The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“MR. STARR: WAIVE REPORTERS' PRIVILEGE OF SILENCE AND ALLOW THEM TO TELL WHAT THEY KNOW” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1426 on July 24, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
MR. STARR: WAIVE REPORTERS' PRIVILEGE OF SILENCE AND ALLOW THEM TO TELL
WHAT THEY KNOW
______
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Friday, July 24, 1998
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr is now the subject of multiple investigations of whether he and his staff illegally leaked confidential information to the media. Those investigations include a contempt hearing to be held by Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson of the federal court in Washington, and inquiries by the Office of Professional Responsibility of the Justice Department, and the D.C. Bar Counsel. In addition, the Independent Counsel is supposed to be investigating himself.
Mr. Starr has already admitted that he and his chief deputy, Mr. Jackie Bennett, routinely talk to the media on an off-the-record basis regarding their investigation of the President. The Independent Counsel claims, however, that his discussions were legal because the rule of grand jury secrecy does not reach information until it is presented to a grand jury. That argument, in my view, is incorrect.
An important question in these leak investigations will be exactly what was said during meetings between the prosecutors and reporters. In order to have a full and complete record of what went on during those sessions, the Independent Counsel should publicly release the reporters from their vows of silence. After all, is it fair for the Independent Counsel to share confidential information with reporters, and then force them to cover-up possible misdeeds?
I fully respect a reporter's First Amendment right not to reveal a source. But the Independent Counsel can relieve the reporters from having to make a difficult decision to stand mute. Given the significance of issues involving the investigation of the President, Mr. Starr should allow the court and public to know what his media contacts have to say on this subject.
On more than one occasion, the Independent Counsel has called on the President to urge others to waive privileges and testify. The first was when he wrote to the White House Counsel, Mr. Ruff, asking that the President tell Susan McDougal to waive her Fifth Amendment rights and testify before the White water grand jury. Mr. Starr did that even though Ms. McDougal had her own lawyer to advise her, and publicly said that she would not listen to what the President said. In addition, the spokesman for the Independent Counsel, Mr. Bakaly, criticized the President for refusing to urge Ms. McDougal to give up her rights.
A second instance involved the Secret Service. In April of this year, after the Secret Service argued that its agents could not be compelled to testify about the President, Mr. Starr requested that the President waive any Secret Service privilege and order the agents to appear before the grand jury. Mr. Starr made that request even though the privilege was asserted by the Secret Service and not the President, and the Secret Service's director, Mr. Merletti, considered the matter to be one of great national significance.
The President was right when he refused the Independent Counsel's ill-considered requests. But I cannot see any public interest in Mr. Starr's refusal to waive the privilege that requires his media contacts to remain silent in the face of these leak investigations. The Independent Counsel has made clear that he views the invocation of privileges as a roadblock to the truth. How, in good conscience, can he take a different position simply because he has now become the focus of the investigation?
____________________
