|
|
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quick takes from the Impeachment hearingWASHINGTON (AllPolitics, November 19) -- The House Judiciary Committee's hearings into possible impeachable activities by President Bill Clinton got off to a rancorous start Thursday. Here are some of the key quotes and exchanges from the day's historic proceedings. Partisan bickeringCommittee Republicans and Democrats, who have a history of partisan bickering, did not disappoint as the hearing got underway and Democrats introduced a motion to give Clinton's attorney David Kendall two hours to cross-examine Independent Counsel Ken Starr. One exchange between Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Illinois) and Rep. Mel Watt (D-North Carolina) was especially heated: Hyde: The gentleman has made a point that the president needs more time to present -- you said, present. He will be given all the time in the world to present, unlimited time to... Watt: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Hyde: ... today's hearing is to hear from Judge Starr. And to question him... Watt: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Hyde: No, the chair -- I don't yield for any points of order. I would like to make my statement. Watt: I thought you had already made your statement, Mr. Chairman. Hyde: Well, I know that's what you thought. But you couldn't possibly know when I'm through with my statement or not. So please let me... Watt: Under the rules under which we're operating, Mr. Chairman, we don't know anything about the process. Hyde's opening statementAfter the motion was voted down by the Republican majority, Chairman Hyde delivered his opening statement. Below are excerpts: "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." -- Hyde "We will hear from other witnesses in live hearings and in depositions as we move towards a final resolution. In addition, we have yet to hear from the president. And I can assure my colleagues, if and when the president would want to testify, he may have unlimited time to do so." -- Hyde "Do we still have a government of laws and not of men? Does the law apply to some people with force and ferocity while the powerful are immune? Do we have one set of laws for the officers and another for the enlisted? Should we? These are but a few questions these hearings are intended to explore." -- Hyde Conyers' opening statementNext, the committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, made an opening statement for the minority. Excerpts below: "Today's witness, Kenneth W. Starr, wrote the tawdry, salacious and unnecessarily graphic referral that he delivered to us in September with so much drama and fanfare. And now the majority members of this committee have called that same prosecutor forward to testify in an unprecedented desperation effort to breathe new life into a dying inquiry." -- Conyers "The idea of a federally paid sex policeman spending millions of dollars to trap an unfaithful spouse or (to) police civil ... litigation would have been unthinkable prior to the Starr investigation." -- Conyers "While an independent counsel can and should pursue a case with vigor, I and many others believe that Mr. Starr has crossed that line into obsession." -- Conyers Starr begins to testifyStarr sat stoically while Conyers delivered his opening salvo, then he stood, lifted his right hand and swore to tell the committee the whole truth. Next, Starr began to recite his 58-page opening statement. Highlights follow: Starr's referral"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." -- Starr "We respectfully but we firmly reject the notion that our office was trying to inflame the public. We are professionals, and we were trying to get the relevant facts, the full story, to the House of Representatives. That was our task. And that is what we did. In fact, the referral has served a good purpose. There has been virtually no dispute about a good many of the factual conclusions in the report." -- Starr The turning point"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." -- Starr Expanding his investigation "We contacted Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder within 48 hours after Ms. Tripp provided us information ... About Ms. Tripp's tapes and the questions concerning their legality under state law. About the consensual FBI recording of Ms. Tripp and Ms. Lewinsky. About the indications that Vernon Jordan was providing employment assistance to a witness who had the potential to harm the president ... We discussed jurisdiction. We noted that it is in everyone's interest to avoid time-consuming jurisdictional challenges." -- Starr Defending his office "The office where I serve has achieved a superb record in courts ... We go to court and not on the talk show circuit. And our records show that there is a bright line between law and politics, between courts and polls. It leaves the polls to the politicians and the spin doctors. We are officers of the court who live in the world of law. We have presented our cases in court and, with very rare exception, we have won." -- Starr "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." -- Starr Whitewater investigation "The president's comments can reasonably be described as supportive of Ms. McDougal's decision to disobey the court order. So far as we are aware, no sitting president ever has publicly indicated his agreement with a convicted felon's stated reason for refusing to obey a federal court order to testify. Essentially, the president of the United States, the chief executive, sided with a convicted felon against the United States..." -- Starr Democrats' Lowell grills StarrAfter almost an hour lunch break Starr returned to the witness table and was questioned by the Democrats' chief investigator, Abbe Lowell. Lowell hit Starr hard on a number of issues including the accusatory language of the referral; his contacts with the Paula Jones' attorneys; his jurisdiction over the Lewinsky investigation; media leaks; and contradictions in the evidence between the referral and his statements. He spent a great deal of time questioning the independent counsel on his contact with Linda Tripp. Here's a sample of the questioning: Lowell: I could well- understand why people in Linda Tripp's position and your staff working with her didn't want the investigation to become public. But I could also understand why Linda Tripp wanted the information she had to go into the Paula Jones camp. And I could understand that you had the authority to stop that, but didn't do it. Starr: But what we did do, Mr. Lowell, in fairness -- and this isn't the glass is half-full versus half-empty -- what we did, once it became clear that there was a following by the Jones lawyers of our investigation and the subpoenaing of witnesses in our investigation, we took prompt remedial action. Lowell also questioned Starr's treatment of Monica Lewinsky when his office first approached the former intern. Lowell: Do you think your statement that Monica Lewinsky consented to meet with several agents doesn't distort the picture of what really happened that day? Starr: Well, I think it was consensual. That is we made it clear that she was not under arrest and that she was in fact at liberty to make a decision as to what she wanted to do... Lowell: But your statement to the press, Mr. Starr, doesn't include the facts that Ms. Lewinsky swore to that she was scared and was crying a lot of the time ... that she was threatened with going to jail for -- quote "27 years"; that she was not there for the five hours that your press statement says, but was there for over 10 hours; and that when she asked to call her mother to discuss what you were discussing with her, your deputy, Jackie Bennett, said: "You're 24. You're smart. You're old enough. You don't need to call your mommy." That wasn't in your statement to the press that day, was it? Starr: No, it wasn't, Mr. Lowell. Frank vs. StarrOnce Lowell had used nearly double the time he had been allotted by Hyde, the Democratic and Republican members of the committee took turns asking questioning Starr. Democratic Rep. Barney Frank used his five minute to question Starr about why he waited until Wednesday to publicly clear the president and first lady of wrongdoing in the Travelgate and Filegate investigation. Frank started by asking Starr when he had made these determinations. Starr: We determined that some months ago. Frank: OK. Well before the election. You also have with regard to the Travel Office a statement that the president's not involved. When did you determine with regard to the Travel Office that the president was not involved? Starr: We had... Frank: Be factual, Mr. Starr. When? Starr: We -- it is not a date certain. We have no information with respect to... Frank: I'll take a date ambiguous. Give me an approximate. Starr: We had -- first of all, there is an investigation that is continuing, and as of this date of reporting, we do not have any information that the president is involved. The outspoken representative from Massachusetts continued to hammer Starr. Frank: ...despite your saying that the statute suggests you tell us as soon as possible, you give us this exoneration of the president several weeks after the election? Starr: Mr. Frank, what we have tried to do is be responsive to Congress, which has said provide us with information. Is there any other additional information that would be useful? Frank: But why didn't you tell us before the election about this according to your reading of the statute? Starr: Congressman Frank, the reason is because what we provided you in the referral is substantial and credible information of possible potential offenses. The silence with respect to anything else means necessarily that we had not concluded. Republicans praise Starr's effortRepublicans like Reps. Howard Coble of North Carolina and Bill McCollum of Florida were more gentle with Starr. "You have become the bull's-eye of the target upon which several aspiring political gunslingers have fired ... Judge Starr, if one-half of the unfavorable comments leveled at you are proved, you probably should be keelhauled. I'm inclined to dismiss most of them, and as evidenced by your demeanor today, I think most of that trashing was probably just that, trashing." -- Coble "I heard you describe this morning a compelling picture of President Clinton, a compelling picture of him acting in a cold, calculated, methodical, well-thought-out method -- scheme, if you will -- to lie under oath, to commit perjury ... it appears from circumstantial evidence you describe in a compelling way, in large measure because the president wanted to keep her (Lewinsky) from turning on him, and to keep her from going ahead and telling the truth at some point. Now that is a picture you painted. It was very compelling." -- McCollum Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin): If people can perjure themselves in court about sex, don't you think that that makes our sexual harassment laws and our domestic violence laws less meaningful, and in many cases, unenforceable? Starr: Yes. Well, it certainly makes them -- I agree fully that it would make them less meaningful. And it would certainly make it much more difficult to enforce if we did not take acts of perjury or obstruction seriously in this particular category of case. Rep. Bob Barr (R-Georgia): Let me offer up several presumptions and then ask you a question. Let's presume, Judge Starr, that Linda Tripp is a really nasty person. Let's presume further, Judge Starr, for purposes of a hypothetical, that Lucianne Goldberg is a crafty manipulator. Let's presume that Monica is an over-sexed blabber mouth. Let's presume that there really is a vast right-wing conspiracy out there somewhere, maybe at work here today. Let's presume that Paula Jones was interested just in the money. Let's presume that the independent counsel is not a perfect statue, and let's presume that, horror of horrors, you use tobacco products. Let's presume all of those awful things. Would any of that, in your professional judgment, change the conclusions contained in your referral, and in your testimony today, that there is substantial and credible evidence that President William Jefferson Clinton may have committed impeachable offenses? Starr: It would not change it. Kendall questions StarrOnce all 37 members of the committee had finished their questioning, the president's private lawyer, David Kendall, had 30 minutes to quiz Starr. Kendall's session, that eventually stretched to an hour, was confrontational, provoking emotional responses from the independent counsel who had been testifying for nearly 10 hours. Here are some excerpts: "My task is to respond to the two hours of uninterrupted testimony from the independent counsel, as well as to his four-year, $45 million investigation, which has included at least 28 attorneys, 78 FBI agents and an undisclosed number of private investigators ... And I have 30 minutes to do this. It's a daunting exercise, but let me begin with the simple but powerful truth that nothing in this overkill of an investigation amounts to a justification for the impeachment of the president of the United States." -- Kendall Kendall: In fact, Judge Johnson had before her 24 submissions from us as to what might be leaks from the independent counsel's office. Did she not? Starr: And we are in the process of litigating those, David, as you know. Kendall: And how many did she find there was prima facie reason to believe that your office had committed these leaks? Starr: And I think you know the answer to that. Under the hair-trigger, Barry-standard where almost anything will satisfy -- and the D.C. Circuit noted that. You cited the D.C. Circuit's opinion. The D.C. Circuit's opinion makes it very clear, as you know, David, that the burden on the moving party is quite limited. That's not a quote, but that's the idea. It's a very limited burden that you have. Kendall: I think the answer to my question was all 24. And are you saying that the journalists invented sources like "prosecutors painted a different picture"; "sources in Starr's office tell us"; "sources near Starr"; "prosecutors suggest". Does the media make up those quotes, Mr. Starr? Starr: I am not here to accuse the media of anything. I am here to say that fairness requires us to be able to litigate this matter, which, as you well know, is under seal, and to litigate that in an orderly way, and then to come to a judgment as to the significance of that. But I will simply say that the law of the circuit makes it quite easy for you to say -- Look at the sourcing. I get to now put the burden on the prosecutor to come forward and show evidence that the prosecutor is not the source. Kendall: Mr. Starr... Starr: And David, that's what we are doing. Kendall: Mr. Starr, in fact, there has been no case remotely similar to this in terms of the massive leaking from the prosecutor's office, and I think we noted that. Starr: I totally disagree with that. That's an accusation, and it's an unfair accusation. I completely reject it. And I would say, David -- let's wait until the litigation has concluded. |
|
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MORE STORIES:Thursday, November 19, 1998
• Starr says Clinton 'chose deception' • White House lashes out at Starr's testimony • Quick takes from the Impeachment hearing • McDougal jury recesses until Friday morning • Utah congressman's erratic behavior troubles staff members, GOP • As Congress focuses on Lewinsky, GOP governors focus on schools • Bono's widow says prescription drugs contributed to his death • Hearing brings those seeking history, drama and famous people • Officials back rotating regional primaries for president • For now, Clinton won't recommend a Social Security solution | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
