LOWELL: Neither you nor any of the officials in your office told the attorney general that before you became the independent counsel, your law firm -- Kirkland and Ellis -- was actually contacted to represent Paula Jones and eventually helped her attorneys to find the lawyers she chose.

STARR: Well, you're assuming that I had the benefit of all this information.

LOWELL: ... I asked whether you had or any of your office members told the attorney general that your law firm -- that you were still a member of and getting a salary from -- had indeed been sought out to be Paula Jones' lawyers.
I understood you saying you may not have known that.

My question is you're telling me that Richard Porter, your partner, did not ever inform you that he had been asked to consider representing Paula Jones and had in fact assisted her in getting the attorneys she ultimately chose. Is that what you're saying?

STARR: Well, my best recollection is no. I know Richard Porter. I've had communications with him from time to time. But in terms of a specific discussion with respect to what the law firm may be -- may be doing or may not be doing I'm not recalling that specifically, no.

LOWELL: ... Did it not occur to you that you should tell the attorney general, who was making a decision about whether you were an independent counsel, that your law firm, Kirkland and Ellis, in addition to being asked to be Paula Jones' attorney, was providing legal advice -- free legal advice -- to a conservative women's group called the International Women's Forum who were thinking about participating in the Paula Jones case itself? Did that not occur to you either?

STARR: Well, again, it's not whether it occurs or not. [The Artful Dodger, firmly committed to telling the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth.]
I did have discussions with the -- and I think it's called the Independent Women's Forum -- as to whether they would, in fact, file an amicus brief, again strictly on the constitutional issue, not taking a position on the merits.

But the president, through his very able lawyers, had raised a very important question. Does the president of the United States enjoy immunity? Everyone was talking about it and no one was talking about it particularly quietly. It was a matter of vigorous debate. And the fact that I had these discussions had all been, to the best of my knowledge, part of the public domain. That is to say they were reported.   [i.e. reported by the press but not to the AG; but, anyway, the Attorney General, civil servant that she is, has more time to do a Nexus search than I, the Million Dollar a year man who is still carrying this additional mantel, do.]

 

I do think it's unfair, I really do, to suggest that someone should, when circumstances are moving so quickly, go do a Nexis search, making sure that everything is in the public domain and the like, especially under circumstances that were not only fast-moving, but it was very clear that what we were investigating were serious crimes of perjury that had nothing to do with the constitutional immunity of the president.

[This might think we were urgently working to stop a felony. But, that is not normal prosecutorial process. Having never 'til now been a prosecutor, I'm an expert on this matter.]

LOWELL: Mr. Starr, you're suggesting that when you told the deputy attorney general that he had to move with haste because this investigation was fast-moving, that you had no responsibility to also inform the attorney general about these contacts that you and I are talking about, which might make the attorney general, as you pointed out, have a choice to make between giving the investigation to you or giving it to somebody whose independence, bias and involvement in the case was not questioned.

STARR: Well, I utterly disagree, with all respect, with your premise [i.e. my answer to your question is "Yes."] -- that to be involved on an issue of civil law and constitutional law in any way suggests a predisposition more generally.

I would take the position that the president of the United States does not enjoy constitutional immunity from suit regardless of who the president is.

It has nothing to do with the identity of the occupant of the office. It has everything to do with what the presidency is and the nature of our relationship to one another as individuals and whether we are all equal under the law.

LOWELL: You state in your press statement that she was repeatedly told she was free to leave and that she did so several times.

Do you not think it would have been a "less distorted picture," to use your words, to know that when she left the room, she was followed by agents and that she swore under an oath that she -- quote -- "felt threatened that when she left, she would be arrested," end quote.

Don't you think that completes the picture a little bit?

STARR: I think her perception was incorrect. [Answer:  "No, it's irrelevant what she felt when agents followed her everytime she left the room.  And, since I wasn't there, I'm sure I know much more about the accuracy of Ms. Lewinsky's perceptions than she does.]

Having It Both Ways
We made it clear to the witness that she was, in fact, free to leave. [When questioned by Kendall, he appears to say that because he wasn't there, he does not know what they really did.]
Ritzy Rationale
And the Ritz-Carlton, shall I say, is a fairly comfortable and commodious [comfortably or conveniently spacious] place ...		Since luxury precludes culpability for abuse and intimidation, the Ritz bills on OIC expense account must be justified.
Possibility of a Felony Provides Opportunity for Legal Blackmail
Note:  Prosecutors use felonies; they don't prevent them.
			She was encouraging others to join her in committing perjury.
She was, as the information came to us, a felon in the middle of committing another felony.
Moral:  To stop a felony, call the police not the FBI.

LOWELL: She wasn't likely, after being brought up to your room for 10 hours, to be committing any felonies anymore after that, was she? ....

STARR: Well, of course, we did not know. We had no way of knowing what she was going to do. [Well, we didn't really know for sure whether she was going to commit a felony or not.  So, as to your other questions, it is to my advantage to indicate we thought she was; it now sounds better to tell you we didn't know.]

What we did do is this. That we had a consensual recording. We shared the results of that consensual recording with the Justice Department. We informed the Justice Department of what our intention was at the Ritz- Carlton. We then proceeded in a very professional way. [Although I wasn't there, so I can't tell you for sure...?]

FRANK: Mr. Starr, Judge Johnson has found 24 instances of prima facie violations by your office of Rule 16. Are you aware of any member of your staff who in fact committed a violation, as defined by Judge Johnson?

STARR: We do not think that we have violated [grand jury rules on secrecy] at all.

FRANK: Specifically on the 24 instances, are you aware of any member of your staff who committed a violation as Johnson defined it?

STARR: Well, with all respect, I think that is an unfair question. And the reason I do ... [exceedingly forthcoming & always ready to tell the "whole truth."]

FRANK: All right. I'll withdraw it. Mr. Starr, you're the expert on unfair questions. If you tell me it's an unfair question, I'll withdraw it. So let me ask you again.

Did anybody on your staff, to your knowledge, do the things which Judge Johnson has included in her list of the 24, understanding that you may think that if they did them, they weren't violations?

But did anybody in your staff give out that information on any of those 24 instances?

STARR: There are a couple of issues or instances in which we issued a press release where we do have -- we clearly issued a press release with respect to certain matters.

But may I say this? I am operating under a sealed litigation proceeding ... [which as you must know by now is far more sacrosanct than either executive privilege or client-attorney privilege....  Your Chairman will back me up on this later today.]

FRANK: Mr. Starr, if you're suggesting that you can't answer under this particular proceeding -- it's sealed at your request to the extent that it's sealed at all. So you could waive it. That is, Judge Johnson granted a motion for an open procedure. You appealed this to the Circuit Court and they closed it up. So if you do not object, nobody else will.

STARR: No, Mr. Frank. It is sealed by the chief judge, based upon her determination of ... [particularly fond of the "s/he made me do it rationalization.]

FRANK: (OFF-MIKE) She granted a much more open proceeding, and you appealed that and got the Circuit Court to severely restrict the procedure on the grounds that hers was too open. Isn't that true?

STARR: Congressman Frank, what she did was to provide for a procedure that didn't provide -- quote -- "openness." It provided for an adversarial process, and this is all in the public domain. But from this point forward, no, she is the custodian and the guide with respect ... [It appears there's more than one attorney that likes to "parse" the verb "to be."]

FRANK: Would you ask her to release that? I think there's a severe -- important public interest in dealing with this unique question. It goes to the credibility of a lot of what you've done.

Would you then join -- maybe everybody would join; maybe the White House would join and others -- in asking Judge Johnson to relax that so we could get the answers publicly, because I think there's a lot of public interest -- legitimate interest in this?

STARR: I am happy to consider that, but I'm not going to make, if -- with all respect, a legal judgment right on the spot.

LOFGREN: There's no question that the president did not tell the American people the truth about Ms. Lewinsky. He admitted that. We allege in the report that he lied under oath.

Perjury
	But I note that you, Mr. Starr, are under oath yourself this morning, and on Page 36 of your testimony, you swear that you go to court, not on the talk show circuit. This very morning, you appeared on "Good Morning America." Isn't that a false statement under oath? And should you be prosecuted for perjury because of this false statement?
What's good for the goose...

I do want to pose two -- really three quick questions.

First, when did you first hear any information to the effect that a tape recording existed of a woman, any woman, who claimed to have had a sexual contact with President Clinton?

Two, in or about November 1997, did you discuss with any person the possibility that a tape recording might exist on which a woman claimed to have had sexual contact with President Clinton -- yes or no.

And finally, we all know there was an investigation into leaks from your office to the press.
Reporters promise confidentiality to sources and they're very serious about that. I'm asking you today:
Will you release the press from their vow of confidentiality to you and your deputies so that this can be fully investigated?

STARR: The second question I frankly did not understand. I honestly did not get. I was trying to take notes.

LOFGREN: I'll read it really quickly. In or about November 1997 did you discuss with any person the possibility that a tape recording might exist on which a woman claimed to have had sexual contact with President Clinton?

STARR: I am not recalling that, the specificity of your question suggests that there may be information and I'm happy to respond to information if that is -- if that's ...

LOFGREN: Is there any possibility that the answer is yes?

STARR: I have no recollection of it, but I am happy to search my recollection. This is the first time anyone has asked me such a question, and you are asking ...

LOFGREN: It was possible it was before January then?

STARR: Yes. But you said very specifically November of 1997, so that's ...

REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Chairman ...

STARR: I will search my recollection.

SENSENBRENNER: Does the young lady have information that the independent counsel's office had this information?

Ducking
LOFGREN: I would like an answer to my question. I've been asked these questions and I think the gentleman is under oath and he can answer the question.
Ducking with Help
SENSENBRENNER: Does the young lady have information to this effect? LOFGREN: I'm asking the question. I'm not a witness. HYDE: The witness will respond. STARR: Yes. I do not have a recollection of that, but I am happy to now search my recollection and to go back in light of the specificity of your question and provide the committee with the information.
More Ducking
LOFGREN: So you would agree to answer that under penalty of perjury if we followed up in a written request after you've had time to reflect upon it?
STARR: Well, I am happy to consider any question, and if it is viewed as germane to what is before you -- if this is an effort to try to search my recollection and to see if there's something that perhaps I'm not able to recall ...
Successful Ducky
LOFGREN: If I may... STARR: Excuse me. May I answer this question? LOFGREN: Certainly. HYDE: The young lady from California will allow Judge Starr to answer the question without interruption. STARR: Yes. I beg your pardon. It does seem to me that if there is an issue that you view as germane I am happy to consider it, and I will evaluate it. I've given you my best answer now. Now with respect to ... LOFGREN: I believe it is germane and I would like an answer to the question. HYDE: The young lady from California asked Judge Starr three questions. Could she please give Judge Starr the courtesy of allowing him to answer the questions. LOFGREN: I would love to get an answer to the questions. STARR: I have concluded what I need to say, thank you. [Successfully "ducking" all three questions.] HYDE: The witness has concluded. The young lady's time has expired.

Murray Waas and Daryl Lindsey contributed to this report.