A L S O+T O D A Y Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Starr By Gary Kamiya When the real Kenneth Starr finally stood up before the House, he turned out to have a split personality Starr Wars By Joan Walsh The Democrats strike back Nothing has changed Compiled by Lori Leibovich and Fiona Morgan The consensus of political experts is that no minds were changed by Starr's day in court Dear Ken The full text of ethics advisor Sam Dash's letter of resignation to Kenneth Starr Starr speaks The full text of independent counsel Kenneth Starr's House Judiciary Committee testimony A dozen questions Congress should ask Kenneth Starr By David Talbot, Murray Waas and Joan Walsh (11/18/98)   T A B L E+T A L K Discuss Ken Starr and his testimony in the Politics area of Table Talk   R E C E N T L Y Same Old Party By Joshua Micah Marshall New leadership can't mend the rifts among Republicans in Congress (11/19/98) Reply to C.D. Ellison By David Horowitz It's time for blacks to have a two-party system, too (11/19/98) Toppling Saddam By Frank Smyth Clinton wants a new government in Baghdad, but he and the Iraqi opposition are unlikely to be up to the task (11/18/98) Brother on brother By Murray Waas Whitewater witness David Hale attempted to suborn perjury by his own brother by asking him to falsely corroborate illegal acts by President Clinton (11/17/98) The mark of Cain: a tale of two brothers By Murray Waas Though they traveled the same path from the family dirt farm through law school, the Hale brothers turned out different as night and day (11/17/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S A L O N E M P O R I U M FREE! 12-ounce bag of Salon Blend with a purchase of $30 or more. While supplies last.
		STARR SPEAKS | PAGE 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 - - - - - - - - - - HYDE: The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Lindsey Graham. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you can handle a couple more, we're about at the end here. One thing I've learned, Judge Starr, about impeachment -- it's becoming more and more clear to me -- I asked a question before to myself, really, is this Watergate or "Peyton Place"? And I learned that I dated myself, because no one in my office knew what "Peyton Place" was about. So it should have been "Melrose Place," I suppose. But one thing -- one thing I've learned is without -- we can talk academically and legalistically about crimes and punishment, but without public outrage, impeachment is a very difficult thing, and I think that is an essential component of impeachment. I think that is something that the Founding Fathers probably envisioned. But the most bizarre thing to me, in these odd times in which we live, that the public outrage is directed at you and not at the person who has allegedly done all these things. And let me talk about that person for a second. Is it Watergate or "Peyton Place"? I can remember Watergate pretty well because I was in high school. And as I look through this, you've got Mr. Hubbell, who is about to come testify or offer evidence to the government. Then you have a cast of characters on behalf of the president -- maybe on his behalf, but I can't -- that's a bad term; I don't know if it's on his behalf or not, but they're certainly acquaintances of the president -- friends, donors and benefactors -- drop about $550,000 on this guy to do business for them, and he's getting ready to go to jail. The last time I checked, when you're getting ready to go to jail, marketability goes down. So I find it very difficult for me to sit here and believe that that amount of money going to that man at that time wasn't an orchestrated effort by somebody to get him to shut up, to avoid one of the messes that the Clintons had created because the land deal went bad. But you're telling me you can't lay that at the feet at the president, so I'm going to be stuck with that. We have now evidence about Kathleen Willey, a lady who says that she went to the president when times were bad to ask for a job and something bad happened. And whether she's telling the truth, the president's telling the truth, I don't know. But if she is telling the truth, that tells me a lot about William Jefferson Clinton. Now you give me some information that an individual close to the president asked her to come down to his place, and now he takes the Fifth Amendment about what he did with her. We have files turning up in the White House that you've been looking for a couple of years, that nobody can find, and a copy of them is in the loft of a dead guy. And you're telling me you can't lay this at the feet of the president. Now we'll go to what -- I think that's Watergate stuff. The Dick Morris secret-police unit for Bruce Lindsey and other people who have been loyal to the president, and some private investigators; if you don't like Linda Tripp and I can understand that, decent people over there, you shouldn't like either. The more you know about them, the less you'll like. But this is not about liking anybody; this is about the law. And as much as I dislike the president politically and as much as I wonder about who he is and what kind of people represent him, we are going to play it straight. And we are going to play it straight, folks. If I bring you two perjurers, does it matter if one confessed and the one put the State through the pain and expense of a trial and punishment? Does that matter, Judge Starr, as a judge? Don't you take that in consideration? STARR: I certainly think it's a relevant consideration to -- whether someone accepts responsibility or else, you know, as some pundit put it, "It's the seven months, stupid." GRAHAM: The point I am trying to make -- STARR: And I did not mean to direct that -- (laughs) -- but I was just quoting the pundit. GRAHAM: Right. (Laughs.) MR. STARR: That's what -- GRAHAM: Right. STARR: Yeah. (Laughs.) It's what the nation was put -- HYDE: I think we heard you right, Judge Starr. That inflection was important. STARR: -- that it was what the nation was put through. GRAHAM: I have heard a lot from pundits, and I'd rather try to focus on the facts to be honest with you. The point I am trying to make is that the law that you cherish and I cherish, and I think we all love, allows for you to treat people differently based on what they lied about. That's not a bad thing to talk about. Every perjurer doesn't get the same punishment. That's the concept that we are going to have to deal with here. Without public outrage, impeachment is hard to do, and it should be hard to do. And the truth of the matter is, Judge Starr, we may never get public outrage on behalf of what the president did because some of the things that are Watergate-like, we can't lay at the feet of the president. But what he did do is he lied through his teeth in a civil deposition. And I am going to disagree with you about the legal effect. When the judge ruled that his deposition was not admissible, I have a problem of materiality in terms of perjury. And I am going to disagree with you, and I am going to stick by my word for the last two months. I am not going to consider that an impeachable offense because I don't think legally you would probably get prosecuted for that, or you'd have a heck of a hard time once the case was dismissed and your testimony was deemed inadmissible. And I may be wrong, but I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I am telling you right now, it is Peyton Place what we're left with. But the Cover-Up Peyton Place is going to the point that I no longer can ignore it and feel good about it because I believe the president of the United States went into a grand jury, in front of your grand jurors, took an oath, and six and seven months after this whole affair started, after being begged by everybody in this country to come clean, lied again. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Bono. BONO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I actually want to share something with you first, as your newest member. When I first came onto this committee, I told my colleagues that I don't understand the rules yet, the five-minutes rule and the etiquette, and I asked my colleagues for help, and they all yelled back at me, "Don't worry, we don't understand it either." So I was thinking when I get my orientation on the rules, maybe we can all sit down and learn the rules. But I just want to say to Judge Starr that it has been an extremely enlightening day for me. And, you know, up until now, basically your persona has been one -- a character out of "Groundhog Day", if you will, where you've been the same person day in and day out to all of us, where you've walked from your house to a car, smiled and got in. And that's all that we have known of you. And I think that it's nice to see that behind that image there's a human -- there's a human -- behind the spin that there is a human. And I also want to say that what has been most interesting to me today is to watch all of these lawyers attacking other lawyers for what it is lawyers do -- whatever it is. And I have to say also, I think you have been the victim of a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking in your investigation. But, you know, none of that changes the facts, none of that changes the truth. And the election on November 4th also did not change the facts, it did not change the truth. But I must say that you have proven yourself to me today to be the fair, competent, meticulous and thorough person that Attorney General Janet Reno knew you to be when she appointed you. STARR: Thank you. BONO: You know, some criticized you that you boast about all of your wins. I think you should boast, because I think you do what you do very well. And I think far be it from anybody in this town to criticize somebody for boasting about their record. But I want to say that I do have a question for you. And, Judge Starr, you and your family have been subjected to an enormous amount of personal persecution during your tenure as the independent counsel, particularly over the last year. What motivates you to keep going forward? You know, do you have this bone to pick with the president, or this personal vendetta? Do you hold personal animosity toward him, and has that affected the job you've done? STARR: Well, I thank you for that question, and I hold no animosity and I would love to be back in private life. I received questions today with respect to well, didn't you accept a deanship at Pepperdine and look who made a contribution -- so, you're right. I would prefer to be almost your constituent. A little bit farther west -- I would like to be -- and I'd even looked at a house in Malibu Country Estates; that's where I would like to be. I would like to be living my life with my family, and I tried to do that because I had a view that I could, in fact, lay down the mantle long before Monica Lewinsky ever walked into the nation's life, and pass the mantle on to someone else because of what I had tried to create, and I talked about it today -- which is that this office of independent counsel should, in fact, reflect the experience and practice of the Justice Department. I love the Justice Department; I served there two times, and I loved every moment that I was there, even during the rough times, and there were plenty of those, because it is a great department. And so I tried to create the Department of Justice and frankly, felt that I had. Unfortunately, a number of my prosecutors are being calumnied and criticized. It's one thing to criticize the independent counsel. It goes with the territory. But to criticize and to calumny the men and women which whom I'm privileged to serve, many of whom are on detail from the United States Department of Justice is, I think, wrong, and I think it's unfair and I think it's unfortunate. But that's what I thought I had created. I tried to say my job has reached a stage where I feel that the independent counsel's office, with offices in Little Rock and in Washington, would, in fact, be able to carry on very effectively under new leadership. I tried to retire. I think George Washington was very wise in saying eight years is enough. "I would rather go back" of course, he wasn't across the river where the capital was then, but, "I would rather return to Mount Vernon, thank you very much." Well, I would have preferred to have returned to private life, but I was importuned by my own staff and I let down my staff, because the deliberative process that I had so talked about, that before we make any major decision, whether one agrees with the decision or not, we deliberate about it, and they basically said, "Ken, you let us down. You didn't deliberate with us. You chose your own decision professionally, without a process as to what this might mean at this particular time to the investigation." I will -- if I could be indulged 30 more seconds -- I will always remember the comments by an assistant United States attorney, one of the senior prosecutors in the South. I think Congressman Bryant would know him, but I don't name the names of our line prosecutors. But he was on detail to us in the Little Rock office, and he had a major case reasonability. And he came to me and said -- and this was indicative of what I was receiving -- "You're making a profound mistake, and it's unfair to the investigation. You cannot leave." And this was after I had been roundly criticized on any number of -- for my many sins of commission and omission. Even with all that, the suggestion was made -- and I was both honored by it and humbled by it, but also, frankly, a little bit down in the dumps about it -- it was sort of "it's not time to leave." So my duty is to do my duty. I did not ask for this investigation to come walking in the door; it came to us. We took it to the department that I love greatly and admire greatly, the Department of Justice, and we said, "What do we do as colleagues? How do we collaborate? How should this matter that, unfortunately for the country and unfortunately for this committee, is now before you?" And it came to me. And that's why I'm here. In terms of my family, they're bearing up well. And thank you very much for asking. BONO: Thank you, Judge. And thank you, Mr. -- HYDE: The gentlelady's time has expired, and we thank her very much. WATERS: Mr. Chairman, point of order. HYDE: We will now recess until 8:25. WATERS: Mr. Chairman -- . HYDE: We will then resume. Will everyone stay in their place until the independent counsel has left? WATERS: Mr. Chairman, will Mr. Starr be back? HYDE: What? WATERS: Will Mr. Starr be back? I have a point of order. HYDE: Oh, indeed he'll be back, because Mr. Kendall has to question him, and so does Mr. Schippers. WATERS: You will -- -- my point of order -- HYDE: If you wish, sure. WATERS: Thank you. Recess. N E X T+P A G E+| "Nothing in this overkill of investigation amounts to a justification for...impeachment" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Become a Salon member. Click here.