House Majority Counsel's Examination of Kenneth Starr Before the House Judiciary Committee

HYDE:  Mr. Starr, do you want a little break?

STARR:  No, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE:  OK, we're at the final...

STARR:  We're almost at my bedtime.

HYDE:  We're past mine, I can assure you.  The gentlelady from
California.

WATERS:  I would like to -- I would like to inquire of the Chair
what opportunity will we have to clarify what appears to have been
conflicting information that we have received here today from our star
witness?

HYDE:  I would write a letter to Mr. Starr, if I were you.

If I were confused about some of the evidence, I would write a
nice letter and I'd say please straighten me out and I bet he'd answer
you.

WATERS:  I think it's a little deeper than that.  It may go to
perjury.  This man is under oath.

HYDE:  Well, he is under oath.  Are you charging him with
perjury?

WATERS:  I would like clarification and after the clarification
is made, I can determine whether or not I would make that charge.

HYDE:  Ms. Waters, the chair has to control this committee.

We have been at it all day, and I think what you're asking at
this late moment is an imposition on the committee, not to mention Mr.
Starr, so you would not be recognized for that purpose, but I will
recognize Mr. Schippers for 30 minutes.

SCHIPPERS:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Judge Starr, my name is
David Schippers and I'm the chief investigative counsel for the
committee.  Can you hear me?

STARR:  Now I can, thank you.

SCHIPPERS:  I will try to be brief as I possibly can.  I do have
a little bit of territory to cover as you well know.

STARR:  Yes.

SCHIPPERS:  I will begin with some of Mr. Kendall's statements
and some of his questions to you.

First of all, do I understand that there is such a thing as a
hair trigger -- you refer to a hair trigger that would set off an
investigation of whether or not there were leaks out of your office?

STARR:  Yes.

SCHIPPERS:  That hair trigger can be and often is triggered by a
defense attorney sending it something to the judge claiming that there
is a leak, is that right?

STARR:  It is, yes.  It is standard practice for criminal defense
lawyers to charge leaks of grand jury information.

Their allies then pick up the charge and suddenly it becomes
conventional wisdom that there has in fact, been final adjudication,
which is wrong as a matter of law and unfair, just in terms of basic
human decency.

These are professional prosecutors.  We're talking about --

SCHIPPERS:  Thank you, judge.

STARR:  Yes, I'm sorry.

SCHIPPERS: Now, do I understand that Mr. Kendall sent 27 of such
requests to the judge here claiming leaks?

STARR:  Well, he sent a number, and I think he had some 24
exhibits, which, again, I have been reluctant to talk about, because
it is in litigation.

I mean the specifics are in litigation as is -- as David knows.

SCHIPPERS:  Judge, if I were expecting someone to testify before
a Congressional committee and I wanted questions to ask him about
leaks, all I would have to do is send some letters to the judge and
trigger this hair trigger effect, isn't that correct?

STARR:  Well with -- I don't want to suggest the hair trigger is
a nonexistent trigger, but the burden on the defense lawyer is quite
modest, and one of the things that we have learned, and I don't -- I
know this is your time -- but I would just say, one of the things that
we have learned in this investigation is that a lot of people,
including Mr. Kendall talk on background and the like and the sourcing
that is then used by the reporter becomes very important.

Someone as responsible as Tim Russert sourced a story in such a
way that it looked like it came from us.  He was decent and honorable
enough to say, no, it didn't come from Starr's office, it, in fact
with all due respect, came from the Congress.

Now, you're not under a 6(e) obligation, so you can talk as
freely as you would like and indeed, you enjoy speech and debate
clause immunity.  However, prosecutors are very sensitive especially
in this jurisdiction in light of the hair trigger to a reporter who
sort of says "sources close to" -- well what does that mean?  It can
mean almost anyone.  And I think that one of the things that this
litigation will, in fact, show is that becomes an issue ever so
quickly, as we saw in the Marion Barry case and as we saw in the Dan
Rostenkowski case.

SCHIPPERS: Now judge, Mr. Kendall mentioned massive leaking. I am
going to ask you a specific and direct question.  As you sit there, do
you have any information, evidence, or anything in your possession to
indicate that anyone in your office has leaked anything -- any 6(e)
material?

STARR:  Again, it depends on what one means by 6(e) because there
are issues...

SCHIPPERS: Within your definition of 6(e)?

STARR:  No.  Within my understanding -- and I think that my
understanding is correct -- no, I can say here that -- that now.  But
I also think that it's important for this litigation that I talk
about, to go forward and let's see what happens.  And that litigation
is under seal, but there is an orderly process just as the Supreme
Court said in the Paula Corbin Jones case.  Let's allow that orderly
process to go forward.

SCHIPPERS: Fine. Sir you were asked whether you were present
during the taping of the 302, the FBI interviews; whether you were
present at the grand jury appearances of all these witnesses; whether
you were present during the course of interviews and depositions and
you answered "no," isn't that correct?

STARR:  That's correct.

SCHIPPERS:  But you did have experienced -- highly experienced
professional agents and prosecutors present at each and every one of
those occasions did, you not?

STARR:  I did.

SCHIPPERS:  And you relied upon the integrity, the honesty and
the decency of those agents and investigators, did you not?

STARR:  I did and very proudly so.

SCHIPPERS:  All right, now, I notice that Mr. -- we've heard an
awful lot about fairness here, Judge Starr -- but I notice that when
you sat down this morning, you were given about two inches of
documents to review.  How long did you have to review those before Mr.
Lowell began questioning you?

STARR:  Unless Mr. Lowell shipped it over this morning -- I left
the office at 9:15 to come to the House of Representatives and I had
not seen it.  If it's waiting on my desk, then I suppose he gave me
some notice, but no, in terms of actual notice, I had no notice
whatsoever.

SCHIPPERS:  You were also given a book filled with some 63 tabs
when Mr. Kendall began to question you.  When's the first time you saw
that book?

STARR:  This evening when I came in after having a sandwich.

SCHIPPERS:  And the -- they, of course, they had -- they were in
possession of those books before you left to have your sandwich.  They
didn't give it to you to review, did they?

STARR:  No, unless it's sitting on my desk -- it's not.  They did
not, and I'm confident -- I have to be careful of what I say because
of not having universal facts, but Mr. Schippers, no, I had no advance
notice that this was going to be inquired into.

SCHIPPERS:  And you were questioned about specific one line --
two lines inside of this two-and-a-half inch document, and you had to
go and hunt for the answers, didn't you, judge?

STARR:  I did.

SCHIPPERS:  Now, we have heard over two hours of questioning --
almost three hours of questioning, if we include the Democratic
members of this committee, and I haven't heard anybody ask you one
question about the facts of these cases.  So with your permission,
judge, I'm going to take a few minutes and get to the facts and the
issues that are really before this committee.

First of all, Mr. Conyers in his opening statement made a remark
about a recent delivery of four boxes of documents.  That delivery was
made -- what was it? -- yesterday or the day before to the Ford
Building, was it not Mister -- or Judge Starr?

STARR:  Yes, I believe it was the day before.

SCHIPPERS:  Now, that wasn't your idea to deliver those, was it?

STARR:  No, it was not.

SCHIPPERS:  It was in answer to a request by Mr. Conyers that you
provide additional information, wasn't it?

STARR:  Yes, that -- well, it was a congressional request.  I
believe it originated with Congressman Conyers.

SCHIPPERS:  And you were just...

STARR:  We've had so many requests.  We've had individual
requests from individual members.  I don't mean to complain, but we
don't have a congressional office.  We're prosecutors and lawyers, so
we do the best we can.  We've had a virtual flurry of requests for
information, but I believe Mr. Con -- excuse me -- Congressman Conyers
was one of the requesters with respect to that information, and we
tried to be responsive, yes.

SCHIPPERS:  Now, Judge Starr, you have been investigating
President Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky matter and other matters
involving perjury, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and so on, for
some seven or eight months, is that correct?

STARR:  Yes, I guess now 10 months.

SCHIPPERS:  Have you been given any exculpatory evidence by the
president, or have you been offered any exculpatory evidence or
witnesses by the president in that time?

STARR:  I don't believe that we have.  I would want to check, and
if I have additional information I would provide it to the committee.
But as I sit here this evening, I'm not aware of any suggestion that
there is exculpatory evidence, other than the discussion we've had
here today with respect to what one individual witness may have said.

But no, no witness has come forward to say Monica Lewinsky made
it all up.  No one has suggested that.  No one has suggested -- so --
I'm sorry to be going on, but the point is...

SCHIPPERS:  I think you've answered the question.

STARR:  ... we stand ready to receive information.  But no one
has been...

SCHIPPERS:  That was my next question: if information were
available and were -- had been given to you, you would have considered
that along with all the other information, is that correct?

STARR:  OH, yes, absolutely.  And in fact, one of my colleagues
reminds me that we specifically asked in the flurry of this
investigation -- we asked Mr. Kendall by letter, please provide us
with any exculpatory information.  Mr. Kendall said there was nothing
to exculpate or that there was nothing to worry about exculpation
from.

SCHIPPERS:  Now, there was a great deal of discussion throughout
the day about the difference between your investigation and that of
Mr. Jaworski.  There was no Independent Counsel Act when Mr. Jaworski
was performing his duties, was there?

STARR:  That is correct.  He had no statute to look to at all.

SCHIPPERS:  And your actions as regards referrals to this
committee are governed by federal statute, are they not, Judge?

STARR:  They are indeed.

SCHIPPERS:  And you attempted to the best of your ability to
comply with those federal statutes?

STARR:  That is correct.  And if I could just add -- there was no
experience under this, happily for the country -- under this provision
of the statute.  So we were sailing in unchartered waters and trying
to come to the best professional judgment we could about what Congress
intended and wanted in this provision that required us to report to
it.

SCHIPPERS:  One aside, in the 63 -- you had an opportunity -- I
know you haven't had a reasonable opportunity, but have you had any
opportunity to page through Mr. Kendall's 63 tabs?

STARR:  Only as he was guiding me, Mr. Schippers.

SCHIPPERS:  Well, I have, I have, Judge Starr.  And I noted that
it is -- contains several newspaper articles, several magazine
articles, several self-serving letters from the president's counsel,
and not one word -- not one word -- of evidence.

By the way, the other two-incher is equally devoid of evidence.

During your term as independent counsel, sir, and with particular
reference to your investigation of the Lewinsky matter and the perjury
and the obstruction of justice and other related criminal activity,
you were under the guidance and control of the attorney general of the
United States, were you not?

STARR:  Well, I was certainly under her ultimate supervision in
terms of the provisions for removal.  But of course, the independent
counsel is to be independent of her daily supervision.

SCHIPPERS:  I mean that in the sense, that if you were to be
involved in anything untoward, unethical, illegal, the attorney
general had the absolute ability to fire you for cause, did she not?

STARR:  Yes.  I mean, the statute is clear that an independent
counsel can be removed for good cause.

SCHIPPERS:  Now you have been pilloried and vilified in
newspapers and magazines and here, unfortunately.  Has the attorney
general ever indicated that she had any thought of firing you for
cause?

STARR:  I'm not aware of any expression of any issue at all with
respect to good cause.  There are, in fairness to the attorney
general, because of the flurry of allegations are just constant,
there's a process of evaluation on her part.

STARR:  But no.  And I meet with the attorney general
episodically and her senior staff.  And there has never been a
suggestion that there is good cause to remove me as independent
counsel.  At least I am not aware of any suggestion.

SCHIPPERS:  Well, you have never been...

STARR:  I'm sorry.

SCHIPPERS:  Has the attorney general ever questioned you about
conflicts of interest or anything like that?

STARR:  No.  The attorney general has not.  But the attorney
general has a process through the Office of Professional
Responsibility otherwise exercising her jurisdiction.  But thus far,
the issues that have gone to the -- that have been acted on, we have
been cleared on or else no action has been taken over the years of my
stewardship as the independent counsel.

SCHIPPERS:  I know all of these specific factors that various
people have asked you if you reported to the attorney general when you
met her on the 16th of -- when was it? -- the 15th of January?

STARR:  Well, we met with the deputy attorney general -- pardon
me -- on the 15th, and then there was -- and again, I did not have
these meetings, as it turned out.

SCHIPPERS:  No, but there was a litany...

STARR:  Yes.

SCHIPPERS:  ... there was a litany of things that you apparently
allegedly did not tell the attorney general about?

STARR:  OH, yes. Yes, I'm sorry, yes.

SCHIPPERS:  But of course, shortly thereafter all of that litany
of information became available to the attorney general?

STARR:  If it wasn't available to begin with.  I mean, part of
the quarrel I have had with a number of the suggestions about what I
should have told the attorney general is that these were all in the
public domain, as I said, in response to questions very early -- or
earlier in the day, certain things did not occur to me as relevant or
germane.  It may be that others would say -- Gee, isn't it relevant
that you were asked by Bob Fiske to consider preparing a amicus brief
in the Paula Corbin Jones case.

I didn't view it as -- well, it just didn't occur to me.

SCHIPPERS:  That's fine.  That's fine.  But it did become
available and no action was taken?

STARR:  No.  That's correct.

SCHIPPERS:  Now, let's get to this January 16th meeting with
Monica Lewinsky that so much has been made of.

STARR:  Yes.

SCHIPPERS:  I have been a prosecutor too.  And Monica Lewinsky,
from my reading, was treated very, very nicely by your agents.

STARR:  Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

SCHIPPERS:  I hear laughter from the left, but I often hear
laughter from the left even when you're testifying, and I didn't
really think it was fair to laugh at you when you were testifying
either.

STARR:  Well, I think that the record of -- a fair assessment of
the record will show that we wanted her cooperation.  And we treated
her with dignity and with respect.  But we were prosecutors, and we
were investigators investigating crime.  That's a serious matter.  And
we made it very clear to her, she is in a serious situation.  But we
treated her with dignity.  We certainly took every step to make
sure...

SCHIPPERS:  I wonder how many of your accusers have read the log
that was kept of every minute of that day.

Now, sir, there was also some question as to why Ms. Lewinsky was
not allowed to call Mr. Carter.  Mr. Carter had been given to Monica
Lewinsky by Vernon Jordan.  Isn't that correct?

STARR:  That's correct.  He...

STARR:  And the evidence available to you at that time, phone
evidence, indicated that perhaps Mr. Jordan had been in telephonic
contact with the president at the time he was getting her that lawyer.
Isn't that correct, sir?

STARR:  That is correct.

SCHIPPERS:  And in an abundance of caution, you didn't want the
president to know that Monica Lewinsky was talking to you.  Isn't that
right?

STARR:  That is correct.

SCHIPPERS:  And that's a perfectly valid prosecutorial move,
isn't it?

STARR:  Yes, very traditional, nothing out of the...

SCHIPPERS:  As a matter of fact, when later, Ms. Lewinsky decided
she didn't want to be represented by Mr. Carter, on that day, isn't
that correct?

STARR:  Yes, she came to a decision to be represented by Mr.
Ginsburg.

SCHIPPERS:  And she called Mr. Ginsburg and she talked to Mr.
Ginsburg, didn't she?

STARR:  Yes, I was just going to say that was in consultation
with her family, so I don't know to what extent Ms. Lewinsky was being
guided by her parents and especially Dr. Lewinsky.

SCHIPPERS:  In any event, she changed lawyers by the one that had
been provided to her indirectly by the White House to an independent
lawyer from the West Coast.  Is that right?

STARR:  OH, yes and one who was well known to the family.

SCHIPPERS:  And doesn't the evidence demonstrate that, from the
16th on or from that day on when she was unavailable, there was a
three-day frenzy at the White House to try to find Monica Lewinsky --
by phone, by beeper, and that Mr. Jordan, Mr. Carter, and Miss Currie
were in constant efforts to reach Monica Lewinsky?  Isn't that a
fact?

STARR:  I believe that is true.

SCHIPPERS:  Does that indicate to you that they were a little bit
afraid of what Monica might say?

STARR:  I think there was concern.

(LAUGHTER)

SCHIPPERS:  By the way, when Monica Lewinsky was -- I'm not going
to say "being held" because I don't want to run into trouble...

STARR:  Yes.

SCHIPPERS:  When Monica Lewinsky was in with your agents...

STARR:  Yes.  And prosecutors.  There were...

SCHIPPERS:  She was not questioned about criminal activity, was
she?

STARR:  No, she was not.

SCHIPPERS:  She was not questioned at all about criminal activity
until she was represented by counsel?

STARR:  That is absolutely right.  And that's why not one word in
this referral comes from any information that was gleaned or gathered
on the strength of January 16th, not one word.

SCHIPPERS:  As a matter of fact, the first time Monica Lewinsky
testified to the grand jury was some seven months later, right?

STARR:  It took a long time and a new set of lawyers, two very
distinguished lawyers here in Washington with...

SCHIPPERS:  And if she was afraid and if she was disturbed on
January 6th, she was sure as heck over it by August 6th, wasn't she?

STARR:  Well, she was at least -- yes, she seemed to be.

(LAUGHTER)

But I am very fearful of saying anything about state of mind,
especially in light of a comment I have heard with respect -- but in
any event...

SCHIPPERS:  You have before you, Judge Starr, the first two-
incher, the one that Mr. Lowell gave you?

Would you turn to tab 35, please?

There are a whole series of remarks on page 35, and I think there
was 356 -- the page number.  That's where table 35 begins.

The first bullet -- do you have it, Judge?

STARR:  I do.

SCHIPPERS:  The first bullet says Monica Lewinsky testified
before the grand jury that, quote, "no one ever asked me to lie, and I
was never promised a job for my silence."

Is that right?

STARR:  Yes.

SCHIPPERS:  She also testified, "But nobody told me to tell the
truth either."  Didn't she?

STARR:  Absolutely.

SCHIPPERS:  Now, Monica Lewinksy also testified that she had a
conversation with the president in the White House or when he -- on
the phone when she found out that she was on the witness list and the
president told her, "You can make an affidavit."

STARR:  That is -- words to that effect (OFF-MIKE).

SCHIPPERS:  The affidavit, of course, would be for the purpose of
avoiding testimony.  Isn't that correct, Judge Starr?

STARR:  Yes.  That was correct.  That was the...

SCHIPPERS:  And in order to accomplish that purpose, both the
president and Ms. Lewinsky were fully aware that that affidavit would
have to be a lie.  Isn't that right?

STARR:  Yes.

SCHIPPERS:  And it was the president's suggestion that she make
that affidavit?  According to her testimony?

STARR:  According to her testimony, yes.

SCHIPPERS:  We might as well be complete about these tabs when
we're going over them.  We're going to talk a little bit about
fairness, if I may.  The president of the United States testified
before a grand jury, did he not, Judge Starr?

STARR:  Yes, he did.

SCHIPPERS:  And he was permitted to testify by videotape or by
close-circuit television from the White House, was he not?

STARR:  Yes, he was.

SCHIPPERS:  How often is a prospective witness before the grand
jury permitted to testify from home?

STARR:  Very rarely.  Usually...

SCHIPPERS:  So that was be ex -- overly fair to the president by
letting him testify there, isn't that right?

STARR:  We tried to respect the dignity of the presidency and the
president, and we readily agreed to provide this alternative
mechanism, at Mr. Kendall's request, to his actual appearance before
the grand jury.

SCHIPPERS:  And also, the president was permitted to have his
attorney sitting with him and to consult with that attorney, isn't
that correct?

STARR:  Yes, Mr. Kendall, and Ms. Seligman, and the...

SCHIPPERS:  How many prospective witnesses before a grand jury
are permitted to bring their lawyer into the grand jury room with
them?

STARR:  None.  It is inconsistent...

SCHIPPERS:  Except the president.

STARR:  It's inconsistent with grand jury practice.

SCHIPPERS:  So you -- another favor to the president in the
interest of fairness, is that correct?

STARR:  That's correct.

SCHIPPERS:  The president was permitted to read a statement
before he began to testify.  How many witnesses in a grand jury are
permitted to read a statement of their own?

STARR:  Ordinarily...

SCHIPPERS:  I'm sorry.

STARR:  Ordinarily it's not done.  They're there to answer
questions that the prosecutors, as the legal advisers to the grand
jury, or the grand jurors, themselves, have.

SCHIPPERS:  Now the president was originally subpoenaed to appear
before a grand jury.

STARR:  Yes, he was, after he had declined six invitations to
testify.

SCHIPPERS:  Six invitations, right.  And as an accommodation to
the president, you and your staff withdrew that subpoena and allowed
him to -- the courtesy of appearing, quote, "voluntarily"?

STARR:  Yes, at Mr. Kendall's request and...

SCHIPPERS:  Once again being eminently fair to the president.

STARR:  We acceded to his request.  We did try and do try to be
fair.

SCHIPPERS:  Now Judge Starr, when an individual testifies before
a grand jury, that individual has three choices: he can tell the
truth, one; he can lie, two; or he can assert his Fifth Amendment
privilege not to testify because his answers might tend to incriminate
him; isn't that correct?

STARR:  Yes.

SCHIPPERS:  When an individual is questioned in a grand jury, is
he permitted to say, "I stand on my statement in lieu of taking the
Fifth"?

STARR:  No.

SCHIPPERS:  But the president was allowed to do that, was he          not?

STARR:  He was.

SCHIPPERS:  So much for the unfairness of the grand jury.

You were also asked by some of the members here -- and a great,
great move was made -- that none of these individuals in the grand
jury were subjected to cross-examination.  And that's true, none of
them were.

STARR:  That's correct.

SCHIPPERS:  Are you aware of any grand jury proceeding in which
the defense is permitted to come in and cross-examine the witnesses
before the grand jury?

STARR:  Absolutely not.

SCHIPPERS:  It's unbelievable, isn't it?

STARR:  It is completely outside the contemplation of grand jury
practice, because that's not the function of the grand jury.  It's to
gather information, and to determine whether there's probable cause to
believe that a criminal offense may have been committed.

SCHIPPERS:  That's right.  Now the cross-examination is for the
trial, isn't it?

STARR:  Yes, absolutely.

SCHIPPERS:  Now, we're tugged -- if I may change horses a little
bit and go to the impeachment proceeding.

STARR:  Yes.

SCHIPPERS:  The Constitution provides that the sole power of
impeachment resides in the House of Representatives, isn't that
correct?

STARR:  That is correct.

SCHIPPERS:  And that is in the nature of a grand jury proceeding,
which results in a charge, isn't that right?

STARR:  That's right.

SCHIPPERS:  So there should be no cross-examination at that stage
of the proceeding either, should there?

STARR:  That's entirely within your prerogative, but to the
extent that you're mirroring the grand jury, there is no cross-
examination.

SCHIPPERS:  Over and above that, Judge Starr, the Constitution
further provides that the sole power to try an impeachment resides in
the Senate, isn't that correct?

STARR:  That is true.

SCHIPPERS:  So if this House were to permit cross-examination and
to hold a mini-trial here, they would be usurping the constitutional
duties of the United States Senate, isn't that correct?

STARR:  Well, I'm not sure I would necessarily agree with that
because I think...

SCHIPPERS:  I hear the moaning from the left again.

(LAUGHTER)

STARR:  Because I...

HYDE?:  Does somebody need an aspirin?

(LAUGHTER)

STARR:  No, I think there are substantial -- I shouldn't be
advising the House of Representatives in terms of its prerogatives,
but it seems to me that, under the Constitution, you will have
extraordinary latitude under whatever rules of the House under which
you're operating to determine how to proceed.

But you're quite right.  The Constitution contemplates the trial
to be in the Senate, and what you're quite rightly saying is if one is
saying, "Let's have a trial," you might have the raw power to do it,
but it's almost as if, well that doesn't count because the real issue
is, is there substantial -- or whatever the standard is -- that the
House of Representatives sees fit to articulate as its operative
standard.

SCHIPPERS:  Now, judge, let's do some fairness comparing here.
Did anybody in the grand jury, while the president was testifying,
laugh at him?

STARR:  Yes.

SCHIPPERS:  Who?

STARR:  Members of the grand jury.

SCHIPPERS:  And when was that, Judge Starr?  While the president
was testifying and telling what he told the grand jurors they were
laughing at him, is that right, sir?

STARR:  I understand that there were some occasions where one or
more grand jurors -- at least that is my understanding.  But I want to
protect the confidentiality of the grand jury process, and
deliberative process. even though you have all the transcripts and the
like.  I would just rely on what the transcripts say.

SCHIPPERS:  All right, well when the president was asked
questions, he was asked questions one at a time, was he not?

STARR:  Yes.

SCHIPPERS:  And they were relatively simple questions and he was
permitted to give full and complete answers, isn't that correct?

STARR:  Yes.

SCHIPPERS:  He wasn't asked six or eight questions at a time,
running over a four or five-minute period, and then given 10 seconds
to answer, was he?

STARR:  Definitely not.

SCHIPPERS:  Now, by the way, did anyone cut off the president
when he tried to answer questions?

STARR:  No, I don't think there was any episode of when cut off
the president, although, may I say, we were operating as well under
very strict limitations, and we did want to proceed with additional
questions, and the grand jury had questions, but Mr. Kendall did
enforce the understanding that we had, which was a four-hour session
by the president.  And we abided by that, and I don't mean to sound
quarrelsome in suggesting that Mr. Kendall was not within his rights.
He was.

SCHIPPERS:  Now, judge, there's been a lot of talk in the public
domain, and on the television and things, that this is -- that all the
president did was deny sex -- deny a sexual relationship with an
intern.  He went a lot further than that, didn't he?  For example,
with Mr. Blumenthal.

STARR:  Yes.

SCHIPPERS:  As a matter of fact, before Mr. Blumenthal came in to
testify, he was subjected to an elaborate, elaborate lie by the
president concerning the relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

STARR:  Yes, he was.

SCHIPPERS:  If I may: the president told Mr. Blumenthal that
Monica made sexual demands upon him, which he rebuffed; that right?
And that was not true, was it?

STARR:  That was not true.

SCHIPPERS:  He also said that Monica Lewinsky threatened to claim
an affair, and he wouldn't go along with it; that he had been
threatened by Monica Lewinsky.  Is that right?

STARR:  Yes.

SCHIPPERS:  Now, this is at a time when the president thought
that it was a one-on-one with Monica Lewinsky, didn't he?

STARR:  I believe that is what he thought at that time.

SCHIPPERS:  And this would have been a perfect answer: She
threatened to say I had sex with her.  If I didn't do something for
her, I didn't do something, therefore everything she is saying is a
lie.

STARR:  It would be a very good answer.

SCHIPPERS:  Now your -- it's been suggested that your people used
the young lady and betrayed a young lady.  Wouldn't that more properly
belong to the president of the United States?

SCHIPPERS:  Well, I'm not sure I should be the one to pass
judgment, but we certainly did not betray Ms. Lewinsky.  We were doing
our job, and we certainly never took any steps other than to try to
vindicate the interest of the criminal law.

HYDE:  Mr. Schippers, your time has expired.  Do you need
additional time?

SCHIPPERS:  If I may, and if Judge Starr can stand it?

HYDE:  Well...

SCHIPPERS:  I will not need a great deal more, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE:  All right, I will allow an additional 15 minutes, and
maybe you won't use that.

(LAUGHTER)

HYDE:  Said he, hopefully.  Preferably.

STARR:  That was off the record.  Mr. Kendall tells me I should
not do that.

SCHIPPERS:  There's been some suggestion, judge, that this was
merely a private crime.  The United States Constitution provides for
three branches of government, does it not?  Co-equal branches?

STARR:  That's correct.

SCHIPPERS:  And the judiciary is co-equal with the executive?

STARR:  Absolutely.

SCHIPPERS:  Did I understand you earlier say that lying under
oath, perjury, and obstruction of justice strikes at the very heart of
the judicial system of the United States?

STARR:  Absolutely, and I think every judge would agree with
that, that this is absolutely inimical to the judicial functioning.
It is inimical to our court system.

SCHIPPERS:  And under that, the Constitution of the United
States, if the judicial system is destroyed, that is destroying one of
the constitutional portions of our government, isn't it?

STARR:  No question that from the founding of the republic, the
importance of our judiciary as an enforcer of rights and the
vindicators of rule of law is absolutely critical.

SCHIPPERS:  So when the president of the United States lies under
oath -- civil or criminal case, grand jury or other -- and obstructs
justice -- civil or criminal, grand jury or other -- he is effectively
attacking the judicial branch of the United States constitutional
government, isn't he?

STARR:  That is the way I would view it.

SCHIPPERS:  And that president takes the oath that he will
faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and
will to the best of his ability preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States, right?

STARR:  Right.

SCHIPPERS:  That's not defending, is it?

STARR:  No, it's not.

SCHIPPERS:  There is a term that has stuck in my brain from these
transcripts that I have read, and that is "mission accomplished."

When Webb Hubbell needed help, Vernon Jordan got somebody at
Revlon, or the parent company of Revlon, to put him on retainer for no
work, right?

STARR:  Essentially, no work.

SCHIPPERS:  So, Vernon Jordan: "mission accomplished."  When
Monica was looking for a job, and it became very urgent for her to get
a job, Mr. Jordan, again, accomplished his mission.

STARR:  Yes, he did.

SCHIPPERS:  When Ms. Currie, when they wanted to get rid of the
gifts, Ms. Currie went and picked them up, put them under her bed, to
keep them from anybody else.  Another mission accomplished.

STARR:  That's correct.

SCHIPPERS:  By the way, there has been some talk here that Monica
said that she recalled that Betty Currie called her and said either
the president wants me to pick something up or I understand you have
something for me to pick up.  Later, Ms. Currie backed off of that and
said I'm not sure, maybe Monica called me.  In the material that you
made available, you and your staff made available to us, there were
302s in which Monica said, I think when Betty called me, she was using
her cell phone.  Do you recall that Judge Starr?

STARR:  I do.

SCHIPPERS:  And in that same material that's in your office that
both parties were able to review and that we did in fact, review,
there are phone records of Ms. Currie, are there not?

STARR:  There are.

SCHIPPERS:  And there is a phone call from her cell phone to
Monica Lewinsky's home on the afternoon of December 28, 1997, isn't
there?

STARR:  That is correct.

SCHIPPERS:  Once again, Monica is right and she has been
corroborated.

STARR:  That certainly tends to corroborate Ms. Lewinsky's
recollection.

SCHIPPERS:  By the way, they did find some of the billing records
from the Rose Firm in the attic of Vince Foster's home.

STARR:  Yes, that is correct.

SCHIPPERS:  They weren't under the bed, were they?

STARR:  No, they were in the attic.

SCHIPPERS:  I'm sorry.

HYDE:  She wanted to know if it was OK to laugh.

SCHIPPERS:  Sure.

HYDE:  He says, yes.

SCHIPPERS:  Now, when Ms. Lewinsky was subpoenaed, Mr. Jordan
contacted the president and then got Mrs. Lewinsky an attorney, Mr.
Carter, is that right?

STARR:  That's correct.

SCHIPPERS:  Another mission accomplished.  When Monica did her
job search and she signed a false affidavit, the next day she was down
in -- up in New York trying to get a job, isn't that right?

STARR:  I believe it was the next day, yes.

SCHIPPERS:  She couldn't get a job because she kind of didn't do
a very good job on the interview.

STARR:  She did not feel that the interview had gone well and she
was not given a job offer and that concerned her and she expressed
that concern.

SCHIPPERS:  This is when Mr. Jordan called the chairman of the
board  and got her the job.

STARR:  He certainly -- yes.  He called Mr. Perelman and Mr.
Perelman then made a call and she was reinterviewed and she was
hired.

SCHIPPERS:  So Mr. Jordan at that time knew that the false
affidavit had been signed and that he had a job for Monica and he went
to see the president of the United States and said, "mission
accomplished," didn't he?

STARR:  In fairness to Mr. Jordan, he knew the affidavit had been
signed.  The rest I'm sure would be in some dispute.  But yes that
is...

SCHIPPERS:  He knew the affidavit had been signed.

STARR:  Yes.

SCHIPPERS:  And he knew that the job had been gotten.  He went to
the president and said mission accomplished.

STARR:  Yes, that is correct.

SCHIPPERS:  We don't which he was referring to, whether it was
the job or we got the affidavit signed, do we?

STARR:  No, I don't think we do know that.  We just know he said
mission accomplished.  I know he felt that he had, you know, engaged
in a certain amount -- a certain level of effort to secure that job
for Ms. Lewinsky at Revlon.

SCHIPPERS:  Judge Starr, I only have a few more questions.  You
are a senior partner in a major law firm -- or you were before you
took your leave of absence.

STARR:  Yes -- past-tense.

SCHIPPERS:  You are a recognized scholar in constitutional law
and in law in general.  You have been the solicitor general of the
United States, is that correct?

STARR:  That's correct.

SCHIPPERS:  Argued a number of cases before the Supreme Court of
the United States.

STARR:  That's correct.

SCHIPPERS:  You have received honorary doctors of law degrees
from six universities.

STARR:  I think that's right.

SCHIPPERS:  You have written numberless articles in various
scholarly journals.

STARR:  Yes, I've written a number.

SCHIPPERS:  You have a completely unblemished career for your
entire life as a lawyer, and you are looked upon in the profession as
a man of honor, integrity and decency, is that right?

STARR:  Well, I would like to think at least once upon a time
that was the reputation.

(LAUGHTER)

SCHIPPERS:  For the past year you have been trashed in the
newspapers, on television and with snide, backward remarks to which
you could not reply, isn't that right, Judge Starr?

STARR:  Well, I have chosen until now not to reply, but I think
the code of silence, sometimes in terms of basic fairness gets to come
to an end.

SCHIPPERS:  And you have been pilloried and excoriated, charged
with unbelievable things of which you are incapable of being guilty.

STARR:  I cannot imagine me and my colleagues engaging in some of
the suggested activities that have been described here, seriously.  We
simply cannot in conscience, live with one another as professionals --
and I laid out in my opening statement the backgrounds of my
colleagues, and I have been privileged to serve with two John Marshall
award winners, and that's special at the Justice Department.  That
means there's no better trial lawyer in the Department of Justice
recognized in a particular year and I have been privileged to serve
with two of them -- with public corruption chiefs.  These are career
civil servants and it's not right and not fair to attack and calumny
career civil servants.  But for my part, I have learned that it goes
with the independent counsel territory.

SCHIPPERS:  And the independent counsel job, you didn't seek
that, did you?

STARR:  Absolutely not.

SCHIPPERS:  You were asked to take it, and you tried to leave and
your staff begged you to stay a you did stay, is that right?

STARR:  All of that is true.  I never sought this job.  I am
reminded about the old song about taking a job...

(LAUGHTER)

STARR:  ... and what you then do with it.  It would be indecorous
of me to say it.  I was asked to -- by the special division to take on
this responsibility -- the three-judge panel, saw fit to ask me to
serve.  I had been asked by Phil Hyman (ph) who is department attorney
general of the United States in January 1994, whether I would be
willing to be considered appointed as the Whitewater counsel under Ms.
Reno -- to be appointed by Janet Reno.  Happily for me, she wisely
chose Bob Fiske.  Unhappily for me, the special division chose me.

SCHIPPERS:  You have been given a duty that you did not seek, and
you have performed that duty to the best of your ability, is that
correct, sir?

STARR:  I have certainly tried, and I did not -- to do it to the
best of my ability, and I am proud of what we have been able to
accomplish.  As I indicated earlier, the records of convictions
obtained, but also, the decisions not to seek an indictment.  The
decision to issue thorough reports.  All of that is part of what we
have co-labored together with Mr.  Kendall pointing to the number of
persons involved in the investigation.

I am proud of those persons.  They are my colleagues and they
have become my friends.  And they've worked very long and very hard
under very difficult circumstances and recognizing -- and we're big,
big boys -- and I mean that in a gender neutral way.

So, when we are accused in Arkansas of a political witch hunt, we
took it and we did our arguing in court, and we proved to the
satisfaction of a fair minded jury with a very distinguished judge
that the sitting governor and the president of the first lady's
business partners were guilty of serious felonies.  And we had been
listening month after month to it's a political witch hunt, and that
was unfair, but we learned that goes with this territory.

SCHIPPERS:  Judge for all that, doing your duty, you have been
pilloried and attacked from all sides is that right?

STARR:  I would hope not all sides but I guess that's...

SCHIPPERS:  Sometimes it seems like all sides.

(LAUGHTER)

SCHIPPERS:  How long have you been an attorney, Judge Starr?

STARR:  Twenty-five years.

SCHIPPERS:  Well, I have been an attorney for a almost 40 years.
I want to say I am proud to be in the same room with you and your
staff.

STARR:  Thank you, Mr. Schippers.

HYDE:  Thank you.  Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

JACKSON-LEE:  Mr.  Chairman.  Mr.  Chairman.

HYDE:  Yes, the gentlelady from Houston.

JACKSON LEE:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.  I indicated I
had a point of order.  This might be more preferable as a point of
clarification, and that is, I know it's extremely long into the
evening, Mr. Starr, but Mr. Chairman did I understand Mr. Starr to
state that we would not expect any referrals on Filegate, Travelgate
and Watergate -- excuse me...

HYDE:  Whitewater.

JACKSON LEE:  ... Whitewater -- it's been many years.  As relates
to the provision in the Constitution on impeachment; did I hear that?
You made a statement, Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you wanted to make
this statement, Mr. Starr wanted to make the statement, but you did
make the statement and I would appreciate it on the charge of our
committee, since we do have that responsibility, if I heard correctly.

Mr. Chairman I had, in addition, to add to the record, and a
question as to whether or not -- because of the shortness of the time
of questioning -- whether or not Mr. Starr would be able to answer --
or he indicated, I believe, to many members, that he would be willing
to answer some of our questions by way of written answers.  For
example, the question I had of his firsthand knowledge of any details
in that referral.

But Mr. Chairman -- excuse me, excuse my voice; it's late into
the evening -- and I do want to add a United States versus Berdman
(ph), 602 Fed 2nd, 547, Third Circuit, 1979.  I'd like to have that as
-- to have it submitted into the record, which deals with the
statement that courts have shared the legal professions disapproval of
the...

HYDE:  The gentlelady has had her time now.

JACKSON LEE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I would like the
question of the referral.

HYDE:  Do you have a specific request?

JACKSON LEE:  Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like the specific
question answered as to the referrals on Whitewater, Travelgate and
Filegate.

HYDE:  OK, Mr. Starr -- I know -- Mr. Starr, can you answer          that?

STARR:  I'm sorry.  The opening statement spoke to the FBI files
and Travel Office matter.  I did not comment beyond those two
matters.
JACKSON LEE:  What did you say on those matters?  That's what I
asked.

HYDE:  Well, if the gentlelady would read the report.

STARR:  When I say I didn't comment with respect to the
conclusion of such matters, the opening statement speaks for itself,
and I think we can, in fact, have that as part of the record.

HYDE:  Well, it is part of the official record.

STARR:  Yes.

HYDE:  Very well.

JACKSON LEE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE:  Well, thank you, Judge Starr, for a wonderful day.  Thank
you.

STARR:  Thank you.  Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

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