HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Jenkins. JENKINS: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Starr I would like to thank you for being here and I would like to thank you for
being very patient over a long, difficult day and I would like to say thanks for laboring
diligently on behalf of the citizens of this country for many months -- you had a very
difficult task.
STARR: Thank you.
JENKINS: And for the most part I would compliment this committee in so far as they have
talked about and asked about the Constitution, the law, the facts, and the testimony that
surround this case. This committee is to be complimented. But there have been some
occasional departures from these subjects and I do not believe that those departures have
necessarily been complimentary of this committee.
So I would like to go back to a line of questioning that Mr. Inglis started. On page
five in paragraph nine of your statement, you said that the president made false
statements under oath to a grand jury on August 17th, 1998. As I understood the
gentleman's testimony, Senator-Elect Schumer agreed with that statement.
I noticed that you, in most of your characterizations of the evidence, you said that
the evidence suggests, but in this particular instance you didn't even have that language
in. You said that the president made false statements.
| I, The Judge & The Jury |
 |
Then you voiced an opinion in response to a question by Mr. Inglis that a
reasonable person or a juror could find these statements to be material matter under the
statute. |
Now I would like to read a statue -- it's Title 18, Section 1621. And I
would like to ask you if it's pertinent to this case and an additional question or two. It
reads in the pertinent part, "Whoever having taken an oath before a competent
tribunal, that he will testify truly, willfully, and contrary to such oath states any
material fact, matter which he does not believe to be true is guilty of perjury."
Now, I know it's not your role to determine if a violation of that statue exists, or
did exist in this case. But let me ask you the same question Mr. Inglis did, could a
reasonable juror find that all of the elements were present in the evidence in this case,
and that there had been a violation of that statue?
|
STARR: It seems to me that a reasonable juror could,
but obviously that would come at the conclusion of proceedings that would be a full trial.
|
| But it seems to me that based on the evidence that is here,
if that were the full body of evidence that a reasonable jurist could so conclude. |
JENKINS: And I understand that we are the reasonable jurors to make that
determination in this case.
STARR: It is your judgment.
JENKINS: Or at least eventually in the United States Senate, that decision is to be
made.
Now there has been some mention of, and some
characterization of the testimony of the 19 distinguished witnesses who appeared before
this committee, 19 professors and historians. Did you happen to see or hear or have you
read the testimony of any of those witnesses?
STARR: Some, but not all.
JENKINS: Did you hear the characterization on the other side that very few felt that
perjury is an impeachable offense?
STARR: Yes, I did hear that.
JENKINS: I personally heard differently when I heard those 19 witnesses. My
recollection is an overwhelming majority of them testified that perjury can be or is any
impeachable offense. Was that your understanding from the testimony that they gave?
| Constitutional Scholar |
|
STARR: Well, I did not, I'm not sure. And the testimony will speak for
itself. But I certainly know that certain individuals
such as Professor McDowell with his elaborate common law analysis did come to the
conclusion based on that history of the common law and |
| then the history of the
founding of the American republic, that to him and his scholarship, you know, head as he
is of the Institute of U.S. Studies at the University of London, that that was in fact
clear at common law, which of course was transplanted to this country. |
So, but I did not have a chance to evaluate all of the 10 individuals.
JENKINS: Thank you very much, sir.
