Is Starr Revving Up for More?

Five independent counsels are probing various alleged misdeeds in the nation’s capital at the moment, but most Americans would be hard pressed to name any except one: Kenneth W. Starr.

Vilified by his critics as the embodiment of prosecutorial zealotry, Starr is blamed for almost single-handedly fueling the current movement to overhaul--or kill--the independent counsel statute that gave him his power.

But few who know Starr expect his poor approval ratings to deter him in his 4 1/2-year, $40-million investigation. Although most of the country seems eager to bring the Clinton impeachment saga to an end, the unassuming prosecutor must address a series of critical new decisions--most notably whether to press criminal perjury and obstruction charges against Clinton--before or after he leaves office in 2001.

“In the coming months, Ken Starr will have to begin writing the final chapter of this investigation, and the most significant decisions still remain before him,” said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who testified in the impeachment proceedings.

“Judge Starr must realize by now that he is unlikely to transform himself into a popular figure at any point in his lifetime,” Turley said. “His interest now has to be in proving his case to history.”

Lingering Questions on Other Issues

Beyond the question of whether to indict Clinton, a host of other issues remain involving such secondary figures as Vernon E. Jordan Jr., Susan McDougal and Kathleen Willey and near-forgotten issues such as Travelgate and the FBI files.

More than a dozen people involved in the Clintons’ Whitewater real estate deal have been convicted, and three people still face charges related to that and other matters: McDougal, charged with contempt of court and obstruction for her refusal to assist in the Whitewater probe; former Clinton advisor Webster L. Hubbell, charged with tax evasion; and Julie Hiatt Steele, charged with obstructing justice and falsifying a statement in her testimony about former confidant Willey’s claim of an encounter with Clinton.

Starr’s office is saying little. “We’re going to continue our duties and complete the matters assigned to us as completely and quickly as possible. . . . You can’t predict criminal investigations,” said Charles G. Bakaly III, a spokesman for Starr.

Starr has left the door open on nearly all issues before him, even those in which he has found no personal wrongdoing by Clinton--such as the firing of employees in the White House travel office and questions about the use of about 900 FBI files on ex-government employees.

Some observers say it’s risky to try reading the tea leaves.

“There is no assumption about where he’s going to go from here. Truly, nobody knows,” said Jim Kennedy, a spokesman for the White House counsel’s office. “All we do know is that he has spent many, many years looking into many, many of these issues and he has found no evidence of wrongdoing by the president or the first lady.”

Starr and his prosecutors disagree. But now they find themselves targeted by allegations of bias, misconduct and conflicts of interest.

Scrutiny intensified in recent days with reports that the Justice Department planned to investigate allegations that Starr’s prosecutors misled Atty. Gen. Janet Reno about the genesis of his review of the Monica S. Lewinsky affair.

Reno has refused to comment on any possibility of Starr’s removal, and has played down reports of hostilities between the two offices. “I don’t feel any tension or animosity. I just see everyone trying to work together to figure out what the right thing to do is,” the attorney general said.

Critics and supporters alike agree that Starr is not the type to let controversy drag down his investigation.

“Ken is not unconcerned about these investigations into his office,” said one source who has worked closely with Starr. “But at the same time he will say, ‘We have our job to do, and we have to do it. This is the price of the job.’ ”

One Democratic critic of Starr’s was less flattering.

“If past is prologue, he and his staff have shown that they will doggedly pursue their notion that there has been wrongdoing by the president and people surrounding the president--even if the record shows evidence to the contrary,” said Abbe Lowell, former chief minority investigative counsel to the House of Representatives.

A Possible Reason to Continue

Starr’s office has been consumed by the Lewinsky affair for the last year, and the independent counsel has given no indication that the Senate’s vote to acquit will end his interest. In fact, Turley said the tail end of the Senate trial may have given Starr the ammunition he needs to kick-start his inquiry--in the person of Sidney Blumenthal.

Republicans sought to show during the Clinton aide’s deposition that Blumenthal perjured himself in denying that the White House orchestrated a “smear campaign” against Lewinsky.

Blumenthal denies the charge, but Turley said that if Starr is able to pursue those allegations, it could “represent a live torpedo in the water for the White House.”

The issue, Turley believes, could provide Starr “a bridge” to extend his active investigation until the end of Clinton’s term--and then perhaps prosecute Clinton himself.

The question of whether Starr could and would prosecute Clinton while he is still in office has divided scholars and drawn warnings from even some of Starr’s supporters.

“As a matter of common sense,” said one former prosecutor very familiar with Starr’s investigation, “the upside [to indicting the president] is a lot less than the downside. I think there would be political and public outrage, and it would be a tough case in any event.”

Lawrence E. Walsh, the former Iran-Contra independent counsel, said the obstacles that the impeachment case faced in the Senate weigh heavily against indicting Clinton even after he leaves office.

“The facts got pretty wobbly. Why anyone would want to take those facts and try him all over again in a different tribunal and expect to get a unanimous verdict, I don’t know,” Walsh said in an interview. “I think there just comes a point where you finish up your report and get out.”