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 - - - - - - - - - - Given the serious nature of perjury and obstruction of justice, regardless of its setting, it is obvious that the actions of the president and Ms. Lewinsky to conceal the truth warranted criminal investigation. Let me explain how the investigation came to be handled by our office rather than by the Department of Justice or by some other independent counsel. The explanation is straightforward. On January 8, an attorney in our office was informed that a witness, who was Linda Tripp, a witness in prior investigations in our office, had information she wanted to provide. A message was conveyed back that she should provide her information directly. Ms. Tripp called our office on Jan. 12. In that conversation and later, she provided us a substantial amount of information. Let me pause here and emphasize that our office, like most law enforcement agencies, has received innumerable tips about a wide variety of matters over the past four years -- from Swiss bank accounts to drug smuggling. You name it. We have heard it. In each case, we must make an initial assessment whether it is a serious tip or a crank call, as well as an assessment of jurisdictional issues. We handled the information from Ms. Tripp in this same manner. When we confirmed that the information appeared credible, we reached out to the Department of Justice, as we have done regularly during my tenure as independent counsel. We contacted Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder within 48 hours after Ms. Tripp provided us information. And we found him appropriately at a basketball game, in the evening hours of that day. The next day, we fully informed the deputy attorney general about Ms. Tripp's information. About Ms. Tripp's tapes and the questions concerning their legality under state law. About the consensual FBI recording of Ms. Tripp and Ms. Lewinsky. About the indications that Vernon Jordan was providing employment assistance to a witness who had the potential to harm the president, a fact pattern that we had seen in the Webster Hubbell investigation, which I shall describe presently. We discussed jurisdiction. We noted that it is in everyone's interest to avoid time consuming jurisdictional challenges. We stated that the Lewinsky investigation could be considered outside our jurisdiction as then constituted. We stressed that someone needed to work the case, the Justice Department or an independent counsel. Later that evening, the deputy attorney general telephoned and reported that the attorney general had tentatively decided to assign the matter to us. Before her decision was final, we reviewed the evidence in detail with two experienced career prosecutors in the Justice Department. One senior Justice Department prosecutor listened to portions of the FBI tape, the consensual recording. The attorney general made her final decision on Friday, January 16. STARR: That day, through a senior career prosecutor, the attorney general asked the three-judge special division to expand our office's jurisdiction. The special division granted the request that day. In short, our entry into this investigation was standard, albeit expedited, procedure. Seven months, later, after conducting the factual investigation and after the president's grand jury testimony, the question we faced was what to do with the evidence. The chairman referred to section 595(c) of the Independent Counsel Statute, which requires an independent counsel investigating possible crimes to pds of the statute, "substantial and credible information that may constitute grounds for an impeachment." This reporting provision suggests a statutory preference that possible criminal wrongdoing by a president be addressed in the first instance by the House of Representatives. It also requires an analysis of the law of impeachment. You have had hearings on that subject, but let me say that as we understood the text of the Constitution, its history and relevant precedents, it was clear to us that obstruction of justice in its various forms, including perjury, may constitute grounds for an impeachment -- the language of the statute. Even apart from any abuses of presidential authority and power, the evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice required us to refer the information to the House. Perjury and obstruction of justice are, of course, serious crimes. In 1790, the first Congress, sitting in New York, passed a criminal law that banned perjury. A violator was subject to three years imprisonment. Today, federal criminal law makes perjury a felony punishable by five years imprisonment. In cases involving public officials, courts treat false statements with special condemnation. STARR: United States District Judge Royce Lamberth here in Washington recently sentenced Ronald Blackley, the former chief of staff to the former secretary of Agriculture, to 37 months imprisonment for false statements. The District Court Judge Lamberth stated, in his words, "The court has a duty to send a message to other high-level government officials that there is a severe penalty to be paid for providing false information under oath." Although perjury and obstruction of justice are serious federal crimes, some have suggested that they are not high crimes or misdemeanors when the underlying events concern the president's private actions. Under this theory, a president's obstruction and perjury must involve concealment of official actions. This interpretation does not appear in the Constitution itself. Moreover, the Constitution lists bribery as a high crime or misdemeanor. And if a president involved in a civil suit bribed the judge to rule in his favor or bribed a witness to provide favorable testimony, there could be no textual question that the president had committed a high crime or misdemeanor under the plain language of Article II even though the underlying events would not have involved his official duties. In addition, virtually everyone agrees that serious crimes such as murder and rape would be impeachable even though they do not involve official duties. Justice Story, in the last century, stated in his famous commentaries that there is not a syllable in the Constitution which confines impeachment to official acts. With all respect, an absolute and inflexible requirement of a connection to official duties appears fairly viewed to be an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution. History and practice support the conclusion that perjury in particular is a high crime and misdemeanor. Perjury has been the basis, as the committee knows, for the removal of several judges. As far as we know, no one has questioned whether perjury was a high crime or misdemeanor in those cases. In addition, as several of the scholars who appeared before you testified, and to whom the chairman referred, perjury seems to have been recognized as a high crime or misdemeanor at the time of the founding of our republic. And the House manager's report in the impeachment of Judge Walter Nixon for perjury stated, "It is difficult to imagine an act more subversive to the legal process than lying from the witness stand." And finally, I note that the federal sentencing guidelines include bribery and perjury in the same guideline, reflecting the common-sense conclusion that bribery and perjury are equivalent means of interfering with the governmental process. For these reasons, we concluded that perjury and obstruction of justice, like bribery, may constitute grounds for an impeachment. Having said that, let me again emphasize my role here. We had a judgment to make, but whether the president's actions are, in fact, grounds for an impeachment, or some other sanction, is a decision in the sole discretion of the Congress. A final point warrants mention in this respect. Criminal prosecution and punishment are not the same as, or a substitute for, congressionally imposed sanctions. As the Supreme Court stated in a 1993 case, "The framers recognized that most likely there would be two sets of proceedings for individuals who committed impeachable offenses -- the impeachment trial and a separate criminal trial." In fact, the Constitution explicitly provides for two separate proceedings. STARR: The framers deliberately separated the two forums to avoid raising the specter of bias and to ensure independent judgment. Our task over the past several years has involved far more than simply the Lewinsky matter. The pattern of obstruction of justice, false statements and misuse of executive authority in the Lewinsky investigation did not occur in a vacuum. In August 1994... JACKSON-LEE: Mr. Chairman, I seek a ruling of the chair. Mr. Chairman, I seek a ruling of the chair. HYDE: Well, all right. What -- I take it the gentlelady has a point of order. JACKSON-LEE: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. HYDE: State your point. JACKSON-LEE: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully raise this point of order with the understanding that we have not received, or we are not receiving, any referral on the issues dealing with Madison Guaranty, Whitewater, Travelgate or Filegate. And in fact, as I understand, there is an announcement today that the findings of guilt against the president on the issues of Travelgate or Filegate do not exist, referred in pages 46 and 47 of the statements of Mr. Starr. I therefore ask, Mr. Chairman, whether Mr. Starr's remarks, as he begins them at this point, are germane. And secondarily, whether or not the president's being denied his Fifth Amendment rights by lack of notice and a denial of liberty by not having the notice of any presentations being made on Whitewater, Madison Guarantee, Filegate and Travelgate. I believe Mr. Starr's remarks are now out of order. And I believe that he should -- that there should be a ruling that his remarks are not germane, and frankly, that if he proceeds, he will be denying the president and any other parties the constitutional right of due process in the Fifth Amendment. I raised this question when we began some two or three months ago, whether or not this committee would abide by the constitutional provision of the Fifth Amendment. I offered an amendment to that extent. I was told by the chair at that time that under the rules of the House, we would be guided by the Fifth Amendment, and I believe that the due process rights of the president and other parties are being denied with the representations that Mr. Starr is about to make. I'd ask the chair for his ruling. HYDE: Well the chair overrules the gentle lady's point of order, and the witness will continue. JACKSON-LEE: I thank the chair. N E X T+P A G E+| "The office where I serve has achieved a superb record in courts ... of significant and hard-fought convictions, of fair and wise decisions not to charge" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Become a Salon member. Click here.