House Minority Counsel's Examination of Kenneth Starr
Before the House Judiciary Committee
November 19, 1998
HYDE: The committee will come to order. I would appreciate it
if we could get the doors closed.
The chair now recognizes minority counsel, Mr. Lowell, to
question the witness for 30 minutes.
LOWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Mr. Starr.
STARR: Good afternoon, Mr. Lowell.
LOWELL: Chairman Hyde has again this morning announced his
desire to conclude the inquiry by the end of this year. With that in
mind, it appears that you may be the principal witness that the
committee hears. And that your's will most certainly be the primary
evidence considered.
Given this, Mr. Starr, isn't it true that on September 25, 1998,
without any request by this committee to do so, you sent the committee
a letter which agreed that once questions about your conduct were
raised, those questions were not incidental or tangential, but they
were -- quote -- "appearing to bear on the substantiality and
credibility of the information you provided to the House in our
referral."
STARR: Well, Mr. Lowell, the letter -- and I believe I'm
recalling the one that you are speaking to. We've had a lot of
correspondence back and forth, as you know. But the letter -- if my
recollection serves me -- goes to the circumstances with respect to
the events of the evening of January 16th.
And there were certain allegations being made about the
circumstances by which we approached Ms. Lewinsky, what was said and
the like. And that's what we were talking about, or what we were
addressing in that letter, if again it's the letter you are
indicating.
But may I take, I must say, gentle issue with the idea that this
is not the information is before you. This is the information. And
the supplemental materials in the appendices reflect the hard work of
the grand jury, who has evaluated the witnesses.
I am the independent counsel. My colleagues and I have gathered
the information. But no, I -- witness, not in the sense of a fact
witness, except to the extent obviously that members want to inquire
into the activities of our office. And I'm obviously going to try to
be responsive.
LOWELL: If you look at tab one, Mr. Starr, of the exhibit book
in front of you, just so that we are clear, indeed, it is the
September 25 letter in which you write to the committee and state that
the conduct -- in this case, of how you dealt with Ms. Lewinsky --
goes to the substantiality and the credibility of the evidence you
sent. That's the letter, is it not?
STARR: It -- yes, it is.
LOWELL: With that in mind, Mr. Starr, the members of the
committee and I have a series of questions that, as you indicated,
will elucidate the substantiality and the credibility of the
evidence.
To begin with, in your testimony -- and if you look at your
testimony, it would be on pages 31 and 50 -- you acknowledged that you
had a number of choices to make with respect to sending a referral to
Congress.
To quote from your morning's testimony, you stated that one of
the questions you needed to decide was -- quote -- "what to do with
the evidence?" And then, you said, we needed to decide -- quote --
"how do you write a referral?"
You recall your statements with those choices, correct?
STARR: Yes.
LOWELL: With respect to the choices you made, Mr. Starr, you
would have to agree, I take it, that there are substantial differences
between the referral that you sent to Congress on September 9th, 1998,
and the one that was sent by Watergate special prosecutor Leon
Jaworski to whom you referred in 1974. You would not, would you?
STARR: I'm not sure I understood...
LOWELL: You would agree that ...
STARR: (OFF-MIKE) the question ...
LOWELL: ... the methodology and procedures and the decisions
that you made differed substantially to the ones that he made 24 years
ago.
STARR: Well, I understood the question. The answer is yes, in
that our referral -- your question had a number of elements, and so I
want to be precise. Our referral did indeed differ, and if I may
explain why.
Mr. Cox and then his successor, Mr. Jaworski, were dealing not in
an environment controlled by a law. And the assurance I want to give
this committee is that we studied the law, namely 595(c), very
carefully. Mr. Cox, Mr. Jaworski never had occasion to look at 595(c)
because it did not exist.
And so we examined that law. We examined the background. And we
went through the process that I described this morning.
And we determined, for example, that with respect to some of the
matters that in my effort to provide assistance to the committee, some
of the events with respect to the Whitewater investigation, we were
not satisfied in December of '97 that that information that we had at
that time standing alone met the threshold.
That has been what has governed us, and indeed, if I could just
add this, the statute was framed in terms of grounds that may
constitute grounds for an impeachment. The very language that
Congress used suggests to me a process of judgment. And we came to a
judgment, as opposed to the situation that obtained absent the statute
with respect to Mr. Jaworski in 1974.
LOWELL: On that point, Mr. Starr, as I understand it -- and I
think you, in referring to the differences -- this is how Mr.
Jaworski's report has been characterized by federal Judge John Sirica,
who reviewed it in order to send it to Congress. Judge Sirica wrote:
"Mr. Jaworski's report draws no accusatory conclusions. It contains
no recommendations, advice or statements that infringe on the
prerogatives of the other branches of government, but it renders no
moral or social judgments. It is a simple and straightforward
compilation of information, and it contains no objectionable
features."
This is how your report has been described. "It is a report that
marshals and characterizes the information into an aggressive piece of
legal advocacy. It is one where there are few of the factual
assertions are left to speak for themselves. In short, it is a
document with an attitude. It is notable for its failure to
acknowledge that there might be more than one way to view at least
some of the evidence."
And that was from the Supreme Court report of The New York Times,
Linda Greenhouse (ph), on September the 12th, 1998.
It cannot be your testimony, is it, Mr. Starr, that the 595(c)
background material that you say to this committee, which was involved
in reviewing that statute that you reviewed, required you to make the
accusations, conclusions -- in short, have a referral with an
attitude? Is it?
STARR: My opinion of the statute, or my reading and
interpretation of the statute, Mr. Lowell, is that I am called upon to
establish the reason that in the independent counsel's view the
matters that I send before you may constitute a grounds for
impeachment.
STARR: That's a very serious and weighty matter. And we
approached it in a very serious and weighty manner. I have the
highest regard for the late John Sirica. I served with Judge Sirica.
But he was addressing, in all fairness, a totally different set of
circumstances because -- and it may be that we have different
interpretations of the statute. But with respect to any particular,
you know, reporter's evaluation or description, I stand behind this
referral, and I'm sure there will be questions about it.
What we tried to do in this referral was to assemble in an
organized form rather than sending you simply truckloads of
unorganized information, give it coherence, and then it is your
judgment. And thus if it is the judgment that this referral has not
in fact stood the test of your close examination. Did we get the
facts wrong? Then of course you should come to your own judgment and
your own assessment.
But this reflects, just so the committee knows, the views of some
of the most experienced prosecutors in the country. I stand behind it
because it is mine. I stand behind each word of it. It is my
ultimate judgment. But this is a professional product, it's not the
product of one single person.
LOWELL: Whether it be your judgment, Mr. Starr, or the judgment
of your entire staff, one thing I think you will agree with, is that
it was your and your staff's decisions to include the words
"premeditated"; "concocted false alibis"; "deceived";
"pattern of
obstruction"; "lying under oath"; "perjury" -- which words you
will
never find in the report of Leon Jaworski when he was reporting the
same kind of evidence to the Congress 24 years ago. Aren't I right
about that?
STARR: I don't think that -- I've not reviewed all the material
that Mr. Jaworski delivered, and I'm not taking issue with the fact
that this document is no doubt in many respects different than the
very kind of environment and legal standard under which Mr. Jaworski
was operating.
But Mr. Lowell, if I'm going to, speaking through my voice, but
if our office is going to inform the House of Representatives that
there maybe substantial grounds for an impeachment, that is so
weighty, that is so serious that you need to have the benefit of our
judgment and our assessment of the facts, informed by our watching the
witnesses, listening to the grand jury and the way the grand jury
reacted to witnesses, the assessment of the grand jury, and then to
give you our judgment.
But obviously this body is entirely at liberty to reject this
referral as not being substantial or credible. It is entirely your
judgment. And one of the points I did try to make in the opening
statement is, I believe -- and you may disagree -- that I was called
upon to give you my judgment and my assessment, and I have done that.
But it is the responsibility of the House of Representatives to use
this to the extent that it wants; to discard it; to do whatever it
thinks is necessary to come to its judgment as to whether there should
be any proceeding, some sort of proceeding or not.
This is a tool. This is only a tool for you to use as you see
fit. But I don't think that it's fair to criticize my office for not
following a pattern that was not governed by a statute. And Colonel
Jaworski is not here to tell us what he would think if he went through
the same process under the statutory regime that our professional
colleagues went through.
LOWELL: Well, let me conclude this area, because you invited it.
I know Mr. Jaworski is...
STARR: I'm sorry?
LOWELL: You have raised...
STARR: I'm having a little bit of trouble hearing you.
LOWELL: I'm sorry. You have raised something that I think bears
some note. When you were talking about Mr. Jaworski not being here,
but he did leave us his words. And these are the words that Mr.
Jaworski left us. I think you must have known this when you were
considering what to do with your referral.
In talking about his decisions, the way you have talked about
your decisions, in talking about how to send material to Congress
about the grave and serious matter of presidential wrongdoing, Mr.
Jaworski wrote as follows.
LOWELL: "I want to know whether or not this was something...
BARR: (OFF-MIKE) Identify the document.
LOWELL: I'm sorry. You could find this on tab 4 of the exhibits
in front of you. And I apologize, Mr. Barr.
BARR: Tab 4?
LOWELL: Tab 4.
BARR: Thank you, Mr. Lowell.
LOWELL: Mr. Jaworski, who left us his words said: "The central
key to the entire success was not accusing anyone. What we did is
simply carried forward what the facts were, passed them on, not making
an effort to interpret them, not making any sort of an effort to
construe or to say what we thought it showed and let it be completely
nonaccusative." So we don't have Mr. Jaworski, but we do have his
words, correct?
STARR: Absolutely. Now, and if I could...
LOWELL: (OFF-MIKE)
STARR: May I just comment...
LOWELL: Go ahead.
STARR: ... in light of your quotation? We did go through an
evaluative process, as I described.
And while we did not have the benefit of Colonel Jaworski, except
that which he has left us, I do think it's important for the committee
to know that in light of the sober judgment -- you're free to disagree
with that judgment; but it's our professional judgment -- that the
president engaged in abuse of his authority with respect to executive
privilege.
We were guided by Sam Dash (ph), who had very strong views on
that, who expressed those views, and who felt that we had to use
certain kinds of language that I think, Mr. Lowell -- and I respect
your views -- you would disagree with.
LOWELL: I'd like to move to an area that will, I hope, reflect
to the members some of the other choices that you had to make about
the evidence. As I understand your testimony this morning after the
four years and however many dollars you've now spent, your testimony
confirms apparently that your office is not and is not sending an
impeachment referral to the Congress on what's been affectionately, or
not so affectionately called, Travelgate, not what's been called
Filegate.
And on page 141, I think of your testimony, you said that you are
not...
STARR: I'm sorry. At page?
LOWELL: At page 41 of your testimony.
STARR: Thank you.
LOWELL: You are not sending a referral on the original
Whitewater land deal, and pointed out that in some of your
investigation, you're now learned that former Governor Tucker actually
exonerated the president on some of the questions that you had.
STARR: Yes.
LOWELL: The referral you sent then, Mr. Starr, refers apparently
only to the issues about the Paula Jones' case and the questions of
the president's conduct in dealing with that case. That's correct, is
it not?
STARR: The referral itself does. We do, of course, in -- if I
may.
LOWELL: Please.
STARR: The referral does in other respects indicate the ties
that we saw to earlier phases of our investigation and why we in fact
were choosing to assess this.
But you're quite right, both with respect to the two matters you
indicated as well as the specific testimony by Governor Tucker, that
those matters will in fact not be coming to you.
LOWELL: Mr. Starr, part of the word -- the key word in your
title is independent counsel, correct? Independent?
STARR: Yes.
LOWELL: Part of being independent, I think you would agree with
me, is being free of conflicts of interests that might bias your
investigation, correct?
STARR: Yes.
LOWELL: And as I understand it, your testimony this morning
indicated that on January 15th, 1998, the Office of the Independent
Counsel met with Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder to discuss your
jurisdiction over the matter that has now been presented in the
referral. Am I right about that?
STARR: I believe the date is correct. Yes, we -- our contact
with the department and those initial meetings was with the deputy
attorney general.
LOWELL: In your testimony, Mr. Starr, you stated -- and I quote
-- on page 30 of your testimony that you -- quote -- "fully informed
the deputy attorney general about the matters under investigation."
LOWELL: And I take it, it was because they had to make a
decision about jurisdiction, correct?
STARR: Yes. We were there to discuss jurisdiction.
LOWELL: The independent counsel law, as you explained to the
committee on pages 29 and 30 of your testimony, indicated that at the
day that you were making your presentation, the attorney general had a
choice as to whether to recommend that you conduct the investigation
or to give that responsibility to someone else. Isn't that also true?
STARR: Yes.
LOWELL: In that case, I suspect that you and your office would
have provided the deputy attorney general and the attorney general all
the information that she and he would have needed to make that
important choice. Am I also correct about that?
STARR: Well, certainly that which in our judgment was relevant
to the decision, by all means.
LOWELL: Mr. Starr, though, isn't it then true that in fact
neither the deputy attorney general nor the attorney general have the
facts that they needed, because not once in any presentation you or
your office made to them about the material that you were now asking
their jurisdiction over that you did not ever mention the substantial
contacts that you had already had in the Paula Jones case, the very
subject about which you were seeking authority to investigate?
STARR: Mr. Lowell, let me address two aspects. You were asking
about the jurisdiction, and then, let me come to the Paula Jones
contacts that I had.
We did not go to the department, Mr. Lowell, to say we must have
jurisdiction. We took to the department an issue -- because we view
the department as that entity of government to whom we look, to the
attorney general of the United States ultimately, to make
jurisdictional decisions. And I was not in attendance at the
meetings, but I can give you my impression or understanding. And I'll
make this very brief.
We made it very clear that there was -- the information we had
was that there was in-co-ate (ph) criminality, which is a fancy way of
saying: Something is afoot; it's breaking now; it is fast-moving; and
we need to bring this to your attention and then you make the
determination; we think there is a jurisdictional justification for
what we've done this far, but we think there are serious
jurisdictional issues.
Now, it will be the attorney general's decision. Now what should
the attorney general have been informed?
LOWELL: Can I go over those with you? I mean, if you would turn
to tab five of the book, I think you and I and the members of the
committee will be able to go through the issues that we might either
agree or disagree the attorney general should have been informed
about.
Mr. Starr, on that page, you will see that it appears that
neither you nor any of the officials in your office told the attorney
general that before you became the independent counsel, your law firm
-- Kirkland and Ellis -- was actually contacted to represent Paula
Jones and eventually helped her attorneys to find the lawyers she
chose. That was not mentioned to the attorney general that day or at
any other time that you were seeking jurisdiction, or asking her about
jurisdiction, was it?
STARR: Well, you're assuming that I had the benefit of all this
information.
LOWELL: Whether your law firm had been asked?
STARR: Yes, in terms of all that, because I certainly had had
personal communications with Mr. Davis. But I would have to
reconstruct what others may have done in other offices. It is a large
law firm.
So if I could just say what I, in fact, knew at the time that
this activity was under way -- the reaching out to the attorney
general when these events were first unfolding -- was that I had in
fact been contacted by among others Mr. Davis with respect to an
amicus brief or some participation on the constitutional immunity
issue in 1994.
STARR: And those had been publicly reported. It was all in the
public domain. I indeed debated that very issue against Lloyd Cutler
and Susan Bloch. On...
LOWELL: I'm sorry to interrupt you on that.
STARR: Yes.
LOWELL: The question that I asked -- and I'm sorry to do it --
was not whether you had had contact with Mr. Davis, which had been
reported at some earlier point. I asked whether you had or any of
your office members told the attorney general that your law firm --
that you were still a member of and getting a salary from -- had
indeed been sought out to be Paula Jones' lawyers. I understood you
saying you may not have known that.
My question is you're telling me that Richard Porter (ph), your
partner, did not ever inform you that he had been asked to consider
representing Paula Jones and had in fact assisted her in getting the
attorneys she ultimately chose. Is that what you're saying?
STARR: Well, my best recollection is no. I know Richard Porter
(ph). I've had communications with him from time to time. But in
terms of a specific discussion with respect to what the law firm may
be -- may be doing or may not be doing I'm not recalling that
specifically, no.
LOWELL: You do recall, though, that it was a matter that you
admit that on at least six occasions you personally had had
conversations with Paula Jones' attorneys over legal issues in the
Paula Jones case.
STARR: I'm not sure. I had had conversations with them, just as
I had conversations with others, including -- and I think the record
of these proceedings should reflect that. My position on -- if I
could be permitted -- my position on the constitutional immunity that
the president enjoyed was very clear and was open.
I was contacted, before I was appointed as independent counsel,
by Bob Fiske. Bob Fiske was the independent counsel in Little Rock,
Arkansas. And Mr. Fiske asked me whether I would be willing to
consider writing an amicus brief on behalf of the Office of
Independent Counsel, which of course he was appointed by the attorney
general.
And we had conversations, or no final decision was made, but he
engaged me in discussions with respect to that. We talked about the
issues and so forth.
So Mr. Lowell, I want to make a point. It did not occur to me
that issues with respect to constitutional immunity -- it just did not
occur to me. And fault me for my inability to issue spot. That's
what we do in the law. We try to spot issues. But I never spotted
the issue that my conversations with Bob Fiske, Gil Davis, my debating
Lawrence Tribe on National Public Radio had the foggiest connection
with issues that were unfolding at the time.
And fault my judgment if you will, but it just frankly did not
occur to me, as I think happens to a lot of us in life, that you just
don't view that as relevant information -- and if I may say so,
especially since my position had been so well-known, and including the
contacts with Ms. Jones' attorneys, who reached out to me with respect
to the constitutional immunity issue solely, exclusively.
And the final thing I would say in response to your question...
LOWELL: Mr. Starr (OFF-MIKE). I'm going to be cut off, Mr.
Chairman...
STARR: Well...
LOWELL: ... (OFF-MIKE) time...
STARR: You said six conversations, and you made a very specific
point, and I'm not trying to interrupt you. But you made a specific
point, and I think it's only fair to say I don't know whether there
were six conversations. I know there were several, but they were only
conversations and it never ripened -- well, I'm talking about with Mr.
Davis -- and it never ripened into an arrangement, an agreement, to
the best of my recollection, to do anything because of the
circumstances that then occurred.
LOWELL: To use your phrase, did it not occur to you that you
should tell the attorney general, who was making a decision about
whether you were an independent counsel, that your law firm, Kirkland
and Ellis, in addition to asked to be Paula Jones' attorney, was
providing legal advice -- free legal advice -- to a conservative
women's group called the International Women's Forum who were thinking
about participating in the Paula Jones case itself? Did that not
occur to you either?
STARR: Well, again, it's not whether it occurs or not. I did
have discussions with the -- and I think it's called the Independent
Women's Forum -- as to whether they would, in fact, file an amicus
brief, again strictly on the constitutional issue, not taking a
position on the merits.
STARR: But the president, through his very able lawyers, had
raised a very important question. Does the president of the United
States enjoy immunity? Everyone was talking about it and no one was
talking about it particularly quietly. It was a matter of vigorous
debate. And the fact that I had these discussions had all been, to
the best of my knowledge, part of the public domain. That is to say
they were reported.
And by virtue of that, I do think it's unfair, I really do, to
suggest that someone should, when circumstances are moving so quickly,
go do a Nexis search, making sure that everything is in the public
domain and the like, especially under circumstances that were not only
fast-moving, but it was very clear that what we were investigating
were serious crimes of perjury that had nothing to do with the
constitutional immunity of the president.
LOWELL: Mr. Starr, you're suggesting that when you told the
deputy attorney general that he had to move with haste because this
investigation was fast-moving that you had no responsibility to also
inform the attorney general about these contacts that you and I are
talking about, which might make the attorney general, as you pointed
out, have a choice to make between giving the investigation to you or
giving it to somebody whose independence, bias and involvement in the
case was not questioned.
STARR: Well, I utterly disagree, with all respect, with your
premise -- that to be involved on an issue of civil law and
constitutional law in any way suggests a predisposition more
generally. I would take the position that the president of the United
States does not enjoy constitutional immunity from suit regardless of
who the president is. It has nothing to do with the identity of the
occupant of the office. It has everything to do with what the
presidency is and the nature of our relationship to one another as
individuals and whether we are all equal under the law.
So it did not occur to -- and one factual correction. You
suggested "in your conversations" -- I did not have conversations with
the deputy attorney general. They were by others in my office who
were reporting to the deputy attorney general on the information that
was coming to us, and then saying: What is your judgment? We're
looking to you for guidance, and more than that, we're looking to you
for a decision. And these issues did not, in fact, arise.
LOWELL: Did they, to your knowledge then, Mr. Starr, on that
night where you were asking the attorney general to make a decision
whether you were the independent counsel she was looking for tell them
that while you were the independent counsel and still a member of your
firm, your law firm obtained a nonpublic affidavit in the Paula Jones
case and then sent that affidavit on to "The Chicago Tribune." And
that, Mr. Starr, happened while you were the independent counsel and a
member of your firm. Wasn't that something the attorney general
should have known?
STARR: I don't know. I'm not saying she should not. But these
are judgment calls that one makes. And it also assumes, shall I say,
a computer-like ability to recall each and everything that has ever
occurred or information that has come to you.
And so let me say this: The fact of my involvement with the Jones
matter, my personal involvement as opposed to what issues one or more
members of my firm may have been involved in, I think was known
publicly and thus did not occur to me as something that was
appropriate or was something that I focused on.
Whether I should have focused on it, you may come to a different
judgment.
LOWELL: Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that my questions, as
short as I'm going to try to make them, might illicit answers that are
a little longer than I expected. And I was hoping that I'd get the
committee's indulgence.
HYDE: Tell the gentleman that when your time is up, I'll grant
you another 30 minutes.
LOWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is about to happen, I
thought.
Mr. Starr, while we're on the subject of the Jones case, I think
it is now from the material you sent to Congress pretty clear that
your office did absolutely nothing to stop Linda Tripp from meeting
with Paula Jones' attorneys to help them set up for the January 17th
deposition of the president. And the fact is, is it not, that you had
the power at that moment and the reason at that moment to forbid her
from having those meetings, but your office chose not to do so?
LOWELL: Isn't that right?
STARR: That is, I think, an unfair characterization. That is to
say, it is once again assuming that there was information as to
communications that she may or may not have been having. We did not,
to the best of my knowledge, we did not have any information that she
was in fact communicating with the Jones attorneys. And indeed, the
record will show we began working almost instantly at cross purposes
with the Jones attorneys in order to protect this investigation.
And we -- after told Ms. Tripp when it became obvious that she
was talking to someone in New York, who apparently in turn was talking
to someone in Newsweek, that she did have to protect the
confidentiality of these matters that were ongoing.
LOWELL: I'd like to get to the date, though, and see if you and
I can agree that there was a moment that you had not only the motive
but you also had the ability to stop her from doing what we've now
learned that she has done.
You went to see the deputy attorney general on January 15th.
Prior to that, on an occasion or two, officials in your office had met
with her, and when you went to see the deputy attorney general, it's
true, is it not, that one of the things that you told him, or your
office told him, was that this was likely to start getting leaked;
that there was a reporter that was onto this investigation, and he
needed to move quickly. Isn't that a fact?
STARR: Yes. We made -- it's my understanding that we made the
deputy attorney general aware that there was a reporter from Newsweek
-- we had not known about that initially when the information first
came to us. But it became very quickly apparent that there was in
fact a Newsweek reporter who was on the story unbeknownst to us. And
so, yes, we said to the deputy attorney general, this is another
factor. This is another consideration. And I believe -- I don't know
-- but I believe that that was brought to the attorney general's
decision.
LOWELL: So you knew that there was press people that are onto
the investigation, and at the same time you also knew that Linda Tripp
had illegally obtained information that she needed some form of
immunity for, and in fact in your meeting with her, your officials
said to her, we will give you immunity for giving us that illegally
obtained information. That happened, too, before you met the attorney
general, right?
STARR: Well, with respect to federal offenses, we were aware
that there might be an issue under Maryland law, but obviously could
not confer immunity that she might have with respect to state law.
And what we did know is that this was a witness who told us a very
important fact. She said, "I was a witness in the Whitewater" --
excuse me -- "the White House Travel Office investigation, and I have
additional information that I did not give you." And she was being
asked, Mr. Lowell, to commit perjury.
And so we, yes, we moved very quickly, and there was a very
important reason for moving very quickly to bring it to the attorney
general's attention through the deputy. And that is, a witness who
was involved in one of our ongoing investigations was being asked to
perjure herself, and to otherwise participate in unlawful activity.
LOWELL: So, if I can put these steps...
STARR: That was...
LOWELL: I'm sorry. If I could put these steps together, Linda
Tripp came to your office with information. That's a correct fact.
You were worried that there was somebody talking to the press that
required the attorney general to act quickly. That's a fact. You
knew that Linda Tripp had obtained information, including the very
tapes that provided the evidence that you sought to get permission to
investigate from the attorney general. And you didn't put those three
things together to say to her, "and by the way, we're worried about
the press"? You were worried enough about it to ask the deputy
attorney general to move quick. You're saying you didn't tell Linda
Tripp not to be talking about that stuff to anybody?
STARR: Well, we told... No. I think that's an unfair
characterization. We did in fact promptly tell her -- and events were
moving very quickly -- within a short time, when it became evident to
us -- things are not immediately evident when matters are first
developing, and so you have to assess the facts. And so when it did,
we instructed her.
It's my understanding that my colleagues, who were dealing with
her, who were experienced career prosecutors, made it very clear, stop
communicating with someone who we felt was in fact, or at least
potentially was a source for Newsweek. And indeed, it is my
understanding that the witness in question proceeded to change her
phone so that she could in fact carry out our desire, our instruction,
which was -- and we had no interest.
Mr. Lowell, we had no interest in this matter being made public.
We had no interest whatsoever in doing anything other than our duties
as honorable prosecutors to bring information to the attorney general,
let her assess it, and let her make her judgment as to should it be
investigated, and if so, by whom.
STARR: Now, you can say you should have told her X, Y and Z, and
I would say that's Monday morning quarterbacking.
LOWELL: Well, it's not exactly Monday morning quarterbacking,
Mr. Starr. If you'll turn to tab 16, you will see the agreement that
you actually engaged Ms. Lewinsky herself in when you decided to give
her immunity as your officials had already indicated to Linda Tripp on
January 12th that she would be getting immunity for her taping.
And you'll notice in tab 16 that it wasn't Monday morning
quarterbacking for you and your officials to give Monica Lewinsky not
only immunity, but to make a condition of her immunity that she not
talk to witnesses, that she not disclose information, and in fact,
that she not do the things that you now know Linda Tripp did. Why
didn't you put the same restriction on Linda Tripp?
STARR: What you see is the result of a very careful discussion
and negotiation with very able lawyers. This was not done -- the
immunity agreement that you have before you -- was not prepared under
exigent circumstances with things moving so quickly. We did have to
move quickly, in our judgment, with the information that came to us
from Ms. Tripp. And so one handles different situations in a variety
of ways.
But I relied on my professional prosecutors to come to a judgment
about what should in fact be done and how it should be done, and to,
in fact, when it became, as I say, evident that there was an issue,
that they brought it promptly to the deputy attorney general's
attention and also sought to take what they viewed at the time --
these are judgment calls...
LOWELL: You're not suggesting to the committee that while it
might have taken a lot of time to negotiate the actual clauses of an
immunity agreement with Ms. Tripp, that on the day that she said she
was in trouble and asked for immunity, your people could have not said
to her, well, if these tapes are illegal, don't give them to anybody,
don't talk to anybody about them, keep them to yourself. You didn't
need an immunity agreement to tell her that.
STARR: Well, I think that's right, because one of the things --
and I should clarify that what we entered into with Ms. Lewinsky --
and I think this does need to be clear -- was a transactional immunity
agreement. She was going to enjoy immunity from prosecution.
What we were giving Ms. Tripp at the time was something that was
much more limited, an act-of-production kind of immunity. Give us --
at least, that is my understanding that we were at that point in our
discussions with her simply saying give us the information, because
she had come to us with very serious allegations. And when we -- we
didn't ask her to come in. She came in. She comes in; she provides
this very serious information that raised very -- potentially serious
offenses. And we wanted, in fact, to gather information as quickly as
we could that would either corroborate or disprove the truth of that.
So the decision that was being made initially was what we call an
act-of-production immunity.
LOWELL: But you were not -- I'm understanding you. But I'm also
understanding you to say that you're not contesting that on that day
she came in, she had the conversation, she showed you the tapes, or
told you about the tapes...
STARR: She did not have...
LOWELL: ... you had both the authority to give her immunity and
the authority to tell her not to talk. You did the first. You didn't
do the second, did you?
STARR: Well, I'm not -- I would have to double check to see
exactly what we did tell her. But no, what I am trying to make as
clear as I possibly can is that what we were saying to Ms. Tripp --
you have given us this remarkable information, allegations. They're
extraordinarily explosive that perhaps go to the president of the
United States. We need backup. And she was coming to us as a
witness, and this information was not, at the time that it was first
coming to us, in the public domain.
So we took the steps that we thought -- my colleagues who were
making these decisions on the spot took the steps that we did. But if
the suggestion is we wanted her to go public, the suggestion is
absolutely wrong.
LOWELL: I think you misunderstand my question. I could well-
understand why people in Linda Tripp's position and your staff working
with her didn't want the investigation to become public. But I could
also understand why Linda Tripp wanted the information she had to go
into the Paula Jones camp. And I could understand that you had the
authority to stop that, but didn't do it.
STARR: But what we did do, Mr. Lowell, in fairness -- and this
isn't the glass is half-full versus half-empty -- what we did, once it
became clear that there was a following by the Jones lawyers of our
investigation and the subpoenaing of witnesses in our investigation,
we took prompt remedial action.
STARR: We went to Judge Susan Webber Wright and we said: Stop
it; please have them stop it.
And that is extraordinarily important, because that's what we
took deliberatively as opposed to under the exigencies of the time.
LOWELL: Under the exigencies of time, one last question.
STARR: Yes.
LOWELL: You're not suggesting that you and your staff that were
talking to Linda Tripp and then going to see the deputy attorney
general were not aware that on the following Saturday, January the
17th, the president of the United States was already noticed for his
deposition. You're not telling us that, are you?
STARR: No, we did know that indeed. The deputy attorney general
and then the attorney general of the United States, Mr. Lowell, knew
that there were serious allegations. This was days -- several days
before the deposition. The deposition was on Saturday the 17th.
The attorney general made her decision, knowing the information
that we had -- and we were transparent. We shared the information,
Mr. Lowell, that we had fully with the Justice Department.
Our concern...
LOWELL: The information you had about what Linda Tripp gave you,
not the information that you had about the Kirkland and Ellis
involvement.
STARR: Yes, I'm sorry. The information that had come to us with
respect to the investigation we shared fully with senior career
prosecutors at the Justice Department, operating under the direction
of the deputy attorney general. And she then -- the attorney general
-- made her decision that the matter should in fact be investigated --
so, that was the first judgment -- and secondly, that the Department
of Justice did not want to do it.
LOWELL: Let me turn our attention to some of the other aspects
of gathering evidence, because I know many people will have additional
questions.
I know you don't disagree that independent counsels, although not
in the Department of Justice, are required under the rules and under
the law to follow the law that applies to federal Justice Department
officials, prosecutors, investigators. I know you've said as much in
your speeches, that you are bound by the same rules with very few
exceptions. Correct?
STARR: The statute speaks specifically to the question of the
applicability of DOJ policies and practices, and says "to the fullest
extent practicable."
LOWELL: This morning you told the committee that -- and this is
on 49 and 50 of your own testimony -- "We have made every effort to
follow the Department of Justice practice and policies, to utilize
time-honored law enforcement techniques," and even on occasion that
you and your staff, to use your phrase, "would repair to the U.S.
attorney's manual for guidance."
You stated that this morning.
STARR: I did.
LOWELL: With these statements in mind, I would like to turn to
the issue of your involvement with Monica Lewinsky on the first
occasion that you had that ability, because so much of the evidence
that the Congress has received comes from that first incident.
It is true, I take it, Mr. Starr, that when press accounts of
your interaction with Monica Lewinsky first arose, you made a
statement to the press on January 23rd, 1998 responding to those
allegations. And you can find that statement to confirm its date on
tab 20.
STARR: Tab 20?
LOWELL: Can you see that?
STARR: I do.
LOWELL: You made that statement on January 23rd, isn't that a
fact?
STARR: Yes, I believe that's correct. This is dated January
24th, but I think it would have been the preceding day.
LOWELL: Mr. Starr, in your testimony this morning, you talked
about the president's ability to provide misinformation, and you also
said that one of the concerns of your office was that the president
and his lawyers, on page 52 of your testimony, didn't give a -- quote
-- "distorted picture of the facts."
With your own quotes in mind, I'd like to ask don't you think
your statement to the press, to the Congress, and to the American
people gave a very distorted picture of the facts of the night and the
day that you first confronted Monica Lewinsky?
STARR: Well, I think not, and we can obviously discuss it.
LOWELL: Well, let's do that line by line, because it will be
short, but I think it will be illustrative. If you look at the first
line of your press statement, it states: "Monica Lewinsky consented to
meet with several FBI agents."
Do you see your statement that says that?
STARR: Yes, I do.
LOWELL: In Monica Lewinsky's sworn testimony, which, if you'd
like, you could follow in tab 21 to compare it back and forth -- we
will have it on the stand as well -- she testified under oath that she
was there to have lunch with Linda Tripp. She was then accosted by
agents who flashed their badges at her. She asked to see her
attorney, was told that that wasn't such a good idea.
LOWELL: She was then asked to go upstairs to discuss how much
trouble she was in, and then she reluctantly went upstairs to meet
with your staff.
Do you think your statement that Monica Lewinsky consented to
meet with several agents doesn't distort the picture of what really
happened that day?
STARR: Well, I think it was consensual. That is we made it
clear that she was not under arrest and that she was in fact at
liberty to make a decision as to what she wanted to do.
LOWELL: Well, if you look at the second line of your quote -- of
your press statement, you said, during the five hours while awaiting
her mother's arrival, Ms. Lewinsky drank juice and coffee, ate dinner
at a restaurant, strolled around the Pentagon City mall and watched
television. Do you remember making that statement to the press?
STARR: Yes, I do.
LOWELL: But your statement to the press, Mr. Starr, doesn't
include the facts that Ms. Lewinsky swore to that she was scared and
was crying a lot of the time. When she asked to see her attorney --
quote -- "She would not be able to help herself with her attorney
there" she was told; that she was threatened with going to jail for --
quote "27 years"; that she was not there for the five hours that your
press statement says, but was there for over 10 hours; and that when
she asked to call her mother to discuss what you were discussing with
her, your deputy, Jackie Bennett, said: "You're 24. You're smart.
You're old enough. You don't need to call your mommy."
That wasn't in your statement to the press that day, was it?
STARR: No, it wasn't, Mr. Lowell. And let me explain what press
statements are designed to do.
(LAUGHTER)
This was not designed to provide a verbatim transcript of
commentary. They are designed to respond to what we were, in fact,
being accused of or charged with. And what we were being accused of
and charged with was improper conduct with a witness.
Now, the facts of the matter are these. We did in fact use a
traditional technique that law enforcement always uses. We were
waiting patiently for her mother to arrive. She chose not to make a
decision before her mother arrived.
And at the conclusion of her time with us, she had established a
legal relationship, which we fully recognized and always honored.
And she and her mother indicated -- I was not there -- but I am
told, they indicated their appreciation for the way in which she was
being treated. Now, this was in response -- this is being in
response, Mr. Lowell -- to allegations that she was being subjected to
the kinds of conditions that would overbear the will.
We then -- and the purpose of this was to say, here, is in fact
material that the public should in fact know. And all of this is
absolutely true.
LOWELL: When you say the public should have known that and you
state in your press statement that she was repeatedly told she was
free to leave and that she did so several times, do you not think it
would have been a "less distorted picture," to use your words, to know
that when she left the room, she was followed by agents and that she
swore under an oath that she -- quote -- "felt threatened that when
she left, she would be arrested," end quote. Don't you think that
completes the picture a little bit?
STARR: I think her perception was incorrect. We made it clear
to the witness that she was, in fact, free to leave. And the Ritz
Carlton, shall I say, is a fairly comfortable and commodious place.
We will show you -- I am sure you have them -- telephone records
that indicate she reached out to Mr. Carter, her attorney, in a
totally different matter. She called her mother. She in fact went
for a walk. She had -- she went to a restaurant and the like. And
all these were important, because, Mr. Lowell, what the office was
being accused of was somehow overbearing her will. And she didn't
need to make a decision, because here's the other side of the
picture.
She was encouraging others to join her in committing perjury.
She was, as the information came to us, a felon in the middle of
committing another felony.
LOWELL: She wasn't likely, after being brought up to your room
for 10 hours, to be committing any felonies anymore after that, was
she? You said you needed to do this because she was in the middle of
committing a felony. You don't think she was going to leave the hotel
room, go back and continue to do that which you brought her to the
hotel to tell her to do? You can't be meaning that?
STARR: Well, of course, we did not know.
STARR: We had no way of knowing what she was going to do. What
we did do is this. That we had a consensual recording. We shared the
results of that consensual recording with the Justice Department. We
informed the Justice Department of what our intention was at the Ritz-
Carlton. We then proceeded in a very professional way.
And then we were being met, as is not atypically the case, with
charges of improper conduct. We then said we should respond to that,
especially when -- and this doesn't speak to that either -- we were
going to the conditions of confinement as opposed to whether we had
communicated with the Justice Department. There was nothing in her
about the Justice Department knowing that we were going to go, have
exactly this kind of encounter, to ask this individual, are you
willing to help us? We viewed her as culpable. But in discussions
with the Justice Department, the culpability we thought might be
outweighed by the culpability of others.
LOWELL: As you are the deliverer to this committee of the
principal evidence that the committee's going to get, and as you
agreed with me that the choices you've made bear on the substantiality
and credibility, my questions were trying to go to whether or not when
you make statements, when you provide information, you provide the
complete picture, not whether Ms. Lewinsky was about to commit a
crime. But I think you and I have established some of the facts that
I wanted the committee to understand.
One last point about your statement, Mr. Starr. You statement to
the press, as you alluded, indicated that when she was done with this
ordeal -- I'm sorry -- when she was done, she told the agents -- and I
think you said they thanked the FBI agents and attorneys for their
courtesy. But you didn't put in that, and you didn't put in your
referral that she thanked them for their courtesy after, quote, "they
told me they were planning to prosecute my mother for the things that
she had said she did."
You didn't include the notion in your report to the press or even
in the material in the referral, that is later in the transcripts,
that part of her courtesy to her mother was threatening her
prosecution. And that wasn't there either.
STARR: Mr. Lowell, the information that we had suggested that
her mother may have been involved in serious activity, in serious
criminal offenses. That was an issue. And she wanted to reach out to
her mother, to discuss the questions with her mother. We honored
that. And no, I don't think that one would expect, if you're talking
about the press release, as opposed to the referral, that a press
release which is responding to charges by her lawyers that she was
being held, I don't put words in their mouth.
But the substance of what was being conveyed by the very
loquacious Mr. Ginsburg was that she was being held incommunicado.
That was wrong. It was unfair to us, unfair to our agents. It was
unfair to the Justice Department. But you don't see anything in the
press release about the Justice Department, either.
The purpose of this press release, which you've identified as tab
20, and you've been kind enough to underscore it, was to respond to
specific allegations. And I see you do not include the allegations to
which we were responding. And I think in order fairly to assess this,
you would have to say, what was it that the independent counsel's
office was having to respond to?
What we were responding to were allegations that were utterly
unmeritorious.
LOWELL: And those allegations...
STARR: And that's why... Sorry.
LOWELL: ... Mr. Starr, that you were overbearing, that she
wasn't free to make a decision on her own, that she was put in a
position where her judgment would be questioned. And you're saying to
the committee that the facts as sworn to by Ms. Lewinsky don't bear on
whether or not those allegations were indeed exactly accurate?
STARR: OH, Mr. Lowell, surely you don't think that a witness is
going to say, thank you, law enforcement, for finding out that I'm in
the middle of committing a felony.
(LAUGHTER)
Surely, you're not going to say, surely, you're not going to take
the position that the witness should say, oh, I can't imagine why
you're asking me any questions.
STARR: I can't imagine why you're bothering me.
The reason that she was being approached, Mr. Lowell, was that
she was trying to get Linda Tripp to commit perjury, and since you've
inquired about this, her mother had made it clear that she was willing
to help finance an operation for Linda Tripp so she could leave the
jurisdiction and thereby avoid being confronted in the Jones
deposition. That's what this was all about. So you're focusing on a
press release as opposed to a court document.
Could I say one other thing? In fairness -- in fairness, the
issues with respect to our conduct that evening have been litigated.
You can ask, obviously, all the questions that you want. But usually
if a witness believes that he or she has been mistreated, if her
rights have been violated, there's a place to go. And it's called a
courthouse.
And that's where these issues have been resolved, and they've
been resolved favorably to us. We conducted ourselves professionally.
LOWELL: I take it sitting here today you are completely
satisfied that the picture of your involvement with Ms. Lewinsky, as
you stated to the American people, and the effects it had on her
evidence were accurately depicted in the press statement you made,
even given the full sworn testimony of Ms. Lewinsky and her mother?
You're satisfied about that?
STARR: About this press statement?
LOWELL: About your (OFF-MIKE)
STARR: No, no, because this was written from -- and perhaps I
have been inartful in my response. This was a response to specific
allegations being made by her attorney. It was not based on an
interview of Ms. Lewinsky. We had no basis for knowing, in terms of
our talking with Ms. Lewinsky, what her perception was. We couldn't.
Her lawyer declined to allow us -- and we honored that -- once
she engaged Mr. Ginsburg.
So the mission or the purpose of this press statement was simply
to be as responsive as we should be at the time.
LOWELL: Just so that the record's clear...
STARR: Yes.
LOWELL: Mr. Ginsburg is the lawyer you keep referring to. She
-- we know from the evidence that she contacted Mr. Ginsburg only
after her mother arrived about how ever many hours later, in the
middle of the night. And the very first thing she said when
approached by your agents in the lobby was "I want to talk to my
attorney, Frank Carter."
You don't mean to suggest to the committee that you and the
agents and the people in your office were encouraging her to talk to
her lawyer between the time that she was first accosted and the time
that she got on the phone with Mr. Ginsburg. You're not making that
statement, are you?
STARR: That is correct. We would not encourage someone who was
involved in felonies, as we thought at the time, to in fact reach out
to a lawyer, especially a lawyer who had assisted her in crafting a
perjurious affidavit. Why would we possibly do that?
LOWELL: Well, one reason would be because the rules of the
Department of Justice, the law of the land as decided by the Supreme
Court and the Code of Federal Regulations require it.
Let me turn your attention to tab 23. On tab 23, as I understand
it, Mr. Starr, one of the people that were in the room asking
questions of Monica Lewinsky was a deputy of yours by the name of Mike
Emmick (ph). Is that right?
STARR: That's correct.
LOWELL: Michael Emmick (ph) came from the Department of Justice,
U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles, California, and had had the
opportunity three or four years before the Monica Lewinsky incident to
give a speech or give a presentation to the Department of Justice
about what the law requires. And this is what Mr. Emmick (ph) said
about questioning a witness represented by counsel.
LOWELL: He said, "It is rarely OK to contact the person, find
out representation and ask if he is willing to talk anyway." Then Mr.
Emmick (ph) went on to state, "It is never OK to continue to ask
questions after the person has said he wants his attorney there."
In light of what the transcripts show happened that night to Ms.
Lewinsky, it appears, does it not, Mr. Starr, that the deputy involved
violated his own words in his effort to get Ms. Lewinsky that night?
STARR: No, because you're assuming something, and you are, with
all respect, incorrect. She was not represented for purposes of this
analysis. And the reason that she wasn't -- and you may disagree with
this -- but here is our analysis. And it has been upheld by the
District Court.
Let me approach it this way. If one has a bankruptcy lawyer, one
cannot -- one cannot say, if an FBI agent comes up to one, well, I am
represented by -- or the FBI agent must assume that I am represented
by or the person is represented by the bankruptcy lawyer. The point
is there is a very clear distinction in the law and in the rules of
ethics between civil matters and criminal.
And Mr. Carter was representing her in the civil matter.
LOWELL: But when she -- I realize up to that point she had no
criminal problems. She only had civil problems, which she had a
lawyer for.
So you're saying it's the prosecutor who tells a witness whether
or not she or he has the right to call a lawyer based on the
prosecutor's decision as to whether or not the matter is civil or
criminal and the prosecutor's view of how the proceedings are going to
go? Do you think that's what the law states?
STARR: Well, I think the prosecutor has to make a judgment as to
whether the nature of the representation is civil or criminal so that
the person does have to know whether, in fact, the party is a
represented party. That is a judgment.
Now, even if you disagree with that, Mr. Lowell, let me say these
two things, very briefly.
One, she did, in fact, call -- or we sought to call Mr. Carter
from the Ritz-Carlton. That's a very important fact. She did, in
fact, reach out to him. Also, we tried to reach out to Legal Aid so
that she could have counsel. She later got, of course, Mr. Ginsburg.
So the idea that she was not, in fact, permitted the opportunity
to try to consult with counsel is incorrect.
LOWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm on my last area of questions. And I
would appreciate the committee's indulgence.
HYDE: How much more time do you anticipate?
LOWELL: Well, I know my questions take five or 10 minutes. The
answers always take twice as long. I suspect I have about five
such...
HYDE: You ask such complicated questions.
LOWELL: Mr. Chairman, I have one more area to get into, and I'd
appreciate the committee's indulgence to get there.
HYDE: Well, I'll yield you five more minutes and see what you
can do in five.
I'll ask Mr. Starr if you can be concise, although I'm enjoying
your answers.
(LAUGHTER)
HYDE: Mr. Lowell for five minutes.
LOWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the end, Mr. Starr, you have said that these are serious
matters that the committee has to consider and that you've come here
today and you've presented again what you deem to be the evidence and
the conclusions in your referral.
I just want to, if I can, with you and with the committee's now
indulgence go through the principle charges that you made in bringing
this matter before the committee.
In the first matter, you say that in your referral and your
testimony today that the president lied under oath on a variety of
occasions having to do with the Paul Jones case. I noticed on pages
eight and nine of your testimony you spoke about Judge Webber Wright's
rulings in the Paula Jones case. But in your testimony, you did not
also include, did you, that Judge Wright had ruled as to Monica
Lewinsky's significance in the Paula Jones case, that it was -- quote
-- "not essential to the core issues in the case"?
LOWELL: She ruled, indeed, later on that the evidence -- quote
-- "simply was not essential to the core issues of whether Paula Jones
was a victim of a quid pro quo sexual harassment." And she finally
through out the case on the grounds that Ms. Jones had not proven what
the law requires.
And I wanted just the record to be complete that when you talked
about what Judge Webber Wright had ruled in your testimony, you never
mentioned that on three occasions Judge Wright made rulings indicating
that the significance of whatever it was between Monica Lewinsky and
the president did not bear on her decision. That's a fact, isn't it?
STARR: Well, I disagree with the characterization of what she
ruled. And I'd refer -- and I will simply refer it to her two
opinions, including her analysis under rule 403 of the federal rules
of evidence. I don't think that's a fair and accurate
characterization of what she ruled. We may have a different opinion
of how she adjudicated the matter.
LOWELL: Then as to the issue of the false affidavit, which you
state was something the president was complicit in to the extent that
it was a ground for impeachment, your evidence also includes, does it
not, Mr. Starr, that Ms. Lewinsky gave you a statement in which she
said -- quote -- "neither the president nor Mr. Jordan or anyone on
their behalf asked or encouraged her to lie." And you can find that
in tab 35.
STARR: Tab?
LOWELL: Thirty-five.
STARR: Thirty-five. Thank you.
LOWELL: You're aware that she has made the statement that way by
now I assume, right?
STARR: Yes.
LOWELL: You must be aware that she also said that she offered to
show her affidavit to the president, but he did not even want to see
it. You're aware that that's the testimony that she's given as well,
correct?
STARR: Yes.
LOWELL: You must also be aware that she explained to you that
the president and she had obviously used cover stories from the
beginning of their relationship, long before she was ever listed as a
Paula Jones witness. You're aware of that as well, aren't you?
STARR: Yes, and our referral makes that point clear.
LOWELL: As to the issue of whether or not she was given a job in
some way to keep her happy, you know the evidence that you sent
Congress includes the fact that the job search for her began long
before she was listed as a Paula Jones witness. Correct?
STARR: Yes, absolutely, and we make that clear in the referral.
LOWELL: And you are also aware that she told the president in
July, months before the Paula Jones...
STARR: July of?
LOWELL: 1997...
STARR: Yes, thank you.
LOWELL: ... months before the Paula Jones case was an issue that
she was going to look for a job in New York?
STARR: Yes, she did.
LOWELL: And you're aware as well that it was Ms. Tripp, not the
president, Ms. Tripp who suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she bring
Vernon Jordan into the process? You know the evidence says that,
don't you?
STARR: I'm aware of the evidence with respect to that. But yes,
go right ahead. I'm sorry...
LOWELL: You're aware as well that the evidence she sent Congress
indicates that on that crucial issue, as others have stated and no
doubt will state again, Ms. Lewinsky unequivocally, even though never
asked the question, stated to you that no one ever asked her to lie,
no one promised me a job for her silence? You understand she swore to
that as well?
STARR: Yes, and Mr. Chairman, may I respond? I'm trying to be
brief.
HYDE: Sure.
STARR: But Mr. Lowell, as you also know, on page 174 of our
referral we specifically say Ms. Lewinsky had stated that the
president never explicitly told her to lie.
LOWELL: (OFF-MIKE) you'd say explicitly. I'd say that Ms.
Lewinsky's statement that -- quote -- "no one told me to lie, no one
offered me a job for my silence" is not equivocal. Would you?
STARR: I would say that it is utterly incomplete and grossly
misleading. We tried to capture that, and I'm -- we're staying right
now with respect to the -- her representation with respect to no one
told me to lie.
Her entire testimony is to the effect -- and I think this is a
fair characterization of it -- is that the cover stories were in fact
going to continue, that that was the understanding.
STARR: But yes, no one explicitly said, you know, you will lie.
Using the "L" word. Rather, it was we will continue with cover
stories which are not true.
LOWELL: I have one last question, Mr. Starr, given the limits of
time under which I've been placed.
HYDE: I'm going to have a surly bunch of Republicans on me.
LOWELL: It is my last question, Mr. Chairman.
HYDE: Go ahead. Ask your last question, please. Go ahead.
FRANK: Didn't you feed them?
(LAUGHTER)
HYDE: No, it was very short lunch humor here.
LOWELL: Mr. Starr, I don't have the time to get into the areas,
and hopefully the members will, but I will ask you the last question.
It's the one I started with. When you suggested to the committee that
what you did, the choices you made have to be looked at to determine
the substantiality and the credibility of the evidence, I want to ask
you whether or not you don't now see, based on the things we've
discussed, that the manner in which you decided to write the referral
as one with attitude; your contacts between you, your law firm and
Paula Jones' attorneys; the questions that have been raised about
whether or not you got into this case with proper jurisdiction; the
way you dealt with Monica Lewinsky and the evidence that came from
that; Judge Johnson's orders, which some others will talk to you
about, about whether your office has been responsible for leaks; and
the contradictions in the evidence between your referral and the
statements you agree are in the evidence; doesn't that undermine the
substantiality and credibility of the evidence on something as weighty
as impeaching a president of the United States?
STARR: Mr. Lowell, nothing that you have said -- and with all
respect, what you have done is go into characterizations as opposed to
deal with facts -- the facts are as we have found them to be. And not
one of your questions suggests that the president was not involved in
serious offenses that now is your responsibility to evaluate.
In terms of the letter, I believe, with all due respect, you have
over-read the letter. I do think if there were any suggestion that we
had compelled a confession from her on the evening of January 16, that
would go forcefully and powerfully to whether any such statement by
her should be used. But, Mr. Lowell, she was treated in such a way,
she did not make a statement to the officers.
LOWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 