[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 111 (Friday, August 7, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H7426]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




KEN STARR'S LEAKS MAY VIOLATE ETHICAL GUIDELINES AS WELL AS FEDERAL LAW

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to put in the Record 
additional information about the serious problems that may have been 
created by Mr. Starr's recent revelations about the extent of his off-
the-record contacts with the media and his justification for those 
contacts.

                              {time}  1230

  The press coverage of this controversy seemed to have missed the 
forest for the trees by concentrating almost exclusively on whether Mr. 
Brill, in his interview with Mr. Starr, had produced conclusive 
evidence that Mr. Starr had violated the Federal law which prohibits 
the disclosure of materials related to a grand jury investigation. 
There is evidence that suggests that he may have done just that, and I 
am hopeful that the Attorney General of the United States, Janet Reno, 
and Judge Johnson, will take appropriate steps to credibly resolve 
these issues.
  More importantly, however, many of the leaks attributed to Mr. 
Starr's office raise two additional questions. Namely, whether they 
violate Department of Justice policy and whether they violate the Rules 
of Professional Ethics.
  What is the Department of Justice's policy? Well, it forbids 
government prosecutors from making any statement that will have a 
substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a proceeding. 
Moreover, the guidelines specifically direct prosecutors to not discuss 
certain categories of information which are presumed to have the effect 
of prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding if released. These include 
whether or not the accused has offered to make a statement; it includes 
the results of any investigative tests; it includes any opinion as to 
the guilt of a witness or any opinion as to the possibility of a plea 
agreement.
  So the Rules of Professional Ethics for the District of Columbia 
prohibit almost exactly the same disclosures as the Department of 
Justice guidelines. Notwithstanding these guidelines, which are fairly 
clear, we have seen numerous press reports that contain exactly this 
type of information.
  It has been reported that Mr. Starr has won his legal fight to 
prevent President Clinton's lawyers from questioning him directly about 
numerous leaks that are alleged to have come from his office. It is not 
clear, it is unknown whether Mr. Starr claims some sort of privilege to 
prevent his direct interrogation, but his resistance is at odds with 
his public statements about the importance of truth.
  As the question of Office of the Special Counsel disclosures 
continues to be reviewed, we should all keep in mind that Mr. Starr's 
obligations go far beyond the legal requirements that he not disclose 
grand jury information. Any departure from those guidelines threatens 
to rob his investigation of credibility and also invites speculation 
about partisan motives.

                          ____________________