Starr Will Argue That Clinton Tried to ‘Thwart’ Inquiry

Insisting that he is acting out of constitutional duty and a reverence for the law, independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr will tell the House Judiciary Committee today that President Clinton should be removed from office because he “repeatedly tried to thwart the legal process” in the Monica S. Lewinsky affair.

Testifying at the opening of historic impeachment hearings, Starr also will offer a passionate defense of his 4-year-old Whitewater investigation, arguing that it establishes that Clinton and his White House allies engaged in a pattern of lying, attempts to obstruct justice and abuse of authority.

Starr will describe Clinton’s attempts to cover up his extramarital affair with Lewinsky as another in a series of efforts to prevent his allies from divulging damaging information about him.

“The pattern of obstruction of justice, false statements and misuse of executive authority in the Lewinsky investigation did not occur in a vacuum,” Starr will say, according to an advance copy of his statement.

Ultimately, Starr will argue, Clinton “misused his authority and power as president and contravened his duty to faithfully execute the laws.” At the same time, Starr’s statement appears to clear Clinton and other high-level administration officials of any wrongdoing in the firings of White House Travel Office officials and misuse of confidential FBI files.

The copy of Starr’s opening statement in today’s impeachment hearing was released Wednesday night after the independent counsel’s office sent it to the House Judiciary Committee.

According to the statement, Starr will say that there is strong evidence Clinton should forfeit his office, despite White House insistence that his dalliance with Lewinsky is a private matter.

“The evidence suggests that the president repeatedly tried to thwart the legal process in the [Paula Corbin] Jones case and the grand jury investigation,” the Starr statement says. “That is not a private matter.

“The evidence further suggests that the president, in the course of these efforts, misused his authority and power as president and contravened his duty to faithfully execute the laws. That, too, is not a private matter.”

Clinton is in Asia, where he did not react to Starr’s prepared statement. A White House official said that most of Starr’s statement is a rehash of his lengthy report to the House. “The only new thing is that Starr finally declares the president not guilty in the Travel Office and FBI files matters,” the official said. “The rest of the argument is the [old] referral in new wrapping paper.”

Starr Appearance a Historic One

Starr’s appearance will be a historic one. Never before has an independent counsel sent allegations of impeachable offenses to the House, nor appeared in public to defend them.

The statute creating independent counsels was born in the days after the last presidential impeachment effort, the Watergate scandal that prompted the resignation of President Nixon.

Starr, who has remained generally tight-lipped in public about his investigation since he was appointed to the counsel’s position in 1995, also will make these assertions:

* Despite national public opinion polls that show wide criticism of Starr as bent on a political mission to get Clinton, nothing could be further from the truth.

“Given the hurricane-force political winds swirling around us, we were well aware that, no matter what decision we made, criticism would come from somewhere,” he said.

* His office drafted an impeachment referral to Congress on the original Whitewater allegations late last year but pulled back. The referral related to Clinton’s testimony that he knew nothing about a fraudulent $300,000 loan. Starr will say that his decision to hold back was based on “the difficulty of establishing truth with a sufficient degree of confidence.”

* He has found no evidence of wrongdoing by the president in the firing of White House Travel Office personnel in 1993 or in the mishandling of hundreds of FBI files, two lingering controversies from early in Clinton’s tenure.

The Travel Office inquiry will be wound up soon, Starr will say. On the FBI files matter, he will note: “We have found no evidence that information contained in the files of former officials was used for an improper purpose.”

* In related cases, his office has obtained convictions of 14 people, including former Justice Department official Webster L. Hubbell, former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and former Clinton business partners James B. and Susan McDougal.

“We have been forced to go to court time and again to seek information from the executive branch and to fight a multitude of privilege claims asserted by the administration--every single one of which we have won,” according to the text.

Then, taking a dig at the many White House aides who repeatedly have gone on television to support the president, Starr will add: “We go to court and not the talk show circuit.”

Panel Plans to Call Four New Witnesses

In other developments Wednesday, Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) said the panel plans to depose four additional witnesses: Bruce Lindsey, a Clinton confidant and White House lawyer; Robert S. Bennett, the president’s personal attorney in the Jones civil lawsuit; Daniel Gecker, a Richmond, Va., lawyer who represented Kathleen E. Willey; and Nathan Landow, a wealthy Marylander who had raised funds for the Democrats.

Willey, a former White House volunteer, has said Clinton made an unwelcome sexual advance to her during an encounter near the Oval Office in 1993, and Starr has been investigating whether Landow--at the behest of the White House--attempted to persuade her not to speak out against the president.

Said Hyde: “Both Mr. Gecker, who at one time represented Kathleen Willey, and Mr. Landow may have testimony regarding possible efforts to influence testimony in the Jones case and before the criminal grand jury.”

Hyde said that, despite the additional witnesses, “I remain committed to completing the impeachment inquiry by the end of the year.”

But he cautioned that the timetable depends on whether the White House cooperates and he expressed consternation that 81 questions he sent to the president about his involvement in the Lewinsky matter remain unanswered.

“Moreover,” the chairman said, “many of the Democrats on the committee continue to attack the reliability of [Starr’s report to the House], as will no doubt be evidenced at the committee’s hearing. Therefore, we must take all necessary steps in a timely fashion to find the truth.”

But Democrats said an expanded investigation, especially one that goes beyond the Lewinsky affair, was unwarranted. And the Democrats could force a fight in the committee and demand a full committee vote on subpoenas of additional witnesses.

“This is a political show on behalf of the Republicans,” said Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.), a committee member. “And I can’t believe that the right wing of the Republican Party has this much control.”

Added Jim Kennedy, spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office: “The committee is so intent on picking a partisan food fight that they’ve picked up Ken Starr’s leftovers and they’ve even decided to out-Starr Starr by breaching attorney-client privilege” by subpoenaing Lindsey and Bennett.

In addition, White House Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff sent a letter to Hyde complaining about getting only 30 minutes to question Starr today.

“Our examination of Mr. Starr will be fair,” Ruff said. “It will not be repetitive; and it will deal directly with that very issue” of whether Starr conducted a proper investigation.

As for Clinton’s response to the 81 questions, Ruff said: “We do anticipate being able to submit his responses in the very near future.”

Puzzled by the committee’s decision to call four additional witnesses, one Democratic aide remarked: “I think these are just the final spasms of a dying beast.”

In addition, Democratic committee spokesman Jim Jordan dismissed Starr’s prepared text as nothing more than “self-serving and defensive.”

But Starr takes great pains in the text to outline his case against Clinton in the Lewinsky matter, referring to “10 ways” the president allegedly committed perjury, obstructed justice, tampered with witnesses and abused his authority.

Furthermore, Starr argues in the text that impeachment is not limited to official acts and that the alleged perjury and obstruction of justice by Clinton in the Lewinsky matter may well constitute impeachable offenses.

“History and practice support the conclusion that perjury, in particular, is a high crime or misdemeanor,” Starr will say. “Perjury has been the basis for the removal of several judges. As far as we know, no one questioned whether perjury was a high crime or misdemeanor in those cases.”

But Starr leaves it up to Congress to decide.

“Whether the president’s actions are, in fact, grounds for an impeachment or some other congressional sanction is a decision in the sole discretion of the Congress,” he will note.

The 10 episodes cited by Starr include allegations that Clinton lied to his staff as well as the American people, that he sought to land Lewinsky a new job in return for her silence and that he used others, such as his secretary, Betty Currie, to cover up his misconduct by retrieving gifts he had given Lewinsky.

Starr goes to considerable lengths to prove the seriousness of Clinton’s alleged crimes and he stands by his evidence as sufficient proof of presidential wrong-doing.

“Ms. Lewinsky testified that no one promised her a job for silence; of course, crimes ordinarily do not take place with such explicit discussion,” he will say. Noting that federal courts have upheld the legality of circumstantial evidence, Starr will say: “The circumstantial evidence here is strong.”

Starr also portrays himself and his staff as at times pained by the investigation.

“The presidency is an office that we--like all Americans--revere and respect,” he says. “No prosecutor is comfortable when he or she reports wrongdoing by the president. All of us want to believe that our president has at all times acted with integrity--and certainly that he has not violated the criminal law.”

But Starr adds that he places his faith most of all in the law.

“President Lincoln asked that ‘reverence for the laws be proclaimed in legislative halls and enforced in courts of justice,’ ” Starr will say. “My office and I revere the law. I am proud of what we have accomplished.

“We were assigned a difficult job. We have done it to the very best of our abilities.”

Starr’s statement will be followed by an hour block of questioning divided by GOP chief counsel David P. Schippers and Democratic counsel Abbe Lowell. Then, each lawmaker will get five minutes to quiz Starr. Starr’s day at the witness table will end with a half hour of questioning by David E. Kendall, Clinton’s lawyer.

Starr will go before the committee with public opinion polls showing little backing for impeachment. And, after faltering in the midterm elections, Republicans are eager to put the case behind them.

The independent counsel is expected to undergo a bruising round of questioning from Democrats, who have raised a series of questions about Starr’s hard-nosed tactics, leaks to the press and contacts with lawyers in the Jones case.

Video coverage of the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearings will be carried live on The Times’ Web site beginning this morning: https://www.latimes.com/scandal

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

The Key Players

When independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr appears before the House Judiciary Committee today, he will face a sharply divided panel whose members hold strong opinions on the impeachment issue--and his job performance. Here are some of the key players to watch:

REPUBLICANS

Rep. Henry J. Hyde (Ill.) The influential chairman is under pressure to pull the plug on impeachment. His decision will weigh heavily in the minds of colleagues.

Rep. Lindsay Graham (S.C.) Has kept his mind open, remarking that he is not yet sure whether the case is closer to Watergate or Peyton Place.

Rep. James Rogan (Glendale) A former prosecutor who has pledged to give the president the benefit of the doubt. A possible no vote?

Rep. Mary Bono (Palm Springs) She is said to have concerns about an abbreviated impeachment process that hears only from Starr.

David P. Schippers, chief Republican counsel. This veteran Chicago lawyer and lifelong Democrat made the case for impeachment. Will he reverse course?

****

DEMOCRATS

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.) The ranking Democratic member of the committee and the lone Watergate veteran, he has been Starr’s fiercest congressional critic.

Rep. Barney Frank (Mass.) Sharp-tongued and sarcastic, he is expected to duel with Starr.

Rep. Howard L. Berman (Panorama City) By reaching out to Republicans, he has become the committee’s chief bridge builder.

Rep. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) Elected to the Senate to replace Alfonse D’Amato, he could be the only lawmaker to vote on the impeachment issue in both chambers.

Abbe Lowell, chief Democratic counsel. This veteran Washington lawyer is expected to grill Starr.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Room 2141

The seating for the hearing room where prosecutor Kenneth Starr will make his case today:

REPUBLICANS

(1) Schippers*

(2) Sensenbrenner

(3) McCollum

(4) Gekas

(5) Coble

(6) Smith

(7) Gallegly

(8) Canady

(9) Inglis

(10) Goodlatte

(11) Rogan

(12) Canno

(13) Pease

(14) Hutchinson

(15) Jenkins

(16) Barr

(17) Chabot

(18) Bryant

(19) Buyer

(20) Graham

(21) Bono

****

DEMOCRATS

(1) Conyers

(2) Lowell*

(3) Frank

(4) Schumer

(5) Berman

(6) Boucher

(7) Nadler

(8) Scott

(9) Watt

(10) Lofgren

(11) Jackson Lee

(12) Waters

(13) Meeban

(14) Delahunt

(15) Wexler

(16) Rothman

(17) Barrett

* Committee attorneys

Compiled by TRICIA FORD / Los Angeles Times