Timehost: Welcome to tonight's Time Online chat about the scandals
facing President Clinton. Tonight, we're going to be talking about the
investigation, and many of the legal questions. We're joined by a man who
has a unique perspective. Lawrence Walsh was the Independent Counsel who
investigated the Iran Contra scandal.
Timehost: First, as you look at the investigation that Kenneth
Starr is conducting, how do you compare it to your own in which you looked
at the Reagan administration and the Iran Contra scandal?
Lawrence Walsh: The difference is that my investigation concerned the Presidential
misuse of government power. Starr's investigation concerns a private
activity by the President that in no way affects his use of Presidential
power. I did not intrude in the private life of President Reagan. I did not ever
question Mrs. Reagan. And in that way, I think our approaches to our jobs
are very different.
Timehost: One of the areas that many people are asking about is: How
did Kenneth Starr go from conducting an investigation of Whitewater to an
investigation of the President's sex life.
Lawrence Walsh: That's a good question. He did it because the Attorney General
permitted him to broaden the scope of his investigation, as had been done
two or three times before when he has gone into extraneous matters.
Timehost: Were there areas that you ran across in your investigation
that you would have liked to pursue but could not because of the official
scope of your mandate?
Lawrence Walsh: Yes. There were other areas. I did not really want to
pursue them. But we did get extraneous complaints about Meese and others.
But I did not want to pursue them. I wanted to focus on my investigation on the
misuse of government power by President Reagan, whose administration had
diverted funds from a sale of government weapons to Iran, to fund the Contras,
after Congress had specifically forbidden funding the Contras.
Timehost: Do you think that the Independent Counsel statute is set up
to effectively investigate personal wrongdoing of a President?
Lawrence Walsh: It may be so broad that it includes them, but it should be
narrowed. Even before this came up, I, and a group of other former
counsels, had urged an act that would limit the scope of the Independent Counsel's responsibilities to the investigation of official misconduct and misuse of government power.
Timehost: I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about what it
appears that Ken Starr is doing right now. What's his strategy?
Lawrence Walsh: He is trying to get as quickly as possible all of the
documents that could bear on the question of the president's answers, and
question the witnesses as to circumstances which may have a relevance to the
truth or falsity of the president's deposition, as well as the claims of
Monica Lewinsky.
Saxoxan asks: Has Mr. Starr overstepped his bounds in continuing to
pry into White House affairs?
Lawrence Walsh: In my judgment, yes. I do not believe that he should
intrude into the private lawsuit between Paula Jones and President Clinton.
This is a suit for several million dollars and the President is entitled to
the opportunity to defend himself, without the intrusion of a government
prosecutor on the side of Paula Jones.
Woods_time asks: What kind of oversight does Congress have regarding
the Independent Counsel?
Lawrence Walsh: Very little. He supplies every 6 months a report to the
court and Congress as to how much money he has spent, and that's about it.
Cgreen1970 asks: Could Ken Starr be politically motivated or is he
just as disgusted by the whole process?
Lawrence Walsh: He could be politically motivated. He has had a long
political association with right-wing Republican activities. It could also
be that he has a very pious view of lying in general, and that he thinks a
government prosecutor should intrude in cases where lying may be going on.
But this is wrong. It overlooks the responsibility of the judge and jury in
a private case to reach its own decision as to what is true and what is
false. The prosecutor has no general license to substitute his own view for
that of the judge and the jury, in a private case. And most prosecutors
would not intrude.
Woods_time asks: If the Independent Counsel can wire people with
microphones BEFORE getting his authority broadened, is there any practical
limit to what Starr can investigate regarding Clinton?
Lawrence Walsh: Well, there are limits. If he goes too far he could be
removed, if he becomes arbitrary. But wiring people to solicit admissions in
a barroom without prior authority extending his jurisdiction is open to
criticism and is probably illegal, from what little we now know.
mccartney4175 asks: Do you think Monica can be considered as a
credible witness....she has a history, you know!
Lawrence Walsh: I don't need much of a history. She already has lied under
oath in an affidavit in the Paula Jones case... if the tapes were as they
are described.
Ppeters89 asks: Could you give a brief outline of the procedure Mr.
Starr will have to follow in the next few weeks?
Lawrence Walsh: He will be taking grand jury testimony of what we might
call supporting witnesses, and waiting for a break as to Ms Lewinsky. They
are negotiating a proffer for immunity. And that is a trade-off of what she
promises to testify to, in exchange for a promise by the prosecutor that she
will not be prosecuted for what she says, unless she lies . . . again.
Timehost: Judge Walsh, perhaps you would like to talk a little bit
more about the role immunity plays in such investigations... it was, I
remember, a problem for yours?
Lawrence Walsh: That's correct. It was a problem because Congress gave
immunity to two of the central actors that I was investigating, and even
though we tried to shield ourselves from the testimony, other witnesses
heard it, and the Court of Appeals reversed the convictions of North and
Poindexter because their testimony had, in a theoretical sense, been used
against them when these witnesses testified.
Timehost: Do you think a prosecutor could really ever get a
conviction of Monica Lewinsky for perjury? Wouldn't that simply appear too
heavy handed even to try? What jury would convict her?
Lawrence Walsh: A conviction for perjury is always difficult. A criminal
jury must reach a unanimous verdict. So if one person is not persuaded, that
causes a mistrial or acquittal. The question would be: who is going to
testify against her? .And if it is somebody like Linda Tripp.. who
lured her into a bar to solicit admissions from her while pretending to be
her friend, the jury may first of all not believe Ms Tripp and may also be so
annoyed with what she did, that they might refuse to convict.
Chaparral95640 asks: Mr. Walsh, please explain your personal
political perspective. We (Am. public) is overwhelmed with opinions from
proponents and opponents. Do you support the president, or oppose him; are
you a wholly unbiased observer in this matter?
Lawrence Walsh: I don't know whether anyone can be wholly unbiased. I
try to be. I am a Republican, but I voted for President Clinton both times.
I don't believe my political views in any way affected my own investigation.
Nor do they affect my evaluation of Mr. Starr.
Stamm4 asks: Would you favor a Constitutional Amendment to spell out
the duties of the Office of the Special Counsel? Right now, the whole
arrangement is extra-constitutional.
Lawrence Walsh: There would not need to be a constitutional amendment. A
simple statute is enough.
Neils_88 asks: in Britain such matters are usually left to the
parties to litigate - would the US be better off if this were kept out of
the public arena (without clear evidence of a crime)?
Lawrence Walsh: I think in this particular case it would be better if the Paula Jones case could go on to trial and let the judge and jury decide whom to believe If something very flagrant is exposed, then let the independent counsel enter the picture. But he should not be in it at this time.
Duah_98 asks: Do you think that this is a right wing conspiracy being
brought in by the republicans to bring down the president ?
Lawrence Walsh: I believe that it is an activity that grows out of enemies
of the president who want to bring him down, whether they are right-wing or
something else. That doesn't mean that I believe Mr. Starr is one of them.
Bold_and_Beautiful asks: Why hasn't the President taken any lie
detector tests while everybody else seems to be forced to take them? For all
we know, he could be the bigger liar in this case.
Lawrence Walsh: Lie Detector tests are not admissible in evidence. Some
people believe in taking them, some don't. That would be a tactical decision
by his lawyers, and I don't know enough of the facts and circumstances to
express a judgment on it. When I was in private practice, I never used lie
detectors. In my investigation in Iran- Contra, we used them two or three
times. We used them to help us form a judgment as to whether to
continue to investigate certain persons and facts.
Stamm4 asks: Why do you think George Bush pardoned so many people you convicted?
Lawrence Walsh: Because he was afraid of what the Weinberger case would
expose publicly, if it went to trial. And he was personally in danger of
being called as a witness by the defense.
Code3eng asks: what is so different between what's going on in the
oval office now, as opposed to what happened with "Watergate"????
Lawrence Walsh: In Watergate the President was actively trying to control
the agencies of investigation--and was caught on tape talking about passing
money to witnesses. There is nothing like that here. This is a controversy
that arose out of a private case concerning alleged sexual misconduct, and
is entirely private, and there is no allegation of misconduct in the work of
the Presidency.
Slyon_98 asks: Do you agree with Attorney General Reno's approval to
allow Mr. Starr's expansion of the investigation about Monica Lewinsky?
Lawrence Walsh: NO. I think she acted too hastily. I know she has a very
mechanical view of the statute. I disagree with her. She should have taken
30 days to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses involved, and the
desirability of having Starr take on additional work, when he is already so
far behind with the work he is already responsible for.
New_freddy asks: Do you think he is guilty and don't give me the run
around
Lawrence Walsh: All right. I'll answer that. On the evidence that has been
released to the press, which is all we know about it, I don't think he would
be convicted of any crime. That is the best I can do without knowing all of
the facts.
Spiritgraphics asks: When do you think the whole scandal will be
resolved?
Lawrence Walsh: I don't think anyone can say. Except that it always takes
longer than we at first think. If Starr thinks he can convict anyone of
perjury or suborning of perjury there will be a long wait. There will be
motions to delay, disagreements, delays. I really think that's what he will
decide to do. My instinct is that he will not try or attempt to try the
President. He will end up by filing a report with the Judiciary Committee of
the House of Representatives as the easiest way out: leaving it for the
committee to decide whether to go ahead with some kind of proceedings against
the President.
Stamm4 asks: Would you agree to be a special counsel again?
Lawrence Walsh: (laughing) No I think I'm now too old for that, and I think
once is enough for most people.
Mr_Koolaid asks: Should Monica Lewinsky be allowed immunity to
testify or will she use the "Oliver North" strategy and use it to cover her
backside?
Lawrence Walsh: I think that the negotiations on granting immunity are
taking time because Starr wants to assure himself that she will not get
immunity and then, as you say, try to cover her backside in what she
testifies.
Gestaltes asks: what would the independent counsel have on Ms.
Lewinsky, if she didn't change her affidavit testimony?
Lawrence Walsh: Well, right now what he has on her are the admissions that
Ms Tripp obtained from her. I think that so far as we can tell from the
press, that is all he has at the moment. Though he may have more that we
don't know about. Those admissions would require the testimony of Ms Tripp,
who will be cross-examined about the deceit she performed on her friend, and
about the attempt to sell a book based on the information she was obtaining.
Packerbacker_99 asks: Do you think this additional information from
Mr. Bleiler, Oregon, will help or damage the case and for whom, the
President or Ms. Lewinsky? The information seemed to hurt both.
Lawrence Walsh: The testimony would not be admissible against the President
because it is simply hearsay and Ms Lewinsky apparently did not even mention the President specifically. It will be damaging to Ms. Lewinsky because it will expose her to cross-examination about an adulterous relationship.
Neils_88 asks: politically, is the office of special prosecutor now
likely to be misused by whatever party doesn't control the executive branch,
in a spiraling tit-for-tat process, at the expense of political stability?
Lawrence Walsh: It will not, in my judgment. The danger is that the
Independent Counsel act will not be extended, because everyone will be fed
up with what has been happening. My hope is that the act will be modified
properly so that it will be a useful tool in cases involving official
misconduct by people in high offices. But it should only cover their acts
while in power, and in relation to their official duties.
Timehost: You used the term "Firewall" (it was the title of your book
about Iran-Contra) to describe the way President Reagan's close circle
managed to insulate him against any wrongdoing. Is the role of aides and
friends considerably different in the kind of scandals President Clinton is
facing?
Lawrence Walsh: I don't know of anything in the Clinton
Administration that resembles what happened in the Reagan Administration
where North and Poindexter were blamed for running away and doing something on their own, when in fact, they had been tacitly authorized to do it either by the President himself, or by implication -- and when the secretary of defense had written notes exposing the cover up and nevertheless denied
having them both to Congress and to the Independent Counsel.
Yun14u asks: Looking back to the Iran Contra case, if you had your
chance again, would you grant the immunity to Oliver North and John
Poindexter again ?
Lawrence Walsh: I never granted immunity to them. Congress did it. I
begged them not to do it. I told them that if they did it, they would
jeopardize the case.
GuyInACheapSuit asks: Mr. Walsh, what do you think of Janet Reno and
her handling of the current situation
Lawrence Walsh: I've been very supportive of her until now. I think she
made a mistake in acting so hastily in expanding Starr's jurisdiction.
WuzzleWazzle asks: Do you feel that this story has been blown out of
the water and that now it is being used more by the GOP to tarnish the name
of Mr. Clinton?
Lawrence Walsh: I think the story has been unduly ..well, yes, blown out of
the water. And that it is being used to harm not only the President, but
indirectly is harming the country.. at a critical time in our international
affairs.
Bull_67 asks: Was your credibility challenged as fiercely as Starr's
is?
Lawrence Walsh: I don't think so. And I don't know that there was a
challenge to my credibility as such: the basic challenge to my work was that
it took so long and cost so much.
Timehost: I seem to remember that we heard a great deal of criticism
that what independent counsels do is criminalize the political process.
Lawrence Walsh: That was President Bush's claim that was the defense of
high-ranking officers in the Bush administration. It is a silly claim.
Because a political dispute does not authorize a high ranking cabinet
officer to lie to a congressional committee. A person, a witness, must tell
the truth or refuse to answer. He cannot lie.
Edrieanne asks: Should there be some type of judicial accountability
levied upon the media for yellow-journalism during investigations -
especially if irresponsibility impedes the investigation?
Lawrence Walsh: I don't believe that we would ever want to narrow the First
Amendment. Every now and then there are exaggerations and even misstatements but by and large I think the Washington press corps is the best in the world. I don't think it should be limited by law. I think it is very
difficult to evaluate these stories as they unfold.
Yun14u asks: About Linda Tripp, do you think she will be tried in the
state of Maryland for wiretapping violation ?
Lawrence Walsh: I doubt that they will take the trouble.
Vincent__ asks: What makes YOU any different from Kenneth Starr. If
he is part of a right wing conspiracy to get Clinton, weren't (and aren't)
you part of a left wing conspiracy to get Reagan?
Lawrence Walsh: Nobody ever called me left wing before. I started working
for the Republican Party during the Landon campaign in 1936... and I've
never stopped! During my work for Governor Dewey, we had to deal with
hostile people on the left who in the forties and fifties were very strong
willed and difficult.
Timehost: I remember reading that lots of your old friends were angry
with you for the job you did... is that true?
Lawrence Walsh: I wouldn't say "lots." Some were disappointed that I
investigated members of my own party, but that goes with the job.
Slyon_98 asks: What would you have done differently in Iran-Contra?
Lawrence Walsh: I probably would have questioned President Reagan earlier.
I had a strong reticence to intrude on the President because of the enormity
of his job and the need to leave him unannoyed in dealing with the country's
business. Instead of taking an early deposition, I submitted a written
interrogatory, which permitted his lawyers to help him answer. When I
finally took his deposition, his illness had already set in (the
Alzheimer's) and though he attempted to be cooperative, his memory was badly
damaged.
Stamm4 asks: How many FBI agents did you have working for you? How
many lawyers? How do those numbers compare with Starr's?
Lawrence Walsh: Mine were much smaller. Except at the very first few
months, during the first months, we had at one time 28 lawyers, and we
probably had 20 FBI agents. But after the congressional hearings concluded
in about six or seven months, this was drastically cut. Most of the time I
had 8 or 10 lawyers, in addition to myself, and from one to four FBI agents.
Yun14u asks: if you were Ken Starr, what is your strategy at this
time ?
Lawrence Walsh: I would have to decide whether I wanted to prosecute Ms.
Lewinsky, or give her immunity in order to get her to supply incriminating
information about others. If I'm going to convict her that is going to take
time and it may be unsuccessful. If I give her immunity, I'm not quite sure
what she is going to say when she testifies. And I may lose the chance of
getting as much as I would if I convicted her.
Jia_chin asks: Mr. Walsh, your statements indicate that the Independent
Counsel is devoid of political sentiments. The action of Starr appears to
have political undertones. Is Starr undermining the Presidency?
Lawrence Walsh: I think Starr is damaging the Presidency, with the
distraction that he is causing in this case. I don't attribute any
motivation to it, I just say that is the fact.
Cybershrink98 asks: What checks and balances are in effect for the
special prosecutor that keeps him/her from being politically biased?
Lawrence Walsh: The appointment should not be of a person with political
bias. After the appointment is in effect the Attorney General has the power
of removal for cause. Political bias would conceivably be grounds for
removal for cause. But she would then have to prefer charges and there would
be a hearing before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Rosieq asks: Do you think it's wrong that the Attorney General, be it
Janet Reno or Edwin Meese, has so much responsibility for launching
investigations into possible malfeasance by their own Presidents?
Lawrence Walsh: I think that is necessary. I think the rule of law must be
preserved. No person, regardless of how high his office, is beyond the rule
of law. This has been our governing rule since the 13th Century. It underlay
the constant struggle between the courts and the Crown in England, and here,
the Supreme Court has made it absolutely clear that no matter how high the
office, the person must stay within the law.
Woods_time asks: Some things have been leaked to the press which
apparently only someone in Starr's office could know. Are these leaks
illegal, and what could the motivation be behind these leaks?
Lawrence Walsh: Leaks from a prosecutor's office are unethical. And if they
include grand jury testimony, they are criminal. And they could form a basis
for the removal of the Independent Counsel.
Kaboom_78 asks: Do you think this scandal will change the peoples'
perspective of government as much as Nixon's resignation did?
Lawrence Walsh: No. I do not. We are dealing here with a highly personal
and private matter. This is not the misuse of the power of the government,
which was the case in the Nixon case.
Stamm4 asks: Do you see this investigation slipping away from Starr?
That is, the more it looks like Clinton will survive the charges, the more
that people will refuse to cooperate with Starr?
Lawrence Walsh: That is the natural effect of Starr's diminishing stature.
This also happens as an investigation gets older, and public reaction to the
expense becomes more intense. The longer an independent counsel stays in
office, unless he is spectacularly successful, the more difficult it gets.
Timehost: We're going to have to wrap up, but perhaps, Judge Walsh,
you have some closing thoughts?
Lawrence Walsh: Thank you. I think the questions have been really
excellent. I am very impressed with the attention that the questioners have
obviously given to the events of this past two weeks I hope that your continued vigilance will deter any excesses in the investigations or the litigation that is besetting the President. Not just in his interest, but in the interest of the country. That's all I have to say. The questions have really
covered everything very well.
Timehost: Lawrence Walsh, thank you very much for joining us this
evening. It was a pleasure having you with us online. Thanks to everyone
online for joining us this evening. And for a good group of questions.
Lawrence Walsh: I have enjoyed this very much.
Timehost: So have we! We would love to have you back.
