Kendall questions Starr, Part I

Text of the questions from presidential attorney David Kendall to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and Starr's answers before the House Judiciary Committee, as transcribed by the Federal Document Clearing House:
KENDALL: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Conyers, members of the committee, my name is David Kendall. I'm the personal attorney for President Clinton. My task is to respond to the two hours of uninterrupted testimony from the independent counsel, as well as to his four-year, $45 million investigation, which has included at least 28 attorneys, 78 FBI agents and an undisclosed number of private investigators, an investigation which has generated -- by a computer count -- 114,532 news stories in print, and 2,513 minutes of network television time, not to mention 24-hour scandal coverage on cable, a 445-page referral, 50,000 pages of documents from secret grand jury testimony, four hours of videotaped testimony, 22 hours of audiotape -- some which was gathered in violation of state law -- and the testimony of scores of witnesses, not one of whom has been cross-examined.
KENDALL: I'm very well, Ken. You have the book of exhibits before you, do you not?
STARR: I do.
KENDALL: I want to direct your attention to your statement and statements and you are addressing the fact that you have not been able to talk to Miss Lewinsky yet. And you say in your press release, "We cannot responsibly determine if she is telling the truth without speaking directly to her. We found that there is no substitute for looking a witness in the eye, asking detailed questions, matching the answers against verifiable facts and, if appropriate, giving a polygraph test." Did you issue that press release saying that, Mr. Starr?
STARR: Yes, I did.
KENDALL: And questions have been addressed to you today about the credibility of various witnesses, including Miss Lewinsky. It's true, is it not, that you were not present when Miss Lewinsky testified before the grand jury?
STARR: That is true.
KENDALL: And you were not present at her deposition?
STARR: Yes, I was not present.
KENDALL: You were not present on any occasion when she was interviewed by FBI agents, were you?
STARR: That is correct, I was not.
KENDALL: And you've never really exchanged words with Ms. Lewinsky, have you?
STARR: That's correct. She -- the answer is yes. I have not had occasion to meet her otherwise to look her in the eye myself.
KENDALL: The same is true for her mother, Marcia Lewis, is it not?
STARR: Yes, that is true as well. That is true.
KENDALL: The same is true for Betty Currie?
STARR: Yes.
KENDALL: The same is true for Vernon Jordan?
STARR: Well, oh, in connection, I happen to know Mr. Jordan but, yes, in connection...
KENDALL: (off--microphone) this case though, were you present during his grand jury testimony?
STARR: No, I was not.
KENDALL: And were you present at any interview of him?
STARR: No, I was not.
KENDALL: Would the same be true for Mr. Podesta?
STARR: The answer is the same with respect to Mr. Podesta, yes.
KENDALL: And indeed, Mr. Starr, there are 115 individual grand jury transcripts, which your office submitted to the House and, with the exception of the deposition of the president of the United States, you were present at none of those grand jury proceedings, were you?
STARR: That is correct.
KENDALL: Likewise, there were 19 depositions submitted and you were -- at least the reporter doesn't show you being present on any of those. Is that correct?
STARR: I think that's right. There were -- and I need to reflect on some of the Secret Service matters -- but I think you're correct. I was not actually present for any depositions themselves, including the Secret Service officers.
KENDALL: And there were 134 FBI form 302 interviews submitted. You're not shown to be present at any of those. Is that correct?
STARR: That's correct. I would ordinarily not be present for interview of a witness.
KENDALL: Mr. Starr, I bring this out not to cast aspersions or question your use of time, but you are here as -- and I believe you have already said this -- you are not a fact witness. Is that correct?
STARR: Yes, in terms -- well, I can testify to a number of facts in the investigation.

KENDALL: In your testimony today, you indicated you had exonerated the president with regard to the travel office, if I heard you correctly. Is that correct?
STARR: Yes, what I indicated was we had no information that related to his involvement, although I also made it clear that that investigation is continuing, and we hope to announce decisions or actions very soon.
KENDALL: The travel office firings which you are investigating occurred in 1993, is that correct?
STARR: Yes, the firings were in 1993.
KENDALL: Also, if I heard you correctly this morning, you indicated you had exonerated the president with respect to the FBI files matter which had arisen in 1996. Is that correct?
STARR: Yes, that jurisdiction did come to us in 1996 from the attorney general. And yes, we have found, as I indicated, no evidence of any wrongdoing by anyone who is relevant to -- I believe at least, in my assessment, I can't speak for the committee -- that would be relevant to the committee's assessment of our referral.
KENDALL: Mr. Starr, when did you come to those conclusions?
STARR: With respect to the travel office, I would frankly have to search my recollection to see exactly where we were and when we were there. As I indicated with respect to the travel office, we have, in fact, had to put part off the travel office investigation -- and I'm now talking about the travel office -- I'll come to the FBI files -- we had, in fact, had to put part of the travel office investigation on hold, as it were, because of issuing over privileged litigation, which we did not prevail in the Supreme Court. And there are other matters that we are presently examining, and which I can't talk about -- talk about here.
KENDALL: But were the two exonerations you announced today -- did you come to those conclusions before or after Nov. 1, 1998?
STARR: Before Nov. 1 of this year? Well, I would say that we have not had information that would guide us to the view that we should be concerned about the president in respect of those two matters, and that's why, of course, there's no mention of either of those matters in the referral. But both matters were, in fact, continuing and no final prosecutorial decisions had been made with respect to either the travel office matter or now to address the FBI files matter. With respect to that there is, as I have indicated, an unresolved question with respect to one individual.
KENDALL: And today was the first time you have announced that in respect to these two matters, is it not, Mr. Starr?
STARR: Yes, it's the first time that we have viewed it as appropriate to speak to issues that are still, David, under investigation.
We are still investigating both matters, and I hope I've made that point clear. Both investigations have very live, active elements to them, and we will make those decisions promptly. But I felt it was my duty to inform this committee of the state of the record with respect to the president of the United States because the committee has been asking me -- 'Do you have any other information that is relevant?'
KENDALL: Let me return to a question asked by Congressman Wexler this afternoon about a witness called Julie Hiatt Steele. Have your investigators investigated the adoption of her 8-year-old child she adopted from a Romanian orphanage?
STARR: Mr. Kendall, my investigators work very hard and diligently to find relevant evidence. I believe that the questions, and I have conducted no specific investigation, and you just spent a good deal of time establishing that I don't go with my FBI agents on every single interview.

KENDALL: Mr. Starr, I don't think it's unfair to try to find out the fact because there has been considerable publicity about Miss Steele's claim that that is, in fact, what your investigators have been doing. I was simply asking to clarify the record.
STARR: Well, in respect to some of her claims, some of her claims, and I am going to say this, even though there is an active part of our investigation under way, utterly without merit and utterly without foundation, utterly without factual foundation.
KENDALL: Is this one of those claims?
STARR: No, I did not say that Mr. Kendall. ... Mr. Kendall, if there is an issue with respect to the treatment of the witness, let's take it to court and have the court resolve it in an orderly way just as the Supreme Court of the United States said that this particular individual is entitled to an orderly disposition of her claims.
KENDALL: In your testimony this morning, Mr. Starr, you said, 'We go to court and not on the talk-show circuit. We're officers of the court who live in the world of law. We have presented our cases in court.' Now, Mr. Charles Bakaly, your press spokesman and public relations adviser has been on, by my count, 10 talk-shows and is on "Nightline" tonight. I would be happy to read them to you. This is from late April, but does that sound about right, that he has been on 11 talk-shows?
STARR: That probably sounds about right, but I would have to do the count.
Not only do we have the right, we have the duty, to engage in a proper public information function because this is the public's business. We must do so in order at times to combat misinformation that is being spread about including, frequently, by lawyers who claim that their clients have been grossly mistreated, which is what criminal defense lawyers are paid to do.
KENDALL: Mr. Starr, I take it there would be no disagreement that you, as a United States prosecutor, are under a legal objection to protect the secrecy of the grand jury process.
STARR: Yes. There is no dispute whatsoever.
KENDALL: No dispute. Indeed, if you turn to tab 17 of the materials, you wrote me a letter on February 6, 1998. And if I could direct your attention to the second paragraph of that letter. I had complained about leaks of grand jury information. You had replied, "From the beginning, I have made the prohibition of leaks a principal priority of the office. It is a firing offense as well as one that leads to criminal prosecution." Then you say also that you reminded the staff that leaks are utterly intolerable. Am I reading that correctly?
STARR: Yes, you are reading it correctly.
KENDALL: And has anybody been fired from your office, Mr. Starr, for leaking?
STARR: No, because I don't believe anyone has leaked grand jury information, Mr. Kendall.
KENDALL: On the day this story broke in the press, which was Wednesday, January 21, you issued a press release -- do you recall that press release?
STARR: Could you say that again? On January...
KENDALL: On January the 21st -- the day "The Washington Post" story ran, you issued a press release about your information policy.

KENDALL: In your testimony this morning, you described the litigation that your office has been involved in. At page 36, you said you've faced an extraordinary number of legal disputes on issues of privilege, jurisdiction, substantive criminal law and the like. Do you see that? It's at the top of your testimony. ... You did not mention leak litigation in that list, I observe.
STARR: Yes, that's correct.
KENDALL: In fact, we have litigated on a number of occasions producing, by my count, at least five district court opinions, which have all been unsealed and in the binder, and one court of appeals decision on this matter, have we not?
STARR: Yes, and in fact, with respect to that -- and we did, Mr. Kendall, and I think you will agree -- that we prevailed in the court of appeals with respect to the issue that you're talking about.
The D.C. circuit unanimously concluded that the procedures that you had urged were entirely inappropriate, improper, unauthorized by law, and that there had to be an orderly process that was protective of very vital interests. That was a unanimous opinion by the D.C. circuit overturning a process that you had urged upon the district court in your effort to find out as much information inside the prosecutor's office as you possibly could.
I hadn't even thought of that as one of the 17, but you're absolutely right. That is part of our litigation record. And we are now in the process, as you well know, of additional litigation.
KENDALL: I take it you would agree with Chief Judge Johnson that enforcing rule 6(e), which enforces grand jury secrecy, is of the utmost integrity to the grand jury process?
STARR: Yes, Chief Judge Johnson has made it abundantly clear -- and I agree with that -- the values of confidentiality of matters occurring before the grand jury is very important.
KENDALL: And she has also ruled, has she not, that due to the serious and repetitive prima facie violations of rule 6(e), a thorough investigation is necessary, and is now being conducted? Just let me direct your attention to ... and that's her opinion which was just unsealed.

KENDALL: In fact, Judge Johnson had before her 24 submissions from us as to what might be leaks from the independent counsel's office. Did she not?
STARR: And we are in the process of litigating those, David, as you know.
KENDALL: And how many did she find there was prima facie reason to believe that your office had committed these leaks?
STARR: And I think you know the answer to that. Under the hair-trigger, Barry-standard where almost anything will satisfy.
KENDALL: I think the answer to my question was all 24. And are you saying that the journalists invented sources like "prosecutors painted a different picture"; "sources in Starr's office tell us"; "sources near Starr"; "prosecutors suggest". Does the media make up those quotes, Mr. Starr?
STARR: I am not here to accuse the media of anything. I am here to say that fairness requires us to be able to litigate this matter, which, as you well know, is under seal, and to litigate that in an orderly way, and then to come to a judgment as to the significance of that.
KENDALL: Mr. Starr, in fact, there has been no case remotely similar to this in terms of the massive leaking from the prosecutor's office, and I think we noted that.
STARR: I totally disagree with that. That's an accusation, and it's an unfair accusation. I completely reject it. .
KENDALL: May I direct your attention now to the exhibit that we have displayed up there? ... It's your press release on the first day of the Lewinsky story breaking. It's a press release on the letterhead of the independent counsel's office. We secured it from your office through a Freedom of Information Act request. It's under your name. It says -- "Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr issued the following statement today from his office in Washington, D.C." And then it says: "Because of confidentiality requirements, we are unable to comment on any aspect of our work." Is that what you announced to the world on Jan. 21?
STARR: Yes, and I must say, I think that this is inconsistent with the duty of a prosecutor to provide appropriate and lawful public information. I think it is the duty of the prosecutor to combat the dissemination of misinformation as long as the prosecutor can do that without violating his or her obligations under rule 6(e). And that's the position, David, as you know, of the Justice Department.
KENDALL: But did you issue any press release admitting that you were talking about aspects of your investigation?
STARR: No, in terms of being able to provide a public information function, it depends upon how broadly one wants to read a particular document. This is not a legal document. It's a statement of policy. And ordinarily, in contrast to what most prosecutors do, we try to treat all individuals -- those, for example, charged with crime -- with complete fairness. We do not go out and hold press conferences and the like. That is our methodology and our approach. But we follow Justice Department policy. And I frankly think that this comment is an over broad statement because it's incompatible with DOJ policy.
KENDALL: It is your comment, though, Mr. Starr. It's what you wanted the world to think you were doing in the Lewinsky investigation. Is that not a fact? It is your press release.
STARR: Well, except I think it is still you're talking about a press release. You're not talking about a filing in court and the like.

Continued in Part II

This article was published on Friday, November 20, 1998

RETURN to Clinton Crisis