[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 81 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1176-E1177]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




FORMER REAGAN AND BUSH JUSTICE OFFICIAL CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION OF MR. 
                       STARR'S LEAKS TO THE PRESS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 19, 1998

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the following 
opinion editorial from today's New York Times.

                   Kenneth Starr Stretches the Rules

                          (By Ronald K. Noble)

       What are we to make of Steven Brill's article contending 
     that Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, and his deputy, 
     Jackie Bennett, may have leaked grand jury information about 
     their investigation of President Clinton?
       Many opponents of Mr. Clinton want to dismiss Mr. Brill's 
     article, which appeared this week in his magazine, Brill's 
     Content. But that would be a mistake. These leaks may violate 
     Federal laws and Justice Department regulations. The 
     possibility of such improper disclosures must be 
     investigated.
       In his article, Mr. Brill wrote that Mr. Starr and Mr. 
     Bennett had given reporters background information--including 
     accounts by witnesses who were to appear before a grand 
     jury--regarding the investigation into Mr. Clinton's 
     relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
       Mr. Starr has issued two denials to the article. His first 
     denial did not challenge Mr. Brill's facts; instead, the 
     independent counsel challenged the conclusion that such 
     disclosures were illegal and unethical.
       In his second denial, Mr. Starr stated that his office 
     ``does not release grand jury material either directly or 
     indirectly, on the record or off the record'' and that it 
     ``does not release (and never has released) information 
     provided by witnesses during interviews, except as authorized 
     by law.''
       These denials beg the question of what Mr. Starr considers 
     grand jury material, what he believes is authorized by law 
     and what he and Mr. Bennett actually said to reporters. 
     Indeed, before the Brill article appeared this week, many 
     press reports had already attributed information about the 
     investigation to the prosecutor's office.
       We don't know all the facts, but Mr. Starr, as quoted in 
     Mr. Brill's article, does not give us confidence about his 
     interpretation of the law and Justice Department regulations. 
     In the article, Mr. Starr said that certain disclosures do 
     not violate a Federal criminal law that prohibits prosecutors 
     from disclosing information about grand jury proceedings.
       ``If you are talking about what witnesses tell F.B.I. 
     agents before they testify in the grand jury or about related 
     matters,'' Mr. Starr said, that is ``definitely not grand 
     jury information.''
       Mr. Starr also said that the Justice Department's ethical 
     guidelines allow disclosures when the public needs 
     reassurance that an investigation is being conducted 
     properly. Indeed, in the article, Mr. Starr suggested that it 
     was his duty to make such disclosures if doing so would boost 
     the public's confidence in his office.
       But the laws on disclosure contain few loopholes. Last May, 
     the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
     Columbia ruled that it is a violation of Federal law not only 
     to release unauthorized information about what witnesses said 
     to the grand jury, but also to disclose what witnesses said 
     to prosecutors and agents in preparing for their grand jury 
     testimony.
       Moreover, Mr. Starr and his staff members are also covered 
     by the Privacy Act, which prohibits disclosing confidential 
     information about individuals. This law covers all Federal 
     employees, not just prosecutors, who have access to such 
     information because of their jobs.
       Justice Department guidelines are no more lenient. To make 
     a case for an exception, Mr. Starr seems to rely on a 
     department rule that allows disclosure of ``matters about 
     which the community needs to be reassured that an appropriate 
     law-enforcement agency is investigating the incident.''
       This is a stretch. The Justice Department specifically 
     forbids prosecutors from answering questions about an ongoing 
     criminal investigation or from commenting on its progress--
     including the serving of subpoenas before the documents have 
     been publicly filed. And department guidelines on media 
     relations state that no one in the department should release 
     information that is likely to prejudice any legal matter.
       In short, there are few situations where substantive 
     information on an investigation can be released. And if 
     information is released, it should be on the record. Any off-
     the-record conversation between prosecutors and reporters is 
     by definition suspect. If the prosecutor is permitted to say 
     what he is saying and is prepared to be held accountable for 
     it--why not do so on the record?

[[Page E1177]]

     That way the public and the judge presiding over the grand 
     jury investigation can decide whether the prosecutor is 
     following the rules.
       Last February Mr. Starr claimed that he was investigating 
     whether his office was leaking information. Given the 
     allegations about Mr. Starr's and Mr. Bennett's background 
     conversations with reporters, one wonders how thorough that 
     inquiry could have been.
       Now, Mr. Starr has no choice but to ask for an independent 
     investigation to determine what, if any, information his 
     office revealed to the press and whether that information 
     violated any rules. Unless action is taken quickly, it will 
     appear that the Independent Counsel's Office is above the 
     law.

     

                          ____________________