President Clinton's Attorney David Kendall's Cross Examination of Kenneth Starr Before the House Judiciary Committee

HYDE:  The committee will come to order.

The chair now recognizes the president's counsel, Mr. Kendall, to
examine the witness for 30 minutes, should he choose to do so.

Mr. Kendall.

KENDALL:  Mr. Chairman, Mr. Conyers, members of the committee, my
name is David Kendall.  I'm the personal attorney for President
Clinton.  My task is to respond to the two hours of uninterrupted
testimony from the independent counsel, as well as to his four-year,
$45 million investigation, which has included at least 28 attorneys,
78 FBI agents and an undisclosed number of private investigators, an
investigation which has generated -- by a computer count -- 114,532
news stories in print, and 2,513 minutes of network television time,
not to mention 24-hour scandal coverage on cable, a 445 page referral,
50,000 pages of documents from secret grand jury testimony, four hours
of videotaped testimony, 22 hours of audiotape -- some which was
gathered in violation of state law -- and the testimony of scores of
witnesses not one of whom has been cross-examined.

And I have 30 minutes to do this.  It's a daunting exercise, but
let me begin with the simple but powerful truth that nothing in this
overkill of investigation amounts to a justification for the
impeachment of the president of the United States.

Mr. Starr, good evening.

STARR:  Good evening.  How are you, David?

KENDALL:  I'm very well, Ken.

(LAUGHTER)

You have the book of exhibits before you, do you not?

STARR:  I do.

KENDALL:  Would you turn to tab 5, which is a press release which
your office issued under your name on February 5, 1998.  Do you see
that?

STARR:  I do.

KENDALL:  I want to direct your attention to your statement and
statement and you are addressing the fact that you have not been able
to talk to Miss Lewinsky yet.  And you say in your press release, "We
cannot responsibly determine if she is telling the truth without
speaking directly to her.  We found that there is no substitute for
looking a witness in the eye, asking detailed questions, matching the
answers against verifiable facts and, if appropriate, giving a
polygraph test."

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

STARR:  Yes, I did.

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

STARR:  That is true.

KENDALL:  And you were not present at her deposition?

STARR:  At her deposition?

KENDALL:  Yes.

Were you aware that she was deposed...

STARR:  OH, I'm sorry.  At our deposition.  Yes, I'm sorry.  I
misunderstood.  Yes, I was not present.

KENDALL:  You were not present on any occasion when she was
interviewed by FBI agents, were you?

STARR:  That is correct I was not.

KENDALL:  And you've never really exchanged words with Ms.
Lewinsky, have you?

STARR:  That's correct.  She -- the answer is yes.  I have not
had occasion to meet her otherwise to look her in the eye myself.

KENDALL:  The same is true for her mother, Marcia Lewis, is it
not?

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

KENDALL:  The same is true for Betty Currie?

STARR:  Yes.

KENDALL:  The same is true for Vernon Jordan?

STARR:  Well, oh, in connection, I happen to know Mr. Jordan but,
yes, in connection...

KENDALL:  (OFF-MIKE) this case though, were you present during
his grand jury testimony?

STARR:  No, I was not.

KENDALL:  And were you present at any interview of him?

STARR:  No, I was not.

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

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

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?

STARR:  That is correct.

KENDALL:  Likewise, there were 19 depositions submitted and you
were -- at least the reporter doesn't show you being present on any of
those.  Is that correct?

STARR:  I think that's right.  There were -- and I need to
reflect on some of the Secret Service matters, but I think you're
correct.  I was not actually present for any depositions themselves,
including the Secret Service officers.

KENDALL:   And there were 134 FBI form 302 interviews submitted.
You're not shown to be present at any of those.  Is that correct?

STARR:  That's correct.  I would ordinarily not be present for
interview of a witness.

KENDALL:  Mr. Starr, I bring this out not to cast aspersions or
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?

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

KENDALL:  This is your own autobiography.  I'm mean, I'm talking
about the facts of this investigation.

STARR:  No.  Can I answer the question? I believe there are a
number of facts that I can, in fact, testify to, but with respect
specifically that irrelevant 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're 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 and the FBI, who work ultimately
under the aegis of Judge Freeh.

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?

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.

KENDALL:  Was she every shown a copy of the referral?

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

KENDALL:  The grand jury did not vote to approve or forward this
referral, is that correct?

STARR:  That is correct because, as I have said, the decision
with respect to the referral is the product of career prosecutors who
came together from around the country.  And I tried to make sure that
the committee understood that the individuals who were involved in
assisting me and in guiding me are career, Department of Justice, U.S.
Attorney's Office prosecutors from around the country, but ultimately,
this is, David, my judgment.

KENDALL:  You are here really as an advocate for this referral,
are you not?

STARR:  I view myself -- no, I think that's not right.  I do
believe in the referral.  I 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 it is because it is this committee's
judgment that they will come to by virtue of submission of this in
writing with the supporting materials.

And then it's up to the committee to determine -- do they want to
call additionally 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.

KENDALL:  In your testimony today, you indicated you had
exonerated the president with regard to the travel office, if I heard
you correctly.  Is that correct?

STARR:  Yes, what I indicated was we had no information that
related to his involvement, although I also made it clear that that
investigation is continuing, and we hope to announce decisions or
actions very soon.

KENDALL:  The travel office firings which you are investigating
occurred in 1993, is that correct?

STARR:  Yes, the firings were in 1993.

KENDALL:  Also, if I heard you correctly this morning, you
indicated you had exonerated the president with respect to the FBI
files matter which had arisen in 1996.  Is that correct?

STARR:  Yes, that jurisdiction did come to us in 1996 from the
attorney general.  And yes, we have found, as I indicated, no evidence
of any wrongdoing by anyone who is relevant to -- I believe at least,
in my assessment, I can't speak for the committee -- that would be
relevant to the committee's assessment of our referral.

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

STARR:  With respect to the travel office, I would frankly have
to search my recollection to see exactly where we were and when we
were there.  As I indicated with respect to the travel office, we
have, in fact, had to put part of the travel office investigation --
and I'm now talking about the travel office -- I'll to come to the FBI
files -- we had, in fact, had to put part of the travel office
investigation on hold, as it were, because of issuing over privileged
litigation, which we did not prevail in the Supreme Court.  And there
are other matters that we are presently examining, and which I can't
talk about -- talk about here.

KENDALL:  But were the two exonerations you announced today --
did you come to those conclusions before or after November 1, 1998?

STARR:  Before November 1 of this year?

Well, I would say that we have not had information that would
guide us to the view that we should be concerned about the president
in respect of those two matters, and that's why, of course, there's 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.

STARR:  With respect to that there is, as I have indicated, an
unresolved question with respect to one individual.

I've not named that individual, but I do not have -- it remains
unresolved.  So it's predictive judgment, Mr. Kendall, that nothing
we're likely to achieve in either of those investigations will be
relevant to this committee's inquiry.  And that's what I view my duty
as being.

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

STARR:  Yes, it's the first time that we have viewed it as
appropriate to speak to issues that are still, David, under
investigation.

We are still investigating both matters, and I hope I've made
that point clear.  Both investigations have very live, active elements
to them, and we will make those decisions promptly.

But I felt it was my duty to inform this committee of the state
of the record with respect to the president of the United States
because the committee has been asking me -- Do you have any other
information that is relevant.

I've received a lot of correspondence and -- Mr. Conyers...

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

Let me return to a question asked by Congressman Wexler this
afternoon about a witness called Julie Hiatt Steele.

Have your investigators investigated the adoption of her 8-year-
old child she adopted from a Romanian orphanage?

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 bantered about with
respect to that particular witness and the circumstances of
questioning.

Amd I will look forward at the appropriate time to be able to
demonstrate that to any fair-minded person beyond any reasonable
doubt.

KENDALL:  Mr. Starr, I'm asking the question for the fact.  I am
not casting aspersions against.

STARR:  But Mr. Kendall, you just said you were not present for
the following persons -- Ms. Lewinsky, Marsha Lewis, and Vernon
Jordan, and you are now asking me did FBI interviews -- and you talked
about how many witnesses there were.  Now you are asking me
specifically was a specific question asked of a particular witness.

I will be happy to find that out if it seems to be relevant to
this committee.

KENDALL:  Mr. Starr, I don't think it's unfair to try to find out
the fact because there has been considerable publicity about Miss
Steele's claim that that is, in fact, what your investigators have
been doing.  I was simply asking to clarify the record.

STARR:  Well, in respect to 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, utterly without merit and utterly
without foundation, utterly without factual foundation.

KENDALL:  Is this one of those claims?

STARR:  No, I did not say that Mr. Kendall.  I am aware...

(LAUGHTER)

I am aware of certain -- that 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 hear 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.

STARR:  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's why
courts sit.  I was privileged to serve as a judge -- that's why judges
work.

Mr. Kendall, if there is an issue with respect to the treatment
of the witness, let's take it to court and have the court resolve it
in an orderly way just as the Supreme Court of the United States said
that this particular individual is entitled to an orderly disposition
of her claims.

KENDALL:  In your testimony this morning, Mr. Starr, you said --
We go to court and not on the talk-show circuit.  We're officers of
the court who live in the world of law.  We have presented our cases
in court.  That's 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?

STARR:  That probably sounds about right, but I would have to do
the count.  But let me say that no lesser authority than Archibald Cox
talked about, very eloquently and movingly, the public information
function of the prosecutor's office.

Not only do we have the right, we have the duty to engage in a
proper public information function because this is the public's
business.  We must do so in order at times to combat misinformation
that is being spread about including, frequently, by lawyers who claim
that their clients have been grossly mistreated, which is what
criminal defense lawyers are paid to do.

KENDALL:  Mr. Starr, I take it there would be no disagreement
that you, as a United States prosecutor, are under a legal objection
to protect the secrecy of the grand jury process.

STARR:  Yes.  There is no dispute whatsoever.

KENDALL:  No dispute.  Indeed, if you turn to tab 17 of the
materials, you wrote me a letter on February 6, 1998.  And if I could
direct your attention to the second paragraph of that letter.  I had
complained about leaks of grand jury information.

You had replied, "From the beginning, I have made the prohibition
of leaks a principal priority of the office.  It is a firing offense
as well as one that leads to criminal prosecution."

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

STARR:  Yes, you are reading it correctly.

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

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

KENDALL:  On the day this story broke in the press, which was
Wednesday, January 21, you issued a press release -- do you recall
that press release?

STARR:  Could you say that again?  On January...

KENDALL:  On January the 21th -- the day "The Washington Post"
story ran, you issued a press release about your information policy.

STARR:  Do you have that here?

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

STARR:  Twenty-seven.

KENDALL:  And also, we have a blowup of this press release on the
easel.

Now, it's a very short press release, but I'll give you a moment
to read it.  Have you read it?

STARR:  I have.

KENDALL:  Good.

In your testimony this morning, you described the litigation that
your office has been involved in.  At page 36, you said you've faced
an extraordinary number of legal disputes on issues of privilege,
jurisdiction, substantive criminal law and the like.  Do you see that?
It's at the top of your testimony.

STARR:  Yes, I do, I do see that.

KENDALL:  You did not mention leak litigation in that list, I
observe.

STARR:  Yes, that's correct.

KENDALL:  In fact, we have litigated on a number of occasions
producing, by my count, at least five District Court opinions, which
have all been unsealed and in the binder, and one Court of Appeals
decision on this matter, have we not?

STARR:  Yes, and in fact, with respect to that -- and we did, Mr.
Kendall, and I think you will agree -- that we prevailed in the court
of appeals with respect to the issue that you're talking about.

And I want to be careful about what I say because I have found
that some lawyers are very quick to suggest that certain comments made
by prosecutors may run afoul of confidentiality requirements.

I think I can say this.

The 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 that is -- I hadn't even thought of that as one of the 17, but
you're absolutely right.  That is part of our litigation record.  And
we are now in the process, as you well know, of additional litigation.

And I think that judgment should be withheld.  Judgment should be
withheld with respect to this question until such time as there is a
judgment -- an ultimate judgment in this case because I am confident
that we have abided by our obligation.  I'm confident of that.

KENDALL:  I take it you would agree with Chief Judge Johnson that
enforcing rule 6(e), which enforces grand jury secrecy, is of the
utmost integrity to the grand jury process?

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

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?  Just let me
direct your attention to -- is it tab 24? -- and that's her opinion
which was just unsealed.

STARR:  Tab 24?

KENDALL:  Tab 24, page 20.

STARR:  Yes, this is the October 30, and then the redacted
version, and there -- pardon me -- and I think this is -- fundamental
fairness requires this body to know that the law of this circuit
permitted Mr. Kendall to say -- Here are articles, look at the
sourcing.

STARR:  We get to ask the prosecutor to come forward and to show
that the prosecutor is not the source of this grand jury inform -- or
of this information.  And that's the process that is underway now.
We're at phase two.  But the law of this circuit, under the Barry (ph)
cases, 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.

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

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

STARR:  Yes, I'm sorry.

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?

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

KENDALL:  And how many did she find there was prima facie reason
to believe that your office had committed these leaks?

STARR:  And 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's not a quote,
but that's the idea.  It's a very limited burden that you have.

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?

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 the circuit makes it quite
easy for you to say -- Look at the sourcing.  I get to now put the
burden on the prosecutor to come forward and show evidence that the
prosecutor is not the source.

KENDALL:  Mr. Starr...

STARR:  And David, that's what we are doing.

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, and I think we noted that.

STARR:  I totally disagree with that.  That's an accusation, and
it's 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're asking -- Let's now come to judgment after
about 10 minutes of the first-half.  That's not fair.

KENDALL:  May I direct your attention now to the exhibit that we
have displayed up there?  It's 27.

STARR:  This is, I'm sorry, number 27?

KENDALL:  Yes.  It's your press release on the first day of the
Lewinsky story breaking.

It's 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's 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."

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

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's
the position, David, as you know, of the Justice Department.

KENDALL:  But did you issue any press release admitting that you
were talking about aspects of your investigation?

STARR:  I'm sorry.  Could you say that again?

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?  Does it depend on what you mean by "comment"?

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's 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 over
broad statement because it's incompatible with DOJ policy.

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

STARR:  Well, except I think it is still -- you're -- you're
talking about a press release.  You're 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'll 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 -- the character assassination by her then-
attorneys -- no longer -- or at least one is no longer her
attorney...

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

KENDALL:  I think -- I would like additional time, Chairman          Hyde.

(LAUGHTER)

HYDE:  How much -- how much time would you like?

KENDALL:  I think the analysis -- I believe -- I'm sorry, what
did you say?

HYDE:  I was going to say is 15 minutes helpful?

KENDALL:  I'd like -- that won't be enough, your honor.

HYDE:  You're being coached by Ms. Waters here.  Now that doesn't
count.  How much?

KENDALL:  Your honor...

HYDE:  Another 30 minutes?

KENDALL:  Could I have another hour?

GROUP:  OH, no.

(UNKNOWN):  OH, wow.

HYDE:  How about -- how about 30, so you can get into the facts?

KENDALL:  I thank the chair for 30 minutes.  I think, though,
that these are the facts, Your Honor.

(LAUGHTER)

KENDALL:  How this -- 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.

HYDE:  Very well.

KENDALL:  Is the analysis reliable?  Is it fair?  Does it present
the facts?  Have proper procedures been followed?

HYDE:  I see.  Well, the gentleman is recognized then for an
additional 30 minutes.

KENDALL:  Thank you.

HYDE:  But that should wind it up.  So you have 30 more minutes.

KENDALL:  Mr. Starr, you were right, you did issue a press
conference about Ms. Lewinsky's treatment at the Ritz-Carlton.

KENDALL:  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.

STARR:  Yes.  Be careful when you say the "you," because I do not
speak frequently or otherwise to the press.

KENDALL:  Did Professor Dash (ph) give you any advice as to what
should be on background or what on the record?

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 at -- at -- because your comments to the chairman, whom you
called "your honor," and I have been attempted 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 of -- no.  This -- you talk about fairness.
It's time for some fairness with respect to all of these charges that
keep being bantered around without any kind of judicial determination
that there is, in fact, wrongdoing under 6(e).  There is a...

KENDALL:  My question was simpler, Mr. Starr.

STARR:  Yes.

KENDALL:  My question was, why would you speak on background?
Why not be accountable?  Why be transparent?  I have never protested a
press release, which you have issued.  Have I?

STARR:  No, you have not?

KENDALL:  And I think there may well be times as a prosecutor
when it's necessary to correct misinformation.  You've sometimes done
that.  It's necessary to get the facts out, so that people aren't
misguided.  But why speak off-the-record on background?  Why not be
accountable?
It depends on the circumstances, and I will say this.  I believe
the Justice Department practice -- it certainly was with the practice
when I was there -- I will hazard that it's 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, and it
may be 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, and I'm sorry to say
that.

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...

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

STARR:  Because -- and you're asking essentially press policy as
opposed to constitutional issues that have brought us all here.

STARR:  And if this is an oversight hearing with respect to the
press policy of the independent counsel's office or if that's what the
president's lawyer wants to spend his time doing, then that is your
prerogative.

So let me tell you, then, what our press policy is.

KENDALL:  Well, Mr. Starr, I have only got 30 minutes.  I have
asked you...

(LAUGHTER)

.. I think, a simple question.  But let me move on.

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

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's not under -- it's 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 (OFF-MIKE).

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 --  in the leaks proceeding.

But I will move on if this -- if this -- if this is not something
that you want to respond to?

STARR:  Well, David, I just think if you're talking about the
leaks litigation, that's 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's 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.

That is unfair.  It's unfair to my career prosecutors.  It's
unfair to investigators.  It's 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.

Amd 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 is the key...

KENDALL:  Mr. Starr, 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.

STARR:  I'm sorry, Mr. Kendall.  I have been here since 10, so
forgive me.

KENDALL:  I know it, and I will move on.  Carol Bruce (ph), Miss
Carol Bruce (ph) was appointed independent counsel to investigate the
Indian gambling casino matter, was she not?

STARR:  Yes.  The Secretary Babbitt matter, yes.

KENDALL:  Are you aware of her press policy?

STARR:  No, I am not.

KENDALL:  It's -- it's 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 Miss Lewinsky at the Ritz-Carlton
on Friday, January the 16th, 1998.

KENDALL:  One of the reasons your agents held Ms. Lewinsky was
that they...

STARR:  That is -- I -- I have to interrupt. That is -- the --
that premise is false.

KENDALL:  I was not meaning to be offensive.

STARR:  That is false and you know it to be false.

KENDALL:  I'll rephrase the question.

STARR:  She was not held.

KENDALL:  She -- her own psychological state will speak for
itself as to how she felt.  It's in the record in her testimony.

STARR:  You said she was held.  You didn't say how she felt.  You
said she was held.  And I think that's 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.

KENDALL:  During her sojourn with your agents.

(LAUGHTER)

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

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?

STARR:  It was not.  And I know that there is testimony and that
this was 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.  And we said 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 is my
understanding. And I believe my prosecutors, in fact, conducted
themselves consistently with what I have just told you.

KENDALL:  Could you turn to tab seven and could we have...

STARR:  I'm sorry, tab seven?

KENDALL:  Yes, tab 7 of the binder.  You may have read the Time
magazine essay -- excuse me -- I'm sorry, by Messrs. Ginsburg (ph) and
Spates (ph) 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're familiar with Mr. Ginsburg's charge?

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.

(LAUGHTER)

Nor was -- 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.

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

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

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.

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

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

STARR:  I believe that we did, but I am just not recalling
specifically...

KENDALL:  You certainly denied it...

STARR:  You have read a number of charges so you'll have to
remind me of where my...

KENDALL:  Let me direct you to tab 12 in the volume.  And this is
the later -- your later editor -- your later letter to Steve Brill.
We're displaying the page there.  And it's -- it's page seven.  You
don't have to read your entire letter.

STARR:  OK.

KENDALL:  Page 7.

STARR:  Yes.

KENDALL:  Do you see where it's indented six?  It's 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 a
conversation with Mr. Jordan or the president.  You cite no source at
all, nor could you, as we had no such plans.  Have I read correctly
your letter?

STARR:  Yes, you have.

KENDALL:  All right now.  When you wrote the letter, did you
review.  You were not present at the Ritz Carlton were you?

STARR:  No, I was not.

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

STARR:  Yes, I have reviewed with a number of -- well, in terms
of this particular letter.  But if you're asking did I review the
events 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 the Ritz Carlton.

KENDALL:  Do you remember if you reviewed -- I'm sorry.

STARR:  I'm just not, you're 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.

KENDALL:  I apologize for my speed, but I don't have much time.
I don't usually talk this fast, Mr. Starr.  Would you look at Tab 13.
Now Tab 13 is the FBI 302 form describing, and that's not Mr. Ginsburg
or Mr. Speights is it?  That's 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 AIC Emmick talked to
Bernard Lewinsky, that is Ms. Lewinsky's father, cooperation and
interview, telephone calls, body wires and testimony were mentioned.
You see that?

STARR:  Yes I do.

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

STARR:  Yes I do.

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 that her second appearance?

STARR:  Yes, I believe that's right.

KENDALL:  And do you remember, and this is if, do you have the
appendices to your ...?

STARR:  I can get them.

KENDALL:  I don't think we'll need to because this a famous
passage.  The grand jurors -- you're 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 illicited 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?

STARR:  That's my recollection of the transcript, yes.

KENDALL:  And, in fact, she said that she was told on Friday,
January the 16th by your agents that she'd have to place calls or wear
a wire to see -- to call Betty, and Mr. Jordan, and possibly the
president.  "Question: And did you tell them you didn't want to do
that?  Yes."

Was that Ms. Lewinsky's testimony?

STARR:  Yes, that is her testimony.

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

STARR:  I believe that's right in terms of the timing, that --
but I would have to reconstruct that in terms of the actual timing of
the mailing.  I'm sorry, I would have to double-check that.

KENDALL:  Mr. Starr, you've repeatedly said that the attorney
general asked you to take on this matter -- the Lewinsky...

STARR:  Well, that's 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 that the steps we'd taken had been within our
jurisdiction, but we were concerned about whether any additional step
could be taken properly within our jurisdiction, and that's how the
discussions began.

KENDALL:  In fact, you requested that the matter be referred to
you, did you not?

STARR:  At some point during the discussion, we -- in our own
deliberations, we came to the view that we felt that, because of the
involvement -- and I'll 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.  And so
we felt very comfortable -- and she said, "I'm being asked to commit
crimes.  I'm being asked to commit perjury."  We felt comfortable that
we were within our jurisdiction at that juncture, but we did feel
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's not related
to your existing jurisdiction, but we think your office should
investigate it.  We can't because the president is implicated."

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?

STARR:  Well, you'll have to refer me.  Where...

KENDALL:  I'm sorry, I don't have that in your binder.

STARR:  OK.  Yes, well...

KENDALL:  I will represent to you that is a sentence in her...

STARR:  I am certainly 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 disagreed that under the statute it should be an
expansion of our existing jurisdiction.

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?

STARR:  The young woman -- Monica?

KENDALL:  A young woman.

STARR:  I'm sorry?

KENDALL:  A young woman.

STARR:  OH, I think we've had questions about that, and I have
been asked that, and I'm searching my recollection, but let me say
this: if you're 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.

STARR:  Now I had questions, and they seem 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.

With respect to Monica Lewinsky, which I assume is what we're
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 otherwise hear about her until January of 1998.

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

STARR:  I was told, I'll be very specific, and I can be very
brief.  I was at an 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 in that -- and 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's when it was brought to my attention that there
was information that we would proceed to act on.

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

STARR:  I know Richard.  I am not aware of what his role was.  I
have sense 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've not conducted an investigation.  There may
be facts of which I am unaware that I should be aware in terms of
before I formulated a complete response.

KENDALL:  Could you turn to Tab 2, Mr. Starr.  It's a provision
of the Independent Counsel statute.  It's 28 USC 594(j).  Do you see
that?

STARR:  Yes, I do.

KENDALL:  In that, you've made the point that you kept your law
practice as you were legally entitled to do.  You made, I think over a
million dollars each year, for the last four from that law practice,
again as you were legally entitled to do.  But in exchange for
allowing private counsel to serve part timers independent counsel, the
Ethics in Government Act enforced a very strict conflict of interest
rule, did it not?  And that's...

STARR:  Yes, it's very specific.  Yes.

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

STARR:  I believe that's right, I would have to re-read it, but
I'm going to simply accept your representation.  But I think that is
correct.

KENDALL:  Can I call your attention to Exhibit 4, which is
another 302 interview form and that's for Ms. Lucianne Goldberg.  To
Tab 4.

STARR:  Yes, I do have it.

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

STARR:  I'm sorry, I have not read this 302...

KENDALL:  Well, it's 1232.

STARR:  Yes, I'm there, but what paragraph.

KENDALL:  All right, it's the paragraph that begins in the
meantime because Tripp.

STARR:  It's not on my page 1232.

KENDALL:  I beg your pardon, it's 1231.

STARR:  OK, I'm sorry.

KENDALL:  All right.  "Goldberg called around to friends she has,
including one in Chicago who works at the same firm Ken Starr does.
This person recommended Goldberg to 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?

STARR:  You're talking about at any time?

KENDALL:  Any time.

STARR:  Well, you've just brought this to my attention.  But I am
-- I do not -- no, I don't have a recollection of something being
brought -- you're talking to my attention?  No.

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?

STARR:  No, I did not.  But I must say that what you pointed me
to in the statute was representation, and I've read the 302 quickly
for the first time.  I've not had occasion to read this 302.  And the
302 does not talk about representation; it talks about calling a
friend.

KENDALL:  It's 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's no formal hiring of a person?

STARR:  Well, I think -- I'm not sure I would readily agree with
that, and let me just say this: conflict of interest analysis is -- as
you well know, because you're a partner in a very prestigious law firm
-- is very technical, and very complicated, and very careful
evaluation has to be made.  And that's why, I'm sure at your firm as
we do at our firm -- the firm from which I'm 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.

KENDALL:  Mr. Starr, could I direct your attention to exhibit Tab
14, please.  Do you have that exhibit?

STARR:  Yes I do.

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?

STARR:  It is an article about that subject, yes.

KENDALL:  And indicating that state troopers, two were named and
quoted, Ronnie Anderson (ph) and Roger Perry, are being interviewed
about rumors of affairs that the president had while he was governor
of Arkansas.  Is that correct?

STARR:  That's what the story is about.

KENDALL:  Your ...

STARR:  But whether the story reflects the facts is obviously a
different matter.

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?

STARR:  When this, and we were in Little Rock at the time, namely
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 your 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 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 an interviewed anyone who might have relevant information.
And that's what we were doing.  We were in fact, talking...

KENDALL:  And the relevance of this -- did you go to the attorney
general and seek an expansion of your jurisdiction to accompany this
particular investigation?

STARR:  I guess I wasn't clear.  This was the Whitewater phase of
our investigation that is referenced here in the press.  We're talking
about Little Rock, we're 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.

KENDALL:  And...

STARR:  As you well know, Susan McDougal was not cooperating with
the investigation, and indeed as we know, you spent time with Susan
Mcdougall during the course of the trial representing the president's
interest to communicate with her as you're entitled to do.  We're also
entitled, just as you're entitled to reach out to your fellow criminal
defense lawyers, we're entitled to reach out to witnesses who may have
relevant information.

KENDALL:  Did you use private investigators to do this
investigation into the 12 to 15 women?

STARR:  I beg your pardon, private investigators?

KENDALL:  Yes, your GAO report over last three times...

STARR:  OH, I'm sorry.

KENDALL:  ... has a line item of approximately, it varies, but
it's about half a million dollars for among other things, private
investigators.

STARR:  No, we have never hired Terry Lenzner, David.

(LAUGHTER)

KENDALL:  What is that private investigative expense?

STARR:  But what we do, do is we do hire retired FBI agents.  And
those are, you know, I'll have to look at the, you're talking about an
audit report.  And if you want to guide me to the audit report, that's
fine.  But I will say...

HYDE:  The chair's got to intervene, the hour is over quite in a
little bit.  Mr. Lowell and Mr. Kendall have had two hours.  Mr.
Schippers has been waiting since 10:00 and is getting testy, which is
his natural state.

(LAUGHTER)

But, Mr. Kendall, you will have an opportunity, further
opportunity to present and address the committee at length in extent
though, 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's a long day.  One must have some
compassion for Mr. Starr and...

STARR:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

KENDALL:  Mr. Chairman, I thank you, but I would simply request
Mr. Starr testified for 2 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...

(UNKNOWN MEMBER):  Mr. Chairman?

KENDALL:  It's been a long day.  I would come back tomorrow if
that were appropriate.

HYDE:  I don't think many of us want to come back tomorrow.

So -- But, 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.

(LAUGHTER)

KENDALL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------