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 - - - - - - - - - - SCHIPPERS: Thank you. I will be try to be as brief as I possibly can, but I do have a little bit of territory to cover, as you well know. STARR: Yes. SCHIPPERS: I'll begin with some of Mr. Kendall's statements, and some of Mr. Kendall's questions to you. First of all, do I understand that there is such a thing as a hair-trigger? You referred to a hair-trigger that would set off an investigation of whether or not there were leaks out of your office? STARR: Yes, that's right. SCHIPPERS: And that hair-trigger can be, and often is triggered by a defense attorney sending something to the judge claim that there's a leak. Is that right? STARR: Yes. It is standard practice for criminal defense lawyers to charge leaks of grand jury information. Their allies then pick up the charge, and suddenly it becomes conventional wisdom that there has in fact been some final adjudication, which is wrong as a matter of law, and unfair, just in terms of basic human decency, because these are professional prosecutors, and 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've been reluctant to talk about, because it is in litigation. I mean the specifics are in litigation, as David knows. SCHIPPERS: Well, Judge, if I were expecting someone to testify before a Congressional committee, and I wanted some questions to ask him about leaks, all I'd have to do is send some letters to the judge, and trigger this hair-trigger effect. Isn't that correct? STARR: Well, I guess I don't want to suggest that the hair- trigger is a non-existent trigger. But the burden on the defense lawyer is quite modest. And one of the things that we've learned -- and I know this is your time. But I would just say, one of the things that we've 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, and indeed you enjoy speech and debate clause immunity. However, prosecutors are very sensitive, especially in this jurisdiction, in light of the hair-trigger, to a reporter who sort of says "Sources close to...." Well, what does that mean? It can mean almost anyone. And I think that one of the things that this litigation will, in fact, show, is that that becomes an issue ever so quickly, as we saw in the Marion Barry case, and as we saw in the Dan Rostenkowski case. SCHIPPERS: Now Judge, Mr. Kendall mentioned massive leaking. I'm 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: Well, again, it depends on what one means by 6(e), because there are issues. I have a press -- SCHIPPERS: Within your definition of 6(e). STARR: Within my understanding and I think that my understanding is correct, no. I can say that here now. But I also think it's important for this litigation that I've talked about, to go forward and let's see what happens. And that litigation, again, is under seal. But there's 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. And sir, you were asked whether you were present during the taking of the 302s, the FBI interviews, whether you were present at the grand jury appearances of all 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. We've heard an awful lot about fairness here, Judge Starr. But I noticed 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: Now, 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 of course 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? Did they? STARR: No, unless it's sitting on my desk -- it's not. They did not, and I am 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 -- SCHIPPERS: And you were questioned about specific one lines, two lines inside 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, Mr. -- 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. -- 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 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 statues? 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 uncharted waters and trying to come to the best professional judgment we could about what Congress intended and wanted in this provision that required us to report to it. SCHIPPERS: One aside. In the 63 -- have you had an opportunity -- I know you haven't had a reasonable opportunity -- but have you had any opportunity to page through Mr. Kendall's 63 Tabs? STARR: Only as he was guiding me, Mr. Schippers. SCHIPPERS: Well I have. I have, Judge Starr. And I noted that it contains several newspaper articles, several magazine articles, several self-serving letters from the president's counsel, and not one word, not one word of evidence. 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've 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 that are just constant, there is a process of evaluation on her part. 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'm not aware of any suggestion nor -- SCHIPPERS: Well, you've 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, or otherwise exercising her jurisdiction. But thus far, the issues that have been acted on, we have been cleared on, or else no action has been taken over the years of my stewardship as the independent counsel. SCHIPPERS: Now all of these specific factors that various people have asked you if you reported to the attorney general when you met her on the 16th of -- when was it? -- the 15th of January. STARR: Well, we met with the deputy attorney general on the 15th, and then there was -- and again, I did not have these meetings, as it turned out. But obviously -- SCHIPPERS: No, but there was a litany of -- STARR: Yes? SCHIPPERS: There was a litany of things that you apparently allegedly did not tell the attorney general at that meeting? 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 that I have had with a number of the suggestions about what I should have told the attorney general is that these were all in the public domain. As I said in response to questions very early -- or earlier in the day, certain things did not occur to me as relevant or germane. It may be that others would say, "Gee, isn't it relevant that you were asked by Bob Fiske to consider preparing an amicus brief in the Paula Corbin Jones case?" I didn't view it as -- well, it just didn't occur to me. 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've been a prosecutor too. And Monica Lewinsky, from my reading, was treated very, very nicely by your agents. STARR: Thank you. CONYERS: 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 -- 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 and we certainly took every step to make sure that she -- 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 -- SCHIPPERS: And the evidence available to you at that time, phone evidence, indicated that perhaps Mr. Jordan had been in telephonic contact with the president at the time he was getting her that lawyer, isn't that correct, sir? STARR: That is correct. SCHIPPERS: And in an abundance of caution, you did not want the president to know that Monica Lewinsky was talking to you, isn't that right? STARR: That is correct. SCHIPPERS: And that's a perfectly valid prosecutorial move, isn't it? STARR: Yes, very traditional. Nothing out of the ordinary. SCHIPPERS: As a matter of fact, later Ms. Lewinsky decided she didn't want to be represented by Mr. Carter on that day, isn't that correct? STARR: Yes. She came to a decision to be represented by Mr. Ginsburg in -- 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: But in any event, she changed lawyers from the one that had been provided to her indirectly by the White House, to an independent lawyer from the West Coast, is that right? 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 and find Monica Lewinsky by phone, by beeper, and that Mr. Jordan, Mr. Carter and Ms. Currie were in constant efforts to reach Monica Lewinsky. Isn't that a fact? 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. 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. 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, isn't that true? 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 evening of January 16th -- not one word. SCHIPPERS: Well as a matter of fact, the first time Monica Lewinsky testified in a grand jury was some seven months later, is that right? STARR: It took a long time and a new set of lawyers, two very distinguished lawyers here in Washington, with whom -- 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. But I'm very fearful of saying anything about state of mind. SCHIPPERS: STARR: Especially in light of a comment I have heard with respect -- but in any event. SCHIPPERS: Do you have before you, Judge Starr, the first two-incher -- the one that Mr. Lowell gave you? Would you turn to Tab 35, please? There are a whole series of remarks on page 35, and I think there was a -- 356, the page number, that's where Tab 35 begins. The first bullet -- do you have it, Judge. STARR: I do. SCHIPPERS: The first bullet says Monica Lewinsky testified before that grand jury that, quote, "No one every 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," did she -- didn't she? STARR: Absolutely. SCHIPPERS: Now, Monica Lewinsky also testified that she had a conversation with the president in the White House, or 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 -- 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 closed-circuit tape 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 being 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 actually 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 -- 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, -- I'm sorry. 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 declined six invitations to testify. SCHIPPERS: Six invitations, that's 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: 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 talking -- if I change horses a little bit and go to the impeachment proceeding, the Constitution provides that the sole power of impeachment resides in the House of Representatives -- isn't that correct? 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 are mirroring the grand jury there is no cross- examination. SCHIPPERS: Well, over and above that, Judge Starr, the Constitution further provides that the sole power to try an impeachment resides in the Senate -- isn't that correct? 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 am not sure I would necessarily agree with that, because I think -- SCHIPPERS: I hear them moaning from the left again. STARR: Because I -- no I think -- HYDE: Does somebody need an aspirin? 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 an extraordinary latitude under whatever rules of the House under which you are operating to determine how to proceed. But you are quite right, the Constitution contemplates the trial to be in the Senate, and what you are quite rightly saying is if one is saying, "Let's have a trial," you might have the raw power to do it, but it'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. STARR: 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 that 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 anybody cut off the president when he tried to answer questions? STARR: No, I don't think there was any episode of when we cut off the president, although may I say we were operating as well under very strict limitations and we did want to proceed with additional questions, and the grand jury had questions, but Mr. Kendall did enforce the understanding which 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 has been a lot of talk in the public domain and on the television and things that this is -- that all the president did was deny sex -- deny a sexual relationship with an intern. He went a lot further than that, didn't he, for 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 -- an 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. 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 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's saying is a lie. STARR: It would be a very good answer. N E X T+P A G E+| "I am not sure I should be the one to pass judgment" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Become a Salon member. Click here.