-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- FOX THE EDGE WITH PAULA ZAHN (22:00:00 ET) February 11, 2000, Friday Transcript # 021101cb.260 Interview With Ken Starr BYLINE: Paula Zahn PAULA ZAHN, HOST: Tonight on THE EDGE, Ken Starr. It was one year ago that the Senate voted not to remove President Clinton from office. getting into the Senate? I'll ask him. Stay tuned. Get THE EDGE. (NEWS BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, FEBRUARY 12, 1999) WILLIAM REHNQUIST, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES: Two-thirds of the senators present not having pronounced him guilty, the Senate adjudges that the respondent, William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States, is not guilty as charged in the first article of impeachment. ZAHN: Good evening, and thanks so much for joining us tonight on THE EDGE. Senate acquitted President Clinton. As one Clinton gets ready to leave office and another makes a run for one, it's time to look back at how history will judge the impeachment itself and its players. Judge Kenneth Good to have you back on THE EDGE. Thanks for being with us. you. ZAHN: If you had done your job any differently, do you think the Senate would have voted to convict President Clinton? STARR: I don't think so. The facts came out, and the Senate had the benefit of those facts after the House Judiciary Committee held its hearings. The House of Representatives voted. And I think the facts were pretty much accepted as the facts. I don't think there was a serious quarrel with the facts. And that's the judgment then of the Senate. The Senate came to that judgment, and you can't create the facts. They are what they are. ZAHN: How badly did you personally want him to be impeached in the Senate? STARR: I tried very hard not to become emotionally involved in the process at all. And judges -- and that may sound strange, but that's what judges are trained to do, or at least they train themselves to do, to say, "Look, I have a job to do, a task to do, but don't get your own feelings in this." And I tried very hard to just say, "Look, this is a political process now" -- and "political" in the best sense of the word, not in a negative sense -- "let's allow that process to go." ZAHN: You say that, but at the same time, Sam Dash, your ethics adviser, was out there. He resigned... STARR: Right. ZAHN: ... from working beside you because he said you were openly advocating for the impeachment of the president. STARR: Well, I... ZAHN: Was he lying? STARR: No, well, I -- it's a difference of opinion. I love Sam Dash, but I think he was quite wrong, and I think most reasonable observers think that he was wrong in this respect. Sam felt that the referral, the so- called "Starr report," was an appropriate report. But when I then testified before the House Judiciary Committee, I tried to make it as clear as I could, using the plain English language, "This report is for your to evaluate, to ignore, to do with as you will." Yet Sam came to the view that in that appearance -- not in the report, but in that appearance, I became an advocate for impeachment. That was his view. I disagree, but... ZAHN: Were there personal meetings that the two of you had that would lead him to come to that decision? Because those of us watching that hearing would not have read it the same way, perhaps, as you're saying he did. STARR: No, Sam just came to that -- to that view. I think he was concerned about the written testimony that we were preparing, and which he saw before I went forward, and he... ZAHN: Well, he went so far as to say you abused the powers of your office. STARR: Well, Sam used some pretty strong language, but... ZAHN: Strong language? STARR: He used some strong language. But that's Sam's view. Sam has strong feelings about issues, and he expresses them. That's one of the reasons that I wanted his judgment. I wanted someone who will call them the way he sees them, even if I disagree. And I happen to disagree with that. ZAHN: How badly did he hurt you in the process? STARR: I don't think it was significant because, again, he took that tack immediately after the Judiciary Committee testimony, the morning after that. And then the House Judiciary went ahead with its work, and they determined to go ahead and evaluate the articles and impeach the president, as they did. And then the full House of Representatives did it, as well. So I don't think -- it was a talking point, and I frequently heard the talking point, but I don't think it was a serious factor in the equation. It certainly shouldn't be because it's an extraneous factor. It has nothing to do with the merits. you and your prosecutors could have done differently. Jeffrey Toobin beat you to the punch. He wrote a book long before you ever started working on the Supreme Court book, where he suggested that if you had granted Monica Lewinsky immunity at the very beginning, you basically would have gotten the president. Let me read what he said in a "New Yorker" article. "If Starr had agreed to the immunity deal on February 3rd, he would have had the evidence in testimony and in conclusive genetic evidence, a semen-stained dress, to prove that Clinton had deceived the nation." Was he right? STARR: No. He's absolutely wrong. We did not have that dress. ZAHN: So the chronology is off? STARR: Jeff is just wrong, wrong, wrong. He gives you a perspective, but his facts are wildly off base. ZAHN: What did you have, at that point? Did you have enough, let's say, to indict Monica Lewinsky? STARR: Well, I don't want to get into that because I don't want to talk about things that could, even in retrospect, be viewed as affecting the rights and the reputations of individuals. ZAHN: All right. When I -- when I read through this legalese, I'm hearing you say yeah. I mean, because even some of your prosecutors have told us that they believe you had enough evidence to indict her. STARR: I don't think I'm going to characterize it, Paula. But what we did have was information that caused us to put before her her situation. And she was then given a choice. "Do you want to cooperate with federal prosecutors, or do you not want to?" And she reached out to her medical malpractice family attorney in Los Angeles instead of an experienced criminal defense lawyer. And I want to move to the rest of that story. As soon as he was fired, and he was fired, and she then retained experienced lawyers, we very promptly went into the appropriate arrangement professionally, and we were able to do that, which her prior lawyer from Los Angeles would not let us do, which is simply have the opportunity to interview her and assess her credibility. "Is she going to tell us the truth? Is she going to tell the grand jury the truth? Is she going to give us all the information that she has that's relevant to the grand jury's investigation?" Because what... ZAHN: Did she? STARR: We are satisfied with what we received from her, and that's embodied in the report itself. So we -- I think we had the facts. I think we have the critical facts, at least. ZAHN: Is saying you're satisfied the same thing as saying you think she told you the full truth? STARR: I'm not going to characterize percentages. It's frequently the case that even a cooperating witness, prosecutors will say, will never give you more than 80 to 85 percent. You can't... ZAHN: So you won't give any percentage on her part? I know she wasn't the perfect witness. Your prosecutors have told us that. But then no -- no witness is. STARR: No, I don't think -- I don't think so. It is clear that she continued to have very strong feelings of fondness for the president, felt very badly about all that had happened, as opposed to someone who -- and we experienced this in the investigation -- who said, "You know what? I was involved in some pretty serious matters that have criminal implications. I want to get my life right." ZAHN: All right, Ken Starr, we're going to take a short break. If you would, please stand by. More of our conversation in just a moment. We'll be right back. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP - January 26, 1998) WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never. These allegations are false, and I need to go back to to work for the American people. Thank you. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AUGUST 17, 1998) ZAHN: And welcome back. Starr on the anniversary of President Clinton's Senate acquittal. Welcome back. STARR: Thank you. ZAHN: Let's go back to the chronology of what we were talking about earlier, where Jeffrey Toobin, the author, suggested that if you had entered into an immunity deal on February 3rd, you basically would have, quote, "gotten" the president. Now, you said the chronology is wrong. STARR: Totally and completely. ZAHN: Completely wrong. When did you have that semen-stained dress? STARR: I'm not going to comment on that, but I will simply say once we had a genuinely professional relationship with Monica Les -- Len -- Lewinsky's new lawyers... ZAHN: That's a hard one for you to say! STARR: It is! Yes. I don't know why! Jake Stein and Plato Cacheris, two very distinguished and experienced criminal defense lawyers in Washington, we very quickly came to the appropriate terms because we were simply wanting the truth, and we wanted a witness who we had assurances, based upon our ability to sit down with a witness and to ask questions, was really telling us the truth, as opposed to giving us 30 percent, giving us 40 percent. Many times, witnesses will give the prosecutor what he or she thinks the prosecutor already knows, but will not go beyond that. That obviously is not what the prosecutor or the investigator needs. The investigator needs all of the facts that that witness may have, and that's what we were interested in. ZAHN: And earlier, you said you were satisfied with what she told you, and yet prosecutors have told FOX NEWS that they believe that she lied to protect the president. Did she lie? STARR: I'm not going to characterize. ZAHN: Why not? I mean, we paid for this investigation. You're not continues to exist. Bob Ray continues to serve now in that capacity, as he And here he is, a career prosecutor. I don't want to say anything that in any way could affect directly or indirectly the ongoing work of that office. ZAHN: Some of the other criticism that has been lobbed your way is that if you had moved the process along quicker and you had not allowed the president to change the subject to your tactics to his -- your alleged invasion of his privacy, that you would have been much more successful. STARR: It was very... ZAHN: True or false? STARR: Well, it's false in the sense that the president saw fit instead of cooperating with the investigation not to cooperate. We tried to get the president to come share with us his perspective, his information at the very outset. He had numerous invitations to come before the grand jury or to have some arrangement for the grand jury to have the benefit of his testimony. He invoked privileges. And I want to contrast President Clinton's conduct with that of President Carter. Many years ago, when President Carter came under investigation, a gentleman here in New York, Paul Crohn (ph), was designated as the special prosecutor to investigate President Carter's finances. And President Carter waived all of his privileges, all the legal privileges. He cooperated fully. He testified truthfully. And the matter was wrapped up very promptly. We had to litigate issue after issue, court after court, including having to take things to the court of appeals. ZAHN: The president now, very quickly, in closing of this segment, has 30 days to respond to an Arkansas state supreme court case basically asking him to give up his law license in Arkansas. Based on your experience, should he? STARR: I... ZAHN: And you only get seven seconds to answer that. STARR: And I don't think I should comment on that. That's... ZAHN: Why not! STARR: That's in the hands of the good people of Arkansas. ZAHN: All right. I'll try to press you on that on the other side of the break. Ken Starr. We'll be right back. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP - February 12, 1999) ALBERT GORE (D), VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Republican leaders would not even allow the members of the House of Representatives to cast the vote that they wanted to. They were not allowed to vote their conscience. What happened as a result does a great disservice to a man I believe will be regarded in the history books as one of our greatest presidents. There is no doubt in my mind that the verdict of history will Capitol. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, JANUARY 24, 1998) LUCIANNE GOLDBERG, LITERARY AGENT: These tapes are real. What is said on them is very, very real. Linda is real. This young woman's -- Linda's life is going to be changed. Mine's going to be changed. And God help this poor little Monica. ZAHN: Welcome back. Is that what you think when you hear Lucianne Goldberg starting, "poor little" -- talking "poor little Monica"? STARR: Well, the whole thing was sad for all of us. It was difficult, and it was -- it was unfortunate. But it was what it was. ZAHN: I want to go back to something we were talking about before the break, where you refused to offer an opinion on whether you think President Clinton should give up his law license. But I think we need to make it clear that the Southeastern Legal Foundation is one of the groups that has filed a complaint against Bill Clinton, one of two groups. And you are expected to speak at a meeting there in April sometime. Are you worried about the appearance of that in any way? STARR: Well, I'm a private citizen now, and I was asked to come down and not talk about that issue. I'm going to be talking about federal judicial issue more generally. So one of the good things about being a ZAHN: But as a private citizen, you still won't tell us more about the intricacies of this case. Is that simply because you think it's going to compromise Bob Ray's ongoing investigation? compromise ongoing work of the office, then I should be prudent and be careful about what I say. ZAHN: Let's talk about the ongoing investigation. When do you think a final report will be issued? STARR: I can't predict, Paula. ZAHN: Do you have any contact with those people at all? STARR: From time to time on specific kinds of matters that come up that might involve my participation, such as the upcoming Supreme Court argument involving Webster Hubbell, who was the associate attorney general of the United States. The Supreme Court's going to be hearing arguments in that case soon, and I was involved in that from the outset, and so I've continued that involvement in an advisory way, not for pay. ZAHN: Can you give us, as a private citizen, your prediction on whether you think there will be an indictment in store for Hillary Clinton? STARR: No, I'm not going to predict one way or the other. I just don't think I should comment on the future of the office where I was privileged to serve at all. ZAHN: Let's go back to history, then. STARR: OK. ZAHN: In federal court, one of your top deputies testified that they had in their hands and drafted a possible indictment of Hillary Clinton. This came up in the Susan McDougal trial. STARR: Yes. ZAHN: What was that indictment for, perjury? STARR: I don't think I'm going to comment. ZAHN: Why not? STARR: Because the matter was a matter that was before the grand jury, and I don't think I can appropriately comment other than to say there are things that are now in the public record. But beyond what's in the public record, I don't think I should say. ZAHN: Is it true that as you started looking at the evidence of Hillary Clinton and these various land deals that you decided collectively, as an office, to hold her to a different standard, to a different threshold than you would an average citizen? STARR: Well, what we tried to do throughout was to take into account the role of the presidency and the operation of the White House and to -- and to treat the presidency with great respect. You know, people can say we did or we did not do that, but that was our goal, to always do that. And John Marshall, the great Chief Justice, said many, many years ago, 150 years ago, that the presidency is unique in our system, and we have to treat -- and that was in the context of a subpoena to Thomas Jefferson. So this was pretty serious business at the time. And the idea of treating the presidency with great respect and dignity I think is very important. Now, at the same time, it's a balanced judgment that has to be reached because no one is above the law, and the Supreme Court has been very clear about that, as it was in the Jones litigation itself, saying that the president has to go forward and to meet his legal obligations in that case, or he can settle the case, but he's going to have to live up to his legal obligations. So it's a judgment call. ZAHN: So what kind of allowances did you make for the first lady in this regard? STARR: I'm not going to comment about the first lady. I would just say -- other than we tried very much to respect the dignity of the first family through such vehicles as agreeing to videotape deposition testimony rather than insisting that they come before the grand jury itself. We discussed that with the grand jury in Little Rock. However, we did insist that the first lady come -- and this is now a matter of public record, so I can comment on it -- with respect to the discovery of the billing records in the White House residence because we felt there that under all the circumstances -- and Sam Dash was advising us on this, as he did throughout the investigation -- that it was important for the grand jury, in light of what happened, to see her and to get the benefit of her views, her testimony, the facts as she related them face to face. ZAHN: So you're comfortable talking about that now. Do you think she lied when it came to where those billing records were and why all of a sudden they surfaced in the private quarters of the White House? STARR: I'm not going to comment. ZAHN: Would you tell me this? There is a view that one of the reasons that you didn't pursue this indictment of Hillary Clinton long ago -- you were afraid and your prosecutors were afraid they couldn't win the case. True or false? STARR: Well, I'm not going to comment about what we did or did not do, except to say generally we were duty-bound -- and I think we did this each and every time -- to measure what we had in terms of the facts that we had against the standards that the Justice Department follows. Is it more likely than not that a fair-minded jury -- and you anticipate a fair-minded jury as opposed to a biased jury... ZAHN: Sure. STARR: ... biased one way or the other, for the government, against the government -- would convict that individual beyond a reasonable doubt, given the evidence that you have? And of course, it has to be admissible evidence. Prosecutors, Paula, as you know, frequently say there's a difference between what you know and what you can prove. That's our system. But prosecutors, even ex-prosecutors, are well advised not to be making charges in public that they either did not make or could not have made in court. ZAHN: We claim you almost as a New Yorker now because you're in town or will be in the spring teaching at... STARR: I'm already here. ZAHN: ... a law school here one day a week. STARR: Right. ZAHN: What would you tell New Yorkers about Hillary Clinton's sense of honesty? STARR: Well, again, I'm just not going to inject myself into the campaign. The issues are the issues. The record is the record. Very recently a comment was made, I gather, by the president with respect to the Whitewater, the Arkansas phase of the investigation. And it was somewhat dismissive. The fact... ZAHN: Actually, I can read that to you right now. STARR: Oh, OK. ZAHN: OK? I'll do it very quickly. Quote, "I made a personal mistake, and they spent $50 million trying to ferret it out and root it out because they had nothing else to do because all the other charges were totally false, bogus, made up, and people were persecuted because they wouldn't commit perjury against me." STARR: Well, it's unfortunate that if he feels that way, he feels that way because he well knows that the sitting governor of Arkansas, his successor, Jim Guy Tucker, was convicted of felony offenses by Little Rock jury. He knows that his former law partners, the late Jim McDougal and Susan McDougal, were convicted of felonies. And the first lady's clients at the Rose Lawfirm, Jim and Susan McDougal -- they were their partners. They were her clients. That's the record. That's the record. And the record speaks for itself, and people can come to their own judgments. But you know, I have a sense that people have said, "Look, that's history." ZAHN: All right, Ken Starr. We'll take another short break, and we'll be back with more of our conversation in just a moment. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AUGUST 17, 1998) CLINTON: Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It is important to me that everybody who has been hurt know that the sorrow that I feel is my cabinet, Monica Lewinsky and her family, and the American people. I have asked all for their forgiveness. ZAHN: And welcome back. We continue now with Ken Starr. Have you ever thought the president owed you any kind of apology? We just read part of his statement before we went to the break where he basically said that your team's charges were totally false, that you basically asked people to commit perjury against him, and yet you said your team came up with 14 convictions. Should the president apologize to you? STARR: No, I was an officer of the executive branch of the United States government. He is the president. And it's his prerogative. He can do as he sees fit. And he's made his statements... ZAHN: On a personal level, though, as a human being, what have these constant assaults, what kind of impact have they had on you? STARR: ... Well, it's caused me to develop and even thicker skin and to be more careful when I carry out my garbage down the driveway at the house... ZAHN: Are you burning everything now before you go out to unload the trash? STARR: ... I'm pleased to say that I can do it in peace and quiet these days, which is very enjoyable. But human beings have their reactions. And it's entirely up to him as to how he wants to come to terms with himself and make peace with himself at a personal, moral level. And I'm not going to judge that. But I think it is important for the American people to know in terms of the facts is that there were 14 convictions. There was serious crime in Arkansas. There were serious issues in Washington. I wish that weren't so. I'd have been the happiest person in the world, I would be at Pepperdine University right now... ZAHN: With much better weather, I might add, than we have here in glorious New York. STARR: ... A lot better weather, yeah. You can see the snow at a distance, but you don't have to live in it. And the point is, we wanted the facts to turn out well. But we still had an obligation to the truth. We had an obligation, a solemn obligation, we all took an oath of office. We had our task to do. And we did it to the best of our ability. And I'm very proud of the men and women who were very courageous under very difficult circumstances, frequently under assault who just kept steady as she goes and did a wonderful, wonderful job. ZAHN: But even as you say that, the heat continues. You now have a U.S. district judge presiding over a case alleging misconduct on the part of you and your prosecutors in investigating the president. Give us a status report on where that case is right now. STARR: Well, part of the case has been resolved by virtue of the Court of Appeals issuing a decision in terms of what is the meaning of grand jury secrecy? And that really was an issue. We felt there were things that can appropriately be said in terms of public disclosure that the president's lawyer took the position, well, that's grand jury information. That's a secret. I thought he was wrong. And we eventually got a judgment by the Court of Appeals. But beyond that, much of what is done before the grand jury, as you know, remains under seal, I mean, forever under seal. And so I can't comment beyond what I just said. this case? STARR: I'm just not going to comment at all. I shouldn't comment at all with respect to matters that pertain to the grand jury. ZAHN: Let's talk about your family. You have a daughter that the role you played in the impeachment drama? STARR: All the children were met with great support and a lot of loving and caring attention. And I'm very happy... ZAHN: So no one gave them a hard time? STARR: ... No, no... ZAHN: I mean, clearly they had to pick up a newspaper every morning and read what people were saying about you. But you think by and large, the communities in which they lived, the other students that surrounded them were supported? STARR: ... The three children have been able to live their lives very agreeably, peacefully, and without being hassled. And I'm very thankful for that. ZAHN: How about your wife? STARR: Yeah. We have lived in our community, you know, same house, we're on the second dog. But you know, we've been married for 29 years. We're in the same house for 21 years, 22 years. We have a lot of stability. I'm very thankful for that. In the community, our church and the like, and so it's a very different thing. You know, if we had just moved to Washington, maybe it would have been a very different experience. But we've kind of been around town a while. ZAHN: In closing, because you say we really don't know what's going to happen with this U.S. District Court case alleging misconduct on your part, and we don't know how that's going to play out, just if you would give us your view on how you think history will look at your role in this impeachment crisis. STARR: Well, that our office, including yours truly, conducted ourselves lawfully, properly, with complete integrity, that we should have made more information available, not less. We should have more information to the American people so there would have been a fuller understanding, so that there could not be some sense that there was nothing to the Whitewater matter when in fact a sitting governor was convicted and the like. And the president's partners and the first lady's clients were convicted of federal crimes for sacking a $65 million savings and loan. Those are serious kinds of offenses. We secured convictions under very difficult circumstances. And then we had to live through the impeachment process. And I think we lived through that with honor and with I hope a little bit of dignity. ZAHN: Well, we hope to have you come back here when you go on your rounds of book tour interviews, when you talk about this book you're now working on, on the Supreme Court. STARR: Well, thank you. ZAHN: Good of you to drop by. And by the way, what will you say to ZAHN: Really? STARR: Yeah. ZAHN: No trace of bitterness in your voice? STARR: Look, we had to go through what we went through. And it was a professional responsibility that I had. I didn't welcome it. As I said, I'd rather be at Pepperdine. But what happened, happened. ZAHN: All right, Ken Starr, thanks again for joining us here on THE EDGE. STARR: My pleasure. Coming up next, an amazing story of suffering and survival. He was born a boy. But a horrible accident turned him into a medical experiment with unbelievable consequences. A life on THE EDGE, coming up next. ================================================================= Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day. ================================================================= <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
