Starr's reaction to dismissal of Jones' suit

Independent counsel Kenneth Starr's remarks to reporters Thursday, April 2, outside his home in McLean, Va., in the aftermath of U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright's dismissal of Paula Corbin Jones' lawsuit against President Clinton:
Q: Are you going to have a hard time mustering support from Congress in bringing perjury charges against those who participated in Paula Jones' [case]?
Starr: Well again, my task is to get the job done, with my very able colleagues. Our job is distinct, and it's important to recognize the distinction between the civil case and the disposition of that, and then whether there was in the course of that civil case, which has now been resolved. I mean, there may be appeals and the like, but the real issue is that we're examining, were there crimes committed? We hope, for the sake of the nation, that we would conclude that no crimes were committed. But that's our obligation. It's not whether a particular civil complaint filed by one individual has merit or has no merit. If a case has no merit, that's why judges sit, to resolve issues and to determine what the right legal answer is. But the real question that we're examining is, were crimes committed?
Now, what were those crimes that we've been charged with examining? Those crimes -- and again, there is a presumption of innocence that attaches to each person -- but the crimes that we have been charged with investigating are subornation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses and obstruction of justice. Those are very serious matters, and that's what we've been given, our charge, to do, and we're going to continue to do that. And we're trying to do it as quickly as we can because we recognize there is a very keen and powerful interest in bringing all these matters to resolution as quickly as possible. We're very sympathetic to that. We are seeking to gather the evidence, bring it before the grand jury.
The grand jury is sitting, as you know, at a very hectic pace. These are citizens from the District of Columbia who are working very hard. They want information; they want evidence and the like. ...
Q: Sir, are you still working on the draft for the Congress?
Starr: Well, I have not commented at all. We have an obligation to gather and assess facts and then to make a judgment as to whether we must provide information to Congress.
But it's premature for me to comment on that.
Q: Do you support Judge Wright's decision?
Starr: Well, it's not for me to say. ... But I have the greatest respect for Judge Wright, and she is a very able judge. I am not going to -- because I am not in a position to comment for really two reasons: One, I have not read the opinion, and if that sounds like a dodge, it's a fact; I have not read the opinion. But even more importantly, I am really not steeped in the law that she was dealing with, and I don't know the facts that she was dealing with.
Our facts are very different; our scope is very different. What I do know is that there was a process, and the process is a process of law. And I think we should all feel good about the process -- that is, a judge has reviewed evidence and has come to her conclusion, and she set forth that conclusion in a very lengthy opinion.... And now that process may continue. It's already said there will be an appeal. That's a process of law, I mean, and that's a process we should all feel good about as Americans.
So instead of just, say, public relations and politics and spin and the rest, that's a process that -- as Judge Howard, during our trial of Governor [Jim Guy] Tucker and Jim McDougal and Susan McDougal, kept reminding the jury, 'Don't pay attention to what goes on outside; your job, as citizens -- you've taken a oath -- is to understand, listen to the evidence ... within these four walls -- that's the key -- and then to listen to the instructions of the court.' That's a process of law. ...
What I have said all along is our process is independent. We have been given a task by the attorney general of the United States and then by the Special Division of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Why did the attorney general give us that task? Because she came to a legal judgment, based upon the facts that were at hand, that there should be an investigation of whether Monica Lewinsky and others engaged in certain criminal activity in connection with a civil case. That is our system, and my job is to do that part of the examination.
Q: How unusual is it to investigate perjury in a case that didn't warrant going to trial?
Starr: ... It is very important that the law and the legal process have complete integrity and that people be honest. That's why we put people under oath. They don't just come in and say, 'Well, tell us whatever you think.' They said, 'Okay, you're taking an oath. You're affirming or swearing, under God, that you will -- so help me, God, that I will tell the truth.' That's awfully important. Now that means we attach a special importance to it. There's no room for white lies. There's no room for shading. There's only room for truth. What happened?
Now what the attorney general determined, based upon the information that we had and brought promptly to her attention, was that there were, there are allegations. There is a presumption of innocence that all of our citizens enjoy, that in a civil case -- and whatever happens in that civil case -- someone will eventually be a winner, someone will eventually be a loser. But in that civil case, you cannot defile the temple of justice. You can't, through -- and I hope it was not done -- subornation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, and obstruction of justice; rather, you must play by the rules. We all must play by the rules. ... And if you don't play by those rules, if you lie under oath, if you intimidate a witness, if you seek otherwise to obstruct the process of justice, it doesn't matter who wins and who loses in the civil case. What matters, from the criminal law's perspective, is: Were crimes committed? And for the sake of the nation, we hope for the best. ...
Q: What about besmirching the reputation of a career politician?
Starr: Never would I seek to besmirch anyone's reputation. That's one of the reasons that I am anxious to say at all times that what we do is examine -- because that's our job -- allegations. ... I have a task to do, and that task is to find out the facts, and not to be engaging in scandal-mongering or rumor-mongering and the like. And you will never find us doing that. ...
Now, let me say it would be very helpful if all witnesses who were summoned before the grand jury would simply answer the questions. I can't comment about specifics. But I have said, and it is appropriate for me to say, that when a witness sees fit to say, 'I decline to answer that question. I could give you that information, but I am not going to, because I invoked a privilege. I enjoy a privilege that is going to keep me from giving you that answer, that information,' the witness may be within his or her right in doing it. Certainly the witness has a right to invoke the privilege and then, depending upon our assessment, from a professional perspective as to whether the assertion of the privilege is well grounded or not or founded in law, we may accept that invocation, or we may say, 'Well, let's go to judge.' And then that adds to the burdens on the chief judge, who very ably supervises the operation of the grand jury. As the Supreme Court's recent decision to grant certiorari in the Vincent Foster notes case shows, the prosecution doesn't always control the calendar. We don't control the clock. It's out of our hands so frequently. But I want you to know we're doing everything that we can to move very, very quickly, and we are moving very quickly. I am just not going to give you a specific, 'Here is the date.'

This article was published on Saturday, April 4, 1998

RETURN to Clinton Crisis