[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1205-E1206]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  MR. KENDALL'S RESPONSE TO MR. STARR'S PRESS RELEASES CONCERNING THE 
                        CONTENT MAGAZINE ARTICLE

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 23, 1998

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
Record the following letter from the President's attorney, David E. 
Kendall, to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

                                                    June 16, 1998.
     Hon. Kenneth W. Starr,
     Independent Counsel,
     1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
     Suite 490--North, Washington, DC.
       Dear Judge Starr: In the past three days, you have issued 
     two press releases on the subject of leaks from your office. 
     I think it is appropriate to respond to this public relations 
     initiative.
       In neither of these two press releases have you denied even 
     a syllable of what the Steve Brill ``Pressgate'' article 
     quotes you and your staff as saying. You accuse Mr. Brill of 
     misinterpreting but not misquoting, and that's highly 
     significant.
       Your statements in the Brill article are at breathtaking 
     variance with your previous public statements about your 
     duties and actions. Your statements consistently have led the 
     public to believe you would tolerate no leaks of any kind. On 
     January 21, 1998, you stated at your public press conference, 
     ``I can't comment on the investigation as a matter of 
     practice and of law. I just can't be making comments about 
     the specific aspects of our investigation, including to 
     confirm specific activity or not. . . . As an officer of the 
     court, I just cannot breach confidentiality.'' At your public 
     press conference on February 5, 1998, you stated in a CNN 
     interview, ``I'm not going to comment on the status of our 
     negotiations [with Ms. Lewinsky's lawyers] . . . I hope you 
     understand, especially when you ask a question about the 
     status of someone who might be a witness, that goes to the 
     heart of the grand jury process. . . . Those are obligations 
     of law; they're obligations of ethics. . . . I am under a 
     legal obligation not to talk about facts going before the 
     grand jury.'' In your public February 6, 1998, letter to me, 
     you stated that ``leaks are utterly intolerable'' (your 
     words, not mine) and you went on to say ``I have made the 
     prohibition of leaks a principal priority of the Office. It 
     is a firing offense, as well as one that leads to criminal 
     prosecution.'' (Emphasis added).
       What is so astonishing about your comments in the Brill 
     article is that they contradict not simply our view but your 
     own frequently and publicly expressed views both about the 
     need to put a stop to leaking and your own protestations 
     about your and your own staff's utter innocence in that 
     regard.
       Your press releases do not, however, address three simple 
     points (there is much else that could be said, of course).
       (1) If you need to talk to the press, why not do so on the 
     record?
       The Rule of the Department of Justice's Criminal Division 
     promulgated by President Reagan's Assistant Attorney General 
     in charge of the Criminal Division was: ``Never talk off the 
     record with the media. If you don't want your name associated 
     with particular comments or remarks, you shouldn't make them 
     to media representatives.'' That's a good rule, because it 
     makes everyone aware of who is making a particular statement, 
     and it's especially important if what you're really trying to 
     do is ``engender public confidence'' in your office. What 
     possible justification do you have for secrecy? It's 
     irresponsible and (under the circumstance) hypocritical.
       (2) You are wrongly applying post-indictment standards of 
     allowable prosecutorial comment.
       Caught flat-footed by the Brill article, you've attempted 
     to shift your ground by pointing to rules and opinions 
     regarding post-indictment comment by prosecutors. As you well 
     know, the standards are different after an indictment has 
     been brought. At that point, the grand jury has found 
     probable cause to make a criminal charge, the indictment has 
     been openly announced, the defendant has significant 
     procedural rights, including the right to have counsel 
     appointed who will, among other things be able to respond to 
     prosecutorial comments. Prior to indictment, the rule is that 
     grand jury secrecy, a protection designed for witnesses and 
     persons investigated but never finally charged, mandates 
     prosecutorial silence and the confidentiality of grand jury 
     proceedings.
       (3) The view of Rule 6(e) that you express in the Brill 
     article and (now) in your press releases is demonstrably not 
     the law.
       You are now attempting to justify leaking by you and your 
     Office by claiming that the information your office has 
     covertly given to the media is not covered by Rule 6(e) 
     because, in your own words as quoted by Mr. Brill, ``it is 
     definitely not grand jury information, if you are talking 
     about what witnesses tell FBI agents or us before they 
     testify before the grand jury or about related matters. . . . 
     So, it I a not 6-E.'' (Emphasis in original.) Again, as you 
     well know, this is not the law of the District of Columbia 
     Circuit (or, for that matter, any other circuit). In the Dow 
     Jones case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for 
     the District of Columbia Circuit on May 5, 1998, that court 
     summarized the secrecy rules legally applicable to grand jury 
     investigations. Citing many cases of this Circuit and others 
     decided over the years, the Court of Appeals emphasized that 
     Rule 6(e) is to be given a broad

[[Page E1206]]

     meaning to encompass much more than simply what transpires 
     within the four walls of the grand jury room. The coverage of 
     the Rule ``includes not only has occurred and what is 
     occurring, but also what is likely to occur. Encompassed 
     within the rule of secrecy are the `identities of witnesses 
     or jurors, the substance of testimony' as well as actual 
     transcripts, `the strategy or direction of the investigation, 
     the deliberations or questions of jurors, and the like.' '' 
     (Emphasis added.) Your public statements in January and 
     February accurately state the law, but your statements to Mr. 
     Brill do not, and the actions of your Office are in violation 
     of the law.
       The media leaks by your Office also violate the ethics 
     rules for federal prosecutors, see, e.g., DOJ Manual 
     Sec. Sec. 1-7.510; 1-7.530, which under the Independent 
     Counsel Act you are obligated to comply with unless to do so 
     would be ``inconsistent with the purposes'' of the Act. 
     Complying with the DOJ's anti-leaking guidelines could hardly 
     be ``inconsistent'' with the mission of your office.
           Sincerely,

                                             David E. Kendall.

     

                          ____________________