Graciously come back to the festival this year to talk about his latest book, a memoir of his time leading the 19 nineties investigation into whitewater and Monica Lewinsky mattered judge starr needs no introduction with his distinguished career is a graduate of George Washington university and us solicitor general. Dean of Pepperdine Law School and chancellor andnd president of Baylor University and the established private attorney and of course washington dc and also with the independent counsel. Even though we have a very bright crowd because this is the annapolis area if i said the three names i bet nobody knows who they are. You know im talking about a very select group of special prosecutors and independentpe c councils or special councils appointed or have been appointed to look into high level cases part one dash involving the executive branch. But first take us back to 1994. And then you get a call from the judge who calls to ask and those that were heading up the whitewater investigation. [laughter] why did you want to leave this great job and into the political arena . I had no idea whatsoever but when i arrived in little rock, on the day of my appointment, maybe they will take six months to investigate there wasnt that much money involved but when i arrived on that fateful afternoon to take the oath ofnd office quietly, it is an assignment and get itdo done. And that i arrived in his office that will foreshadow bob mueller and ways appointed by the attorney general special counsel then the appointee of janet reno. Im standing in his office a very distinguished lawyer i imactually worked with him and to have the highest regard and bob said move your family to little rock you will be here for a long time. [laughter] he had found more than a failed land deal in arkansas. How big was your team and who were the key actors . The team expect expanded or contracted depending on the circumstances we assign lawyers d to specific matters like the death of Vincent Foster junior the fraudulent buildings of Webster Hubbell who was associate attorney general in hillarys law partner at the rose lawaw firm. And one of the victims was the United States government and with those matters under investigation so overnight from being a live person and a judge on the dc circuit i had two tours of duty but while nobody said this needs to go when we need a replacement with a specialal division and the independent counsel to have someone who is truly boindependent and to be appointed by the attorney general. So the New York Times prays my appointment two weeks later they called me to resign. [laughter], in those two weeks i hadnt utne much bad in fact i had done nothing at all. But politics changed or the spin cycle inside the linda one clinton propaganda machine. Then i was visited and i see peopleom here that might be as old as i am that might remember watergate a real truth seeker was sam dash. He was a successful assistant da in philadelphia and an academic at georgetown i knew him well and he comes to my office and says you are being held to read because of your republican credentials. I set i noticed that he said im not a republican is very well known hes a prominent democrat and said you should considerhi retaining your ethics counsel as a check thats wasnt something i expected to have to do but as we geared up for the trial it turns out there was Serious Fraud in little rock as we gear up for the trial against a sitting covenant governor and Susan Mcdougall that these are names from the past for some of you may recover they were the sole owners of the guaranteed savings and loan that collapsed fraud and madison guarantee was hillarys client that raised a series of questions but also was an institution the funding was used in a program made from financing from the whitewater land deal real estate is a complex deal if you unravel at all there was fraud at the core of the entire transaction of the financing of the land deal for whitewater. As we look ahead knowing we were going to try it with some guilty pleas along the way with Robert Palmer and to his credit if you see what is unfolding now with the scandal College Admissions its an ugly situation but thats what we were experiencing and the upshot that included Rob Rosenstein the attorney deputy general. It is a complex web of transitions there were also prominent offshoots of the investigation and one of which at that time was a controversial death of a confidant and former law partner of Hillary Clintons vince foster so there were somehe questions regarding the circumstances of his death but ultimately you could conclude that was a suicide. That bob had undertaken an examination of the circumstances of the death Vincent Foster was a very successful lawyer and law partner of the Rose Law Firm of hillary and of hubbell and the three of them are very close so there was no suggestion that vince foster was involved in the fraudulent transactions. But within seven months of coming to washington dc is very successful prominent lawyer who is happily married with a family took his own life. So bob has concluded it wased a suicide there were so many conspiracy theories i decided we needed to take a second look just to make sure we had done absolutely everything to examine the questions that were being raised because there were suggestions that vince foster in fact was the victim of a homicide and his body was moved so yes we took a very elaborate look we did hire the leading experts in the country and we proved beyond a shadow of a doubt not just a reasonable doubt that he did commit suicide but i do raise why . Why was he depressed and that is something i do speculate about in the book because he was a person of conscience and there were some aspects from the former partners relationship with the rose law l firm and the billing records to show not that hillary committed fraud but participated in legal advice aspects to madison guarantee savings and loan including transactions clearly fraudulent. She was aware of the fraud and that is a key distinction. So why would the Rose Law Firm records free electronic days go missing . And they said they were stolen. That is not proper. You dont take building records out of a law firm. They were eventually found in the residence of the white house. Contrary to some opinion and the investigation that bob mueller has just run as a fishing expedition and a ywitchhunt and by character or definition of those professionals carrying those out or anything but and to take anything under that purview you have to get the goahead and in yourwh i case wh Monica Lewinsky initially how that came to your attention and then ultimately you had to get permission from the attorney general from janet reno to move forward. That last fact at the time was underappreciated at best by the American People the investigation for possible crime was expressly authorized by the attorney general of the United States janet reno. But it came to me because of a connection with vince foster junior the last person we know that saw vince foster alive in the white house was linda tripp. Linda tripp calls our office when i thought i was on my way to Pepperdine Law School. Not so fast. And one woman Monica Lewinsky working alongside me and the Public Affairs office has made me aware there is a relationship with the president. But most relevant she is asking me to commit perjury because she committed perjury herself. And at the end of the phone call on sunday night with the American Bar Association and says youda know me i am linda tripp from the Death Investigation of vince foster. And we take steps that could have been criticized to be verified but told us on that sunday evening and then to have a number of conversations with monica but then we had the famous episode at thepi ritz carlton but the conduct was vindicated after litigation. And we confirmed real time that this is what was underway and with the civil rights case we take sexualharassmenten pretty seriously with a lot of societal concerns this was a civil rights case at the time the employee of the government and she allege there was a horrible kind of event that was unsettling to her and so she brought federal court action against bill clinton for his conduct, and these are allegations in a hotel in little rock in a connection with that all of this was underway with those false statements to encourage others to lie and so forth. Obviously intense public scrutiny and battling back and forth politically. One thing that your book brings out is they are not thankless but its very difficult and you will make half the people upset before you come out. To know that bob mueller personally at one point to say this is a nightmare that will not end. And those that send their kids off to college and one year later after Chelsea Clinton went to stanford and gets there and the Marshall Service considered to be credible Death Threats with 24 hour protection. What a great freshman year. [laughter] i cannot say enough or praise of the marshals completely professional and superb but they had to do the job but once you have to be protected because i was appointed by the court under ecthe statute i was treated as if i were a judge. I was not paid as well but protections that came to his marshalsy that is that roundtheclock security of the house from the command host the brady bunch house of which the press already knew so they would go away once i left for the office and the press was fine and in fact at the funeral of Antonin Scalia a couple years ago and coming out of the cathedral , commenting on the record about Justice Scalia to serve on the dc circuit and then i save my quick piece and say by the way i camped outside your house you may not recognize me for guy was there eight months. He said i saved a lot of money we got a down payment on our house thanks to you. F m [laughter] some good comes out of it. But we are so surrounded by faith and friends with that support it is a very entertaining episode of Michael Moore the filmmaker but across the street neighbor donna hogan had a young kid a future stanford nfl quarterback named kevin hogan. Small world. She comes out and then it was on cnn get of this neighborhood we have children here. Youre scaring everybody and michael had colorful things to say. Those are some whimsical and not so whimsical moments to just suggest but heres the very good news. Became through it as a country and then to briefly describe so how do we in a free society for those that are kept honest . And after serious allegations of wrongdoing will be say excuse me theti chief executive is above the law. Its all unpleasant as all get out and also wrapped up for president clinton and chelsea hillarit is a horrible episode to go through. St isnt it reassuring to know that truly no one is above the law. That is the goal. And to make that statement very clear that is a principle to you also what is clear is that what has come out that people are not familiar. But can started as a democrat and was a big admirer of jfk. And i still am. Not still a democrat. [laughter] thank you for restraining yourself. And those Young Democrats and the epiphany for me was i am a six generation texan and tolo hear his philosophy and worry about the vision of freedom. Bet the old saying attributed to bernard shawe said he was not liberal who has no heart if youre not conservative you have no head. Also the point that is revealing so with those political leanings from senator fulbright and those voting actions i want to try to bring these things together the clear reverence for the law and the fact you rightfully believe no one is above the law and those principles of social justice to get your thoughts as unique perch of the judge and a law professor. And those that are the envyy of the world and at the incarceration rate is double of the population with no convictions the prosecution im familiar with with the financial crisis continue to see headlines with wealthy individuals if they dont escape prosecution then they dont get punishment commensurate with theh scale of their crime. Given that perspective how can thwe fix the system cracks. To be sensitive to of the proposed reforms, i remember all too vividly to the federal level of mandatory minimum sentences. That hasas fallen disproportionately heavenly on the Africanamerican Community because of the nature of thee offenses. Sitting at the feet of Warren Burger that i clerked for him and then to talk about a sign of a Civilized Society who cares about those incarcerated have opportunities for rehabilitation. Had then finally it is such a rich subject you here for it from this person beware of prosecutorial power. We have been involved in a supportive way of the innocence project. If you go on the website you will see case after case of the serious convictions of the most heinous of crimes but the defendant was factually innocent. Something happens to you. I was attending a program at ucla and i was chatting with a woman on death row in california and she was factually innocent and exonerated by dna. And one thing im deeply concerned about is with the selfassurance of prosecutors we know we have the right person well bri every person to bring that down because it is directed at you. Because almost any prosecutor is in the business for a while so we have to be skeptical about the exercise of power that is the functional equivalent of what bad of a brady violation that the prosecutor are sitting on exculpatory evidence they are dutybound to turn over that evidence i am fearful i dont have that empirical sense it is conversational and anecdotal we need to be very firm when we find a brady prosecution and drum them out so power corrupts. We do have a long way to go but it is encouraging to hear about the innocence project. There are some clear between your work and bad of bob mueller that recently concluded. But also some stark differences in terms of mandate and reporting responsibilities you wrote a piece in the atlantic lastnt month so what are the key differences . One is the method of appointment. After the 21 year experiment with the independent counsel arena, congress sought not to reauthorize and i applauded that. And then to object is also the constitutional invasion of the powers of the president that its okay to fire Archibald Cox know it wasnt okay or obstruction of justice but look at what happened the acting attorney general promptly within 11 days nominated Leon Jaworski he carried on the investigation and the rest is history. So a little more study of history as a great teacher that Ulysses S Grant fired a special counsel of his time but the investigation went on and harry truman fired the attorney general who fired the special prosecutor in the early fiftiesti but the investigation wentti on the investigation will go on so the unintended consequences to restore the authority of the constitutional structure of article two under the regulations that bob mueller was appointed the attorney general makes that appointment with the acting attorney general with Jeff Sessions the other in is a reporting requirement i was under statute to send my findings to the congress of the United States and i was a tool of the congress of the United States. No longer about the regulations of the last 20 years completely scaled back the reporting obligation. Done. Bob mueller is an honorable person who is now providing to the attorney general with a keyword, confidential report. Under the same regulations and this has the effect of law, the attorney generals obligation is to notify congress and he did on march 22nd and to set forth the principle conclusions. Thats what the regulations call for. Not to release the report. That is the law. Now, that having been said both confirmation hearings and then the letters of march 22 of march 24th yes. Rated that in the more recent letter a week ago the attorney general said i want to err on the side of transparency. So there will be by midwhenever a pro a release of the report that it will have we thank redactions. Why would you leave anything out . You leave those things out which and i will use two examples, actually need to use three because of the nature of the s. T. A. R. T. Report. Information is a matter of law, that must come out. Barring a court order we can get into that and what that looks like. Secondly National Security information, most all people of goodwill would say yes you have to protect National Security methods and sources. The third category is that of privacy. The report may very well have information that is not going to serve a Public Information function but could be embarrassing to one or more individuals. That was exactly the concern with the starr report and its one of the reasons we are seeing these episodes from now long ago with now chairman nadler at the time calli for the careful treatment of the starr report. It used to be if there was going to be Sensitive Information in their you would send it out so he voted along with many other members of the house of representatives not to release the starr report. We encourage this kind of careful look because especially the nature of that report with very intimate details. It show the president in our view had committed perjury and obstruction of justice but the major con text was such that it was very, what shall i say, private in nature. I think what bill barr is doing now is that which the regulations call on him to do and the regulations essentially set her face against the openness, the transparency of the old regime under the independent counsel statute. You were quoted saying recently that you think bob mueller probably should have made the hard call on the obstruction of justice claim. I dont have a good theory. I have heard various theories but i think it was his responsibility to do so. From what i have seen, and im not one of the president s lawyers but i have said this frequently publicly. I will use example of the firing of james comey. It may have been wiser at me then unwise but i do not see how is a matter of law it constitutes obstruction of justice. There are other things that have been the public domain. I just dont see it as a law and they think i have managed to convince on this particular point to members of the media and its not my persuasive powers. If any of the rulings of the Supreme Court of United States which is a narrowly construed obstruction of justice. He can go into data maybe we will in the question and answer. That why did heot do it . Alan dershowitz has it very interesting theory and im happy to pass that along. I hope that in very high regard. Hes a great civil libertarian and his theory and its simply a theory, is that bob did not want to overrule his staff. Up ahead the less capacious view of the obstruction of justice. One persons theory, we shall see. We have about 10 minutes left and i know there are probably a lot of people itching to ask your opinions and thoughts on things so i want to leave time now for audience questions. If you have a question that you would like to ask please come to the microphones. I have a question about the privacy criteria for redaction so what are the parameters for that . What kinds of checks and balances exist on regulating that . Those are fundamentally judgment calls for hill barr to say i think it would simply not serve the Public Interest for the following three sentences to be included because of embarrassment factors, unjustified notoriety. And checks and balances i think we will see that play out. We have the beginning of a pretty lively conversation between the house of representatives and the justice department. I envision a time will come when there will be as we call it in the law and in camera review. Lets have a chairman and the senior staff people look at the full set of information no matter how embarrassing it id be. That is done not infrequently and we shall see what the protocol is but i think the protocol will emerge from that. There will not be a judicial review of that. With that a consideration in your report in terms of relevance, whether a private matter was essential to include it . We had a very and i describe this in the look, lively and continuing conversation about the detail which we set forth the nature of the relationship deeply private relationship. And we determined these are professional prosecutors guiding me but i made the decision. We have to prove that the president committed perjury and obstruction of justice beyond any shadow of a doubt and the facts were really not disputed. I so wish that we looked back could this have been avoided . Yes. As it was famously said when i make a mistake recognition, admission apology settling the civil action in january of 1998 or actually before the Supreme Court of United States ruled unanimously 90 so not one of those 54 ideological divides that president clinton did not enjoy from facing the Sexual Harassment civil rights action. That would have been very good for the nation, for the first family and for the lawsuit. Well over 95 of civil cases in the United States settle. This has turned out to be it was eventually settled but only after the country had been through this unfortunate process i came here today to get a reevaluation of things that i remember that went on during the investigation of the president and i have say the president s behavior, i looked at that in spite of the me too movement and some of the assumptions we were making and the prejudices or the lack of knowledge or whatever were not present. So in coming here today i have heard you speaking and you are not quite the monster we were portraying you as. Sorry about that. I used to be a sunday schoolteacher and a Little League coach. But thank you. Thank you, i think. I was wondering if you could tell us which of the criticisms about you that were going on at that time you think might have been justified or things we could look at differently. There were so many criticisms that were justified. Let me begin. Go ahead, im sorry. This is one of those multipart questions. Its a long question. One of the things and now ive lost my train of thought. Oh, im sorry. I intervened and i shouldnt have. It fair criticism that i would level on myself is that i took on the Monica Lewinsky investigation to begin with. Not that it didnt have to be investigated. Thats the key. Sometimes i say that and its misinterpreted. You dont think he should be investigated. Of course i do. The president denies this is committing perjury and obstruction of justice, its not russia. He can investigated. You say that context is such, please its Sexual Harassment civil rights action. Everyone has his or her right to be in court. Its as simple as that. It really is. Some things in life are very complicated but in a rule of law system, that is not. I think i would except criticism for taking on the addons such as the travel office firings that hillary and jamir. I think i can be fairly faulted for taking on the file scandal. The fbi files of republicans miraculously mysteriously i should say finding their way into the white house utterly inappropriate but the good news is we determined that there was not sufficient evidence of either of those matters to bring choices so call it an exoneration. And we were able to do it efficiently but i think what happened is as the investigation went on and took longer we did not get cooperation. This is huge and i dont know anything i could have done to stop this. Once we have the convictions in little rock, this was a breakthrough. The sitting governor has been convicted of Serious Fraud in so have jim and susan google. Jim dougal began cooperating instead, and i describe this in the book, the president of the United States committed perjury during the trial. Now you can accept that or reject it but this is serious stuff. We could not get at times the information that we needed from jim. Jim would say you have to ask susan mcdougal. Susan mcdougal declined to cooperating famously a went to civil contempt in which writer for criminal contempt for it she was acquitted of some charges and we had a hung jury on the other charges. I wish to this day and this is a regret. Its not so much criticism, its a regret that once we have the whitewater convictions lets get this darn thing over with. Everyone cooperated and lets let the chips fall where they may including findings that might be very unflattering about the president of United States and the first lady. During the lewinsky phase of the investigation we were met with claims of executive privilege that were completely unmeritorious. We were met with other efforts to obstruct. That sounds familiar, to obstruct their investigations such as the creation of a privilege with no warning whatsoever in the lock called the protect the function privilege which is to create a praetorian guard that would not be able to provide evidence so imagine the president of an estate is in league with the foreign power. Imagine. It might very well be that the secret Service Agents might have been around when a meeting or conversation was had. Do you think that would be relevant . Yes it would be but week after week, month after month so some selfcriticism is always in order. Everything we did we tried to do consistent with the rule of law and as efficiently as we could and one of the reasons i wrote this book is that i felt so much of the story have never really been told and had never seen the light of day. If you dont mind if i hold it up there. Thank you. This is a very distinguished Foreign Service officer here holding up this book. Criticisms and regrets. A great question. My question, as a man who has devoted his life to the law and the rule of law what is your opinion of the vast amount of money that has evolved in politics now and also Citizens United. I applaud Citizens United so i will probably be a minority in this distinguished group. Im a fervent lever in freedom of speech and just as the news york times requires money to produce the news york times and cnn and so forth so to we make our voices heard. I was very impressed with the fact that so many candidates are depending on small contributions. I think it is simply not the case as a matter of empirical reality that the most heavily financed candidates always win. That just does not happen or the corporate contributions are going to control it. Simply i dont think its demonstrable and empirically i know it seems to be the case but i think the facts rebut that. That having been said i think an enormous amount of money in politics is wasted such as on high paid consultants. Im losing about half of my audience here. This is the washington d. C. Area. I know a lot of the consultants. They are extremely bright people but its an extremely pricey part and guides the candidates frequently and into dark holes of wasting money. President obama as a candidate obama definitely not the small contributions carried the day. I just worry about regulation. So much regulation ends up backfiring for not working and that coupled with the fervent belief in the first amendment. Also i would just say just another example if you have got the burn youve been giving money to senator sanders for these many years and hes not getting a lot of corporate support, is the . At least that i know of in so there is example after example where we have a very appealing process but that goes against the grain of thinking of a lot of thoughtful people who do worry about money in politics. I say go after corruption. There it is, corruption. Quid pro quo. Look at the Nixon Administration and the sale of ambassadorships. That was quid pro quo corruption im afraid thats all we have time for today. I want to thank everyone in the audience and i want to thank especially ken starr for coming back to the keystone andapolis book festival. The book is contempt. Thank you all very much. Have a good afternoon. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]