|
|
|
|
SCHIPPERS: I'll begin with some of Mr. Kendall's statements, and some of Mr. Kendall's questions to you. First of all, do I understand that there is such a thing as a hair-trigger? You referred to a hair-trigger that would set off an investigation of whether or not there were leaks out of your office?
SCHIPPERS: And that hair-trigger can be, and often is triggered by a defense attorney sending something to the judge claim that there's a leak. Is that right?
SCHIPPERS: Thank you, Judge.
SCHIPPERS: Now, do I understand that Mr. Kendall sent 27 of such requests to the judge here claiming leaks?
SCHIPPERS: Well, Judge, if I were expecting someone to testify before a Congressional committee, and I wanted some questions to ask him about leaks, all I'd have to do is send some letters to the judge, and trigger this hair-trigger effect. Isn't that correct?
Now, you're not under a 6(e) obligation, so you can talk as freely as you would, and indeed you enjoy speech and debate clause immunity. However, prosecutors are very sensitive, especially in this jurisdiction, in light of the hair-trigger, to a reporter who sort of says "Sources close to...."
SCHIPPERS: Now Judge, Mr. Kendall mentioned massive leaking. I'm going to ask you a specific and direct question. As you sit there, do you have any information, evidence, or anything in your possession to indicate that anyone in your office has leaked anything? Any 6(e) material?
SCHIPPERS: Within your definition of 6(e).
SCHIPPERS: Fine. And sir, you were asked whether you were present during the taking of the 302s, the FBI interviews, whether you were present at the grand jury appearances of all these witnesses, whether you were present during the course of interviews and depositions, and you answered no. Isn't that correct?
SCHIPPERS: But you did have experienced, highly experienced professional agents and prosecutors present at each and every one of those occasions, did you not?
SCHIPPERS: And you relied upon the integrity, the honesty and the decency of those agents and investigators, did you not?
SCHIPPERS: All right. We've heard an awful lot about fairness here, Judge Starr. But I noticed that when you sat down this morning, you were given about two inches of documents to review. How long did you have to review those, before Mr. Lowell began questioning you?
But no, in terms of actual notice, I had no notice whatsoever. SCHIPPERS: Now, you were also given a book filled with some 63 tabs when Mr. Kendall began to question you. When's the first time you saw that book?
SCHIPPERS: And of course they were in possession of those books before you left to have your sandwich. They didn't give it to you to review, did they? Did they?
SCHIPPERS: And you were questioned about specific one lines, two lines inside this two-and-a-half inch document, and you had to go and hunt for the answers, didn't you, Judge?
SCHIPPERS: Now, we have heard over two hours of questioning, almost three hours of questioning, if we include the Democratic members of this committee. And I haven't heard anybody ask you one question about the facts of these cases.
So with your permission, Judge, I'm going to take a few minutes, and get to the facts and the issues that are really before this committee. First of all, Mr. Conyers in his opening statement made a remark about a recent delivery of four boxes of documents. That delivery was made -- what was it? -- yesterday or the day before to the Ford Building. Was it not, Mr. -- or Judge Starr?
SCHIPPERS: Now that wasn't your idea to deliver those, was it?
SCHIPPERS: It was in answer to a request by Mr. Conyers that you provide additional information, wasn't it?
SCHIPPERS: And you were just --
SCHIPPERS: Now Judge Starr, you have been investigating President Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky matter and other matters involving perjury, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and so on for some seven or eight months. Is that correct?
SCHIPPERS: Have you been given any exculpatory evidence by the president? Or have you been offered any exculpatory evidence or witnesses by the president in that time?
But no, no witness has come forward to say, "Monica Lewinsky made it all up." No one has suggested that. No one has suggested -- so, I'm sorry to be going on, but the point is -- SCHIPPERS: I think you've answered the question.
SCHIPPERS: That was my next question. If information were available and had been given to you, you would have considered that along with all the other information. Is that correct?
SCHIPPERS: Now, there was a great deal of discussion throughout the day about the difference between your investigation and that of Mr. Jaworski. There was no Independent Counsel Act when Mr. Jaworski was performing his duties, was there?
SCHIPPERS: And your actions, as regards referrals to this committee, are governed by federal statute, are they not, Judge?
SCHIPPERS: And you attempted, to the best of your ability, to comply with those federal statues?
SCHIPPERS: One aside. In the 63 -- have you had an opportunity -- I know you haven't had a reasonable opportunity -- but have you had any opportunity to page through Mr. Kendall's 63 Tabs?
SCHIPPERS: Well I have. I have, Judge Starr. And I noted that it contains several newspaper articles, several magazine articles, several self-serving letters from the president's counsel, and not one word, not one word of evidence.
During your term as independent counsel, sir, and with particular reference to your investigation of the Lewinsky matter and the perjury and the obstruction of justice and other related criminal activity, you were under the guidance and control of the attorney general of the United States, were you not?
SCHIPPERS: I mean that in the sense that if you were to be involved in anything untoward, unethical, illegal, the attorney general had the absolute ability to fire you for cause, did she not?
SCHIPPERS: Now, you've been pilloried and vilified in newspapers and magazines and here, unfortunately. Has the attorney general ever indicated that she had any thought of firing you for cause?
SCHIPPERS: Well, you've never been --
SCHIPPERS: Has the attorney general ever questioned you about conflicts of interest or anything like that?
SCHIPPERS: Now all of these specific factors that various people have asked you if you reported to the attorney general when you met her on the 16th of -- when was it? -- the 15th of January.
SCHIPPERS: No, but there was a litany of --
SCHIPPERS: There was a litany of things that you apparently allegedly did not tell the attorney general at that meeting?
SCHIPPERS: But of course, shortly thereafter, all of that litany of information became available to the attorney general.
SCHIPPERS: That's fine. That's fine. But it did become available and no action was taken?
SCHIPPERS: Now let's get to this January 16th meeting with Monica Lewinsky that so much has been made of.
CONYERS:SCHIPPERS: I hear laughter from the left, but I often hear laughter from the left, even when you're testifying. And I didn't really think it was fair to laugh at you when you were testifying either.
SCHIPPERS: I wonder how many of your accusers have read the log that was kept of every minute of that day. Now, sir, there was also some question as to why Ms. Lewinsky was not allowed to call Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter had been given to Monica Lewinsky by Vernon Jordan, isn't that correct?
SCHIPPERS: And the evidence available to you at that time, phone evidence, indicated that perhaps Mr. Jordan had been in telephonic contact with the president at the time he was getting her that lawyer, isn't that correct, sir?
SCHIPPERS: And in an abundance of caution, you did not want the president to know that Monica Lewinsky was talking to you, isn't that right?
SCHIPPERS: And that's a perfectly valid prosecutorial move, isn't it?
SCHIPPERS: As a matter of fact, later Ms. Lewinsky decided she didn't want to be represented by Mr. Carter on that day, isn't that correct?
SCHIPPERS: And she called Mr. Ginsburg and she talked to Mr. Ginsburg, didn't she?
SCHIPPERS: But in any event, she changed lawyers from the one that had been provided to her indirectly by the White House, to an independent lawyer from the West Coast, is that right?
SCHIPPERS: And doesn't the evidence demonstrate that from the 16th on, or from that day on, when she was unavailable, there was a three-day frenzy at the White House to try and find Monica Lewinsky by phone, by beeper, and that Mr. Jordan, Mr. Carter and Ms. Currie were in constant efforts to reach Monica Lewinsky. Isn't that a fact?
SCHIPPERS: Does that indicate to you that they were a little bit afraid of what Monica might say?
SCHIPPERS: By the way, when Monica Lewinsky was -- I'm not going to say "being held" because I don't want to run into trouble.
SCHIPPERS: When Monica Lewinsky was in with your agents --
SCHIPPERS: -- she was not questioned about criminal activity, was she?
SCHIPPERS: She was not questioned at all about criminal activity until she was represented by counsel, isn't that true?
SCHIPPERS: Well as a matter of fact, the first time Monica Lewinsky testified in a grand jury was some seven months later, is that right?
SCHIPPERS: And if she was afraid and if she was disturbed on January 6th, she was sure as heck over it by August 6th, wasn't she?
But I'm very fearful of saying anything about state of mind. SCHIPPERS:
SCHIPPERS: Do you have before you, Judge Starr, the first two-incher -- the one that Mr. Lowell gave you? Would you turn to Tab 35, please? There are a whole series of remarks on page 35, and I think there was a -- 356, the page number, that's where Tab 35 begins. The first bullet -- do you have it, Judge.
SCHIPPERS: The first bullet says Monica Lewinsky testified before that grand jury that, quote, "No one every asked me to lie, and I was never promised a job for my silence." Is that right?
SCHIPPERS: She also testified, "But nobody told me to tell the truth, either," did she -- didn't she?
SCHIPPERS: Now, Monica Lewinsky also testified that she had a conversation with the president in the White House, or on the phone when she found out that she was on the witness list and the president told her, "You can make an affidavit."
SCHIPPERS: The affidavit, of course, would be for the purpose of avoiding testimony. Isn't that correct, Judge Starr?
SCHIPPERS: And in order to accomplish that purpose, both the president and Ms. Lewinsky were fully aware that that affidavit would have to be a lie. Isn't that right?
SCHIPPERS: And it was the president's suggestion that she make that affidavit, according to her testimony?
SCHIPPERS: We might as well be complete about these tabs when we're going over them. We're going to talk a little bit about fairness, if I may. The president of the United States testified before a grand jury, did he not Judge Starr?
SCHIPPERS: And he was permitted to testify by videotape or by closed-circuit tape from the White House, was he not?
SCHIPPERS: How often is a prospective witness before the grand jury permitted to testify from home?
SCHIPPERS: So that was being overly fair to the president by letting him testify there, isn't that right?
SCHIPPERS: And also, the president was permitted to have his attorney sitting with him and to consult with that attorney. Isn't that correct?
SCHIPPERS: How many prospective witnesses before a grand jury are permitted to bring their lawyer into the grand jury room with them?
SCHIPPERS: Except the president.
SCHIPPERS: So you -- another favor to the president in the interest of fairness, is that correct?
SCHIPPERS: The president was permitted to read a statement before he began to testify. How many witnesses in a grand jury are permitted to read a statement of their own?
SCHIPPERS: Now, the president was originally subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury.
SCHIPPERS: Six invitations, that's right. And as an accommodation to the president you and your staff withdrew that subpoena and allowed him to the courtesy of appearing, quote, "voluntarily"?
SCHIPPERS: Again being eminently fair to the president?
SCHIPPERS: Now, Judge Starr, when an individual testifies before a grand jury, that individual has three choices. He can tell the truth, one; he can lie, two; or he can assert his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify because his answers might tend to incriminate him -- isn't that correct?
SCHIPPERS: When an individual is questioned in a grand jury, is he permitted to say, "I stand on my statement in lieu of taking the Fifth"?
SCHIPPERS: But the president was allowed to do that, was he not?
SCHIPPERS: So much for the unfairness of the grand jury. You were also asked by some of the members here, and a great, great move was made, that none of these individuals in the grand jury were subjected to cross-examination -- and that's true, none of them were.
SCHIPPERS: Are you aware of any grand jury proceeding in which the defense is permitted to come in and cross-examine the witnesses before the grand jury?
SCHIPPERS: It's unbelievable, isn't it?
SCHIPPERS: That's right. Now, the cross-examination is for the trial, isn't it?
SCHIPPERS: Now, we're talking -- if I change horses a little bit and go to the impeachment proceeding, the Constitution provides that the sole power of impeachment resides in the House of Representatives -- isn't that correct?
SCHIPPERS: And that is in the nature of a grand jury proceeding which results in a charge, isn't that right?
SCHIPPERS: So there should be no cross-examination at that stage of the proceeding either, should there?
SCHIPPERS: Well, over and above that, Judge Starr, the Constitution further provides that the sole power to try an impeachment resides in the Senate -- isn't that correct?
SCHIPPERS: So if this House were to permit cross-examination and to hold a mini trial here, they would be usurping the constitutional duties of the United States Senate -- isn't that correct?
SCHIPPERS: I hear them moaning from the left again.
HYDE: Does somebody need an aspirin?
SCHIPPERS: Now, judge, let's do some fairness comparing here. Did anybody in the grand jury while the president was testifying laugh at him?
SCHIPPERS: Who?
SCHIPPERS: And when was that, Judge Starr? While the president was testifying and telling what he told the grand jurors, they were laughing at him? Is that right, sir?
SCHIPPERS: All right.
SCHIPPERS: And they were relatively simple questions that he was permitted to give full and complete answers -- isn't that correct?
SCHIPPERS: He wasn't asked six or eight questions at a time, running over a four- or five-minute period, and then given 10 seconds to answer, was he?
SCHIPPERS: Now, by the way, did anybody cut off the president when he tried to answer questions?
SCHIPPERS: Now, judge there has been a lot of talk in the public domain and on the television and things that this is -- that all the president did was deny sex -- deny a sexual relationship with an intern. He went a lot further than that, didn't he, for example with Mr. Blumenthal?
SCHIPPERS: As a matter of fact, before Mr. Blumenthal came in to testify he was subjected to an elaborate -- an elaborate lie by the president concerning the relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
SCHIPPERS: If I may, the president told Mr. Blumenthal that Monica made sexual demands upon him which he rebuffed. Right? And that was not true, was it?
SCHIPPERS: He also said that Monica Lewinsky threatened to claim an affair and he wouldn't go along with it, that he had been threatened by Monica Lewinsky. Is that right?
SCHIPPERS: Now, this is at a time when the president thought that it was a one-on-one with Monica Lewinsky, didn't he?
SCHIPPERS: And this would have been a perfect answer -- she threatened to say I had sex with her if I didn't do something for her. I didn't do something -- therefore everything she's saying is a lie.
N E X T+P A G E+| "I am not sure I should be the one to pass judgment" |
|
|
