial and punishment? Does that matter, Judge Starr, as a judge? Don't you take that into consideration?

    Mr. STARR. I certainly think it is a relevant consideration, whether someone accepts responsibility or else, you know, as some pundit put it, ''It is the 7 months, stupid.''

    Mr. GRAHAM. The point I am trying to make——

 Page 371       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STARR. And I did not mean to direct that, but I was just quoting the pundit. That it was what—it is what the Nation was put through.

    Mr. HYDE. I think we heard you right, Judge Starr. That inflection was important.

    Mr. STARR. That is what the Nation was put through.

    Mr. GRAHAM. I have heard a lot from pundits, and I would rather try to focus on the facts, to be honest with you.

    The point I am trying to make is that the law that you cherish and I cherish, and I think we all love, allows for you to treat people differently based on what they lied about. That is not a bad thing to talk about. Every perjurer doesn't get the same punishment. That is a concept that we are going to have to deal with here.

    Without public outrage, impeachment is hard to do, and it should be hard to do. And the truth of the matter is, Judge Starr, we may never get public outrage on behalf of what the President did because some of the things that are Watergate-like we can't lay at the feet of the President. But what he did do is he lied through his teeth in a civil deposition, and I am going to disagree with you about the legal effect.

    When the judge ruled that his deposition was not admissible, I have a problem with materiality in terms of perjury, and I am going to disagree with you, and I am going to stick by my word for the last 2 months. I am not going to consider that an impeachable offense because I don't think legally you would probably get prosecuted for that, or you would have a heck of a hard time once the case was dismissed and your testimony was deemed inadmissible. And I may be wrong, but I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt.
 Page 372       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    But I am telling you right now, it is Peyton Place what we are left with, but the cover-up Peyton Place has gone to the point that I no longer can ignore it and feel good about it because I believe the President of the United States went into a grand jury, in front of your grand jurors, took an oath, and 6 and 7 months after this whole affair started, after being begged by everybody in this country to come clean, lied again.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired.

    The gentlelady from California, Mrs. Bono.

    Mrs. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I actually want to share something with you first as your newest Member. When I first came to this committee, I told my colleagues that I don't understand the rules yet, the 5-minute rules and the etiquette. I asked my colleagues for help. They all yelled back at me, ''Don't worry; we don't understand it either.'' I was thinking when I get my orientation on the rules, maybe we can all sit down and learn the rules.

    I just want to say to Judge Starr that it has been an extremely enlightening day for me. Up until now, basically, your persona has been one of a character out of Ground Hog Day, if you will. Where you have been the same person day in and day out to all of us. Where you have walked from your house to a car, smiled, and got in. That is all that we have known of you.

 Page 373       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I think that it is nice to see that behind that image there is a human; behind the spin that there is a human. I also want to say that what has been most interesting to me today is to watch all of these lawyers attacking other lawyers for what it is lawyers do, whatever it is.

    I have to say also I think you have been the victim of a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking into your investigation. None of that changes the facts. None of that changes the truth, and the election on November 4th also did not change the facts. It did not change the truth.

    I must say that you have proven yourself to me today to be a fair, competent, meticulous and thorough person that Attorney General Janet Reno knew you to be when she appointed you.

    Mr. STARR. Thank you.

    Mrs. BONO. You know, some criticized you that you boast about all of your wins. I think you should boast, because I think you do what you do very well. I think far be it from anybody in this town to criticize somebody for boasting about their record.

    I do have a question for you. Judge Starr, you and your family have been subjected to an enormous amount of personal persecution during your tenure as an independent counsel, particularly over the last year. What motivates you to keep going forward? Do you have this bone to pick with the President or this personal vendetta? Do you hold personal animosity toward him and has that affected the job you have done?
 Page 374       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. Well, I thank you for that question. And I hold no animosity, and I would love to be back in private life. I received questions today with respect to, well, didn't you accept a deanship at Pepperdine, and look who made a contribution.

    So, you are right, I would prefer to be almost your constituent, a little bit farther west. I would like to be—and I even looked at a house in Malibu Country Estates. That is where I would like to be. I would like to be living my life with my family, and I tried to do that because I had a view that I could, in fact, lay down the mantle long before Monica Lewinsky ever walked into the Nation's life, and pass the mantle on to someone else because of what I had tried to create. And I have talked about it today, which is that this Office of Independent Counsel should, in fact, reflect the experience and practice of the Justice Department.

    I love the Justice Department. I served there two times, and I loved every moment that I was there, even during the rough times, and there were plenty of those, because it is a great department. And so I tried to create the Department of Justice and frankly felt that I had.

    Unfortunately a number of my prosecutors are being calumnied and criticized. It is one thing to criticize the Independent Counsel. It goes with the territory. But to criticize and to calumny the men and women with whom I am privileged to serve, many of whom are on detail from the United States Department of Justice, is, I think, wrong, and I think it is unfair, and I think it is unfortunate.

 Page 375       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    But that is what I thought I had created. I tried to say my job has reached a stage where I feel that the Independent Counsel's Office, with offices in Little Rock and in Washington, would, in fact, be able to carry on very effectively under new leadership.

    I tried to retire. I think George Washington was very wise in saying, 8 years is enough. I would rather go back. Of course, he wasn't across the river where the capital was then. But I would rather return to Mount Vernon, thank you very much.

    Well, I would have preferred to have returned to private life, but I was importuned by my own staff, and I let down my staff because the deliberative process that I had so talked about, that before we make any major decision, whether one agrees with the decision or not, we deliberate about it, and they basically said, ''Ken, you let us down. You didn't deliberate with us. You chose your own decision professionally without a process as to what this might mean at this particular time to the investigation.''

    If I could be indulged 30 more seconds.

    I will always remember the comments by an assistant United States attorney, one of the senior prosecutors in the South, I think Congressman Bryant would know him, but I don't name the names of our line prosecutors, but he was on detail to us in the Little Rock office, and he had a major case responsibility. He came to me and said, and this was indicative of what I was receiving, ''You are making a profound mistake, and it is unfair to the investigation. You cannot leave.'' And this was after I had been roundly criticized on any number of—for my many sins of commission and omission. Even with all of that, the suggestion was made, and I was both honored by it and humbled by it, but also frankly a little bit down in the dumps about it, it was sort of, it is not time to leave.
 Page 376       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    So my duty is to do my duty. I did not ask for this investigation to come walking in the door. It came to us. We took it to the department that I love greatly and admire greatly, the Department of Justice, and we said, what do we do? As colleagues, how do we collaborate? How should this matter that unfortunately for the country and unfortunately for this committee is now before you, and it came to me, and that is why I am here.

    In terms of my family, they are bearing up well, and thank you very much for asking.

    Mrs. BONO. Thank you, Judge Starr.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentlelady's time has expired.

    Mrs. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. I would like to thank her very much.

    We will now recess until 8:25 p.m., and we would ask that everyone stay in their place until the Independent Counsel has left.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, will Mr. Starr be back?

    Mr. HYDE. What?

 Page 377       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will Mr. Starr be back? I have a point of order.

    Mr. HYDE. Indeed he will be back because Mr. Kendall has to question him, and so does Mr. Schippers.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. I have a point of order.

    Mr. HYDE. If you wish.


    Mr. 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 chose to do so. Mr. Kendall.

    Mr. KENDALL. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Conyers, members. My name is David Kendall. I am the personal attorney for President Clinton. My task is to respond to the 2 hours of uninterrupted testimony from the Independent Counsel, as well as to his 4-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 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, 4 hours of videotape testimony, 22 hours of audiotape, 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.
 Page 378       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    It is 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.

    Mr. STARR. Good evening. How are you, David?

    Mr. KENDALL. I am very well, Ken. You have the book of exhibits before you, do you not?

    Mr. STARR. I do.

    Mr. 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?

    Mr. STARR. I do.

    Mr. KENDALL. I want to direct your attention to your statement, and you are addressing the fact that you have not been able to talk to Ms. Lewinsky yet, and you say in your press release, ''We cannot responsibly determine whether she is telling the truth without speaking directly to her. We have 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.''
 Page 379       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Did you issue that press release saying that, Mr. Starr?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, I did.

    Mr. KENDALL. And questions have been addressed to you today about the credibility of various witnesses, including Ms. Lewinsky. It is true, is it not, that you were not present when Ms. Lewinsky testified before the grand jury?

    Mr. STARR. That is true.

    Mr. KENDALL. And you were not present at her deposition.

    Mr. STARR. At her deposition?

    Mr. KENDALL. Yes. Were you aware that Ms. Lewinsky was deposed?

    Mr. STARR. I am sorry, in our deposition. I am sorry, I misunderstood you. 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.
 Page 380       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. KENDALL. And you have never really exchanged words with Ms. Lewinsky, have you?

    Mr. STARR. That is correct. The answer is yes, I have not had occasion to meet or otherwise to look her in the eye myself.

    Mr. KENDALL. The same is true for her mother, Marsha Lewis; is it not?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, that is true as well. That is true.

    Mr. KENDALL. The same is true for Betty Currie?

    Mr. STARR. Yes.

    Mr. KENDALL. The same is true for Vernon Jordan?

    Mr. STARR. Well, in connection—I happen to know Mr. Jordan, but yes, in connection with this——

    Mr. KENDALL. In connection with this case, were you present during his grand jury testimony?

    Mr. STARR. No, I was not.
 Page 381       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. KENDALL. And were you present at any interview of him?

    Mr. STARR. No, I was not.

    Mr. KENDALL. Would the same be true for Mr. Podesta?

    Mr. STARR. The answer is the same with respect to Mr. Podesta, yes.

    Mr. KENDALL. And indeed, Mr. 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?

    Mr. STARR. That is correct.

    Mr. 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?

    Mr. STARR. I think that is right. I need to reflect on some of the Secret Service matters, but I think you are correct that I was not actually present for any of the depositions themselves, including the Secret Service officers.

 Page 382       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. KENDALL. And there are 134 FBI Form 302 interviews submitted. You are not shown as being present at any of those, are you?

    Mr. STARR. That is correct. I would ordinarily not be present for an interview of a witness.

    Mr. KENDALL. Mr. 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 have already said this—you are not a fact witness; is that correct?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, in terms—well, I can testify to a number of facts in the investigation.

    Mr. KENDALL. Such as your own autobiography. I am talking about facts of this investigation.

    Mr. STARR. Could I answer the question? I believe that there are a number of facts that I can, in fact, testify to, but with respect specifically to this investigation and most particularly with respect to the abuse of power issues. But with respect to other questions, the President's perjury and obstruction of justice and the like, to the extent that one is talking about fact witnesses, you are quite right.

    The function of the Independent Counsel himself or herself is ordinarily, ordinarily, depending on the size of the investigation, not one to accompany FBI agents. One relies upon the professionalism and the expertise of one's colleagues in the FBI who work ultimately under the aegis of Judge Freeh.
 Page 383       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. KENDALL. There were—unlike the 1974 grand jury referral to the House Judiciary Committee, this referral was not submitted to the chief judge of the district court, was it?

    Mr. STARR. The answer to that, and I may want to reserve part of my answer for executive session, let me say that we did not seek the approval of the Chief Judge with respect to the contents of the report.

    Mr. KENDALL. Was she ever shown a copy of the referral?

    Mr. STARR. I would prefer to go into executive session with respect to communications I may have had with the district court.

    Mr. KENDALL. The grand jury did not vote to approve or forward this referral; is that correct?

    Mr. 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. Attorney's Office prosecutors from around the country, but ultimately this is, David, my judgment.

    Mr. KENDALL. You are here really as an advocate for this referral; are you not?
 Page 384       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. I view myself—no, I think that is not right. I do believe in the referral. I tried 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 is up to the committee to determine, do they want to call additional witnesses and the like. Our task was to put before them the information that we found met the statutory standard of substantial and credible information.

    Mr. 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?

    Mr. 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.

    Mr. KENDALL. The Travel Office firings which you are investigating occurred in 1993; is that correct?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, the firings were in 1993.

 Page 385       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. 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?

    Mr. 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.

    Mr. KENDALL. Mr. Starr, when did you come to those conclusions?

    Mr. 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, and I will 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 on in the Supreme Court. And there are other matters that we are presently examining and which I can't talk about here.

    Mr. KENDALL. Were the two exonerations you announced today, did you come to those conclusions before or after November 1, 1998?

    Mr. STARR. Before November 1 of this year?

 Page 386       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. KENDALL. This year.

    Mr. STARR. 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 is 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 individual. I have not named that individual. But I do not have—it remains unresolved, so it is a predictive judgment, Mr. Kendall, that nothing we are likely to achieve in either of those investigations will be relevant to this committee's inquiry, and that is what I view my duty as being.

    Mr. KENDALL. And today was the first time you have announced that with respect to these two matters; is it not, Mr. Starr?

    Mr. STARR. It is 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?
 Page 387       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I have received a lot of correspondence. Mr. Conyers——

    Mr. KENDALL. Mr. Starr, I have only 30 minutes. If I could, I think you have adequately answered my question.

    Let me return to a question asked by Congressman Wexler this afternoon, and that was about a witness named Julie Hiatt Steele. Have your investigators investigated the adoption of her 8-year-old child? She adopted it from a Romanian orphanage.

    Mr. STARR. Mr. Kendall, my investigators work very hard and diligently to find relevant evidence. I believe that the questions—and I have conducted no specific investigation, and you just spent a good deal of time establishing that I don't go with my FBI agents on every single interview. 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. I will look forward at the appropriate time to be able to demonstrate that to any fair-minded person beyond any reasonable doubt.

    Mr. KENDALL. Mr. Starr, I am asking the question for the facts. I am not casting aspersions. Again——
 Page 388       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. But, Mr. Kendall, you just said I was not present for the following persons: Ms. Lewinsky, Marsha Lewis, and Vernon Jordan. You are now asking me about 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.

    Mr. KENDALL. Mr. Starr, I don't think it is unfair to try to find out the facts, because there has 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.

    Mr. STARR. Well, in respect of some of her claims, some of her claims, and I am going to say this even though there is an active part of our investigation under way, are utterly without merit and utterly without foundation, utterly without factual foundation.

    Mr. KENDALL. Is this one of those claims?

    Mr. STARR. No, I did not say that, Mr. Kendall. 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 I would say in this respect, if there is an issue with respect to the way a witness is treated, that is why courts sit. I was privileged to serve as a judge. That is why judges work.
 Page 389       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. Kendall, if there is 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.

    Mr. KENDALL. In your testimony this morning, Mr. Starr, you said, ''We go to court and not on the talk show circuit. We are officers of the court who live in the world of law. We have presented our cases in court.'' That is at page 36 of your testimony.

    Now, Mr. Charles Bakaly, your press spokesman and public relations adviser, has been on, by my count, 10 talk shows and is on Nightline tonight. I would be happy to read them to you. This is from late April. But does that sound about right, that he has been on 11 talk shows?

    Mr. 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, very eloquently and movingly, about 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 at times by lawyers who frequently claim that their clients have been grossly mistreated, which is what criminal defense lawyers are paid to do.

    Mr. KENDALL. Mr. 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?
 Page 390       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. Yes, there is no dispute whatsoever.

    Mr. KENDALL. No dispute. Indeed, if you turn to tab 17 of the materials, you wrote me a letter on February 6th, 1998, and if I could direct your attention to the second paragraph of that letter, I 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.''

    You say also that you have reminded the staff that leaks are utterly intolerable. Am I reading that correctly?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, you are reading it correctly.

    Mr. KENDALL. And has anybody been fired from your office, Mr. Starr, for leaking?

    Mr. STARR. No, because I don't believe anyone has leaked grand jury information, Mr. Kendall.

    Mr. 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?

    Mr. STARR. Could you say that again? On January——

 Page 391       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. KENDALL. On January 21st, the day the Washington Post story ran, you issued a press release about your information policy.

    Mr. STARR. Do you have that here?

    Mr. KENDALL. Yes, I do. Let me direct your attention to 27.

    Mr. STARR. Twenty-seven.

    Mr. KENDALL. And also we have a blowup of this press release on the easel. Now, it is a very short press release, but I will give you a moment to read it.

    Have you read it?

    Mr. STARR. I have.

    Mr. KENDALL. 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 at the top of your testimony?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, I do see that.

    Mr. KENDALL. You did not mention leak litigation in that list, I observe.
 Page 392       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. Yes, that is correct.

    Mr. 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?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, and in fact with respect to that, we did, Mr. Kendall—and I think you will agree— prevail in the court of appeals with respect to the issue that you are 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 D.C. 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 D.C. 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 I hadn't even thought of that as one of the 17, but you are 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 am confident of that.
 Page 393       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. 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 importance to the integrity of the grand jury process?

    Mr. STARR. Yes. Chief Judge Johnson has made it abundantly clear, and I agree with that, that the values of confidentiality of matters occurring before the grand jury is very important.

    Mr. KENDALL. And she has 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. This, let me direct your attention to, is at tab 24, and that is her opinion which was just unsealed.

    Mr. STARR. Tab 24?

    Mr. KENDALL. Tab 24, page 20.

    Mr. STARR. Yes, this is the October 30 and then the redacted version. And this, and I think this is fundamental fairness, requires this body to know that the law of this circuit permitted Mr. 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 of this information.'' And that is the process that is under way now.

    We are at phase 2. But the law of this circuit, under the Barry case, with which you are intimately familiar, is essentially a hair trigger. All it takes is a letter from Mr. Kendall saying, ''Here is 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.
 Page 394       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    And in this district, and I think this is a major issue for the administration of justice, in high-profile cases, such as Congressman Rostenkowski and Mayor Barry; again and again, the criminal defense bar of this jurisdiction is rushing into court and saying there are grand jury leaks——

    Mr. KENDALL. Mr. Starr, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I only have 30 minutes.

    Mr. STARR. I am sorry.

    Mr. KENDALL. In fact, Judge Johnson had before her 24 submissions from us as to what might be leaks from the independent counsel's office; did she not?

    Mr. STARR. And we are in the process of litigating those, as you know.

    Mr. KENDALL. How many did she find there was prima facie reason to believe your office committed these leaks?

    Mr. STARR. I think you know the answer to that. Under the hair trigger Barry standard, where almost anything will satisfy—and the D.C. Circuit noted that; you cited the D.C. Circuit's opinion—the D.C. Circuit's opinion makes it very clear, as you know, David, that the burden on the moving party is quite limited. That is not a quote, but that is the idea. It is a very limited burden that you have.
 Page 395       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. KENDALL. I think the answer to my question was all 24. And are you saying that the journalists invented sources like ''prosecutors painted a different picture,'' ''sources in Starr's office tell us,'' ''sources near Starr,'' ''prosecutors suggest''; does the media make up those quotes, Mr. Starr?

    Mr. STARR. I am not here to accuse the media of anything. I am here to say that fairness requires us to be able to litigate this matter, which, as you well know, is under seal, and to litigate that in an orderly way, and then to come to a judgment as to the significance of that.

    But I will simply say that the law of this circuit makes it quite easy for you to say, ''Look at this sourcing. I get to now put the burden on the prosecutor to come forward and show evidence that the prosecutor is not the source.'' David, that is what we are doing.

    Mr. KENDALL. Mr. Starr, in fact there has been no case remotely similar to this in terms of the massive leaking from the prosecutor's office. I think we know that.

    Mr. STARR. I totally disagree with that. That is an accusation, and it is an unfair accusation. I completely reject it, and I would say, David, let's wait until the litigation has concluded. You are asking to—and especially with the rules being what they are on a prima facie case—you are asking, let's now come to judgment after about 10 minutes of the first half. That is not fair.
 Page 396       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. KENDALL. May I direct your attention now to the exhibit that we have displayed up there. It is 27.

    Mr. STARR. This is, I am sorry, number 27?

    Mr. KENDALL. Yes, it is your press release on the first day of the Lewinsky story breaking. It is a press release on the letterhead of the Independent Counsel's Office. We secured it from your office through a Freedom of Information Act request. It is under your name. It says, ''Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr issued the following statement today from his office in Washington D.C.'' And then it says, ''Because of confidentiality requirements, we are unable to comment on any aspect of our work.''

    Is that what you announced to the world on January the 21st?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, and I must say, I think that this is inconsistent with the duty of a prosecutor to provide appropriate and lawful public information. I think it is the duty of the prosecutor to combat the dissemination of misinformation as long as the prosecutor can do that without violating his or her obligations under Rule 6(e). And that is the position, David, as you know, of the Justice Department.

    Mr. KENDALL. Did you issue any press release admitting that you were talking about aspects of your investigation?

    Mr. STARR. I am sorry, could you say that again?
 Page 397       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. KENDALL. After the press release which you now said—and I have forgotten your exact phrase. What was it, that you would not have issued it now?

    Mr. STARR. No——

    Mr. KENDALL. Does it depend on what you mean by ''comment''?

    Mr. STARR. No. In terms of being able to provide a public information function, it depends upon how broadly one wants to read a particular document. This is not a legal document, it is a statement of policy, and ordinarily, in contrast to what most prosecutors do, we try to treat all individuals, those, for example, charged with crime, with complete fairness. We do not go out and hold press conferences and the like. That is our methodology and our approach. But we follow Justice Department policy, and I frankly think that this comment is an overbroad statement, because it is incompatible with DOJ policy.

    Mr. KENDALL. It is your comment, though, Mr. Starr. It is what you wanted the world to think you were doing in the Lewinsky investigation; is that not a fact? It is your press release.

    Mr. STARR. Well, except I think it is still—you are talking about a press release, you are not talking about a filing in court and the like. And what we were, in fact, doing virtually contemporaneously with this was issuing—it may not have been contemporaneously, and perhaps you will guide me to that, but we were being accused, and we have heard it all day long today, about the events at the Ritz Carlton, and I felt duty-bound to provide public information that I thought was appropriate about the conditions that Ms. Lewinsky found herself in, and that the character assassination by her then-attorneys no longer—at least one is no longer her attorneys.
 Page 398       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Kendall, your time is up. You may want to get into the facts. Do you need additional time?

    Mr. KENDALL. Chairman Hyde, I think I would like additional time.

    Mr. HYDE. How much time would you like?

    Mr. KENDALL. I think that the analysis—I am sorry, what did you say?

    Mr. HYDE. I was going to say, is 15 minutes helpful?

    Mr. KENDALL. I would like—that won't be enough.

    Mr. HYDE. You are being coached by Ms. Waters here now. That doesn't count. How much?

    Mr. KENDALL. Your Honor, another hour.

    Mr. HYDE. Another 30 minutes?

    Mr. KENDALL. Could I have another hour?

 Page 399       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HYDE. How about 30, so you can get into the facts.

    Mr. KENDALL. I thank the Chair for 30 minutes. I think, though, that these are the facts, Your Honor. How this analysis was done, the campaign to disseminate information against the President is very much a part of the fairness of the document which your committee is having to consider.

    Mr. HYDE. Very well.

    Mr. KENDALL. Is the analysis reliable, is it fair, does it present the facts, have proper procedures been followed?

    Mr. HYDE. I see. Well, the gentleman is recognized then for an additional 30 minutes, but that should wind it up. So you have 30 more minutes.

    Mr. KENDALL. Mr. Starr, you were right. You did issue a press conference about Ms. Lewinsky's treatment at the Ritz Carlton. That was a press release, it was on the record, everybody knew you were saying that. You were accountable. To use your phrase, you were transparent. But you also spoke frequently on background to the press. And my question to you is you and those around you, your subordinates——

    Mr. STARR. Yes, be careful when you say the ''you,'' because I do not speak frequently or otherwise to the press.

    Mr. KENDALL. Did Professor Dash give you any advice as to what should be on background and what on the record?
 Page 400       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. We discussed with Sam a variety of issues. I would have to search my recollection with respect to any specific observations that Sam gave us with respect to this.

    But let me say this: If you look—because your comments to the Chairman, whom you called Your Honor, and I have been tempted to do that most of the day, because you and I are both accustomed to being in courthouses—when you look at the information that we had in our Office and the FBI, as opposed to information that you had access to, it never, never entered the public domain.

    For example, the dress, the DNA, the test results, those were never in the public domain, because you did not have a witness in your joint defense arrangements who you could debrief and tell you, because it was the distinguished judge who is the head of the FBI and a handful——

    Mr. KENDALL. Mr. Starr——

    Mr. STARR. No, you are talking about fairness. It is time for some fairness with respect to all of these charges that keep being bandied around without any kind of judicial determination that there is, in fact, wrongdoing under 6(e).

    Mr. KENDALL. My question was simple, Mr. Starr. My question was why would you speak on background? Why not be accountable? Why not be transparent? I have never protested a press release which you have issued, have I?
 Page 401       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. No, you have not.

    Mr. KENDALL. And I think that there may well be times as a prosecutor when it is necessary to correct misinformation. You have sometimes done that. It is necessary to get the facts out so that people aren't misguided. But why speak off the record on background? Why not be accountable?

    Mr. STARR. It depends on the circumstances, and I will say this: I believe the Justice Department practice, it certainly was the practice when I was there; I will hazard that it is still the practice of the Justice Department, that these are judgment calls as to whether the prosecutor wants to make herself or himself part of the story.

    A specific example: If someone comes to us with a specific allegation of wrongdoing on the part of one of our prosecutors—perhaps a criminal defense lawyer who has said the prosecutor did the following bad things—it may be utterly bogus, because people do, in fact, lie about what happens to their clients, I am sorry to say. We do not want to in any way be part of a story as to whether—and obviously we can't talk about matters occurring before the grand jury, but we can, in fact, respond to a suggestion that the FBI in some way or a prosecutor in some way conducted herself or himself improperly. But it is quite wise to say——

    Mr. KENDALL. Then why not say it on the record? Why the secrecy?

 Page 402       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STARR. You are asking essentially about press policy as opposed to the constitutional issues that have brought us all here, and if this is an oversight hearing with respect to the press policy of the Independent Counsel's Office, or if that is what the President's lawyer wants to spends his time doing, then that is your prerogative. Let me tell you what our press policy is.

    Mr. KENDALL. Well, Mr. Starr, I only have got 30 minutes. I asked you, I think, a simple question, but let me move on.

    You yourself executed an affidavit in the leaks investigation; did you not?

    Mr. STARR. David, this matter is in litigation, and, Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fairness, I have to be careful about what I say because he may tell me that it is not—it is just not right to be in litigation under seal before the district court and to be cross-examined by the President's attorney with respect to that matter which seems to have no germaneness whatever, although——

    Mr. KENDALL. Mr. Starr, I was going to ask you about an affidavit, a sworn declaration, which you yourself executed, which is not under seal in the leaks proceeding. But I will move on if this is not something you want to respond to.

    Mr. STARR. Well, David, I just think if you are talking about the leaks litigation, that is the point, it is in litigation. Why don't we allow that litigation to go forward, instead of individuals, Members of Congress who talk about fairness, jumping to the conclusion that there has been a violation when there has been no adjudication of anything beyond the existence under the law of this circuit of a prima facie case.
 Page 403       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    That is unfair. It is unfair to my career prosecutors, it is unfair to investigators, it is wrong. And, just to finish the point, when we had highly sensitive information that Mr. Kendall did not have, the DNA on the dress, that was held within our Office and the FBI. There was no dissemination of that information.

    But what happens is Mr. Kendall and others interview witnesses, and any criminal defense lawyer, and if you see fit to inquire into the joint defense arrangement in existence here, I would be grateful. I know you want to move forward with these proceedings, but the joint defense arrangement that has been in effect in this operation is a very significant aspect of the very issues that Mr. Kendall is now raising before this committee, because one of the issues in 6(e)——

    Mr. KENDALL. Excuse me, could I direct your attention to tab 15? I think you have answered the question, and I would like to move on. I am running against the clock.

    Mr. STARR. I am sorry, Mr. Kendall. I have been here since 10 o'clock, so forgive me.

    Mr. KENDALL. I know, and I will move on.

    Carol Bruce, Ms. Carol Bruce, was appointed Independent Counsel to investigate the Indian gambling casino matter; was she not?

 Page 404       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STARR. Yes. The Secretary Babbitt matters, yes.

    Mr. KENDALL. Are you aware of her press policy?

    Mr. STARR. No, I am not.

    Mr. KENDALL. It is indicated there at tab 15 that she held a press conference when she was appointed, and then said she did not anticipate making any further public comments until the investigation is completed.

    You mentioned the experience of Ms. Lewinsky at the Ritz Carlton on Friday, January 16, 1998. One of the reasons your agents held Ms. Lewinsky was that they——

    Mr. STARR. I have to interrupt. That premise is false.

    Mr. KENDALL. Let me rephrase it.

    Mr. STARR. That is false, and you know it to be false.

    Mr. KENDALL. I will rephrase the question.

    Mr. STARR. She was not held.

    Mr. KENDALL. Her own psychological state will speak for itself as to how she felt. It is in the record in her testimony.
 Page 405       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. You said she was held; you didn't say how she felt. You said she was held, and I think that is unfair to our investigators, and this issue has been litigated, David, as you well know, with respect to the constitutional rights of the individual involved. Excuse me.

    Mr. KENDALL. During her sojourn with your agents——

    Mr. STARR. Well, the Ritz Carlton is a very pleasant place to have a sojourn.

    Mr. KENDALL. One of the purposes was to get Ms. Lewinsky to wear a recording device and surreptitiously record Mr. Jordan or the President; was it not?

    Mr. STARR. It was not. And I know that there is testimony, and this has been referred to, but let me explain. She was asked and given the opportunity, which she turned down, to be a cooperating witness. And we explained to her—we did not invent this, this is all traditional prosecutorial activity and techniques—one of the things that a cooperating witness can do is to assist us in consensual monitoring. We described that at a high level of generality, it is my understanding, and I believe my prosecutors, in fact, conducted themselves consistently with what I have just told you.

    Mr. KENDALL. Could you turn to tab 7, and could we have——

 Page 406       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STARR. I am sorry, tab 7?

    Mr. KENDALL. Yes, tab 7 of the binder.

    You may have read the Time Magazine essay by Messrs. Ginsburg and Speights in which they state the following: ''The government didn't just want our client to tell her story, they wanted her wired. They wanted her to record telephone calls with the President of the United States, Vernon Jordan and others at their will.''

    You are familiar with Mr. Ginsburg's charge?

    Mr. STARR. Mr. Ginsburg is wrong, and he must know that he is wrong. He was wrong then, and it is a calumny to repeat that now. Mr. Ginsburg was not known for his consistency of articulating positions, nor was he known for his consistency in dealing with facts. I would say that he was rather fast and loose with the facts, and if you are going to rely in this proceeding on a Time Magazine essay by Bill Ginsburg, then I think the standards are not quite as lofty as I thought they would be this evening.

    Mr. KENDALL. Mr. Starr, what is an FBI 302 form?

    Mr. STARR. An FBI 302 form is a report of interview by FBI agents with a witness.

    Mr. KENDALL. Now, you categorically denied wanting to have Ms. Lewinsky wear a wire or secretly tape record the President or Mr. Jordan when the charge was made in the Time article; did you not? You categorically denied that.
 Page 407       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. Are you saying at the time of this Time article?

    Mr. KENDALL. At the time of that Time article, you denied Mr. Ginsburg's charge; did you not?

    Mr. STARR. I believe that we did, but I am just not recalling specifically how we did it.

    Mr. KENDALL. You certainly denied it——

    Mr. STARR. We have had a number of charges, so you will have to remind me of where my rebuttal is.

    Mr. KENDALL. Let me direct you to tab 12 in the volume. This is your later letter to Steve Brill. We are displaying the page there. It is page 7. You don't have to read your entire letter.

    Mr. STARR. Okay, page 7.

    Mr. KENDALL. Do you see where it is indented 6? It is tab 12, page 7 of the exhibit, your own letter. You say, ''This is false. This Office never asked Ms. Lewinsky to agree to wire herself for conversation with Mr. Jordan or the President. You cite no source at all, nor could you, as we had no such plans.''

 Page 408       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Have I read correctly your letter?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, you have.

    Mr. KENDALL. All right. Now, when you wrote the letter, did you review—you were not present at the Ritz Carlton, were you?

    Mr. STARR. No, I was not.

    Mr. KENDALL. Did you review with Mr. Emmick, for example, what had happened there?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, I have reviewed with a number of—well, in terms of this particular letter, if you are asking did I review the contents of the Ritz Carlton in connection with this as opposed to what we had already done in terms of the allegations being made at or around the time, I do have very vivid recollections of discussions with respect to the circumstances of——

    Mr. KENDALL. Do you remember——

    Mr. STARR. —of the Ritz Carlton. You are asking me in connection with this letter did I have a conversation with one of my colleagues, and I would have to review notes and so forth.

    Mr. KENDALL. I apologize for my speed, but I don't have much time. I don't usually talk this fast, Mr. Starr.
 Page 409       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Would you look at tab 13.

    Mr. STARR. Okay.

    Mr. KENDALL. At tab 13 is the FBI 302 form describing—that is not Mr. Ginsburg or Mr. Speights, is it? It is one of your own agents. We don't know who because the name is blacked out, but if you look at page 5 of that exhibit, it says—at 11:22 p.m., it says A.I.C. Emmick talked to Bernard Lewinsky, that is Ms. Lewinsky's father. ''Cooperation, interview, telephone calls, body wires and testimony were mentioned.''

    Do you see that?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, I do.

    Mr. KENDALL. And then do you see down below the 11:37 p.m. entry, Ms. Lewis has arrived on the scene, Ms. Lewinsky's mother, and she expresses, Ms. Lewinsky has expressed concern about what is being requested of her. She says, according to the FBI 302, ''What if I partially cooperate?'' That is as recorded by the FBI agent. ''Marsha Lewis asks what would happen if Monica Lewinsky gave everything but did not tape anything.''

    Do you see that?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, I do.

 Page 410       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. KENDALL. It was in the grand jury that the events of Friday, January the 16th, were presented through the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky; was it not? Was it her second appearance?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, I believe that is right.

    Mr. KENDALL. And do you remember—do you have the appendices to your volume?

    Mr. STARR. I can get them.

    Mr. KENDALL. I don't think we will need to, because this is a famous passage. The grand jurors—your prosecutors had no more questions, and the grand jurors themselves began to inquire about the events that day. One of them said, at page 1143, ''We want to know about that day. We really want to know about that day.'' And this elicited then from Ms. Lewinsky, who was under oath, a tearful description of what had happened to her. She asked Mr. Emmick to leave the room; did she not?

    Mr. STARR. That is my recollection of the transcript, yes.

    Mr. KENDALL. And, in fact, she said that she was told on Friday, January the 16th, by your agents that she would have to place calls or wear a wire to call Betty and Mr. Jordan and possibly the President.

    ''Question: And did you tell them you didn't want to do that?
 Page 411       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  


    Was that Ms. Lewinsky's testimony?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, that is her testimony.

    Mr. KENDALL. I think the point was made earlier, but the affidavit that Ms. Lewinsky filed had not been mailed by her attorney until the end of the day, Friday, January the 16th, had it?

    Mr. STARR. I believe that is right in terms of the timing, but I would have to reconstruct in terms of the actual timing of the mailing. I am sorry, I would have to double-check that.

    Mr. KENDALL. Mr. Starr, you have repeatedly said that the Attorney General asked you to take on this matter——

    Mr. STARR. Well, that is your characterization. I have said that we collaborated with the Justice Department, and the Attorney General came to her decision. We brought it to her attention. We did say that we thought the steps that we had taken had been within our jurisdiction, but we were concerned about whether any additional step could be taken properly within our jurisdiction, and that is how the discussions began.

    Mr. KENDALL. In fact, you requested that the matter be referred to you; did you not?
 Page 412       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. At some point during the discussion in our own deliberations we came to the view that we felt that because of the involvement, and I will be very specific here, of Vernon Jordan, that this was related to our existing jurisdiction. The Attorney General disagreed with that, but that was our view.

    Here was Linda Tripp, who was a witness in the Travel Office matter and the Vincent Foster documents matter and the Vincent Foster death matter, and she had come to us with information. So we felt very comfortable—and she said, ''I am being asked to commit crimes. I am being asked to commit perjury.'' We felt comfortable that we were within our jurisdiction at that juncture, but we did feel that there was a jurisdictional issue from that point forward, which we worked on collaboratively with the Justice Department.

    But we did, in fact, send a letter indicating that we felt that this was related to our jurisdiction. But I hasten to note that the Attorney General disagreed with that and said, no, it is not related to your existing jurisdiction, but we think your Office should investigate it. We can't, because the President is implicated.

    Mr. KENDALL. In her transmission to the Special Division, the Attorney General stated ''Independent Counsel Starr has requested that this matter be referred to him.'' Is that not the case?

    Mr. STARR. You will have to refer me.

    Mr. KENDALL. I am sorry, I don't have that in your binder. I will represent that to you——
 Page 413       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. I certainly am going to accede to your representation, and it certainly is true, as I just indicated, that we did, in fact, send a written submission indicating that we felt that this was related to our jurisdiction. The Attorney General felt we should have jurisdiction, but determined that under the statute it should be an expansion of our existing jurisdiction.

    Mr. KENDALL. Mr. Starr, when did you first learn, you yourself, that there might be an audiotape with a conversation involving the President and a young woman?

    Mr. STARR. The young woman, Monica——

    Mr. KENDALL. A young woman.

    Mr. STARR. I'm sorry?

    Mr. KENDALL. A young woman.

    Mr. STARR. I think we have had questions about that, and I have been asked that, and I am searching my recollection. But let me say this: If you are talking about Monica Lewinsky, and I don't know that you are, you didn't use her name, but the first I knew, to the best of my knowledge and recollection, of Monica Lewinsky was in January of 1998.

    Now, I had questions, and they seemed to me to suggest that there is some information with respect to information that may have come to me in November of 1997 with respect to tapes, and it was all very vague and shrouded in mystery, and I said I will be happy to respond if I get some additional information.
 Page 414       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    But with respect to Monica Lewinsky, which is what I assume we are here to talk about, I did not know anything about Monica Lewinsky, to the best of my recollection. I don't think I ever had occasion to meet her or otherwise hear about her until January of 1998.

    Mr. KENDALL. Were you aware of how Ms. Tripp came to communicate with your office in January of 1998?

    Mr. STARR. I was told—I will be very specific, and I can be very brief. I was at the American Bar Association Journal Board of Editors meeting when the initial contact was made with one of the associate independent counsels. I do not believe—that was on January 8th, and I do not believe in that contact Linda Tripp's name was mentioned.

    That information was brought back to Washington. The information was conveyed to a deputy independent counsel, who said information comes in the front door, and I'm not sure at that time that we knew who this person was. We were then called on January 12th by Linda Tripp, that was a telephone call, and I was made aware of the telephone call promptly thereafter. And that is when it was brought to my attention that there was information that we would proceed to act on.

    Mr. KENDALL. Were you aware that your partner Richard Porter had played a role in steering Ms. Tripp to your office?

    Mr. STARR. I know Richard. I am not aware of what his role was. I have since read about what his role was, but I did not in any way have any involvement whatsoever or participation in any way with whatever he did, and I have not conducted an investigation. There may be facts of which I am unaware that I should be aware in terms of before I formulate a complete response.
 Page 415       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. KENDALL. Could you turn to tab 2, Mr. Starr. It is a provision of the independent counsel statute. It is 28 USC 594(J). Do you see that?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, I do.

    Mr. KENDALL. And you have made the point that you kept your law practice, as you were legally entitled to do; you made, I think, over $1 million each year for the last 4 from that law practice, again, as you were legally entitled to do. But in exchange for allowing private counsel to serve part time as independent counsel, the Ethics in Government Act enforced a very strict conflict of interest rule; did it not?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, it is very specific, yes.

    Mr. KENDALL. And that says that any independent counsel cannot have any person associated with the firm, not just a partner, represent in any matter any person involved in any investigation or prosecution under this chapter; is that correct?

    Mr. STARR. I believe that's right. I would have to reread it, but I am going to simply accept your representation, but I think that is correct.

    Mr. KENDALL. I call your attention to Exhibit 4, which is another 302 interview form, and that is for Ms. Lucianne Goldberg, tab 4.

    Mr. STARR. Yes, I do have it.
 Page 416       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. KENDALL. At page 1232 of the exhibit, do you see that one of your agents is describing why Linda Tripp is nervous.

    Mr. STARR. And where—I am sorry, I have not read this 302.

    Mr. KENDALL. It's 1232.

    Mr. STARR. Yes, I know, but what paragraph?

    Mr. KENDALL. All right. It is the paragraph that begins, ''In the meantime, because Tripp—''

    Mr. STARR. It is not on my page 1232.

    Mr. KENDALL. I beg your pardon. It is 1231.

    Mr. STARR. Okay, I am sorry. All right.

    Mr. KENDALL. ''Goldberg called around to friends she has, including one in Chicago who works at the same firm Ken Starr does. This person recommended Goldberg call Jackie Bennett at the OIC. Goldberg advised that the OIC knew who this person is, and that this person is very nervous at this time.'' Did you ever have any reports from any source that some person at your law firm had expressed nervousness about this contact with Linda Tripp?
 Page 417       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. You are talking about at any time?

    Mr. KENDALL. At any time.

    Mr. STARR. Well, you have just brought this to my attention. But I do not know. I don't have a recollection of something being brought—you are talking about to my attention. No.

    Mr. KENDALL. Did you cause any check to be made at any time before you sought jurisdiction in the Lewinsky matter as to whether any person in your law firm had any kind of an association with the Paula Jones case?

    Mr. STARR. No, I did not. But I must say that what you pointed me to in the statute was representation, and I have read the 302 quickly for the first time. I have not had occasion to read this 302, and the 302 does not talk about representation; it talks about calling a friend.

    Mr. KENDALL. It is possible, is it not, Mr. Starr, for the provision of legal advice of some kind to involve a representation, at least for conflict of interest purposes, even if there is no written retainer, there is no formal hiring of a person?

    Mr. STARR. Well, I am not sure I would readily agree with that. Let me just say this. Conflict of interest analysis is, as you well know because you are a partner in a very prestigious law firm, is very technical and very complicated, and very careful evaluation has to be made, and that is why I am sure at your firm, as we do at our firm, the firm in which I am on leave of absence, we have a partner who is dedicated to the issue—to the analysis of these very issues. So these are things that you assess all the facts. What is a conflict? As you know, the issue of conflict is one that is at times a very—very much a judgment call that reasonable persons have to have an enormous amount of information in order to come to that judgment.
 Page 418       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. KENDALL. Mr. Starr, could I direct your attention to exhibit—tab 14, please. Do you have that exhibit?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, I do.

    Mr. KENDALL. That is a Washington Post article from June of 1997 indicating that your investigators are now probing rumors about the President; is it not?

    Mr. STARR. It is an article about that subject, yes.

    Mr. KENDALL. And indicating that State troopers, two who are named and quoted, Ronnie Anderson and Roger Perry, are being interviewed about rumors of affairs that the President had while he was Governor of Arkansas; is that correct?

    Mr. STARR. That is what the story is about, but whether the story reflects the facts is obviously a different matter.

    Mr. KENDALL. Did you cause any investigation to be done as to whether, in fact, your investigators were asking witnesses about a list of 12 to 15 women by name, including Paula Corbin Jones?

    Mr. STARR. When this—and we were in Little Rock at the time, all of the attorneys were in Little Rock as we were assessing a very important issue, and when we were in the midst of our discussions, we were receiving urgent inquiries from The Washington Post asking about interviews, and you are quite right in pointing out that this was a Washington Post piece from June of 1997. They were talking about interviews that had been conducted in February, so it was old news, and we did then inquire, in light of this, we then did make inquiries internally of the FBI, because these are professional agents and we said, what kinds of questions are being asked; what is the purpose, and the purpose of the investigation was as we were moving forward in the Little Rock phase of our investigation, we wanted to make sure, as investigators should do and as prosecutors should do, that we had reached out and interviewed anyone who might have relevant information, and that is what we were doing. We were, in fact——
 Page 419       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. KENDALL. Relevant to this interview, did you go to the Attorney General and seek an expansion of your jurisdiction to accompany this particular investigation?

    Mr. STARR. I guess I wasn't clear. This was the Whitewater phase of our investigation that is referenced here in the press we are talking about, in Little Rock; we are not talking about activity in Washington. And we were, in fact, interviewing, as good prosecutors, good investigators do, individuals who would have information that may be relevant to our inquiry about the President's involvement in Whitewater, in Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan and the like, and specifically, a loan from Madison Guaranty that we had information on in which we were not able to secure as much information as we would like, given the records of the bank and given Susan McDougal's lack of cooperation. As you know, as you well know, Susan McDougal was not cooperating with the investigation, and indeed, as we know, you spent time with Susan McDougal during the course of the trial representing the President's interest to communicate with her, as you are entitled to do. We are also entitled, just as you are entitled to reach out to your fellow criminal defense lawyers, we are entitled to reach out to witnesses who may have relevant information.

    Mr. KENDALL. Did you use private investigators to do this investigation into the 12 to 15 women?

    Mr. STARR. I beg your pardon? Private investigators?

    Mr. KENDALL. Your GAO report, for the last three times, has a line item of approximately—it varies, but it is about half a million dollars, for among other things, private investigators.
 Page 420       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. No, we have never hired Terry Lenzner, David.

    Mr. KENDALL. What private investigative——

    Mr. STARR. But what we do do is we do hire retired FBI agents, and those are—I will have to look at—you are talking about an audit report, and if you want to guide me to the audit report, that's fine.

    Mr. HYDE. The Chair has got to intervene. The hour is over quite a little bit. Mr. Lowell and Mr. Kendall have had 2 hours. Mr. Schippers has been waiting since 10 o'clock and is getting testy, which is his natural state. But Mr. Kendall, you will have an opportunity, a further opportunity to present and address the committee at length in extensio as you lawyers say, and offer whatever evidence, exculpatory or otherwise, you want. You will have a full opportunity before we go to any markup, if we go to a markup. So really, it is a long day. One must have some compassion for Mr. Starr, and if not——

    Mr. STARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. KENDALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, but I would simply request, Mr. Starr testified for two and a quarter hours; I am simply trying to get my fair crack at him. I would like to go into omissions from the referral and other areas.

    Mr. HYDE. Well, I am sure——

 Page 421       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. KENDALL. I would come back tomorrow, if that were appropriate.

    Mr. HYDE. Well, I don't think many of us want to come back tomorrow. But really you will have an opportunity to address the committee fully and produce whatever you want by way of evidence, witnesses, exculpatory material. We will not foreclose you, but the night is waning and we would like to get to Mr. Schippers, so with your kind indulgence, and I see you are putting your glasses away, which is a healthy sign.

    Mr. Starr, do you want a little break?

    Mr. STARR. No, Mr. Chairman. We are almost at my bedtime.

    Mr. HYDE. We are at mine, I can assure you.

    Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentlewoman from California.

    Ms. WATERS. I would like to inquire of the Chair, what opportunity will we have to clarify what appears to have been conflicting information that we have received here today from our star witness?

    Mr. HYDE. I would write a letter to Mr. Starr, if I were you. If I were confused about some of the evidence, I would write him a nice letter and I would say please straighten me out, and I bet he would answer you.
 Page 422       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. WATERS. I think it is a little deeper than that. It may go to perjury. This man is under oath.

    Mr. HYDE. Well, he is under oath. Are you charging him with perjury?

    Ms. WATERS. I would like clarification, and after the clarification is made, I can determine whether or not I would make that charge.

    Mr. HYDE. Well, Ms. Waters, the Chair has to control this committee. We have been at it all day, and I think what you are asking at this late moment is an imposition on the committee, not to mention Mr. Starr, so you would not be recognized for that purpose. But I will recognize Mr. Schippers for 30 minutes.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Judge Starr, my name is David Schippers and I am the chief investigative counsel for the committee. Can you hear me?

    Mr. STARR. Now I can. Thank you.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. I will try to be as brief as I possibly can, but I do have a little bit of territory to cover, as you well know.

 Page 423       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I will begin with some of Mr. Kendall's statements and some of Mr. Kendall's questions to you. First of all, do I understand that there is such a thing as a hair trigger? You referred to a hair trigger that would set off an investigation of whether or not there were leaks out of your office.

    Mr. STARR. Yes.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And that hair trigger can be and often is triggered by a defense attorney sending something to the judge claiming that there is a leak; is that right?

    Mr. STARR. It is—yes, it is standard practice for criminal defense lawyers to charge leaks of grand jury information, their allies then pick up the charge, and suddenly it becomes conventional wisdom that there has, in fact, been some final adjudication, which is wrong as a matter of law and unfair, just in terms of basic human decency, because these are professional prosecutors that we are talking about.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Thank you, Judge.

    Mr. STARR. Yes, I am sorry.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Do I understand that Mr. Kendall sent 27 of these such requests about leaks?

    Mr. STARR. I think he had some 24 exhibits which again I have been reluctant to talk about, because it is in litigation. I mean the specifics are in litigation, as David knows.
 Page 424       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Well, Judge, if I were expecting someone to testify before a congressional committee and I wanted some questions to ask him about leaks, all I would have to do is send some letters to the judge and trigger this hair trigger effect, isn't that correct?

    Mr. STARR. I don't want to suggest that the hair trigger is a nonexistent trigger, but the burden on the defense lawyer is quite modest, and one of the things that we have learned, and I know this is your time, but I would just say, one of the things that we have learned in this investigation is that a lot of people, including Mr. Kendall, talk on background and the like, and the sourcing that is then used by the reporter becomes very important. Someone as responsible as Tim Russert sourced a story in such a way that it came from us. He was decent and honorable enough to say, no, it didn't come from Starr's office, it in fact, with all due respect, came from the Congress.

    Now, you are not under a 6(e) obligation, so you can talk as freely as you would like, and indeed you enjoy Speech and Debate Clause immunity. However, prosecutors are very sensitive, especially in this jurisdiction in light of the hair trigger to a reporter who sort of says, ''sources close to.'' Well, what does that mean? It can mean almost anyone. And I think that one of the things that this litigation will, in fact, show, is that that becomes an issue ever so quickly as we saw in the Marion Barry case and as we saw in the Dan Rostenkowski case.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Judge, Mr. Kendall mentioned massive leaking. I am going to ask you a specific and direct question. As you sit there, do you have any information, evidence or anything in your possession to indicate that anyone in your office has leaked anything? Any 6(e) material?
 Page 425       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. Well, again, it depends on what one means by 6(e), because there are issues. I have a press release——

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. With your information.

    Mr. STARR. Within my understanding, and I think that my understanding is correct, no, I can say here that now. But I also think that it is important for this litigation that I had talked about to go forward and let's see what happens in that litigation, which is again under seal, but there is an orderly process, just as the Supreme Court said in the Paula Corbin Jones case. Let's allow that orderly process to go forward.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Fine. Sir, you were asked whether you were present during the taking of the 302s, the FBI interviews, whether you were present at the grand jury appearances of all of these witnesses; whether you were present during the course of interviews and depositions, and you answered no; isn't that correct?

    Mr. STARR. That is correct.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. But you did have experienced, highly experienced professional agents and prosecutors present at each and every one of those occasions, did you not?

    Mr. STARR. I did.

 Page 426       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And you relied upon the integrity, the honesty and the decency of those agents and investigators, did you not?

    Mr. STARR. I did, and very proudly so.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. All right. I notice that Mr.—we have heard an awful lot about fairness here, Judge Starr, but I notice that when you sat down this morning you were given about 2 inches of documents to review. How long did you have to review those before Mr. Lowell began questioning you?

    Mr. STARR. Unless Mr. Lowell shipped it over this morning, I left the office at 9:15 a.m. to come to the House of Representatives, and I had not seen it. If it is waiting on my desk, then I suppose he gave me some notice, but no, in terms of actual notice, I had no notice whatsoever.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. You were also given a book filled with some 63 tabs when Mr. Kendall began to question you. When is the first time you saw that book?

    Mr. STARR. This evening, when I came in after having a sandwich.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And of course they had, they were in possession of those books before you left to have your sandwich. They didn't give it to you to review, did they?

 Page 427       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STARR. No, unless it is sitting on my desk—it is not. They did not, and I am confident I have to be careful what I say, because of not having universal facts, but Mr. Schippers, no, I had no advance notice that this was going to be inquired into.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. You were questioned about specific, one line, two lines inside of this 2 1/2-inch document and you had to go and hunt for the answers, didn't you, Judge?

    Mr. STARR. I did.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Now, we have heard over 2 hours of questioning, almost 3 hours of questioning if we include the Democratic members of this committee, and I haven't heard anybody ask you one question about the facts of these cases. So with your permission, Judge, I am going to take a few minutes and get to the facts and the issues that are really before this committee.

    First of all, Mr. Conyers in his opening statement made a remark about a recent delivery of four boxes of documents. That delivery was made, what was it, yesterday or the day before to the Ford Building, was it not, Judge Starr?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, I believe it was the day before.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Now, that wasn't your idea to deliver those, was it?

 Page 428       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STARR. No, it was not.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. It was in answer to a request by Mr. Conyers that you provide additional information, wasn't it?

    Mr. STARR. Yes. Well, it was a congressional request. I believe it originated with Congressman Conyers.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And you were just——

    Mr. STARR. We have had so many requests. We have had individual requests from individual Members. I don't mean to complain, but we don't have a congressional office. We are prosecutors and lawyers, so we do the best we can. We have had a virtual flurry of requests for information, but I believe Congressman Conyers was one of the requesters with respect to that information and we tried to be responsive, yes.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Now, Judge Starr, you have been investigating President Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky matter and other matters involving perjury, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and so on for some 7 or 8 months; is that correct?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, I guess now 10 months.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Have you been given any exculpatory evidence by the President, or have you been offered any exculpatory evidence or witnesses by the President in that time?
 Page 429       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. I don't believe that we have. I would want to check, and if I have additional information I would provide it to the committee. But as I sit here this evening, I am not aware of any suggestion that there is exculpatory evidence, other than the discussion we have had here today with respect to what one individual witness may have said. But no, no witness has come forward to say, Monica Lewinsky made it all up. No one has suggested that. No one has suggested it. So I am sorry to be going on, but the point is——

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. I think you have answered the question.

    Mr. STARR. We stand ready to receive information, but no one has come forward.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. That was my next question. If information were available and had been given to you, you would have considered that along with all of the other information, is that correct?

    Mr. STARR. Oh, yes, absolutely. In fact, one of my colleagues reminds me that we specifically asked in the flurry of this investigation, we asked Mr. Kendall by letter, please provide us with any exculpatory information. Mr. Kendall said, there was nothing to exculpate, or that there was nothing to worry about exculpation from.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Now, there was a great deal of discussion throughout the day about the difference between your investigation and that of Mr. Jaworski. There was no Independent Counsel Act when Mr. Jaworski was performing his duties, was there?
 Page 430       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. That is correct. He had no statute to look to at all.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Your actions as regards referrals to this committee are alluded to by statute; are they not?

    Mr. STARR. They are indeed.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And you tried to the best of your ability to comply with those statutes.

    Mr. STARR. That is correct. I would just add that there was no experience for this, happily for the country, under this provision of the statute. So we were sailing in uncharted waters and trying to come to the best professional judgment we could about what Congress intended and wanted in this provision that required us to report to it.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. One aside. In the 63—have you had an opportunity—I know you haven't had a reasonable opportunity, but have you had any opportunity to page through Mr. Kendall's 63 tabs?

    Mr. STARR. Only as he was guiding me.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Well, I have, Judge Starr, and I note that it contains several newspaper articles, several magazine articles, several self-serving letters from the President's counsel, and not one word, not one word of evidence.
 Page 431       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    By the way, the other 2 inches is equally devoid of evidence.

    During your term as Independent Counsel, sir, and with particular reference to your investigation of the Lewinsky matter and the perjury and the obstruction of justice and other related criminal activity, you were under the guidance and control of the Attorney General of the United States, were you not?

    Mr. STARR. Well, I was certainly under her ultimate supervision in terms of the provisions for removal, but of course the Independent Counsel is to be independent of her daily supervision.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. I mean that in the sense that if you were to be involved in anything untoward, unethical, illegal, the Attorney General had the absolute ability to fire you for cause; did she not?

    Mr. STARR. Yes. I mean the statute is clear that an independent counsel can be removed for good cause.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Now, you have been pilloried and vilified in newspapers and magazines and here, unfortunately. Has the Attorney General ever indicated that she had any thought of firing you for cause?

    Mr. STARR. I am not aware of any expression of any issue at all with respect to good cause. In fairness to the Attorney General—because of the flurry of allegations that are just constant—there is a process of evaluation on her part, but no. I meet with the Attorney General episodically and her senior staff, and there has never been a suggestion that there is good cause to remove me as Independent Counsel. At least I am not aware of any suggestion.
 Page 432       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Well, has the Attorney General ever questioned you about conflicts of interest or anything like that?

    Mr. STARR. No, the Attorney General has not, but the Attorney General has a process through the Office of Professional Responsibility or otherwise exercising her jurisdiction, but thus far, the issues that have been acted on, we have been cleared on, or else no action has been taken over the years of my stewardship as the Independent Counsel.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Now, all of these specific factors that various people have asked you if you reported to the Attorney General when you met her on the 16th of, when was it, the 15th of January?

    Mr. STARR. Well, we met with the Deputy Attorney General on the 15th and then there was—and again, I did not have these meetings, as it turned out.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. There was a litany of things that you apparently allegedly did not tell the Attorney General.

    Mr. STARR. Oh, yes, yes, I am sorry, yes.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. But of course shortly thereafter all of that litany of information became available to the Attorney General.

    Mr. STARR. If it wasn't available to begin with. Part of the quarrel that I have had with a number of the suggestions about what I should have told the Attorney General is that these were all in the public domain. As I said in response to questions very early, or earlier in the day, certain things did not occur to me as relevant or germane. It may be that others would say, gee, isn't it relevant that you were asked by Bob Fiske to consider preparing an amicus brief in the Paula Corbin Jones case. I didn't view it as—well, it just didn't occur to me.
 Page 433       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. That's fine. But it did become available and no action was taken.

    Mr. STARR. No. That is correct.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Now, let's get to this January 16 meeting with Monica Lewinsky that so much has been made of.

    Mr. STARR. Yes.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. I have been a prosecutor too, and Monica Lewinsky from my reading was treated very, very nicely by your agents.

    Mr. STARR. Thank you.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. I believe— I hear laughter from the left, but I often here laughter from the left, even when you were testifying, and I didn't really think it was fair to laugh at you when you were testifying either.

    Mr. STARR. Well, I think a fair assessment of the record will show that we wanted her cooperation, and we treated her with dignity and with respect, but we were prosecutors and we were investigators investigating crime. That is a serious matter and we made it very clear to her, she is in a serious situation. But we treated her with dignity and we certainly took every step to make sure——
 Page 434       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. I wonder how many of your accusers have read the log that was kept of every minute of that day.

    Now, sir, there was also some question as to why Ms. Lewinsky was not allowed to call Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter had been given to Monica Lewinsky by Vernon Jordan, isn't that correct?

    Mr. STARR. That is correct.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And the evidence available to you at that time, phone evidence indicated that perhaps Mr. Jordan had been in telephonic contact with the President at the time he was getting her that lawyer; isn't that correct, sir?

    Mr. STARR. That is correct.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And in an abundance of caution, you did not want the President to know that Monica Lewinsky was talking to you; isn't that right?

    Mr. STARR. That is correct.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And that is a perfectly valid prosecutorial move, isn't it?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, very traditional. Nothing out of the ordinary.
 Page 435       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. As a matter of fact, later Ms. Lewinsky decided she didn't want to be represented by Mr. Carter on that day; isn't that correct?

    Mr. STARR. Yes. She came to a decision to be represented by Mr. Ginsburg.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And she called Mr. Ginsburg and she talked to him, didn't she?

    Mr. STARR. Yes. I was going to say that was in consultation with her family, so I don't know to what extent Ms. Lewinsky was being guided by her parents, and especially Dr. Lewinsky.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. But in any event, she changed lawyers from the one that had been provided to her indirectly by the White House to an independent lawyer from the West Coast, is that right?

    Mr. STARR. Oh, yes, and one who was well-known to the family.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Doesn't the evidence demonstrate that from the 16th on, from that day on when she was unavailable, there was a 3-day frenzy at the White House to try and find Monica Lewinsky by phone, by beeper, and that Mr. Jordan, Mr. Carter, and Ms. Currie were in constant efforts to reach Monica Lewinsky; isn't that a fact?

 Page 436       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STARR. I believe that is true.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Does that indicate to you that they were a little bit afraid of what Monica might say?

    Mr. STARR. I think there was concern.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. By the way, when Monica Lewinsky was—I am not going to say being held, because I don't want to run into trouble. When Monica Lewinsky was in with your agents——

    Mr. STARR. And prosecutors.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. She was never questioned about criminal activity, was she?

    Mr. STARR. No, she was not.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. She was not questioned at all about criminal activity until she was represented by counsel, isn't that right?

    Mr. STARR. That is absolutely right, and that is why not one word in this referral comes from any information that was gleaned or gathered on the evening of January 16.

 Page 437       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. SCHIPPERS. As a matter of fact, the first time Monica Lewinsky testified in the grand jury was some 7 months later, correct?

    Mr. STARR. It took a long time and a new set of lawyers, two very distinguished lawyers here in Washington.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And if she was afraid and if she was disturbed on January 6th, she was sure as heck over it by August 6th, wasn't she?

    Mr. STARR. Well, she was at least—yes, she seemed to be. But I am very fearful of saying anything about state of mind, especially in light of a comment I have heard with respect—but in any event.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Do you have before you, Judge Starr, the first two-incher, the one that Mr. Lowell gave you? Would you turn to tab 35, please. There are a whole series of remarks on page 35, and I think there was a—356 is the page number; that is where tab 35 begins. The first bullet, do you have it, Judge?

    Mr. STARR. I do.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. The first bullet says Monica Lewinsky testified before the grand jury that quote, ''No one ever asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my silence.'' Is that right?

    Mr. STARR. Yes.
 Page 438       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. She also testified, ''But nobody told me to tell the truth, either,'' didn't she?

    Mr. STARR. Absolutely.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Monica Lewinsky also testified that she had a conversation with the President in the White House on the phone when she found out that she was on the witness list and the President told her, you can make an affidavit.

    Mr. STARR. That is correct, words to that effect.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. The affidavit of course would be for the purpose of avoiding testimony; isn't that correct, Judge Starr?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, that is correct.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And in order to accomplish that purpose, both the President and Ms. Lewinsky were fully aware that that affidavit would have to be a lie; isn't that right?

    Mr. STARR. Yes.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And it was the President's suggestion that she make that affidavit, according to her testimony?
 Page 439       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. According to her testimony, yes.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. We might as well be complete about these tabs when we are going over them. We are going to talk a little bit about fairness, if I may.

    The President of the United States testified before a grand jury, did he not, Judge Starr?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, he did.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And he was permitted to testify by videotape or by closed circuit television from the White House, was he not?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, he was.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. How often is a perspective witness before the grand jury permitted to testify from home?

    Mr. STARR. Very rarely. Usually——

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. So that was being overly fair to the President by letting him testify from there, isn't that right?

    Mr. STARR. We tried to respect the dignity of the Presidency and the President, and we readily agreed to provide this alternative mechanism at Mr. Kendall's request to his actual appearance before the grand jury.
 Page 440       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Also, the President was permitted to have his attorney sitting with him and to consult with that attorney; isn't that correct?

    Mr. STARR. Yes. Mr. Kendall and Ms. Seligman and——

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. How many perspective witnesses before a grand jury are permitted to bring their lawyer into the grand jury room with them?

    Mr. STARR. None. It is inconsistent——

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Except the President.

    Mr. STARR. —with grand jury practice.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. So another favor to the President in the interest of fairness; is that correct?

    Mr. STARR. That's correct.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. The President was permitted to read a statement before he began to testify. How many witnesses in a grand jury are permitted to read a statement of their own before testifying?

    Mr. STARR. Ordinarily, it is not done. They are there to answer questions that the prosecutors and the legal advisors to the grand jury or the grand jurors themselves
 Page 441       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  


    Mr. SCHIPPERS. The President was originally subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, he was, after he had declined six invitations to testify.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And as an accommodation to the President, you and your staff withdrew that subpoena and allowed him the courtesy of appearing quote, ''voluntarily?''

    Mr. STARR. Yes, at Mr. Kendall's request.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Once again being eminently fair to the President.

    Mr. STARR. We acceded to his request. We did try and do try to be fair.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Now, Judge Starr, when an individual testifies before a grand jury, that individual has three choices. He can tell the truth, one; he can lie, two; or he can assert his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify because his answers might tend to incriminate him; isn't that correct?
 Page 442       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. Yes.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. When an individual is questioned in a grand jury, is he permitted to say, I stand on my statement in lieu of taking the Fifth?

    Mr. STARR. No.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. But the President was allowed to do that, was he not?

    Mr. STARR. He was.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. So much for the unfairness of the grand jury.

    You were also asked by some of the members here, and a great, great deal was made that none of these individuals in the grand jury were subjected to cross examination, and that is true; none of them were?

    Mr. STARR. That is correct.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Are you aware of any grand jury proceeding in which the defense is permitted to come in and cross-examine the witnesses before the grand jury?

    Mr. STARR. Absolutely not.
 Page 443       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. It is unbelievable, isn't it?

    Mr. STARR. It is completely outside the contemplation of grand jury practice, because that is not the function of the grand jury; it is to gather information and to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense may have been committed.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. That's right. Now, the cross examination is for the trial; is it not?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, absolutely.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Now, if I could change horses a little bit and go to the impeachment proceeding, the Constitution provides that the sole power of impeachment resides in the House of Representatives; isn't that correct?

    Mr. STARR. That is correct.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And that is in the nature of a grand jury proceeding which results in a charge; isn't that right?

    Mr. STARR. That's right.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. So there should be no cross examination at that stage of the proceeding either, should there?
 Page 444       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. That is entirely within your prerogative, but to the extent that you are mirroring the grand jury, there is no cross examination.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Well, over and above that, Judge Starr, the Constitution further provides that the sole power to try an impeachment resides in the Senate; isn't that correct?

    Mr. STARR. That is true.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. So if this House were to permit cross examination and to hold a mini trial here, they would be usurping the constitutional duties of the United States Senate; isn't that correct?

    Mr. STARR. Well, I am not sure I would necessarily agree with that, because I think——

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. I hear the moaning from the left.

    Mr. STARR. I think, I think——

    Mr. HYDE. Does somebody need aspirin?

    Mr. STARR. But I think there are substantial—I shouldn't be advising the House of Representatives in terms of its prerogatives, but it seems to me that under the Constitution you have extraordinary latitude under whatever the Rules of the House under which you are operating to determine how to proceed. But you are quite right, the Constitution contemplates the trial to be in the Senate, and what you are quite rightly saying is, if one is saying, ''let's have a trial,'' you might have the raw power to do it, but it is almost as if, well, that doesn't count, because the real issue is, is there substantial, or whatever the standard is, that the House of Representatives sees fit to articulate as its operative standard.
 Page 445       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Now, Judge, let's do some fairness comparing here. Did anybody in the grand jury, while the President was testifying, laugh at him?

    Mr. STARR. Yes.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Who?

    Mr. STARR. Members of the grand jury.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And when was that, Judge Starr? While the President was testifying and telling what he told the grand jurors, they were laughing at him; is that right, sir?

    Mr. STARR. I understand that there were some occasions where one or more grand jurors, at least that is my understanding. But I want to protect the confidentiality of the grand jury process and deliberative process, even though you have all the transcripts and the like. I would just rely on what the transcripts say.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. All right. When the President was asked questions, he was asked questions one at a time; was he not?

    Mr. STARR. Yes.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And they were relatively simple questions and he was permitted to give full and complete answers, isn't that correct?
 Page 446       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. Yes.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. He wasn't asked six or eight questions at a time running over a 4 or 5-minute period and then given 10 seconds to answer, was he?

    Mr. STARR. Definitely not.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Now, by the way, did anybody cut off the President when he tried to answer questions?

    Mr. STARR. No, I don't think there was any episode when we cut off the President. Although may I say, we were operating as well under very strict limitations, and we did want to proceed with additional questions, and the grand jury had questions, but Mr. Kendall did enforce the understanding that we had, which was a 4-hour session by the President, and we abided by that. And I don't mean to sound quarrelsome in suggesting that Mr. Kendall was not within his rights. He was.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Now, Judge, there has been a lot of talk in the public domain and on the television and things that this is—that all the President did was deny sex, deny a sexual relationship with an intern. He went a lot further than that, didn't he? For an example, with Mr. Blumenthal?

    Mr. STARR. Yes.

 Page 447       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. SCHIPPERS. As a matter of fact, before Mr. Blumenthal came in to testify, he was subjected to an elaborate, elaborate lie by the President concerning the relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

    Mr. STARR. Yes, he was.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. If I may, the President told Mr. Blumenthal that Monica made sexual demands upon him which he rebuffed. Is that right? And that was not true, was it?

    Mr. STARR. That was not true.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. He also said that Monica Lewinsky threatened to claim an affair and he wouldn't go along with it; that he had been threatened by Monica Lewinsky; is that right?

    Mr. STARR. Yes.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Now, this is at a time when the President thought that it was a one-on-one with Monica Lewinsky, didn't he?

    Mr. STARR. I believe that is what he thought at that time.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And this would have been a perfect answer. ''She threatened to say I had sex with her if I didn't do something for her. I didn't do something, therefore, everything she is saying is a lie.''
 Page 448       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. It would be a very good answer.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. It has been suggested that your people used the young lady and betrayed the young lady. Wouldn't that more properly belong to the President of the United States?

    Mr. STARR. Well, I am not sure I should be the one to pass judgment, but we certainly did not betray Ms. Lewinsky. We were doing our job, and we certainly never took any steps other than to try to vindicate the interests of the criminal law.

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Schippers, your time has expired. Do you need additional time?

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. If I may, and if Judge Starr can stand it. I will not need a great deal more, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. All right. I will allow an additional 15 minutes, and maybe you won't use that, said he hopefully, prayerfully.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. There has been some suggestion, Judge, that this was merely a private crime. The United States Constitution provides for three branches of government, does it not, coequal branches?

    Mr. STARR. That is correct.
 Page 449       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And the judiciary is coequal with the executive?

    Mr. STARR. Absolutely.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Did I understand you earlier to say that lying under oath, perjury, and obstruction of justice strikes at the very heart of the judicial system of the United States?

    Mr. STARR. Absolutely, and I think every judge would agree with that, that this is absolutely inimical to the judicial functioning. It is inimical to our court system.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And under the Constitution of the United States, if the judicial system is destroyed, that is destroying one of the constitutional portions of our government; isn't it?

    Mr. STARR. No question that from the founding of the Republic, the importance of our judiciary as an enforcer of rights and the vindicators of rule of law is absolutely critical.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. So when the President of the United States lies under oath, a civil or criminal case, grand jury or other, and obstructs justice, civil or criminal, grand jury or other, he is effectively attacking the judicial branch of the United States constitutional government, isn't he?
 Page 450       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. That is the way I would view it.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And a President takes the oath that he will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, right?

    Mr. STARR. Right.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. That is not defending, is it?

    Mr. STARR. No, it is not.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. There is a term that has stuck in my brain from these transcripts that I have read, and that is mission accomplished.

    When Webb Hubbell needed help, Vernon Jordan got somebody at Revlon or the parent company of Revlon to put him on retainer for no work, right?

    Mr. STARR. Essentially no work.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. So, Vernon Jordan, mission accomplished.

    When Monica was looking for a job, and it became very urgent for her to get a job, Mr. Jordan again accomplished his mission.
 Page 451       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. Yes, he did.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. When Ms. Currie, when they wanted to get rid of the gifts, Ms. Currie went and picked them up, put them under her bed to keep them from anybody else. Another mission accomplished?

    Mr. STARR. That's right.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. By the way, there has been some talk here that Monica said that she recalled that Betty Currie called her and said, either the President wants me to pick something up, or I understand you have something for me to pick up. Later, Ms. Currie backed off of that and said, well, I am not sure, maybe Monica called me. In the material that you made available, you and your staff made available to us, there were 302s in which Monica said, I think when Betty called me, she was using her cell phone. Do you recall that, Judge Starr?

    Mr. STARR. I do.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And in that same material that is in your office that both parties were able to review and that we did, in fact, review, there are phone records of Ms. Currie; are there not?

    Mr. STARR. There are.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And there is a telephone call on her cell phone to Monica Lewinsky's home on the afternoon of December 28, 1997; isn't there?
 Page 452       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. That is correct.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Once again, Monica is right and she has been corroborated, right?

    Mr. STARR. That certainly tends to corroborate Ms. Lewinsky's recollection.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. By the way, they did find some of the billing records from the Rose firm in the attic of Vince Foster's home.

    Mr. STARR. Yes, that is correct.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. They weren't under the bed, were they?

    Mr. STARR. No, they were in the attic.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. I am sorry.

    Now, when Ms. Lewinsky was subpoenaed, Mr. Jordan contacted the President and then got Ms. Lewinsky an attorney, Mr. Carter, is that right?

    Mr. STARR. That is correct.

 Page 453       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Another mission accomplished.

    When Monica did her job search and she signed a false affidavit, the next day she was down in New York or up in New York trying to get a job; isn't that right?

    Mr. STARR. I believe it was the next day, yes.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And she couldn't get a job because she kind of didn't do a very good job on the interview.

    Mr. STARR. She did not feel that the interview had gone well and she was not given a job offer, and that concerned her and she expressed that concern.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. This is when Mr. Jordan called the chairman of the board and got her the job.

    Mr. STARR. He certainly—yes. He called Mr. Perelman and Mr. Perelman then made a call and she was reinterviewed and she was hired.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. So Mr. Jordan at that time knew that the false affidavit had been signed and that he had had a job for Monica, and he went to see the President of the United States and said, mission accomplished, didn't he?

    Mr. STARR. Well, in fairness to Mr. Jordan, he knew the affidavit had been signed; the rest I am sure would be in some dispute, but yes, that is——
 Page 454       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Well, he knew the affidavit had been signed and he knew that the job had been gotten and he went into the President and said, ''Mission accomplished.''

    Mr. STARR. Yes, that is correct.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. We don't know which he was referring to, whether it was the job or we got the affidavit signed, do we?

    Mr. STARR. No, I don't think that we do know that. We just know that he said mission accomplished. I know he felt that he had, you know, engaged in a certain amount, a certain level of effort to secure that job for Ms. Lewinsky at Revlon.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Now, Judge Starr, I only have a few more questions.

    You are a senior partner in a major law firm, or you were before you took a leave of absence?

    Mr. STARR. Yes, past tense.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. You are a recognized scholar in constitutional law and in law in general. You have been the Solicitor General of the United States; is that correct?
 Page 455       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STARR. That is correct.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Argued a number of cases before the Supreme Court of the United States?

    Mr. STARR. That's correct.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. You have received honorary doctors of law degrees from six universities?

    Mr. STARR. I think that is right.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. You have written numerous articles in various scholarly journals?

    Mr. STARR. Yes. I have written a number.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. You have a completely unblemished career for your entire life as a lawyer, and you are looked upon in the profession as a man of honor, integrity and decency, is that right?

    Mr. STARR. Well, I would like to think that at least once upon a time, that was the reputation.

 Page 456       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. SCHIPPERS. For the past year, you have been trashed in the newspapers, on television, and with snide backward remarks to which you could not reply, isn't that right, Judge Starr?

    Mr. STARR. Well, I have chosen until now not to reply, but I think the code of silence at some times in terms of basic fairness gets to come to an end.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And you have been pilloried and excoriated, charged with unbelievable things of which you are incapable of being guilty?

    Mr. STARR. I cannot imagine me and my colleagues engaging in some of the suggested activities that have been described here seriously. We simply cannot in conscience live with one another as professionals, and I laid out in my opening statement the backgrounds of my colleagues, and I have been privileged to serve with two John Marshall award winners, and that is special at the Justice Department. That means there is no better trial lawyer in the Department of Justice recognized in a particular year, and I have been privileged to serve with two of them with public corruption chiefs. These are career civil servants, and it is not right and it is not fair to attack and calumny career civil servants. But for my part, I have learned that it goes with the Independent Counsel territory.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. And the Independent Counsel job, you didn't seek that, did you?

    Mr. STARR. Absolutely not.

 Page 457       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. SCHIPPERS. You were asked to take it, and you tried to leave and your staff begged you to stay and you did stay; is that right?

    Mr. STARR. All of that is true. I never sought this job. I am reminded of the old song about taking a job and what you can do with it, but it would be indecorous of me to say it. But no, I was asked to, by the Special Division to take on this responsibility; the three-judge panel saw fit to ask me to serve. I had been asked by Phil Heymann, who was Deputy Attorney General of the United States in January of 1994, whether I would be willing to be considered for appointment as the Whitewater counsel under Ms. Reno to be appointed by Janet Reno. Happily for me, she wisely chose Bob Fiske. Unhappily for me, the Special Division chose me.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. You have been given a duty that you did not seek, and you have performed that duty to the best of your ability; is that correct, sir?

    Mr. STARR. I have certainly tried, and I do it to the best of my ability, and I am proud of what we have been able to accomplish. As I indicated earlier, the records of convictions obtained, but also, the decisions not to seek an indictment, the decision to issue thorough reports, all of that is part of what we have co-labored together, with Mr. Kendall pointing out the number of persons involved in the investigation. I am proud of those persons. They are my colleagues, and they have become my friends, and they have worked very long and very hard under very difficult circumstances, and recognizing, and we are big, big boys, and I mean that in a gender-neutral way. So when we were accused in Arkansas of a political witch-hunt, we took it and we did our arguing in court, and we proved to the satisfaction of a fair-minded jury with a very distinguished judge that the sitting governor and the President and the First Lady's business partners were guilty of serious felonies, and we had been listening month after month to ''it's a political witch-hunt,'' and that was unfair, but we learned that goes with this territory.
 Page 458       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Judge, for all that doing your duty, you have been pilloried and attacked from all sides, is that


    Mr. STARR. I would hope not all sides, but yes, that's——

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Well, sometimes it seems like all sides.

    How long have you been an attorney, Judge Starr?

    Mr. STARR. 25 years.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Well, I have been an attorney for almost 40 years, and I want to say I am proud to be in the same room with you and your staff.

    Mr. STARR. Thank you, Mr. Schippers.

    Mr. SCHIPPERS. Thank you.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentlewoman from Houston.
 Page 459       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I indicated I had a point of order. This might be more preferable as a point of clarification, and that is, I know it is extremely late in the evening, Mr. Starr, but Mr. Chairman, did I understand Mr. Starr to state that we would not expect any referrals on Filegate, Travelgate, and Watergate—excuse me, Whitewater, it has been many years—as relates to the provision in the Constitution on impeachment? Did I hear that correctly?

    Mr. Chairman, I had in addition to add to the record a question as to whether or not because of the shortness of the time of questioning, whether or not Mr. Starr would be able to answer, as he indicated I believe to many members that he would be willing to answer some of our questions in writing. For example, as to the question I had of his firsthand knowledge of any details in that referral.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. But Mr. Chairman, excuse me. It is late into the evening. And I do want to add United States v. Birdman, 602 F. 2d 547 (3rd Circuit, 1979). I would like to ask to have it submitted into the record, as it deals with the statement that courts have shared the legal profession's disapproval of the liberal role of an advocate witness.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentlelady has had her time now.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Page 460       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HYDE. Do you have a specific request?

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like the specific question answered as to the referrals on Whitewater, Travelgate and Filegate.

    Mr. HYDE. Okay. Mr. Starr, can you answer that?

    Mr. STARR. I am sorry. The opening statement spoke to the FBI files and Travel Office matter. I did not comment beyond those two matters.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. What did you say on those matters, Mr. Starr? That is what I asked.

    Mr. HYDE. Well, if the gentlelady would read the report.

    Mr. STARR. When I say I didn't comment with respect to the conclusion of such matters, the opening statement speaks for itself, and I think we can, in fact, have that as part of the record.

    Mr. HYDE. Well, it is part of the official record.

    Mr. STARR. Yes.

    Mr. HYDE. Very well.

 Page 461       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. Thank you, Judge Starr, for a wonderful day. Thank you.

    Mr. STARR. Thank you.

    Mr. HYDE. Everybody stay, please. The committee will stay. We are going to have a meeting.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the committee hearing stands adjourned, but the committee will remain here for a very short meeting.

    Pursuant to notice and subject to the authority granted in H. Res. 581, I now move that the committee authorize the issuance of subpoenas for the following individuals: Daniel Gecker, Nathan Landow and Bob Bennett.

    Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. The room is not in order, and I cannot hear you.

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Nadler.

    Mr. NADLER. The committee is not in order, and I cannot hear you.

 Page 462       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HYDE. Okay. I will try it again.

    Pursuant to notice, subject to the authority granted in H. Res. 581, I now move that the committee authorize the issuance of subpoenas for the following individuals: Daniel Gecker, Nathan Landow, Bob Bennett.

    Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. Is there any objection?

    Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Nadler.

    Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know the response for those subpoenas, in particular Mr. Gecker.

    Mr. HYDE. If the gentleman will permit me, if we have to go into it, we have to go into executive session to do that.

    Mr. NADLER. Let me ask one question which may not have to go into executive session.

    Mr. HYDE. Okay. What is it?

 Page 463       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. NADLER. Mr. Gecker, I believe, is Ms. Willey's lawyer. I presume he may avail himself of the attorney/client privilege claim, in fact he might have to. If you need information about the Willey case, why call the lawyer? Why not call the witness directly?

    Mr. HYDE. Well, I can't answer that, but I will say the attorney/client privilege does not overwhelm an impeachment committee.

    Is there any objection to the approval of the three subpoenas?

    Mr. SCOTT. Reserving the right to object.

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Scott.

    Mr. SCOTT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. Do you want to put your mike on?

    Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, are we—am I to assume by the issuance of these subpoenas that we are not confining the inquiry to the Starr allegations?

    Mr. HYDE. What we are doing is pursuant to the House Resolution 581. It is pursuant to that resolution.

    Mr. SCOTT. Well, Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
 Page 464       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman reserves the right to object.

    Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that at some point, I would appreciate it if we would focus the inquiry into specific allegations so we know what we are investigating.

    We are now not focused on the Starr allegations. I have no idea what the allegations are going to be, and if we are to conduct an inquiry that we can conclude at some point in the foreseeable future, we have to focus on certain allegations that might be impeachable offenses.

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Scott, this is focusing on material the committee has received in executive session. We have that material.

    Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.

    Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman.

    Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Watt.

    Mr. WATT. Reserving the right to object.

 Page 465       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman reserves the right to object.

    Mr. WATT. The motion that I am reserving, the unanimous consent request that I am reserving the right to object to, is to authorize the subpoenas; is that correct?

    Mr. HYDE. Yes.

    Mr. WATT. Okay. Mr. Chairman——

    Mr. HYDE. These are subpoenas for depositions.

    Mr. WATT. I don't feel like I can pass on that without having some background information, and I understand——

    Mr. HYDE. We have to go into executive session.

    Mr. WATT. Well, then, that is—I hate to put us to that burden, but I don't know how I can pass on it without having some more information.

    Mr. HYDE. We will go into executive session. We will have to clear the room.

    Mr. SCHUMER. Wait, Mr. Chairman.

 Page 466       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HYDE. What?

    Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, a question. Why do we have to be in executive session to debate this?

    Mr. HYDE. Because the material to explain the rationale for wanting these depositions is material that is executive material.

    Mr. WATT. Well, with respect, Mr. Chairman, I don't feel like I can vote—I can sit here and not object without understanding the rationale myself.

    Mr. HYDE. I understand, and we are perfectly willing to go into executive session.

    Mr. WATT. I am not trying to violate the executive rule.

    Mr. SCHUMER. Will the chairman yield?

    Mr. HYDE. Yes, I will yield.

    Mr. SCHUMER. I mean, look, it seems—I am befuddled by why we are doing this. I understand——

    Mr. HYDE. We wish to take depositions of these three people.

 Page 467       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. SCHUMER. I understand that.

    Mr. HYDE. And we will explain that in executive session.

    Mr. SCHUMER. If I might make my point, sir——

    Mr. HYDE. Sure.

    Mr. SCHUMER [continuing]. Which is I think the public, most of which is wondering why this is dragging on and on, also has a right to know why we are doing this. So what I would suggest, what I would suggest, is that we discuss as much of the rationale for this as we can out of executive session so the public can hear, and then if there are any specific references as to why we have to go into executive session—about materials that are gathered in executive session, we can go in for that portion.

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Schumer, we can't really discuss really anything around the edges even without transgressing on executive session material. So let's just go into executive session.

    Mr. SCHUMER. Well, then what I would move, Mr. Chairman—I have no problem with us going into an executive session, but then I would like for us to be able to discuss the rationale for this without using executive session material in public session, and that is the move I would—that is what I would propose.

    Mr. HYDE. Well, we can't do it. We are going to have to go into executive session.
 Page 468       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, if I could be heard on the motion?

    Mr. HYDE. Yes, you may.

    Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I know it is late, but we didn't decide—and you have been accommodating to us in some regards, but we didn't decide to do this all in 1 day, and I do not think it is legitimate to constrain members by running too much in 1 day and then saying, oh, it is getting late in the day.

    Then do it tomorrow. We have been spending—many of us felt that we should have started this a while ago. You waited until November 18th or 19th. Then you put it all in 1 day. It is simply not legitimate then to argue the time constraints.

    I think this committee has erred greviously by going into executive session and discussing things in executive session that ought to be discussed publicly. It is very, very strange to have these arguments about the need for the public to know, et cetera, et cetera, and we do it all in secret. This is the committee that released grand jury information on the television. We made history in denying what has traditionally been something that would be kept somewhat private, and we do these—we debated doing that in a private session.

    There is simply a great abuse of this. And again, I have to say then adjourn, come back tomorrow, come back next week. You know, as far as these depositions are concerned that were so important, I don't know why they weren't taken in September or October or earlier in November. I don't know how they became an emergency overnight.
 Page 469       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The fact is that you have, I think, overused the executive session. There are very important questions, and it is simply inconsistent to say this is a terribly important issue to the American people, people need to know about it, and we will go into secret and make all the decisions. Virtually every decision this committee has made it has made in secret, and it is simply an inconsistent position to talk about the important public issues that are involved here by going into it in secret.

    Mr. HYDE. All right. The gentleman has made his point.

    Mr. FRANK. No, excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I think I have 5 minutes. I am sorry. Look, I didn't decide that we would try to do it all in 1 day, but having decided to do it all in 1 day, you can't use that against us, and you can't use that to constrain things.

    You know, isn't it somewhat paradoxical? We talk about how important this issue is. We talk about this is such a fundamental constitutional question, but we have to worry because it is getting late? Then don't schedule us so that you constrain the most important thing we could possibly be talking about by the clock. Then let it go over to tomorrow. Let it go over until the next week. We should have been doing it a month ago. I will not be constrained by a self-imposed handicap of the clock.

    And I still do not think we should go into executive session without some justification as to why we have to go into executive session. We are not discussing national security. We are not discussing anything that is going to give anything away to anybody. We are not tipping off anybody. So I do not understand, and I think we have a right to be told, why we have to go into executive session.
 Page 470       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman. There is a motion before us——

    Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. —before the committee, to authorize the issuance of these subpoenas, and the clerk will call the roll.

    Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, there are members—point of order, Mr. Chairman.

    The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner.


    The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.

    Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of fairness, do you think by cutting off members seeking recognition——

    The CLERK. Mr. McCollum.

 Page 471       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. MCCOLLUM. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. McCollum votes aye.

    Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

    Mr. FRANK. This is unworthy of you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. All right. Hold it.

    Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. FRANK. There were members seeking recognition.

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Berman.

    Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, earlier today you made a ruling, which I agreed with, on a point of order raised by the gentlelady from Texas that with respect to the jurisdiction for this inquiry, the House has spoken.

    The House did not mandate this committee to investigate everything under the sun. It allowed this committee to conduct an inquiry on anything under the sun.

    We have the authority to decide what we are going to investigate.

 Page 472       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. Schumer makes a point. When you issue subpoenas for people involved in the Kathleen Willey case, the implication is that that matter becomes part of the impeachment inquiry.

    Everyone on this side of the aisle voted to limit the inquiry to the Monica Lewinsky referral. The Independent Counsel has not made a referral on the Kathleen Willey case. He has not found substantial and credible information that conduct by the President in that matter may justify impeachment—that finding has not been made, and that referral has not been made.

    So there should be a bifurcation. First, the issue of whether we go into this line of inquiry is something that should be discussed in open session. Then, if our position is lost, then in executive session the justification for the subpoenas can be raised. That is the only question that I have, and that is why I think we should be able to get the justification for the subpoenas if we decide we are launching into that inquiry, and I sure hope we don't.

    Mr. SCHUMER. Just would the gentleman yield?

    Mr. BERMAN. I would be happy to.

    Mr. SCHUMER. I would like to finish my point from before. Could the Chair give us some—without treading on executive session or anyone's confidentiality being disclosed, could the chairman give us some idea why these three people were chosen and not others, and where the Chair intends to take this—these depositions? What is the point?
 Page 473       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    We already have heard from Mr. Starr that he doesn't think the Willey episode rises to a level of impeachment. In my judgment, he has a pretty low threshold for impeachment, and if he doesn't think that the Willey affair does, then that is pretty dispositive to me.

    And here we are, with three completely—you know, yesterday we heard talk of John Huang. It was very hard to figure out what that was all about. Now we are hearing these three. One can only draw the conclusion, Mr. Chairman—Mr. Chairman, one can only draw the conclusion, without hearing an explanation, that the majority doesn't quite know what to do here and is sort of prolonging this with whatever thing they can grab onto, because there is no logic to this, at least to me.

    I would like to hear it, and I think the public is entitled to hear it. And I think in this case it could well be argued that executive session is being used as a shield because there is no good explanation as to why these three people are going to be deposed, why other people are not, and where the Chair and where the committee intends to take the depositions of these three people as, again, in—at least particularly in an area where the Office of Independent Counsel has said there is no impeachable offenses as far as it can see.

    Mr. HYDE. All right. The Chair——

    Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. The Chair will declare a 5-minute recess.
 Page 474       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  


    Mr. HYDE. The committee will come to order. The committee will come to order.

    I move that pursuant to Rule 11 Clause 2(g)(1), this committee meeting be conducted in executive session. The clerk will call the roll.

    Mr. SCHUMER. I move the previous question.

    Mr. HYDE. It is nondebatable.

    The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner.


    The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.

    Mr. McCollum.

    Mr. MCCOLLUM. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. McCollum votes aye.

 Page 475       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. Gekas.

    Mr. GEKAS. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Gekas votes aye.

    Mr. Coble.

    [No response.]

    The CLERK. Mr. Smith.

    Mr. SMITH. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes aye.

    Mr. Gallegly.

    Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.

    Mr. Canady.

    [No response.]
 Page 476       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The CLERK. Mr. Inglis.

    Mr. INGLIS. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes aye.

    Mr. Goodlatte.

    [No response.]

    The CLERK. Mr. Buyer.

    Mr. BUYER. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Buyer votes aye.

    Mr. Bryant.

    Mr. BRYANT. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Bryant votes aye.

    Mr. Chabot.

 Page 477       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    [No response.]

    The CLERK. Mr. Barr.

    [No response.]

    The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins.

    Mr. JENKINS. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins votes aye.

    Mr. Hutchinson.

    [No response.]

    The CLERK. Mr. Pease.

    Mr. PEASE. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Pease votes aye.

    Mr. Cannon.

    Mr. CANNON. Aye.
 Page 478       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The CLERK. Mr. Cannon votes aye.

    Mr. Rogan.

    Mr. ROGAN. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Rogan votes aye.

    Mr. Graham.

    Mr. GRAHAM. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Graham votes aye.

    Mrs. Bono.

    Mrs. BONO. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mrs. Bono votes aye.

    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Conyers.

    Mr. CONYERS. No.

 Page 479       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The CLERK. Mr. Conyers votes no.

    Mr. Frank.

    Mr. FRANK. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Frank votes no.

    Mr. Schumer.

    Mr. SCHUMER. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Schumer votes no.

    Mr. Berman.

    [No response.]

    The CLERK. Mr. Boucher.

    Mr. BOUCHER. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Boucher votes no.

    Mr. Nadler.
 Page 480       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. NADLER. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Nadler votes no.

    Mr. Scott.

    Mr. SCOTT. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Scott votes no.

    Mr. Watt.

    Mr. WATT. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Watt votes no.

    Ms. Lofgren.

    Ms. LOFGREN. No.

    The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren votes no.

    Ms. Jackson Lee.

 Page 481       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. JACKSON LEE. No.

    The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no.

    Ms. Waters.

    [No response.]

    The CLERK. Mr. Meehan.

    [No response.]

    The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt votes no.

    Mr. Wexler.

    Mr. WEXLER. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Wexler votes no.

    Mr. Rothman.
 Page 482       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    [No response.]

    The CLERK. Mr. Barrett.

    Mr. BARRETT. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Barrett votes no.

    Mr. Hyde.

    Mr. HYDE. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Hyde votes aye.

    Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman.

    Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Berman votes no.

    The CLERK. Mr. Berman votes no.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters.

 Page 483       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. WATERS. Votes no.

    The CLERK. Ms. Waters votes no.

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chabot.

    Mr. CHABOT. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Chabot votes aye.

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Canady.

    Mr. CANADY. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Canady votes aye.

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Goodlatte.

    Mr. GOODLATTE. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte votes aye.

    Mr. HYDE. Have all voted who wish?

    Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman.
 Page 484       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Hutchinson.

    Mr. HUTCHINSON. Aye.

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Meehan.

    The CLERK. Mr. Hutchinson votes aye.

    Mr. MEEHAN. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Meehan votes no.

    Mr. HYDE. The clerk will report.

    The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 19 ayes and 15 noes.

    Mr. HYDE. The motion is agreed to and the House, that is the committee——

    Mr. SCHUMER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. —will stand at ease while we clear the room.

    Mr. SCHUMER. Point of order before that, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 485       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. HYDE. Yes, Mr. Senator.

    Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, according to the rules, at least a cursory review of the rules, a move to go into executive session is indeed debatable.

    Mr. CONYERS. Yes.

    Mr. SCHUMER. It is indeed debatable, and you said it was not debatable. I would ask——

    Mr. HYDE. I was so informed by staff.

    Mr. SCHUMER. Could counsel make a ruling on that, please, and point to the relevant part of our rules which shows that it is? I mean, now we are really flying by the seats of our pants.

    Mr. BUYER. I moved the previous question, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. SCHUMER. You did, and I just made the point of


    Mr. HYDE. Your point of order is well taken. It is debatable. I was informed it was not.
 Page 486       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. But do you want to debate this some more now?

    Mr. SCHUMER. Yes.

    Mr. HYDE. Well, you have already spoken, so Mr. Nadler is recognized.

    We will undo the roll call. We will dump the roll call and start again.

    Mr. CONYERS. Dump the roll call.

    Mr. HYDE. Ms. Jackson Lee will be next.

    Mr. NADLER. Could the committee be in order?

    Mr. HYDE. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Nadler. I am all ears.

    Mr. NADLER. Regular order. The room is too noisy.

    Mr. HYDE. The room won't be cleared until we go into executive session.

 Page 487       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. NADLER. I didn't ask for it to be cleared. I simply asked for it to be quiet.

    Mr. HYDE. Oh, quiet. Okay.

    Mr. NADLER. I do not want it cleared.

    Mr. Chairman, we should not go into executive session until a reason is given as to why we are going into executive session.

    Number two, before we talk about these subpoenas, we should have some basic idea of why we are being asked for these subpoenas. Specifically the subpoenas apparently relate to the Kathleen Willey matter which, as Mr. Schumer pointed out, the special prosecutor says raises no questions that rise to the level of possible impeachable offenses. And so I would want to know, does this relate to the Willey matter? If it doesn't, does it relate to something else? And why are we being asked for this?

    I can't believe that some reason can't be given in public session.

    Thirdly, if we are to have a motion to go into executive session, I would ask that the motion say go into executive session and then come back into open session so we can address whatever it is we can address publicly, because I believe we owe that to the public.

    Mr. HYDE. Will the gentleman yield?

 Page 488       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. NADLER. Yes.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman can make that motion when we are in executive session.

    Mr. NADLER. No. I think we have to make that motion now. That ought to be a condition of our going into executive session.

    Mr. HYDE. I don't agree with that.

    Mr. NADLER. Because if we make that motion in executive session, and it is voted down, we can't even say it was voted down.

    Mr. HYDE. That is true.

    Mr. NADLER. And that is not right.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman has it exactly right.

    Mr. NADLER. But it is not the right thing to do or the right way to conduct our business.

    Mr. HYDE. Okay. Are you through?

    Mr. NADLER. I would move to amend the motion then.
 Page 489       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. HYDE. I hear you. Thank you.

    Mr. NADLER. I move to amend the motion.

    Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Buyer has a parliamentary inquiry.

    Mr. NADLER. May I finish saying more on the amendment before his parliamentary inquiry?

    Mr. HYDE. I am sorry. What?

    Mr. NADLER. I said, could I finish stating the amendment before Mr. Buyer's parliamentary inquiry?

    Mr. HYDE. Surely. You can finish anything you want.

    Mr. NADLER. I move to amend the motion that after we go into executive session, when the executive session is completed, we come out and resume regular session and then discuss the matter of the proposed subpoenas to the extent we can, in public session, and that the vote on those subpoenas be held in public session.

    Mr. HYDE. The clerk will call the roll. You have heard the motion.
 Page 490       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    You want to talk on the motion? Ms. Jackson Lee? Well, the amendment to the motion, that is right. Yes, Ms. Lee.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to associate myself with the words of Mr. Nadler and his motion, for two reasons.

    One, Mr. Chairman, you were quoted as saying that in spite of the resolution passed dealing with how we would proceed in this impeachment process, that you look to the end of 1998 to complete this process. I think it is important for the American people to know where we are going with this process, how long it will take, and how many people will be caught up in our web. Clearly, I think to go into executive session will preclude us from discussing this in an open manner as to whether this is going to go on and on and on and on.

    We have determined today that the witness Mr. Starr has indicated that certain referrals would not come here. Are we now encouraging him to bring other referrals that he had not even contemplated or has already indicated there is no basis for bringing forward? And so I would just argue that we are not providing the direction and allowing for a discussion on whether or not we should go into executive session, and call witnesses, of course, we don't know for what basis we are calling them, then I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that we not go into executive session on these matters, and instead find out, as a whole, where we are going and when we will be able to complete this matter, in a timely manner. And I yield back.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman from Indiana.

 Page 491       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat bewildered and confused, so I am going to ask a parliamentary inquiry. We had a motion here before the committee. I moved the previous question, and then we had a vote. Now, I would like to ask the Parliamentarian why would that vote not stand?

    Mr. HYDE. I will answer that. Because I told them that the motion was not debatable, and I was wrong. It was debatable. So I did not want to ram through something under the mistaken ruling of the Chair that it was not debatable. That is why. I made a mistake.

    Mr. BUYER. Well, I will move the previous question on Mr. Nadler's amendment to the motion.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman moves the previous question. All those in favor say aye.

    Opposed, nay.

    The ayes have it, and the previous question is moved.

    The question now occurs on the motion of Mr. Nadler to go into executive session but then to hold an open session thereafter.

    Mr. NADLER. And to vote in the open session.

 Page 492       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HYDE. And to vote in the open session? What will we vote on?

    Mr. NADLER. The discussion——

    Mr. HYDE. I understand. The vote on the subpoenas.

    Mr. NADLER. Let me clarify. The debate would be in the closed session. We come out of the debate whatever and discuss that which could be discussed in the open session, and then we would have the vote in the open session.

    Mr. HYDE. We understand Mr. Nadler's motion. All those in favor say aye.

    Opposed, no.

    Mr. BERMAN. Roll call.

    Mr. HYDE. Roll call.

    The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner.


    The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
 Page 493       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. McCollum.

    [No response.]

    The CLERK. Mr. Gekas.

    Mr. GEKAS. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Gekas votes no.

    Mr. Coble.

    Mr. COBLE. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Coble votes no.

    Mr. Smith.

    Mr. SMITH. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes no.

    Mr. Gallegly.

 Page 494       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. GALLEGLY. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly votes no.

    Mr. Canady.

    Mr. CANADY. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Canady votes no.

    Mr. Inglis.

    Mr. INGLIS. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes no.

    Mr. Goodlatte.

    Mr. GOODLATTE. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte votes no.

    Mr. Buyer.

    Mr. BUYER. No.
 Page 495       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The CLERK. Mr. Buyer votes no.

    Mr. Bryant.

    Mr. BRYANT. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Bryant votes no.

    Mr. Chabot.

    Mr. CHABOT. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Chabot votes no.

    Mr. Barr.

    [No response.]

    The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins.

    Mr. JENKINS. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins votes no.

 Page 496       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. Hutchinson.


    The CLERK. Mr. Hutchinson votes no.

    Mr. Pease.

    Mr. PEASE. Mr. Chairman, no.

    The CLERK. Mr. Pease votes no.

    Mr. Cannon.

    Mr. CANNON. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Cannon votes no.

    Mr. Rogan.

    Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, regrettably, before voting, I simply want to make sure I am clear on Mr. Nadler's motion, and I apologize for the confusion, but the noise and the rapidity with which this was moving was so quickly, and I wasn't able to get a clarification to my satisfaction.

 Page 497       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Is the motion that we are debating upon now whether to debate the issuance of subpoenas in executive session?

    Mr. NADLER. No. Could I clarify the amendment again?

    Mr. HYDE. Yes, please.

    Mr. NADLER. The amendment says we will go into executive session. We will discuss whatever we discuss in executive session. Then we will come out and resume the public session, debate whatever we can debate in the public session, and then vote in the public session.

    Mr. ROGAN. With that elucidation, Rogan votes no.

    The CLERK. Mr. Rogan votes no.

    Mr. Graham.

    Mr. GRAHAM. He is deliberating. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Graham votes no.

    Mrs. Bono.

    Mrs. BONO. No.
 Page 498       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The CLERK. Mrs. Bono votes no.

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Barr.

    Mr. BARR. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Barr votes no.

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. McCollum.

    Mr. MCCOLLUM. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. McCollum votes no.

    Mr. HYDE. The clerk will report.

    Mr. CONYERS. Have we voted?

    Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, do we get to vote? Thank you, Mr. Floyd—I mean, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. Haven't you ever heard of cut to the chase?

    Mr. FRANK. Well, we didn't think we would be the ones that were cut.
 Page 499       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. HYDE. The clerk will continue to call the roll, and don't let me try that again.

    The CLERK. Okay. Mr. Conyers.

    Mr. CONYERS. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Conyers votes aye.

    Mr. Frank.

    Mr. FRANK. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Frank votes aye.

    Mr. Schumer.

    Mr. SCHUMER. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Schumer votes aye.

    Mr. Berman.

    Mr. BERMAN. Aye.
 Page 500       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The CLERK. Mr. Berman votes aye.

    Mr. Boucher.

    Mr. BOUCHER. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Boucher votes aye.

    Mr. Nadler.

    Mr. NADLER. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Nadler votes aye.

    Mr. Scott.

    Mr. SCOTT. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Scott votes aye.

    Mr. Watt.

    Mr. WATT. Pass.

 Page 501       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The CLERK. Mr. Watt passes.

    Ms. Lofgren.

    Ms. LOFGREN. Aye.

    The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren votes aye.

    Ms. Jackson Lee.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Aye.

    The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee votes aye.

    Ms. Waters.

    Ms. WATERS. Aye.

    The CLERK. Ms. Waters votes aye.

    Mr. Meehan.

    Mr. MEEHAN. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Meehan votes aye.
 Page 502       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. Delahunt.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt votes aye.

    Mr. Wexler.

    Mr. WEXLER. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Wexler votes aye.

    Mr. Rothman.

    Mr. ROTHMAN. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Rothman votes aye.

    Mr. Barrett.

    Mr. BARRETT. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Barrett votes aye.

 Page 503       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. Hyde.

    Mr. HYDE. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Hyde votes no.

    Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. The gentleman from North Carolina.

    Mr. WATT. I vote aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Watt votes aye.

    Mr. Chairman, there are 16 ayes and 21 noes.

    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Nadler's motion is defeated.

    Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. The question occurs——

    Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman.
 Page 504       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. HYDE. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?

    Mr. NADLER. To offer an amendment.

    Mr. HYDE. The previous question has been moved.

    Mr. NADLER. I haven't heard the previous question moved.

    Mr. BUYER. I have now moved the previous question.

    Mr. NADLER. Excuse me.

    Mr. BUYER. I move we go into executive session.

    Mr. NADLER. Excuse me.

    Mr. HYDE. You are not recognized for that purpose. Let us move on.

    Mr. NADLER. No.

    Mr. HYDE. Come on.

 Page 505       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move the previous question.

    Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, it is not a dilatory amendment. You may even agreed to it.

    Mr. HYDE. You have spoken on this question already.

    Mr. NADLER. No, it is a new amendment. It is not the same question.

    Mr. HYDE. All right. What is your amendment?

    Mr. NADLER. My amendment is simply, Mr. Chairman, that the ayes and nays on the issuance of the subpoenas and the ayes and nays on the motion will be made public. I ask yes on executive session.

    Mr. HYDE. All right. The gentleman's motion is not in writing, but that is all right. We are accommodating tonight. You have heard the motion. All those in favor say aye.

    Opposed, nay.

    The ayes have it.

    Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion that this committee now move to executive session.
 Page 506       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. HYDE. All those in favor of the motion say aye.

    Opposed, nay.

    The ayes have it.

    Mr. FRANK. Roll Call, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. HYDE. Roll Call. Roll Call.

    The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner.


    The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.

    Mr. McCollum.

    Mr. MCCOLLUM. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. McCollum votes aye.

    Mr. Gekas.

 Page 507       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. GEKAS. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Gekas votes aye.

    Mr. Coble.

    Mr. COBLE. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Coble votes aye.

    Mr. Smith.

    Mr. SMITH. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes aye.

    Mr. Gallegly.

    Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.

    Mr. Canady.

    Mr. CANADY. Aye.
 Page 508       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The CLERK. Mr. Canady votes aye.

    Mr. Inglis.

    Mr. INGLIS. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes aye.

    Mr. Goodlatte.

    Mr. GOODLATTE. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte votes aye.

    Mr. Buyer.

    Mr. BUYER. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Buyer votes aye.

    Mr. Bryant.

    Mr. BRYANT. Aye.

 Page 509       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The CLERK. Mr. Bryant votes aye.

    Mr. Chabot.

    Mr. CHABOT. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Chabot votes aye.

    Mr. Barr.

    Mr. BARR. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Barr votes aye.

    Mr. Jenkins.

    Mr. JENKINS. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins votes aye.

    Mr. Hutchinson.

    Mr. HUTCHINSON. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Hutchinson votes aye.
 Page 510       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. Pease.

    Mr. PEASE. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Pease votes aye.

    Mr. Cannon.

    Mr. CANNON. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Cannon votes aye.

    Mr. Rogan.

    Mr. ROGAN. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Rogan votes aye.

    Mr. Graham.

    Mr. GRAHAM. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Graham votes aye.

 Page 511       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mrs. Bono.

    Mrs. BONO. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mrs. Bono votes aye.

    Mr. Conyers.

    Mr. CONYERS. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Conyers votes no.

    Mr. Frank.

    Mr. FRANK. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Frank votes no.

    Mr. Schumer.

    Mr. SCHUMER. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Schumer votes no.

    Mr. Berman.
 Page 512       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. BERMAN. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Berman votes no.

    Mr. Boucher.

    Mr. BOUCHER. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Boucher votes no.

    Mr. Nadler.

    Mr. NADLER. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Nadler votes no.

    Mr. Scott.

    Mr. SCOTT. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Scott votes no.

    Mr. Watt.

 Page 513       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. WATT. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Watt votes no.

    Ms. Lofgren.

    Ms. LOFGREN. No.

    The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren votes no.

    Ms. Jackson Lee.

    Ms. JACKSON LEE. No.

    The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no.

    Ms. Waters.

    Ms. WATERS. No.

    The CLERK. Ms. Waters votes no.

    Mr. Meehan.

    Mr. MEEHAN. No.
 Page 514       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The CLERK. Mr. Meehan votes no.

    Mr. Delahunt.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt votes no.

    Mr. Wexler.

    Mr. WEXLER. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Wexler votes no.

    Mr. Rothman.

    Mr. ROTHMAN. No.

    The CLERK. Mr. Rothman votes no.

    Mr. Barrett.

    Mr. BARRETT. No.

 Page 515       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The CLERK. Mr. Barrett votes no.

    Mr. Hyde.

    Mr. HYDE. Aye.

    The CLERK. Mr. Hyde votes aye.

    Mr. Chairman, there are 21 ayes and 16 noes.

    Mr. HYDE. And the motion is carried, and the committee will go into executive session, and we will stand at ease until the room is cleared.

    [Whereupon the committee proceeded in Executive Session.]




 Page 516       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  






NOVEMBER 19, 1998

Serial No. 66

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
 Page 517       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
BOB BARR, Georgia
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY BONO, California

JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
 Page 518       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

Majority Staff

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., General Counsel-Chief of Staff
JON W. DUDAS, Deputy General Counsel-Staff Director
DIANA L. SCHACHT, Deputy Staff Director-Chief Counsel
DANIEL M. FREEMAN, Parliamentarian-Counsel
PAUL J. MCNULTY, Director of Communications-Chief Counsel
JOSEPH H. GIBSON, Chief Counsel
JOHN F. MAUTZ, IV, Counsel
 Page 519       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

GEORGE M. FISHMAN, Chief Counsel
MITCH GLAZIER, Chief Counsel
JOHN H. LADD, Chief Counsel
JIM Y. WILON, Counsel

DAVID P. SCHIPPERS, Chief Investigative Counsel
SUSAN BOGART, Investigative Counsel
BERLE S. LITTMANN, Investigator
STEPHEN P. LYNCH, Professional Staff Member
 Page 520       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
JEFFREY J. PAVLETIC, Investigative Counsel
THOMAS M. SCHIPPERS, Investigative Counsel
ALBERT F. TRACY, Investigator
PETER J. WACKS, Investigator
DIANA L. WOZNICKI, Investigator

Minority Staff

JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Chief Counsel-Staff Director
PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority General Counsel
ABBE D. LOWELL, Minority Chief Investigative Counsel
SAMPAK P. GARG, Investigative Counsel
STEVEN F. REICH, Investigative Counsel
DEBORAH L. RHODE, Investigative Counsel
KEVIN M. SIMPSON, Investigative Counsel
LIS W. WIEHL, Investigative Counsel


 Page 521       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    November 19, 1998


    Hyde, Hon. Henry J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary

    Starr, Hon. Kenneth, Independent Counsel, Office of the Independent Counsel, Washington, DC


    Barr, Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia: Prepared statement

    Bryant, Ed, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee: Prepared statement

    Gallegly, Elton, a Representative in Congress from the State of California: Prepared statement

    Goodlatte, Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, Claims of Government Misconduct
 Page 522       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Jackson Lee, Sheila, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas: Prepared statement

    Starr, Hon. Kenneth, Independent Counsel, Office of the Independent Counsel, Washington, DC: Prepared statement