HYDE: The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.

NADLER: Mr. Chairman?

HYDE: The gentleman from New York?

NADLER: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if this is a point of order or a point of information, but I'll ask the indulgence of the chair. Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago in response to my questions, the -- Mr. Starr referred to a case In Re Grand Jury Proceedings (ph), an in re sealed case which he characterized as the judge okaying the propriety of what they had done in the subject matter we discussed.

Now, these cases are in the possession of the committee under seal, and I would like to be able to talk publicly about them and I'd like to be able to know publicly whether the judge -- whether Mr. Starr correctly or incorrectly characterized this. So I would like to know, since Mr. Starr has now referred to them and characterized them, whether they are no longer under seal. And if they are still under seal, I would like to move that they no longer be under seal.

HYDE: I understand they're still under seal.

NADLER: Then I would ask that they -- that the committee change that status.

HYDE: Objection has been heard.

NADLER: I didn't ask for unanimous consent. I asked for -- I made a motion, I think.

HYDE: Well, I think it takes unanimous consent to take something out of...

UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSMAN: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the motion is not an order.

HYDE: Well, I understand, but I -- if the gentleman has something to say, I want to hear it, but...

NADLER: Well, it's very simple...

HYDE: We'll talk about it later. It's -- it's really not your turn. I'll not recognize for purposes of removing things from under seal...

FRANK: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry?

HYDE: Yes?

FRANK: We are going to have a session later to vote on subpoenas. Would it be in order for that motion then to be made at that time?

HYDE: Yes, it would.

FRANK: Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HYDE: Now, the gentleman from North Carolina will not hold against me the fact that Mr. Nadler intervened. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

WATT: I wanted to make a parliamentary inquiry before I...

HYDE: Yes, sir.

WATT: ... start the five minutes, because I have some questions to ask Mr. Starr about information that has been given to the committee and has not been released to the public. If I ask questions about that, would I be in violation of the rules?

HYDE: Parliamentarian tells me you can ask the question, but you can't refer to the material. I don't know how you do that.

WATT: I'll tread very lightly, Mr. Chairman.

FRANK: Mr. Chairman, if you permit, I think it means that you don't say that you are referring to the material. You don't identify the material. Just ask the question.

WATT: I will tread very lightly, and if the chairman thinks that I am outside the bounds, I am sure that somebody will call it to my attention.

HYDE: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

WATT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to thank Mr. Starr for coming over. I enjoyed your speech very much.

STARR: Thank you.

WATT: Let me just be clear on one thing, though, about this -- on pages 55 to 57 of your testimony, you give us information that clearly is within your personal knowledge -- that's your biographical information. I was following you through the rest of this, and I think it has been implicitly said but not explicitly said.

Is it correct that you don't have personal knowledge of anything that is related -- I mean you've got some opinions. You have reviewed the stuff.

I respect those, but as far as personal knowledge, and your knowledge of this information as a person, I take it you would say you don't have any personal knowledge.

STARR: In the large main, you are absolutely right, Congressman Watt. That is -- I am sorry.

WATT: Let me go back, then, briefly, to a appointment, Mr. Gallegly raised, and I don't want to get into the credibility -- you assessing the credibility of witnesses because as the chairman pointed out, when Mr. Gallegly tried to get you into that, that's not a place that you need to be. That's really a place for us, I take it, to assess the credibility of witnesses who know the facts. Would you agree that the credibility of the president and the -- and Betty Currie and Monica Lewinsky would be important for us to evaluate in this committee in any respect?

STARR: Yes, Congressman Watt. It does seem to me...

WATT: Then I want to -- if you agree with that -- there are a couple of things that you failed to include in your referral that seem to me to bear, very directly, on the credibility of Ms. Lewinsky, and these are the issues that I was concerned about, because they are not public yet.

STARR: I see.

WATT: One is the testimony of a woman who works at -- is a vice- president, apparently, at Revlon, a woman by the name of Nancy Risden (ph), who said to your interviewers, during her statement, that

Ms. Lewinsky had told her that she had lunch with Hillary Clinton the previous week, and that Mrs. Clinton had offered her help in finding an apartment in New York. Are you familiar with that?

STARR: Yes.

WATT: You didn't send that information over with your referral.

I take it that would have a major bearing on the credibility of Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, at least it would for me, if she made that kind of representation, which I think is just completely off the reservation, so to speak.

STARR: May I respond?

WATT: I am going to give you a chance to respond. I want to ask the other one.

STARR: Thank you.

WATT: The second occasion which you failed to give us in your referral was the interview of a woman named Catherine Profit (ph), who testified that

Ms. Lewinsky had exaggerated to her the depth of her relationship, Ms. Lewinsky's relationship with a young man at the Department of Defense.

You're familiar with that, Mr. Starr?

STARR: I'm not familiar with that specific...

WATT: But you don't, you...

STARR: I'm not...

WATT: It's in the information...

STARR: I'm not quarreling at all.

WATT: It's in the information you sent over. That seems to me also would go directly to the credibility of Ms. Lewinsky as a witness.

Yet, neither one of those pieces of information was included with your referral.

And I'm wondering how you went about picking and choosing he things, I mean the chairman has referred to you as an independent counsel, not an independent prosecutor.

There is some question about that.

But what I'm concerned about is why didn't we get the information that we need to make the kind of credibility judgments as members of this committee, a full evaluation of credibility from your office, when you made this referral?

STARR: Congressman Watt, I believe that you do have the information. And we might assess the information, the relevancy of it differently, let me be very specific.

Ms. Lewinsky made it quite clear that she knew how to lie. She was encouraging others to lie. She also says, and this is in the referral...

WATT: So now you're impeaching your own witness now.

I mean, I take it that what you're doing, you've called her a lier on a couple of occasions, but a substantial portion of your case, isn't it, Mr. Starr is based on the credibility of Ms. Lewinsky?

And she told you, this is the second time you've done that today -- I would say -- she told you under oath, at the grand jury that nobody asked her to lie...

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, point of order.

WATT: And nobody offered her a job in exchange for anything, you say that's a lie.
She said, you think she was lying then.

So how are you picking and choosing what you believe from Ms. Lewinsky?
And isn't that our job as members of this committee?

STARR: I can answer with one word, corroboration. She is vastly corroborated with her phenomenal memory. When she would say, I was with the president of the United States, she could identify a phone call coming in with a member of Congress who's nickname was, she could recall a phone call coming in from someone in Florida who was a sugar grower and tie it to a specific date.

STARR: That gives you corroboration that the event that she is giving...

WATT: What kind of corroboration do you have for a...

HYDE: The gentleman's time has...

WATT: ... witness who says that nobody asked me to lie?

email complaints, suggestions & satirical contributions to
mirth@benegesserit.com