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.