|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| KEN STARR TESTIFIES | |
 November 19, 1998 
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
Members of the House Judiciary Committee and the public already knew for the most part what independent counsel Kenneth Starr would say during the two hours allotted for his opening statement. His detailed report on possible impeachable offenses committed by President Clinton was released two months ago, and advanced copies of today's statement began to circulate last night. But it was the first time the public got to hear Kenneth Starr make his case against the President. Starr was introduced by committee chairman Henry Hyde.
KWAME HOLMAN: Speaking for the Democrats, the committee's ranking member, John Conyers, used his opening statement to launch a stinging attack against Kenneth Starr.
|
|
||||||
|
Ken Starr outlines the charges |
||||||||
|
KWAME HOLMAN: There also was a brief partisan skirmish. Democrats demanded tripling the 30 minutes the President's personal attorney, David Kendall, would have to question Starr. They were voted down by the Republican majority, and the independent counsel then proceeded with a statement that lasted more than hours.
At the outset, I want to emphasize that our referral never suggests that the relationship between the president and Ms. Lewinsky, in and of itself, could constitute a high crime or misdemeanor. Indeed, the referral never passes judgment on the president's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The propriety of a relationship is not the concern of our office. The referral is instead about obstruction of justice, lying under oath, tampering with witnesses and the misuse of power. The referral cannot be understood without appreciating this vital distinction. This case or matter thus raises the following initial question: Is a plaintiff in a sexual harassment lawsuit entitled to obtain truthful information from the defendant and from associates of the defendant in order to support her claim? That should be easy to answer. No citizen who finds himself accused in a sexual harassment case, or in any other kind of case, can lie under oath or otherwise obstruct justice and thereby prevent the plaintiff from discovering evidence and presenting her case.
One. the president was sued for sexual harassment in federal court, and the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in that case that the case should go forward. Two. The law of sexual harassment and the law of evidence allow the plaintiff to inquire into the defendant's relationship with other women -- with women in the workplace, which, in this case, included the president's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Three. Applying those subtle legal principles, Judge Susan Webber Wright repeatedly rejected the president's objections to such inquiries. The judge instead ordered the president to answer the questions. Four. It is a federal crime to commit perjury and obstruct justice in civil cases, including sexual harassment cases. Violators are subject to a sentence of up to 10 years' imprisonment for obstruction and five years for perjury. Five. The evidence suggest that the president and Ms. Lewinsky made false statements under oath and obstructed the judicial process in the Jones case by preventing the court from obtaining the truth about the relationship. The key point about the president's conduct is this: On at least six different occasions, from December 17, 1997, through August 17, 1998, the president had to make a decision. He could choose truth, or he could choose deception. On all six occasions, the president chose deception -- a pattern of calculated behavior over a span of months. The conversation between the president and Ms. Lewinsky on December 17 was a critical turning point. The evidence suggests that the president chose to engage in a criminal act -- to reach an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky that they would both make false statements under oath. At that moment, the president's intimate relationship with a subordinate employee was transformed. It was transformed into an unlawful effort to thwart the judicial process. This was no longer an issue of private conduct. Meanwhile, the legal process continued to unfold and the president took other actions that had the foreseeable effect of keeping Ms. Lewinsky on the team. The president helped Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York. Vernon Jordan, who had been enlisted in the job search for Ms. Lewinsky, testified that he kept the president informed of the status of Ms. Lewinsky's job search and her affidavit. On January 7, 1998, Mr. Jordan told the president that Ms. Lewinsky had signed the affidavit. Mr. Jordan stated to the president that he was still working on getting her a job. The president replied, "Good." In other words, the president, knowing that a witness had just signed a false affidavit, encouraged his friend to continue trying to find her a job. After Ms. Lewinsky received a job offer from Revlon on January 12 -- thank you. Vernon Jordan called the president and said: "Mission accomplished."
The president testified before the grand jury on August 17th. Indeed, the president made false statements to the grand jury and then that same evening spoke to the nation and criticized all attempts to show that he had done so as invasive and irrelevant. |
||||||||
| Starr's other investigations | ||||||||
|
KWAME HOLMAN: Starr spent more than an hour detailing evidence in the Lewinsky matter. He then moved on to the other investigations concerning President Clinton he was authorized to look into. Regarding the firings of White House Travel Office employees and the possession by White House personnel of the FBI files of prominent Republicans during the president's first term, Starr said he found no evidence of wrongdoing. He did, however, go into depth about the original case he was mandated to investigate - the Whitewater land deal the Clintons invested in. That investigation resulted in 14 convictions.
KWAME HOLMAN: And Starr said he found evidence suggesting wrongdoing by the President as well. KENNETH STARR: In late 1997, we -- in our office -- considered whether this evidence that I have just described justified a referral to Congress. We drafted a report. But we concluded that it would be inconsistent with the statutory standard because of the difficulty of establishing the truth with a sufficient degree of confidence. With that, let me be the first to say that the Lewinsky investigation, in particular, presented some of the most challenging issues that any lawyer or investigator could face. Major decisions during the Lewinsky investigation have not been easy. And given the hurricane force winds swirling about us, we were well aware that no matter what decision we made, criticism would come from somewhere. As Attorney General Reno has said, in high-profile cases like these -- not referring to this case, but in high-profile cases -- you are, in her words, "damned if you do and damned if you don't. So you'd better just do what you think is the right and proper thing." |
||||||||
| |||||
 | |||||
| |||||
|
|
| |||
| |||||
| |||||
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | |||||
KWAME
HOLMAN: Good evening. I'm Kwame Holman. Today, the House Judiciary Committee
held the long-awaited opening session of its impeachment inquiry regarding
President Clinton. It was the third time in U.S. history Congress has
launched a president impeachment probe. The 37-member committee met
all day and into the evening. We have extended excerpts of the testimony
and questioning of the only witness today, independent counsel Kenneth
Starr. Starr began by reading a 58-page statement summarizing findings
of his four-year investigation of the president. 
REP.
HENRY HYDE: Throughout our history, we have had a number of impeachment
inquiries, but this one represents a historical first - never before
has an impeachment inquiry arisen because of a referral from an independent
counsel under section 595(c) of the statute. For that reason, we have
no precedent to follow on the involvement of the independent counsel
in our proceedings. However, it seems both useful and instructive that
we should hear from him, since he is the person most familiar with the
complicated matters the House has directed us to review. Today the search
for the truth continues as we turn to the underlying facts. And as we
begin that search, we turn to one person, Judge Starr, who has a comprehensive
overview of the complex issues we face. 
REP.
JOHN CONYERS: The idea of a federally paid sex policeman spending millions
of dollars to trap an unfaithful spouse or the police civil -- or the
police civil litigation would have been unthinkable prior to the Starr
investigation. Let there be no mistake -- it is not now acceptable in
America to investigate a person's private sexual activity. It is not
acceptable for rogue attorneys and investigators to trap a young woman
in a hotel room, discourage her from calling her lawyer, ridicule her
when she asked to call her mother. But the record suggests, I'm sorry
to say, that is precisely how Kenneth W. Starr has conducted this investigation.
KENNETH
STARR: Let me then begin with an overview. As our referral explains,
the evidence suggests that the President made false statements under
oath and thwarted the search for truth in Jones versus Clinton. The
evidence further suggests that the president made false statements under
oath to the grand jury on August 17 of this year. That same night, the
president publicly acknowledged an inappropriate relationship, but maintained
that his testimony had been legally accurate. The president also declared
that all inquiries into the matter should end, because, he said, it
was private. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the president repeatedly
tried to thwart the legal process in the Jones matter and in the grand
jury investigation. That is not a private matter. The evidence further
suggests that the president in the course of those efforts misused his
authority and his power as president and contravened his duty to faithfully
execute the laws. That, too, is not a private matter. 
Let
me summarize the five points that explain how the president's relationship
with Ms. Lewinsky -- what was otherwise private conduct -- became a
matter of concern to the courts. This is critical to fully understand
the nature of the committee's inquiry. 
Let
me turn to the president's January 17 deposition. The president made
false statements not only about his intimate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky,
but about a whole host of matters. The president testified that he did
not know that Vernon Jordan had met with Ms. Lewinsky and talked about
the Jones case; that was untrue. He testified that he could not recall
being alone with Ms. Lewinsky; that was untrue. He testified that he
could not recall ever being in the Oval Office hallway with Ms. Lewinsky,
except perhaps when she was delivering pizza; that was untrue. He testified
that he could not recall gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him;
that was untrue. He testified, after a 14-second pause, that he was
not sure whether he had ever talked to Ms. Lewinsky about the possibility
that she might be asked to testify in the lawsuit; that was untrue.
The president testified that he did not know whether Ms. Lewinsky had
been served a subpoena at the time he last saw her in December 1997;
that was untrue. When his attorney read Ms. Lewinsky's affidavit denying
a sexual relationship, the president stated that the affidavit was absolutely
true; that was untrue. 
KENNETH
STARR: -- including the former Associate Attorney General of the United
States, Webster Hubbell, the then- sitting Governor of Arkansas, Jim
Guy Tucker, and the Clintons' two business partners, Jim and Susan McDougal.
