Text of Order Appointing Starr

This is the text of the order by a three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals panel naming Kenneth W. Starr as an independent counsel to take over the Whitewater investigation:

Upon consideration of the application of the attorney general pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 592 (c)(1)(A) for the appointment of an independent counsel with authority to exercise all the power, authority and obligations set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 594, to investigate whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of federal criminal law, other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction, relating in any way to James B. McDougal’s, President William Jefferson Clinton’s, or Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s relationships with Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Assn., Whitewater Development Corp., or Capital Management Services Inc.; it is:

ORDERED by the court in accordance with the authority vested in it by 28 U.S.C. Section 593 (b) that Kenneth W. Starr, Esquire, of the District of Columbia bar, with offices at Kirkland and Ellis, 655-15th St., NW, Washington, D.C., 20005, be and he is hereby appointed independent counsel with full power, independent authority, and jurisdiction to investigate to the maximum extent authorized by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994 whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of any federal criminal law, other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction, relating in any way to James B. McDougal’s, President William Jefferson Clinton’s, or Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s relationships with Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Assn., Whitewater Development Corp., or Capital Management Services Inc.

The independent counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate other allegations or evidence or violation of any federal criminal law, other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction, by any person or entity developed during the independent counsel’s investigation referred to above and connected with or arising out of that investigation.

The independent counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate any violation of 28 U.S.C. Section 1826, or any obstruction of the due administration of justice, or any material false testimony or statement in violation of federal criminal law, in connection with any investigation of the matters described above.

The independent counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to seek indictments and to prosecute any persons or entities involved in any of the matters described above, who are reasonably believed to have committed a violation of any federal criminal law arising out of such matters, including persons or entities who have engaged in an unlawful conspiracy or who have aided or abetted any federal offense.

The independent counsel shall have all the powers and authority provided by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994. It is:

Further ordered by the court that the independent counsel, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. Section 594, shall have prosecutorial jurisdiction to fully investigate and prosecute the subject matter with respect to which the attorney general requested the appointment of independent counsel, as hereinbefore set forth, and all matters and individuals whose acts may be related to that subject matter, inclusive of authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes (other than those classified as Class B or C misdemeanors or infractions) that may arise out of the above described matter, including perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.

The court, having reviewed the motion of the attorney general that Robert B. Fiske Jr., would be appointed as independent counsel, had determined that this would not be consistent with the purposes of the act.

This reflects no conclusion on the part of the court that Fiske lacks either the accrual independence or any other attribute necessary to the conclusion of the investigation.

Rather, the court reaches this conclusion because the act contemplates an apparent as well as an actual independence on the part of the counsel.

As the Senate report accompanying the 1982 enactments reflected, “The intent of the special prosecutor provisions is not to impugn the integrity of the attorney general or the Department of Justice. Throughout our system of justice, safeguards exist against actual or perceived conflicts of interest without reflecting adversely on the parties who are subject to conflicts.”

Just so here. It is not our intent to impugn the integrity of the attorney general’s appointee, but rather to reflect the intent of the act that the actor be protected against perceptions of conflicts.

As Fiske was appointed by the incumbent Administration, the court therefore deems it in the best interest of the appearance of independence contemplated by the act that a person not affiliated with the incumbent Administration be appointed.

It further appearing to the court in light of the attorney general’s motion heretofore made for the authorization of the disclosure of her application for this appointment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 592 (e) and of the ongoing public proceedings and interest in this matter, that it is in the best interests of justice for the identity and prosecutorial jurisdiction of the independent counsel to be disclosed.

It is so ordered.