[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 10 (Wednesday, February 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S625-S628]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Record a letter I have written on this day to Attorney
General Janet Reno.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
February 11, 1998.
Hon. Janet Reno,
Attorney General of the United States, U.S. Department of
Justice, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Attorney General: As a member of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, which is charged with conducting
oversight of the Department of Justice and the Office of the
Independent Counsel (``OIC''), I believe public confidence in
our system of justice must be maintained. I therefore
respectfully request that you conduct a formal inquiry of
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to determine whether he
should be removed or disciplined for repeated failures to
report and avoid conflicts of interest pursuant to the powers
vested in the Attorney General by the Ethics in Government
Act (``The Act''), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 591, et seq.
Recent events involving the Independent Counsel's probe are
further evidence of Mr. Starr's entanglements that cast a
cloud over his ability to conduct an investigation
objectively. Over the course of his entire investigation, Mr.
Starr, in his continuing work as a partner at the law firm of
Kirkland & Ellis and as Independent Counsel, has embraced
(and been embraced by) persons and interests that seek to
undermine the President as part of their political agenda. He
has continually turned a blind eye to his own conflicts of
interest at his law firm, to the conflicts engendered by the
actions of his clients, and to benefactors that seek to
discredit the President for partisan political gain. A person
of Mr. Starr's numerous conflicts of interest cannot carry
out the even-handed and fair-minded, independent
investigation contemplated by the Act. Moreover, the evidence
that has surfaced thus far regarding the expansion of Mr.
Starr's jurisdiction into these matters raises serious
concerns about the OIC's collusion with the Paula Jones legal
team in an effort to unfairly and illegally trap the
President.
This possible misconduct demands an immediate investigation
by the Department to determine if Mr. Starr remains
sufficiently ``independent'' to continue to serve in his
current position.
i. the ethics in government act requires the attorney general to
investigate alleged misconduct of the independent counsel
The Independent Counsel statute provides the Attorney
General with jurisdiction to investigate alleged misconduct,
conflict of interest and other improprieties that would
render an Independent Counsel unfit to remain in office.
Specifically, under the statute, the Attorney General may
remove an Independent Counsel ``for good cause, physical
disability, or other condition that substantially impairs the
performance of such independent counsel's duties.'' 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 596. The Supreme Court has suggested that a finding of
``misconduct'' would most assuredly constitute ``good cause''
under Section 596, and that ``good cause'' may impose no
greater threshold than that required to remove officers of
``independent agencies.'' Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654,
692, n. 32 (1988).
The Attorney General's removal authority and the
concomitant authority to investigate the independent counsel
to determine if there are grounds for removal are essential
to the continuing constitutional vitality of the Act. Indeed,
the Supreme Court's holding that the Act did not violate
separation of powers principles rested largely on the power
reserved to the Attorney General to remove the independent
counsel for ``good cause.'' Specifically, the court found
that the Attorney General's removal power rendered the
independent counsel an ``inferior officer,'' as required by
the Constitution, 487 U.S. at 671, and that such authority
ensured that undue powers had not been transferred to the
judicial branch under the Act. 487 U.S. at 656. Thus,
Morrison teaches that not only is the Attorney General
authorized to determine whether there are reasons to remove
the independent counsel, but that the Attorney General is
constitutionally obliged to do so.
In addition, the Act expressly obligates the Independent
Counsel to follow, to the fullest extent possible, the
standards of conduct prescribed by the Department of Justice.
See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 594(f) (An Independent Counsel ``shall,
except to the extent that to do so would be inconsistent with
the purposes of this chapter, comply with the written and
other established policies of the Department of Justice
respecting enforcement of the criminal laws''). Accordingly,
independent of your removal authority, the Department's
Office of Professional Responsibility (``OPR'') has
jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct by the
Independent Counsel and his staff or potential conflicts of
interest that would disqualify him from serving as
independent counsel. See Department of Justice Manual (``DOJ
Manual''), Section 1-2112 (Supp. 1990) (Office of
Professional Responsibility ``oversees investigation of
allegations of misconduct by Department employees''). Against
the backdrop of this clear constitutional and statutory
mandate, I request that you initiate a formal inquiry into
the following matters.
II. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: MR. STARR HAS CONSISTENTLY IGNORED THE
CONFLICTS RELATED TO HIS WORK, HIS CLIENTS, AND HIS BENEFACTORS
Mr. Starr's decision not to devote his full attention to
his obligations as Independent Counsel in a matter involving
the President of the United States has made inevitable the
ensuing appearances of impropriety and actual conflicts of
interest. His own ethics consultant, Samuel Dash, formerly
Chief Counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, noted that
Starr's decision to continue representing private clients
while investigating the President has ``an odor to it.''
``How Independent is the Counsel,'' The New Yorker, April 22,
1996. The seriousness of these conflicts (and the odor) is
evident by the direct involvement that his clients and others
to whom he is financially dependent have assumed in Mr.
Starr's investigation.
The Act makes clear that during an Independent Counsel's
Tenure, neither the counsel, nor any person in a law firm
that the counsel is associated with ``may represent in any
matter any person involved in any investigation or
prosecution under this chapter.'' 28 U.S.C. Sec. 594(j)(l)(i)
and (ii). Mr. Starr, however, has violated both the spirit
and letter of the statute through his own work and work of
his law firm, as well as the actions of his clients and
future benefactors.
A. The Expansion of the Investigation Into Matters In The Paula Jones
Case Places Mr. Staff In Violation Of the Act's Conflict of Interest
Provisions
Mr. Starr, as a partner at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis
and just prior to his appointment as Independent Counsel,
actually provided legal advice in connection with the Paula
Jones litigation. ``Mr. Starr's Conflicts,'' New York Times,
March 31, 1996. While the fact that he has been involved with
that litigation prior to becoming Independent Counsel
certainly gave his appointment the appearance of impropriety
in violation of the spirit of the Act, now that his
investigation has fully inserted itself into the Paula Jones
matter, concerns about his former representation certainly
are magnified and call into question his role as an
``independent'' counsel in Paula Jones-related matters.
Of far greater gravity are the press reports and other
information suggesting past and present representation by
Kirkland & Ellis of other individuals connected to the Paula
Jones civil litigation. See ``More Subpoenas and Angry Talk
in Starr's Probe,'' Chicago Tribune, January 31, 1998;
``Starr Furor Lands at Firm's Door,'' Legal Times, February
9, 1998. Mr. Starr's potential breach of his duty to inform
you of any association between his firm and persons involved
in the Paula Jones matter, as well as the possible breach of
the Act's statutory conflict of interest standards, should be
the subject of investigation. Evidence that is discovered as
the result of the current subpoena directed to Kirkland &
Ellis for Paula Jones-related documents will undoubtedly shed
light on whether Mr. Starr is in violation of the conflict of
interest standards under the Act.
[[Page S626]]
Chicago Tribune, January 31, 1998. Kirkland & Ellis's
reported opposition to the subpoena is a significant
indication of a violation of the Act. ``Chicago lawyer's role
in Jones suite examined,'' Chicago Tribune, February 11,
1998. The firm's internal investigation apparently uncovered
work done by one of its partners on Jones-related matters.
This discovery subsequently was confirmed by one of Ms.
Jones' former lawyers. Id. If, in fact, Mr. Starr failed
to report the association of his law firm and such a
conflict exists, that would undoubtably be grounds for his
removal.
Mr. Starr, unfortunately, has failed in the past to report
such direct conflicts of interest. While he was investigating
the Resolution Trust Corporation and its supervision of
Madison Guaranty, Kirkland & Ellis was being sued by the RTC
for misconduct. ``Who Judges Prosecutor's Ethics? He does,''
Newsday, January 30, 1998. Despite his membership on the
firm's management committee, Mr. Starr professed ignorance of
the suit in which the RTC sued Kirkland & Ellis for one
million dollars. The New Yorker, P. 63. Mr. Starr's lip-
service to his ethical obligations without any apparent
willingness to address the conflict of interest issues that
have arisen demands that the Attorney General conduct an
investigation to determine whether he should be removed.
B. Mr. Starr's Client, The Bradley Foundation, Has Been Active In
Efforts To Discredit The President In Matters Directly Affecting The
Investigation
The ties of Mr. Starr and his firm to persons and interest
groups adverse to the President are not limited to the Paula
Jones case. Indeed, in addition to his own personal
involvement with the Paula Jones case, Mr. Starr represented
the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in an effort to uphold
Wisconsin's experimental school-choice program after he was
appointed Independent Counsel. The New Yorker, April 22,
1996, p. 59. Mr. Starr's position in that case was in direct
opposition to the Administration. In addition to retaining
Mr. Starr, the Bradley Foundation gives money to the
President's ``most virulent critics,'' including the American
Spectator, a publication obsessed with impugning the
character of the President and First Lady, as well as the
Landmark Legal Foundation and National Empowerment
Television. Id.
The Bradley Foundation acknowledged freely that Mr. Starr's
role was based in significant part on his long-standing
ideological beliefs. Id. At 60. One noted ethics expert
concluded that it was ``unwise for Starr to take Bradley
money, given Bradley's funding of beneficiaries who are
ideological enemies of the president he is investigating.''
``Gov. Hires Ken Starr To Defend Plan,'' The National Law
Journal, December 18, 1995, p. A5. In these instances where
his private client is engaged in a highly politicized,
personalized and acrimonious public policy debate with the
President, Mr. Starr cannot possibly operate as an impartial
investigator. This is particularly true when his private
client is funding efforts devoted to publicizing Mr. Starr's
investigation and related matters in an attempt to discredit
the President and his political agenda.
C. Mr. Scaife, Mr. Starr's Benefactor At Pepperdine, Has Funded The
``Arkansas Project''--A Clandestine Effort To Attack The President
The question whether Mr. Starr labors under a conflict of
interest in light of his ongoing relationship with Pepperdine
University and Richard Scaife, a well-documented political
opponent of the President's, was prompted by reports that
Mr. Scaife has underwritten the faculty position that
waits for Mr. Starr at Pepperdine University upon the
expiration of his tenure as Independent Counsel.
Washington Post, ``Starr Warriors,'' February 3, 1989.
According to recent media reports, Mr. Scaife and his tax-
exempt foundations are at the center of a secretive
operation, coordinated with the American Spectator, called
the ``Arkansas Project.'' See New York Observer, ``Richard
Scaife Paid for Dirt on Clinton in Arkansas Project,''
February 4, 1998.
The ``Arkansas Project'' reportedly involved Mr. Scaife
funneling more than $2.4 million from his tax-exempt
501(c)(3) foundations to the American Spectator over the last
four years ``to pay former F.B.I. agents and private
detectives to unearth negative material on the Clintons and
their associates.'' Id. Indeed, the project apparently paid
former state trooper L.D. Brown--the source of a number of
allegations against the President investigated by the Office
of Independent Counsel--as a ``researcher.'' Id. Mr. Starr's
apparent failure to inquire into the financial motivations
that may have prompted these allegations makes his
investigation a ``patsy'' for the Arkansas Project, if not
actually complicit in its goal to undermine the President.
Even more troubling, David Hale, Mr. Starr's alleged chief
witness against the President, is linked to Mr. Scaife. The
Arkansas Project was apparently run by Stephen Boynton, a
Virginia lawyer and close friend of David Hale, the convicted
felon that Mr. Starr considers his prize witness against the
President. Recently, after his office argued to reduce Mr.
Hale's 28 month sentence to time served, abated his $10,000
fine and asked the court to vacate the order that Mr. Hale
provide restitution of $2 million for defrauding the Small
Business Administration. Mr. Starr praised Mr. Hale saying
``This [investigation] would be over if everyone had been as
cooperative as David Hale, had told the truth.'' Federal News
Service, February 6, 1998. Mr. Hale's previous record,
however, involved lying to a federal judge at his sentencing.
``The Real Blood Sport: the Whitewater Scandal Machine,''
Washington Monthly, May 1, 1996. Fortunately for Mr. Hale,
his personal attorney is Theodore Olson, a board member of
the American Spectator Education Foundation, Inc., and former
law partner of Mr. Starr. Id.
The only conclusion is that Mr. Starr is inextricably
intertwined with persons whose primary objective appears to
be to discredit the President. While these allegations have
previously been brought to the Department's attention, Mr.
Starr's relationship with Mr. Scaife and others in the
Arkansas Project combined with the information about the
extent of Mr. Scaife's extraordinary expenditure of resources
(in apparent violation of federal tax law) to discredit the
President in parallel with Mr. Starr's investigation
seriously undermine any contention that Mr. Starr is without
a conflict of interest.
iii. evidence of oic collusion with paula jones legal team warrants
further inquiry
The sequence of events leading up to the President's
deposition and certain media accounts raises serious concerns
that the OIC coordinated its investigation with the Paula
Jones legal team and, in fact, may have played a role in the
preparation of questions for the President's deposition.
Such collusion, even if indirect, would constitute
misconduct of the highest order and provides grounds for
Mr. Starr's removal.
As you may be aware, press reports indicated that on
January 12, 1998, Ms. Tripp contacted the OIC and provided
them with tapes of conversations that she had unlawfully
captured between herself and Ms. Lewinsky, Time, February 9,
1998. Then, the next day, January 13, the OIC equipped Ms.
Tripp with a wire and taped a conversation between herself
and Ms. Lewinsky. On January 16, Ms. Tripp again lured Ms.
Lewinsky into a meeting with her. At that time, she was
approached by FBI agents and OIC prosecutors. Id. According
to press reports, she was held for several hours, threatened
with prosecution and offered immunity if she agreed to a
debriefing at that time. Id. According to her current
attorney, the immunity offer was contingent upon her
agreement not to contact her attorney in the Paula Jones
matter, Frank Carter. Time, February 16, 1998. That same day,
the Special Division (the court empowered to appoint an
independent counsel) expanded Mr. Starr's jurisdictional
mandate to cover the allegations related to Ms. Lewinsky.
Simply, the timing of events leading up to the President's
deposition provides substantial reason to be concerned about
possible coordination between the OIC and the Paula Jones
team. But there is more. According to media reports, Ms.
Tripp briefed the Jones legal team not only on the
conversations that she recorded, but also on the OIC-directed
monitoring of her conversation with Ms. Lewinsky. Wall Street
Journal, February 9, 1998. This draws the OIC one step closer
to the Jones civil litigation efforts. Moreover, the OIC's
delay in seeking approval to expand its jurisdiction further
heightens concerns over the OIC's coordination with the
plaintiffs in the Paula Jones matter. Specifically, in
seeking immediate approval of his expanded jurisdiction, Mr.
Starr apparently expressed concern that impending press
reports would scuttle his efforts to obtain evidence against
Mr. Vernon Jordan and perhaps the President. See Washington
Post, January 31, 1998. But it appears that Mr. Starr knew
about the impending press coverage well before he brought the
new allegations to your attention. His delay may be
suggestive of an effort to maintain the secrecy of the new
allegations until after the deposition of the President.
The alleged entanglement of the OIC with persons or
organizations singularly devoted to the demise of the
President implicate bedrock constitutional principles of due
process and fair play. Indeed, ``[f]undamental fairness is a
core component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment.'' United States v. Barger, 931 F.2nd 359 (6th Cir.
1991); United States v. Brown, 635 F.2d 1207, 1212 (6th Cir.
1980). Any collusion between the OIC and the Paula Jones
legal team, for example, casts serious doubt on the propriety
of any investigation into the President's alleged statements
regarding Ms. Lewinsky during his civil deposition.
Specifically, the government may not, consistent with due
process, deliberately use a judicial proceeding for ``the
primary purpose of obtaining testimony from [a witness] in
order to prosecute him late for perjury.'' United States v.
Chen, 933 F.Supp 1264, 1268 (D.N.J. 1986).
There is little doubt that a primary purpose of the
deposition questions regarding Ms. Lewinsky was to trick the
President. In fact, press reports make clear that ``the goal
of the Jones' team was to catch Mr. Clinton in a lie . . .
Their detailed questions went well beyond simply whether
there was a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and into
other matters that could be independently verified.'' Wall
Street Journal, February 9, 1998. Given that, as noted above,
Linda Tripp was feeding information to the Paula Jones'
lawyers about her conversations with Ms. Lewinsky, including
the conversation recorded by the FBI, see Wall Street
Journal, February 9, 1998, there is reason to suspect that
the OIC may have assisted or played a role in the formation
of questions asked by
[[Page S627]]
Ms. Jones lawyers regarding Ms. Lewinsky. In addition, the
evidence suggests that Mr. Starr deliberately delayed seeking
your approval to expand his jurisdiction for improper
purposes. Specifically, the delay appears to have been a
calculated effort to conceal his expanded authority from the
President prior to the deposition. Such conduct raises the
specter that an unlawful ``trap'' may have been laid against
the President.
In a similar vein, if the OIC was in fact assisting the
Paula Jones legal team in any capacity, such conduct may also
be inconsistent with the due process protections that
preclude the government from using civil discovery to obtain
information for a contemplated criminal action. See e.g.
United States v. Nebel, 856 F. Supp. 392 (M.D. Tenn. 1993).
In light of fundamental constitutional concerns implicated by
the Independent Counsel's conduct, justice demands that you
initiate an inquiry to ensure that the Independent Counsel's
investigation has comported with basic rules of fairness and
decency. The President, as do others in this investigation,
deserves the same protections that shield all other Americans
from arbitrary and unlawful government conduct. Indeed,
particularly where, as here, a prosecutor has been given
virtually unfettered authority to investigate almost every
dimension of a person's life, we must be particularly
vigilant in guarding against abuses of that authority. You
thus have both a statutory and constitutional obligation to
determine whether the Independent Counsel has acted properly
in investigating the President.
Sincerely,
Robert G. Torricelli,
U.S. Senator.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I want to make myself clear at the
outset. I rise today with no portfolio for President Clinton. I do not
pretend to know the details of either the Whitewater case or matters
pertaining to Paula Jones, with a series of other legal issues now,
involving the Office of Independent Counsel, the Justice Department and
President Clinton's private attorneys. Those issues are not my purpose
today.
Like most Americans, I have watched events of recent weeks with some
curiosity and with a deep sense of regret. I rise today for a different
purpose. I want to talk about justice--not the justice of the
individual in these cases but the administration of justice by the
Government itself. I do so from the perspective of a member of the
Judiciary Committee, recognizing that under the Ethics in Government
Act it is the responsibility of the Attorney General to investigate
alleged misconduct, conflicts of interest and other improprieties of
the Office of Independent Counsel. This institution, through the
Judiciary Committee, has a responsibility of oversight, both of the
Office of Independent Counsel and the Attorney General herself as she
implements the act.
My purpose, then, in this capacity, is to review a series of legal
and ethical issues that pose a challenge to the integrity of the Office
of Independent Counsel and whether or not it is being administered and
the responsibility of the Attorney General to oversee its activities.
Within recent days, we have learned details of a series of deliberate
leaks of grand jury material--not on a few occasions, not on one or two
items, but virtually volumes of material impugning the character of
individuals--that may undermine aspects of the investigation. Some of
these leaks have been characterized as unfortunate. Some, perhaps,
inevitable, as part of the process. They may be these things. But they
are also something else. They represent a Federal felony. It is against
the law. In this case, a potential violation of the law by members of
the Justice Department or in their employment themselves.
David Kendall, President Clinton's lawyer, has detailed some of these
leaks in a 15-page correspondence, virtually identifying volumes of
material where some of the most reputable publications in America--
including the New York Times, the Washington Post --indicate that this
material comes from ``sources in Starr's office;'' ``Starr's
investigators expect;'' ``sources familiar with the probe''--hardly
masking the Government prosecutor's contravention of Federal statutes,
punishable both by fines and jail terms, for leaking grand jury
material.
I believe that the standard for such abuse was set by former Attorney
General Thornburgh who, in the matter of Congressman Gray and the
leaking of grand jury material, required that his associates, those
familiar with grand jury material, were not simply investigated but
polygraphed, with a clear or implied threat that any failure to comply
or to pass the polygraph would mean their immediate dismissal.
Indeed, as much of America has heard about the grand jury leaks, it
has tended to mask several other perhaps more serious ethical problems
that must also be addressed by the Attorney General and are outlined in
my correspondence being sent to the Attorney General on this date.
Just prior to his appointment as independent counsel, Mr. Starr was
retained by the Independent Women's Forum to write an amicus brief in
the matter of the civil complaint being brought by Paula Jones. The
Independent Women's Forum is funded by a Richard Scaife of
Pennsylvania. In the furtherance of these responsibilities it is not
clear how much or whether, indeed, Mr. Starr was compensated, but it is
clear that his firm and he were engaged in this activity, including
researching a brief, contacting those attorneys, then representing
Paula Jones. They were actively engaged.
Reports as recent as 3 months ago indicate that individuals at Mr.
Starr's firm with whom Mr. Starr is still associated have continued to
assist Paula Jones in her legal defense team. This morning in the
Chicago Tribune it is further alleged by that publication that Mr.
Starr's firm--where this financial relationship continues between Mr.
Starr and his partners--has continued to provide assistance to Paula
Jones' defense team, even while the investigation of President Clinton
under the authority of the Attorney General was expanded to include
matters relating to the civil complaint by Paula Jones.
Mr. President, the Office of Professional Responsibility, under the
direction of Attorney General Reno, needs to review these serious
lapses of ethical conduct and these transparent conflicts of interest.
It is left with little or no choice. If there is to be any confidence
in the administration of the Office of Independent Counsel, and if the
American people are to believe the result of this investigation and
whatever recommendations result, the Office of Professional
Responsibility will need to definitively establish whether, indeed,
there are conflicts of interest, as are being alleged.
Indeed, I know of no authority in the canons of ethics of the
profession, the operating procedures and rules of ethics of the Justice
Department, that would permit an attorney in any capacity, no less an
Office of Independent Counsel, investigating any American, no less the
President of the United States, to operate with ethical standards that
allow he or his associates within a single case dealing with the same
litigants to do work for such clearly conflicting interests.
Third, while serving as independent counsel for the Government, Mr.
Starr's law firm has received and continues to receive retainers and
legal payments from corporations, including Philip Morris and Brown &
Williamson, potentially of millions of dollars, that not only have an
interest but an extraordinary financial interest in the defeat of
President Clinton's initiatives and whose interests are directly
impacted by his political viability.
Mr. Starr's continuing to draw income, a year ago in excess of $1
million in personal compensation, while in the employment of the U.S.
Government to investigate matters relating to President Clinton, is not
only unsound judgment but as clear a conflict of interest between those
of the private attorneys, the private parties that he has sworn to
defend and the interests of the U.S. Government that he has similarly
sworn to pursue. Both cannot be his master.
Attorney General Reno is left with the question of what other
interests have continued to pay compensation to Mr. Starr, what other
clients and what kind of judgment has been exercised.
Making this all the more urgent, indeed feeding suspicion, is a
fourth point that in some ways may be the most troubling. Richard
Scaife, who earlier in this affair was funding research into the Paula
Jones case, appears again as a part of Mr. Starr's performance of his
responsibilities. Mr. Scaife has provided $600,000 per year,
approximately $2.5 million, to fund something that is known as the
Arkansas project. The Arkansas project is a tax free 501(c)3
organization under the Tax Code of the United States. It indeed has
funded this money through the American Spectator magazine.
[[Page S628]]
The purpose, apparently as outlined in an article in the New York
Observer, written by Joe Conason last week, has resulted in the
establishment of a relationship with David Hale, the principal witness
used by Mr. Starr against President Clinton, in the Whitewater case and
a State trooper, former State Arkansas Trooper L.D. Brown. It appears
that the American Spectator established a relationship of unknown
financial or other reward to secure the cooperation of each individual
in the writing of the articles.
The changing of the testimony of these witnesses, critical to Mr.
Starr's work, and when those changes occurred and their relationship
with the Arkansas project, becomes an important matter for the Justice
Department. It would appear on its face that is at least reason to
explore whether the improper use of tax-free foundation funding through
this publication with the intention of influencing potential Federal
witnesses did not constitute Federal witness tampering. It is, however,
an issue that must immediately be established.
As a part of this aspect of the case requiring investigation, as Mr.
Hale's legal representation by one Theodore Olson, who seemed to have
guided Mr. Hale in his testimony in the Whitewater affair, who is also
the counsel to the American Spectator funded by Mr. Scaife, who was
also a former law partner of Mr. Starr.
Mr. President, sometimes facts that are coincidental can paint a
picture of conspiracy where it does not exist. There are coincidences,
sometimes, of extraordinary scale. But the Attorney General would need
to admit that there are events in this case that are peculiar indeed--
Mr. Scaife's funding of the American Spectator and its impact on
Federal witnesses; Mr. Scaife's potential funding of Mr. Starr as a
private attorney in the Paula Jones case; Mr. Scaife's funding of
employment for Mr. Starr at Pepperdine University, where he was offered
and initially accepted a teaching position in the law department.
Coincidence? Perhaps. But as our former colleague, Senator Cohen once
observed on this floor, ``The appearance of justice is as important as
justice itself.''
There are, in the coming weeks, important judgments to be made about
the administration of justice with relation to the President of the
United States. Those decisions will profoundly impact policy and the
guidance of the U.S. Government. I have no knowledge and, therefore, no
recommendation on the matters of how the case should be pursued. I am
not here to distinguish falsehood from truth. I am here in the interest
of justice.
It would appear on the facts that there is something terribly
troubling about the administration of the Office of the Independent
Counsel. So in my correspondence of this day, I have asked Attorney
General Reno to have the Office of Professional Responsibility inquire
as to whether indeed there are conflicts of interest in the Paula Jones
case and, indeed, whether it is factual that Mr. Starr was once engaged
as a private litigant in that matter. If so, the result is clear--he
must recuse himself and professional prosecutors must pursue the
matter. Similarly, to establish whether funds, through the American
Spectator, were improperly used with a result of tampering of
witnesses. Finally, to conclude whether or not the operation of a
private law practice, including the solicitation of clients and their
funding, has compromised the operations of Mr. Starr in his pursuit of
the various cases before his office.
Mr. President, Members of this institution and of the respective
parties have at various times praised or criticized the Attorney
General in the performance of her responsibilities. Perhaps the fact
that she has been criticized from all quarters for so many decisions is
the best testament of her native integrity. Janet Reno is as capable an
Attorney General as the United States has ever been fortunate enough to
have in that office. I leave these judgments with her, knowing of her
high integrity, her understanding of the importance of these cases, the
profound impact on the administration of the U.S. Government and of
justice itself, knowing that she will do with them what is right and
proper.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________