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.
“JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AGREES TO REVIEW ACCUSATIONS AGAINST INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STARR” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1167 on June 18, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AGREES TO REVIEW ACCUSATIONS AGAINST INDEPENDENT
COUNSEL STARR
______
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 18, 1998
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Attorney General Janet Reno's announcement today that allegations of improper conduct by Independent Counsel Ken Starr have been referred to the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility is an appropriate first step. Over the past few days, serious questions concerning the behavior of Mr. Starr and his staff have been raised. On the one hand, a respected journalist, Steven Brill, says that Mr. Starr admitted leaking grand jury information. For his part, Mr. Starr does not deny meeting with reporters on an ``off the record basis.'' Instead, he says that the information he provided during those meetings was not covered by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
To resolve this dispute, any investigation must determine two important things. First, exactly what information did Mr. Starr give to reporters during his ``off the record'' meetings? Second, what are the legal rules that govern what an Independent Counsel can say to a reporter? In his recent letter of complaint to Mr. Brill, the Independent Counsel seems to take the position that Rule 6(e) should be interpreted very narrowly to apply only to disclosures of events or testimony that actually occur in the grand jury room. The law in the District of Columbia Circuit does not support that view.
In its opinion in the Dow Jones case, which was decided in May of this year, the D.C. Circuit wrote that Rule 6(e) reaches ``not only what has occurred and what is occurring, but also what is likely to occur. Encompassed within the rule of secrecy are the identities of witnesses or jurors, the substance of testimony as well as actual transcripts, the strategy or direction of the investigation, the deliberations of questions of jurors, and the like.''
The Dow Jones case makes clear that Rule 6(e) applies much more broadly than the Independent Counsel has argued in his public statements over the past few days. A review by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility is a good first step toward resolving the important factual and legal issues that are disputed in this case.
____________________
