Salon Newsreal | Starr on the stand

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.

spacer

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
- - - - - - - - - -
STARR: I've certainly tried, and I did not -- to do it to the best of my ability, and I'm 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 that is part of what we have co-labored together, with Mr. Kendall pointing to the number of persons involved in the investigation. I'm proud of those persons. They're 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.
SCHIPPERS: And that has --
STARR: So when we were 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: And Judge, for all that, doing your duty, you've 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.
STARR:
SCHIPPERS: How long have you been an attorney, Judge Starr?
STARR: Twenty-five years.
SCHIPPERS: Well, I've been an attorney for almost 40 years. I want to say I'm proud to be in the same room with you and your staff.
STARR: Thank you, Mr. Schippers.
HYDE: Thank you.
JACKSON-LEE: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
HYDE: 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, Whitewater.
HYDE: Whitewater.
JACKSON-LEE: 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 want to make a statement, or Mr. Starr wanted to make a statement. But you did make a statement, and I would appreciate it on the charge of our committee, since we do have that responsibility, if I heard correctly.
And 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 wanted to add a United States versus Burdman (ph), 602 Fed. 2nd 547 Third Circuit 1979. I'd like to ask to have that submitted into the record, which deals with the statement of course of -- (off mike) -- the legal profession's disapproval of the role of advocate --
HYDE: The gentlelady has had her time now. Do you have a --
JACKSON-LEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like the question of 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: Okay, 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, Mr. Starr? 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.
HYDE: Everybody stay, please. The committee will stay. Maxine, don't go. We're going to have a meeting.
Ladies and gentlemen, the committee hearing stands adjourned, but the committee will remain here for a very short meeting. Pursuant to notice and subject to the authority granted in H. Res. 581, I now move that the committee authorize the issuance of subpoenas for the following individuals: Daniel Gecker, Nathan Landau, and Bob Bennett.
NADLER: Mr. Chairman, the room is in disorder, and I cannot hear you.
HYDE: Mr. Nadler.
NADLER: I said somebody is not in order, and I cannot hear you.
HYDE: Okay, I'll try it again. Pursuant to notice subject to the authority granted in H. Res. 581, I now move that the committee authorize the issuance of subpoenas for the following individuals: Daniel Gecker, Nathan Landau, Bob Bennett.
NADLER: Mr. Chairman?
HYDE: Is there any objection?
NADLER: Mr. Chairman.
HYDE: Mr. Nadler.
NADLER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know why this proposal -- in particular, Mr. Gecker, I believe -- I'm asking this as a question.
HYDE: Well, if the gentleman will permit me, if we have to go into executive session to do that.
NADLER: Let me ask one question, which we may not have to go into executive session.
HYDE: Okay, what is it?
NADLER: Mr. Gecker, I believe, is Ms. Willey's lawyer. If you want information about -- I presume he may avail himself o attorney-client privilege claim. He may have to. If you need information about that, why call the lawyer? Why not call the witness directly?
HYDE: Well, I can't answer that, but I will say the attorney-client privilege does not overwhelm an impeachment committee. Is there any objection to the approval of the three subpoenas?
SCOTT: Reserving the right --
HYDE: Mr. Scott.
SCOTT: Reserving the right to object.
HYDE: You want to put your mike on?
SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, am I to assume by the issuance of these subpoenas, that we are not confining the inquiry to the Starr allegations?
HYDE: What we're doing is pursuant to the House Resolution 581. It's pursuant to that resolution.
SCOTT: Well, Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
HYDE: The gentleman reserves the right to object.
SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I would just say that at some point, I would appreciate it if we would focus the inquiry into specific allegations, so we know what we're investigating. We are now not focused on the Starr allegations. I have no idea what the allegations are going to be. And if we're going to conduct an inquiry that we can conclude at some point in the foreseeable future, we have to focus on certain allegations that might be impeachable offenses.
HYDE: Mr. Scott, this is focusing on material the committee has received in executive session. We have this material.
SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.
HYDE: I thank the gentleman, and Mr. Watt.
WATT: Reserving the right to object.
HYDE: The gentleman reserves the right to object.
WATT: The unanimous consent request that I'm reserving the right to object to, is to authorize the subpoenas. Is that correct?
HYDE: Yes. These are subpoenas for depositions.
WATT: Mr. Chairman, I don't feel like I can pass on that without having some background information, and I understand --
HYDE: We have to go into executive session.
WATT: Well, I hate to put us to that burden, but I don't know how I can pass on it without having some more information.
HYDE: We'll go into executive session. We'll have to clear the room.
WATT: Wait, Mr. Chairman.
HYDE: What?
WATT: Why do we have to be in executive session to debate this?
HYDE: Because the material for explaining the rationale for wanting these depositions, is material that is executive material.
WATT: Well, with respect, Mr. Chairman --
HYDE: Now, just one at a time.
WATT: -- I don't feel like I can vote -- I can sit here and not object, without understanding the rationale myself.
HYDE: I understand, and we're perfectly willing to go into executive session.
SCOTT: I'm not trying to violate executive rule.
SCHUMER: Will chairman yield?
HYDE: Yeah, I will yield.
SCHUMER: I am befuddled by why we are doing this. I understand --
HYDE: We wish to take depositions of these three people.
SCHUMER: Yeah, I understand that.
HYDE: But we'll explain that in executive session.
SCHUMER: If I might make my point, sir.
HYDE: Sure.
SCHUMER: I think the public, most of which is wondering why this is dragging on and on, also has a right to know why we are doing this. So what I would suggest -- what I would suggest is that we discuss as much of the rationale for this as we can out of executive session so the public can hear. And then, if there are any specific references about materials that are gathered in executive session, we can go in for that portion.
HYDE: Mr. Schumer, we can't discuss, really, anything around the edges even, without transgressing on executive session material. So, let's just go into executive session.
SCHUMER: Well then, what I would move, Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with us going into executive session. But then, I would like for us to be able to discuss the rationale for this without using executive session material in public session. And that's what I would propose.
HYDE: Well, we can't do it. We're going to have to go into executive session.
SCHUMER: Well, wait.
HYDE: Well now, come on.
FRANK: I'd like to be heard on the motion.
HYDE: Yes, you may.
FRANK: Mr. Chairman, I know it's late. And you've been accommodating to us in some regards. But we didn't decide to do this all in one day. And I do not think it is legitimate to constrain members by running too much in one day, and then saying "Oh, it's getting late in the day." Then do it tomorrow. We've been spending, many of us felt that we could have started this a while ago.
You wait until November 18th or 19th, then you put it all in one day. It's not simply legitimate then to argue the time constraint. I think this committee has erred grievously in going into executive session, and discussing things in executive session, that ought to be discussed publicly.
It is very, very strange to have these arguments about the need for the public to know, et cetera, et cetera, and we do it all in secret. This is the committee that released grand jury information on to television. We made history in denying something what has traditionally something that would be kept somewhat private. And we debated doing that, in a private session. There is simply a great abuse of this.
And again, I have to say: then adjourn, come back tomorrow, come back next week.
You know, as far as these depositions are concerned that were so important, I don't know why they weren't taken in September or October or earlier in November! I don't know how they became an emergency overnight.
The fact is that you have, I think, over-used the executive session. There are very important questions, and it is simply inconsistent to say this is a terribly important issue to the American people, people need to know about it, and we'll go into secret and make all the decisions. Virtually every decision this committee has made, it has made in secret. And it is simply an inconsistent position to talk about the important public issues that are involved here by going into it in secret.
HYDE: All right, the gentleman has made his point.
FRANK: No, I won't yield --
HYDE: The gentleman has --
FRANK: No, excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I think I have five minutes! I'm sorry! Look, I didn't decide that we would try to do it all in one day. But having decided to do it all in one day, you can't use that against us and you can't use that to constrain things!
You know, isn't it somewhat paradoxical, we talk about how important this issue is, we talk about this is such a fundamental constitutional question, but we've got to worry cause it's getting late? Then don't schedule us so that you constrain the most important thing we could possibly be talking about by the clock! Then let it go over into tomorrow, let it go over into next week. We should have been doing it a month ago.
BERMAN: Mr. Chairman?
FRANK: But I will not be constrained by a self-imposed handicap of the clock!
And I still do not think we should go into executive session without some justification as to why we have to go into executive session. We're not discussing national security, we're not discussing anything that's going to give anything away to anybody, we're not tipping off anybody. So I do not understand, and I think we have a right to be told why we have to go into executive session.
HYDE: I thank the gentlemen.
BERMAN: Mr. Chairman?
HYDE: There is a motion before the committee --
REP. : Mr. Chairman?
REP. : Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
HYDE: -- to authorize the issuance of these subpoenas, and the clerk will call the roll.
REP. : Mr. Chairman?
FRANK: Mr. Chairman! There were members -- point of order, Mr. Chairman!
CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner?
REP. : Mr. Chairman?
FRANK: -- seeking recognition!
SENSENBRENNER: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.
REP. : Mr. Chairman?
FRANK: Mr. Chairman, don't ruin your reputation for fairness by cutting off members seeking recognition!
CLERK: Mr. McCollum?
MCCOLLUM: Aye.
CLERK: Mr. McCollum votes aye.
Mr. Gekas?
FRANK: Mr. Chairman, this is unworthy of you!
REP. : I move to strike the last word.
FRANK: This is unworthy of you, Mr. Chairman!
HYDE: All right, hold it.
BERMAN: Mr. Chairman?
FRANK: There were members seeking recognition!
HYDE: Just calm down.
Mr. Berman?
BERMAN: Mr. Chairman, earlier today you made a ruling, which I agreed with, on a point of order raised by the gentlelady from Texas, that with respect to the jurisdiction to inquire, the House had spoken. The House did not mandate this committee to investigate everything under the sun, it allowed this committee to conduct an inquiry on anything under the sun. We have the authority to decide what we are going to inquire on and to limit within the House action what we're going to decide on.
Mr. Schumer makes a point; there are two different distinctions. When you issue subpoenas for people involved in the Kathleen Willey case, the implication of that is that there is a decision that that becomes part of the impeachment inquiry. Everyone on this side of the aisle felt at the time and voted to limit the inquiry to the Monica Lewinsky referral. The independent counsel has not made a referral on the Kathleen Willey case. He has not found that there has been substantial and credible information that conduct by the president that may justify impeachment -- that finding has not been made and that referral has not been made.
So that there is a bifurcation. First, the issue of whether we go into this line of inquiry is something that should be discussed in open session. Then, if our position is lost, then in executive session the justification for the subpoenas can be raised. That's the only -- that's the only question that I have. And that's why I think we should be able to get the justification for the subpoenas, if we decide we're launching into that inquiry, and I sure hope we don't.
SCHUMER: Yeah, could the -- just would the gentleman yield --
BERMAN: Be happy to.
SCHUMER: -- because I didn't get to finish my point before.
Could the chair give us some, without treading on executive session or anyone's confidentiality being disclosed, could the chairman give us some idea why these three people were chosen and not others, and where the chair intends to take this -- these depositions? What is the point?
We already have heard from Mr. Starr that he doesn't think the Willey episode rises to a level of impeachment. In my judgment, he has a pretty low threshold for impeachment, and if he doesn't think that the Willey affair does, then that's pretty dispositive to me. And here we are with three complete -- you know, yesterday we heard talk of John Huang. It was very hard to figure out what that was all about.
Now we're hearing these three. One can only draw the conclusion, Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Chairman, one can only draw the conclusion without -- without hearing an explanation, that the majority doesn't quite know what to do here and is sort of prolonging this with whichever they -- with whatever thing the can grab onto, because there's no logic to this, at least to me. I'd like to hear it, and I think the public is entitled to hear it. And I think in this case, it could well be argued that executive session is being used as a shield because there is no good explanation as to why these three people are going to be deposed, why other people are not, and where the chair and where the committee intends to take the depositions of these three people, as again, at least particularly in an area where the -- where the Office of Independent Counsel has said there is no impeachable offenses as are it can see.
HYDE: All right, the chair --
REP. : Mr. Chairman.
REP. : Mr. Chairman.
HYDE: -- the chair will declare a five-minute recess.
REP. CONYERS: All right, fine.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Become a Salon member. Click here.

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 - - - - - - - - - - STARR: I've certainly tried, and I did not -- to do it to the best of my ability, and I'm 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 that is part of what we have co-labored together, with Mr. Kendall pointing to the number of persons involved in the investigation. I'm proud of those persons. They're 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. SCHIPPERS: And that has -- STARR: So when we were 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: And Judge, for all that, doing your duty, you've 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. STARR: SCHIPPERS: How long have you been an attorney, Judge Starr? STARR: Twenty-five years. SCHIPPERS: Well, I've been an attorney for almost 40 years. I want to say I'm proud to be in the same room with you and your staff. STARR: Thank you, Mr. Schippers. HYDE: Thank you. JACKSON-LEE: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? HYDE: 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, Whitewater. HYDE: Whitewater. JACKSON-LEE: 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 want to make a statement, or Mr. Starr wanted to make a statement. But you did make a statement, and I would appreciate it on the charge of our committee, since we do have that responsibility, if I heard correctly. And 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 wanted to add a United States versus Burdman (ph), 602 Fed. 2nd 547 Third Circuit 1979. I'd like to ask to have that submitted into the record, which deals with the statement of course of -- (off mike) -- the legal profession's disapproval of the role of advocate -- HYDE: The gentlelady has had her time now. Do you have a -- JACKSON-LEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like the question of 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: Okay, 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, Mr. Starr? 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. HYDE: Everybody stay, please. The committee will stay. Maxine, don't go. We're going to have a meeting. Ladies and gentlemen, the committee hearing stands adjourned, but the committee will remain here for a very short meeting. Pursuant to notice and subject to the authority granted in H. Res. 581, I now move that the committee authorize the issuance of subpoenas for the following individuals: Daniel Gecker, Nathan Landau, and Bob Bennett. NADLER: Mr. Chairman, the room is in disorder, and I cannot hear you. HYDE: Mr. Nadler. NADLER: I said somebody is not in order, and I cannot hear you. HYDE: Okay, I'll try it again. Pursuant to notice subject to the authority granted in H. Res. 581, I now move that the committee authorize the issuance of subpoenas for the following individuals: Daniel Gecker, Nathan Landau, Bob Bennett. NADLER: Mr. Chairman? HYDE: Is there any objection? NADLER: Mr. Chairman. HYDE: Mr. Nadler. NADLER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know why this proposal -- in particular, Mr. Gecker, I believe -- I'm asking this as a question. HYDE: Well, if the gentleman will permit me, if we have to go into executive session to do that. NADLER: Let me ask one question, which we may not have to go into executive session. HYDE: Okay, what is it? NADLER: Mr. Gecker, I believe, is Ms. Willey's lawyer. If you want information about -- I presume he may avail himself o attorney-client privilege claim. He may have to. If you need information about that, why call the lawyer? Why not call the witness directly? HYDE: Well, I can't answer that, but I will say the attorney-client privilege does not overwhelm an impeachment committee. Is there any objection to the approval of the three subpoenas? SCOTT: Reserving the right -- HYDE: Mr. Scott. SCOTT: Reserving the right to object. HYDE: You want to put your mike on? SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, am I to assume by the issuance of these subpoenas, that we are not confining the inquiry to the Starr allegations? HYDE: What we're doing is pursuant to the House Resolution 581. It's pursuant to that resolution. SCOTT: Well, Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. HYDE: The gentleman reserves the right to object. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I would just say that at some point, I would appreciate it if we would focus the inquiry into specific allegations, so we know what we're investigating. We are now not focused on the Starr allegations. I have no idea what the allegations are going to be. And if we're going to conduct an inquiry that we can conclude at some point in the foreseeable future, we have to focus on certain allegations that might be impeachable offenses. HYDE: Mr. Scott, this is focusing on material the committee has received in executive session. We have this material. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation. HYDE: I thank the gentleman, and Mr. Watt. WATT: Reserving the right to object. HYDE: The gentleman reserves the right to object. WATT: The unanimous consent request that I'm reserving the right to object to, is to authorize the subpoenas. Is that correct? HYDE: Yes. These are subpoenas for depositions. WATT: Mr. Chairman, I don't feel like I can pass on that without having some background information, and I understand -- HYDE: We have to go into executive session. WATT: Well, I hate to put us to that burden, but I don't know how I can pass on it without having some more information. HYDE: We'll go into executive session. We'll have to clear the room. WATT: Wait, Mr. Chairman. HYDE: What? WATT: Why do we have to be in executive session to debate this? HYDE: Because the material for explaining the rationale for wanting these depositions, is material that is executive material. WATT: Well, with respect, Mr. Chairman -- HYDE: Now, just one at a time. WATT: -- I don't feel like I can vote -- I can sit here and not object, without understanding the rationale myself. HYDE: I understand, and we're perfectly willing to go into executive session. SCOTT: I'm not trying to violate executive rule. SCHUMER: Will chairman yield? HYDE: Yeah, I will yield. SCHUMER: I am befuddled by why we are doing this. I understand -- HYDE: We wish to take depositions of these three people. SCHUMER: Yeah, I understand that. HYDE: But we'll explain that in executive session. SCHUMER: If I might make my point, sir. HYDE: Sure. SCHUMER: I think the public, most of which is wondering why this is dragging on and on, also has a right to know why we are doing this. So what I would suggest -- what I would suggest is that we discuss as much of the rationale for this as we can out of executive session so the public can hear. And then, if there are any specific references about materials that are gathered in executive session, we can go in for that portion. HYDE: Mr. Schumer, we can't discuss, really, anything around the edges even, without transgressing on executive session material. So, let's just go into executive session. SCHUMER: Well then, what I would move, Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with us going into executive session. But then, I would like for us to be able to discuss the rationale for this without using executive session material in public session. And that's what I would propose. HYDE: Well, we can't do it. We're going to have to go into executive session. SCHUMER: Well, wait. HYDE: Well now, come on. FRANK: I'd like to be heard on the motion. HYDE: Yes, you may. FRANK: Mr. Chairman, I know it's late. And you've been accommodating to us in some regards. But we didn't decide to do this all in one day. And I do not think it is legitimate to constrain members by running too much in one day, and then saying "Oh, it's getting late in the day." Then do it tomorrow. We've been spending, many of us felt that we could have started this a while ago. You wait until November 18th or 19th, then you put it all in one day. It's not simply legitimate then to argue the time constraint. I think this committee has erred grievously in going into executive session, and discussing things in executive session, that ought to be discussed publicly. It is very, very strange to have these arguments about the need for the public to know, et cetera, et cetera, and we do it all in secret. This is the committee that released grand jury information on to television. We made history in denying something what has traditionally something that would be kept somewhat private. And we debated doing that, in a private session. There is simply a great abuse of this. And again, I have to say: then adjourn, come back tomorrow, come back next week. You know, as far as these depositions are concerned that were so important, I don't know why they weren't taken in September or October or earlier in November! I don't know how they became an emergency overnight. The fact is that you have, I think, over-used the executive session. There are very important questions, and it is simply inconsistent to say this is a terribly important issue to the American people, people need to know about it, and we'll go into secret and make all the decisions. Virtually every decision this committee has made, it has made in secret. And it is simply an inconsistent position to talk about the important public issues that are involved here by going into it in secret. HYDE: All right, the gentleman has made his point. FRANK: No, I won't yield -- HYDE: The gentleman has -- FRANK: No, excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I think I have five minutes! I'm sorry! Look, I didn't decide that we would try to do it all in one day. But having decided to do it all in one day, you can't use that against us and you can't use that to constrain things! You know, isn't it somewhat paradoxical, we talk about how important this issue is, we talk about this is such a fundamental constitutional question, but we've got to worry cause it's getting late? Then don't schedule us so that you constrain the most important thing we could possibly be talking about by the clock! Then let it go over into tomorrow, let it go over into next week. We should have been doing it a month ago. BERMAN: Mr. Chairman? FRANK: But I will not be constrained by a self-imposed handicap of the clock! And I still do not think we should go into executive session without some justification as to why we have to go into executive session. We're not discussing national security, we're not discussing anything that's going to give anything away to anybody, we're not tipping off anybody. So I do not understand, and I think we have a right to be told why we have to go into executive session. HYDE: I thank the gentlemen. BERMAN: Mr. Chairman? HYDE: There is a motion before the committee -- REP. : Mr. Chairman? REP. : Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? HYDE: -- to authorize the issuance of these subpoenas, and the clerk will call the roll. REP. : Mr. Chairman? FRANK: Mr. Chairman! There were members -- point of order, Mr. Chairman! CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner? REP. : Mr. Chairman? FRANK: -- seeking recognition! SENSENBRENNER: Aye. CLERK: Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye. REP. : Mr. Chairman? FRANK: Mr. Chairman, don't ruin your reputation for fairness by cutting off members seeking recognition! CLERK: Mr. McCollum? MCCOLLUM: Aye. CLERK: Mr. McCollum votes aye. Mr. Gekas? FRANK: Mr. Chairman, this is unworthy of you! REP. : I move to strike the last word. FRANK: This is unworthy of you, Mr. Chairman! HYDE: All right, hold it. BERMAN: Mr. Chairman? FRANK: There were members seeking recognition! HYDE: Just calm down. Mr. Berman? BERMAN: Mr. Chairman, earlier today you made a ruling, which I agreed with, on a point of order raised by the gentlelady from Texas, that with respect to the jurisdiction to inquire, the House had spoken. The House did not mandate this committee to investigate everything under the sun, it allowed this committee to conduct an inquiry on anything under the sun. We have the authority to decide what we are going to inquire on and to limit within the House action what we're going to decide on. Mr. Schumer makes a point; there are two different distinctions. When you issue subpoenas for people involved in the Kathleen Willey case, the implication of that is that there is a decision that that becomes part of the impeachment inquiry. Everyone on this side of the aisle felt at the time and voted to limit the inquiry to the Monica Lewinsky referral. The independent counsel has not made a referral on the Kathleen Willey case. He has not found that there has been substantial and credible information that conduct by the president that may justify impeachment -- that finding has not been made and that referral has not been made. So that there is a bifurcation. First, the issue of whether we go into this line of inquiry is something that should be discussed in open session. Then, if our position is lost, then in executive session the justification for the subpoenas can be raised. That's the only -- that's the only question that I have. And that's why I think we should be able to get the justification for the subpoenas, if we decide we're launching into that inquiry, and I sure hope we don't. SCHUMER: Yeah, could the -- just would the gentleman yield -- BERMAN: Be happy to. SCHUMER: -- because I didn't get to finish my point before. Could the chair give us some, without treading on executive session or anyone's confidentiality being disclosed, could the chairman give us some idea why these three people were chosen and not others, and where the chair intends to take this -- these depositions? What is the point? We already have heard from Mr. Starr that he doesn't think the Willey episode rises to a level of impeachment. In my judgment, he has a pretty low threshold for impeachment, and if he doesn't think that the Willey affair does, then that's pretty dispositive to me. And here we are with three complete -- you know, yesterday we heard talk of John Huang. It was very hard to figure out what that was all about. Now we're hearing these three. One can only draw the conclusion, Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Chairman, one can only draw the conclusion without -- without hearing an explanation, that the majority doesn't quite know what to do here and is sort of prolonging this with whichever they -- with whatever thing the can grab onto, because there's no logic to this, at least to me. I'd like to hear it, and I think the public is entitled to hear it. And I think in this case, it could well be argued that executive session is being used as a shield because there is no good explanation as to why these three people are going to be deposed, why other people are not, and where the chair and where the committee intends to take the depositions of these three people, as again, at least particularly in an area where the -- where the Office of Independent Counsel has said there is no impeachable offenses as are it can see. HYDE: All right, the chair -- REP. : Mr. Chairman. REP. : Mr. Chairman. HYDE: -- the chair will declare a five-minute recess. REP. CONYERS: All right, fine. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Become a Salon member. Click here.