The Starr Report
Conversation with former Watergate Committee Senator Lowell Weicker and TIME.com Editor Janice Castro

Transcript from Sept. 11, 1998

Timehost: Hello everyone, welcome to the Time room. Has Washington ever seen a day like this? Has the internet ever seen a day like this? We're going to be talking about the Starr report with someone who's very familiar with the investigation of a president -- former Senator Lowell Weicker, who was a member of the Senate Watergate committee. Also, joining us a little later, TIME.com editor Janice Castro.

Timehost: Known as a political maverick, Lowell Weicker was President Nixon's strongest Republican critic. He was also governor of Connecticut from 1990 to 1995. Currently, he's a professor at the University of Virginia, where he teaches at the University and at the Law School. By the way, he's a visiting professor -- and we're very pleased that he can visit with us, on what appears to be a unique day in the history of Washington politics. Thank you, Gov. Weicker, for joining us.

Lowell Weicker: This is a first for me on the Internet as much as it's a first for the nation where President Clinton's conduct is concerned.

Timehost: Let's start with a question from online...
MSP65401: Is any of what the president did and impeachable offense??

Lowell Weicker: I think that's difficult to ascertain at this point. I believe you have to separate the salacious from the legal . We're a government of laws and not of men and we don't make up the rules as we go along. We have procedures to answer the question that's been asked, and we should follow those procedures.

vrtladept: What precendents for impeachment could be applied to Clinton by the House?

Lowell Weicker: Well, certainly none that I know of in my experience. The charge, of course, of using the office in an unconstitutional way was raised during Watergate but that never proceeded to judgment. I clearly think that the matters of lying and obstruction of justice will be what he'll have to deal with as his most serious problems. Again, I want to emphasize that everyone in their thinking on this matter should sweep away the lurid, sensational details of what he did and concentrate on the matter of perjury and obstruction of justice and the obligation of the President to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

Stamm444: Senator, do you think that all the salacious material in the Starr report should have been published? Very little of the Nixon material was ever made public.

Lowell Weicker: Of course that's not so. Everything was released both in terms of the Senate committee's work and the tapes. I can't speak for the House of Representatives .but we tried to have everything out in the open and it was. Now, to get to the first part of your question, Do I think they should have released the text of the Starr report as fully as possible?. My own answer is that it should all have been released. Censorship has no place in this country and certainly not in a political system that depends on the communication of facts. So, regardless of how it reads or sounds the American people should make a judgment and they should have every fact before them .

StanCanada: If he committed perjury in the Paula Jones deposition, Gov. Weicker, would that be enough to impeach in your opinion?

Lowell Weicker: Well, I really can't comment on that. I'm not in the position in so far as the legislature or the judicial branch is concerned to define what is impeachable. And I think really what bothers me there more than anything else is that by the alleged perjury, he denied a fair trial to an American citizen. That's not what presidents are supposed to be doing. I have to go back in my history to when Richard Nixon used to smear people, having them believe untruths. As bad as that was, how would you have liked to have been the person smeared, with no one believing you?

Searchtechy: Am I correct in assuming that none of the other charges, aside from those about Monica Lewinsky, were found to be of merit? That is, the travel office, the land deal.... these were not found to be a problem?

Lowell Weicker: That is my understanding, although, again I do not have in hand the entire report. They relate solely to the Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones cases.

phase45_98: Forget impeachment, do you think he will resign as a result of criticism ?

Lowell Weicker: I don't think there's any chance that the President will resign. And I think impeachment , by nature of what caused this whole affair, is going to be a tough matter to bring about. Obviously, the public has been polled on this matter, albeit before the Starr report, and people seem to say , "We don't like it, but he should continue as president." So, it might be that censure becomes a very real alternative.

Timehost: Here's one question that I know many people have had...and, like some questions in this scandal, it gets a little graphic, but I think it does raise a question about the nature of perjury...

hunter58: How could he have oral sex with Ms. Lewinsky and not know if he was alone with her?

Lowell Weicker: I think the matter of the President's lying frequently , obviously, colors all of his testimony. And has to be read in that light.

_bobb_catt_: Do you think that any elected official's private life, sexual or otherwise, should be a matter of public scrutiny?

Lowell Weicker: The fact is that it is a matter of public record. That is one of the aspects of the job that is not particularly tasteful. The President of the United States, or governor of a state, or a prominent U.S. senator, knows very well that their every move will be examined. You cannot separate, regardless of the president's statement, your private from your public life. As you know, I retired as governor in 1995 and the main reason was that I wanted a private life with my family.

Valerie_Cornmuffin: I am 18 and plan to register to vote soon. However, I feel like politics are based on lies. Can you give me any comfort on this matter?

Lowell Weicker: Absolutely. That's the reason why I teach at the University of Virginia, and before that, at Yale and George Washington. I am trying to bring young people, such as yourself, into public service. Remember , I've served at every level of government except the presidency. And I can assure you that 99 percent of the men and women are both committed and honest -- and courageous. It's important again here to note the minuses of politics. Specifically, lousy pay, seven day weeks, and a ton of abuse. You have to love your neighbors to enjoy that. But then, no profession on earth has more power to do good than the profession of public service.

Johnny_Cochran_Attorney_at_law: Senator Weicker...How long do you see the process of a possible impeachment taking in this matter as compared to the rather quick movements which led to Nixon's resignation?

Lowell Weicker: Can't really compare, to the extent that you had the Senate Watergate hearings over a protracted period of time before the House moved on the impeachment hearings. Between the testimony of witnesses and the tapes, the litany of Nixon wrongdoing was solidly established. So it's difficult, since there hasn't been any legislative action up to this point to relate the two. It's also a matter of the individual -- as you know, in the case of Richard Nixon, he sidestepped the impeachment by resigning.

KatieJo99_01: Do you think that the White House will be able to defend Clinton's actions and get him out of this mess?

Lowell Weicker: There's only one person that can get him out of this mess -- and that's Bill Clinton. One of the problems he already has is having expended White House energies, by that I mean, press and legal energies, to masquerade his line...his lying. Any chance the president has lies in establishing a totally candid relationship with the American people. No one should have to flyspect an American president's statements. When he tells the truth, we'll all know it. That hasn't happened to this point.

egpjr: Have you been in contact with any member of the Senate and if so, how would you characterize their sentiment on this issue?

Lowell Weicker: I have not been in contact with any member of the Senate.

MissyCat82: Was this investigation worth $50 million dollars?

Lowell Weicker: The answer has to be no. But if the President had told the truth at the offset, it wouldn't have cost $50 million. The wasting of taxpayer monies sits on his head. And on no one else's.

Steve1953: Many people say, a case can be made, that this is a Nixon-era/Watergate backlash, any thoughts?

Lowell Weicker: No. I think the two are entirely different. In the case of Richard Nixon, it is well documented that he broke many of the articles of the Constitution -- in addition to a great number of laws. This situation came to pass by the unfortunate behavior of the President of the United States which in and of itself might not be lawbreaking -- bBut which lead to the perjury and the obstruction of justice allegations.

Mitchell29: Is Ken Starr out of control?

Lowell Weicker: Again, I think judgment on Mr. Starr's effort has to wait for the constitutional procedure that now follows. The attorney general's office, the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate are proper institutions to make that judgement. I'd like to add one thing here... I find it interesting to see, or to hear, the shock and dismay of the American public since the issuance of the report. But may I point out, that for many months, the President and his fellow White House tenants did their best to smear Mr. Starr. I suspect that a prosecutor's job is never easy. But the people responsible for him, the three-judge panel , the Attorney General, never joined in the criticism launched by the White House.

Timehost: Many people online have wondered, though, what happened to everything that Starr was originally charged to investigate -- some of which had previously been investigated by another independent counsel...

Steve1953: What of the first 3 years of Mr. Starr's investigation? None was in the presented documents.

Timehost: or...

MissyCat82: What does sex have to do with Whitewater?

Lowell Weicker: I think that's a very good comment on all counts. It's the one question that I have -- which is "How did we go from Whitewater to this?"

guitar76: Is there any kind of reference in American history that can be compared to the Clinton/Lewinsky Scandal?

Lowell Weicker: I'm sure the answer is yes. As an avid reader of history, more than one president has had inappropriate relations. But then, in this television, Internet generation, many of the rules have changed, and those of us in politics know they've changed.

TalliKat: Do you think this case will affect the way women are treated in workplace and elsewhere?

Lowell Weicker: I find this the strangest aspect of the case. There's no question that women elected Bill Clinton. And yet, in all the polls I've seen, they minimize the man's in the degradation of other women. That's a hard one to figure out.

MissyCat82: What do you think would have happened had the President told the truth about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky in the first place?

Lowell Weicker: We certainly wouldn't be where we are today in terms of the possibility of impeachment. It would have been politically rough. But nothing that he couldn't have survived, considering the good times. It's ironic that the only link between Watergate and the Lewinsky scenario is the cover-up. It's that that's put Clinton in the difficult position that he finds himself in today.

Steve_Arlo: Do you have any thoughts on Sen. Lieberman's speech the other day?

Lowell Weicker: I heard a part of it, and I gather the senator distinguished himself. And since he is a senator from my home state, I'm very proud of him.

Timehost: From your perspective as a critic of the head of your own party in a scandal, what advice would you have for Democrats -- what do you think they'll do?

Lowell Weicker: Make sure that they get the truth out to minimize the political damage. I used to say to my Republican colleagues in the Senate during Watergate, "The truth is gonna come out. The facts are established. Now would you rather that be done by a member of the opposition party, or would you like the people to observe a political party cleaning up its own act?"

TalliKat: What do the think the final outcome will be, and how long will it take?

Lowell Weicker: Very difficult to conjecture. I do not know the detailed elements of the perjury and obstruction of justice allegations, nor the misuse of the presidency allegation. If these are further expanded and confirmed, impeachment becomes a real possibility. In the absence of any further fact, I would probably answer that the matter would be resolved by censure. In any event, that which means the most to any politician, his or her legacy, has been destroyed by President Clinton's mendacious statements and conduct.

kw1_99: Do you think the office of the President has been harmed for good?

Lowell Weicker: Yes. That's what concerns me the most. Because it is the highest honor that the American people have to bestow. And in one generation, they twice have had that honor thrown back in their face. I don't want to let the American people off the hook, in that they keep responding with favorable job ratings for Clinton, while facts come out one more unfortunate than the other. In the final analysis, a president, a governor, a senator, a House member, is a reflection of his constituency. I fear for my country if such is the case in this instance.

Timehost: Thank you very much for joining us today, Gov. Weicker. I know you've got to run, and we're glad you could be with us today. Any closing thoughts?

Lowell Weicker: Yes, I do have a closing thought. During the Watergate hearings, when the plethora of abuses had been documented beyond all reasonable doubts, the Nixon White House, unable to justify its actions, made a final plea to the American people, stating, "Everybody does it." That generation of Americans rejected that as an explanation for gross or illegal behavior. It's now the turn of this generation to set forth what it is they want their government to be about. The gutter or the stars?

Timehost: Again, thank you for joining us -- it was a pleasure speaking with you online.

Lowell Weicker: Thank you for having me. I enjoyed it greatly. Good night.

Timehost: We hope you'll come back to join us again!

Timehost: We're also joined now by TIME.com editor Janice Castro. Good afternoon. Or evening, for those of us on the East Ccoast.

Timehost: One of the really amazing things about today is that it's not only a milestone in American politics, it's also shaping up as a key day in the history of the internet.

Janice Castro: In the development of the web as a communications medium.You're right.

Timehost: Janice Castro is the editor of TIME's web site -- a long time observer of political events, media developments, and the incredibly fast-changing world of technology. As most of you know, the world learned about the contents of the Starr report from the internet. The House put it up on its siteand the whole rest of the world has followed. Janice, that's a pretty incredible political development in itself?

Janice Castro: It is. This is a watershed moment in American politics...and the Web is enabling all Americans to read the information in the Starr report for themselves and come to their own conclusions. The Web is in fact the Global Village that Marshall McLuhan thought television would be. We can all read the evidence. And at TIME.com we are producing a constantly-developing annotated version of the report, with contributions from dozens of top TIME political analysts in Washington and at the magazine's offices in New York.

MissyCat82: Are you all in the Right-Wing Media proud of yourselves now!

Janice Castro: Well Missy, thanks for calling us Right Wing. That balances out nicely with those who wonder if we're Left Wing. In fact, we're simply trying to bring you the news and help you decide what it means.

_SuperSharpShooter_: Do you think it was right to publish these details in the Starr report about the actual sexual acts in connection to the statements Mr.Clinton made about his relation to Monica?

Janice Castro: Excuse me, Sharp, just a moment: I'd love to ask Missy why she thinks we are right wing. Is it because she is upset by the allegations against President Clinton? Because I think we all are.


Janice Castro: Thanks for waiting Sharp... That's a good questions. The issue here was that the President repeatedly and specifically denied under oath that he had engaged in sex with Miss Lewinsky. Thus her testimony about exactly what they did, and his testimony in the Starr Report describing the same events, is quite relevant. Though it is, in places, also disgusting.

Timehost: Could you describe the discussions at TIME about the raw nature of some of the details?

Janice Castro: Sure. We are concerned about the families using our site, for example. We put a cautionary warning at the beginning of the Starr Report, warning readers that salacious information is contained in the report they are about to read. Some of us, frankly, are embarrassed to talk about what we're reading. But the fact is that the allegations and evidence in this report bear on potentially impeachable offenses by the President of the United States. As such, this is profoundly important news.

chach988: How do you feel this will be treated in the history books? As the Senator said this type of thing has been going on throughout history. Yet in this day of constant media attention shouldn't we all feel like "peeping toms"?

Janice Castro: How this is treated in the history books will depend on the events that occur in the coming days and weeks If the Congress recommends impeachment, for example, that will be one kind of historic importance. Your question about peeping toms is a good one. Is there something about the nature of our (American) interest in this kind of detail that is driving more disclosure of these events? It is certainly true that certain powerful men, including some in Washington, have engaged in similar acts. But I think it would be a great mistake, as Governor Weicker pointed out, to minimize the moral implications by simply saying everyone does it. Everyone does not do it, and when some do engage in illicit behavior, that doesn't make it right. That is not the lesson we want our children to hear, or the bar where we want to set moral and legal standards.

Timehost: And right now, if someone wants to know more about it, they're looking at a fairly non-traditional place to get news - or their weekend reading?

Janice Castro: This is an unprecedented example of the Web as a powerful news medium Here is a major story, one that could potentially end a presidency, and everyone has immediate access to the facts. You will still be able to turn to magazines and newspapers for thoughtful analysis-- I know that TIME is preparing an unprecedented report, with lots of original reporting, to be published in a couple of days. But if you want to know about this huge event right now, come to the Web.
Timehost: The debate on the House floor this morning was largely about giving the President time to see the report before the House, and, then hours later, the whole world. The speed here is unprecedented. And the White House even put up its
Timehost: response before the report went up. Everyone could read the report at the same time the President was reading it.

Janice Castro: No printing press and distribution system can rival that speed.

Timehost: Is it possible to make sense of information in this kind of environment?

Janice Castro: Sure. Here at TIME Daily, for example, we are publishing the annotated version with political analysis from our Washington correspondents and TIME editors, so that TIME.com readers can consult the legal precedents, and understand the legal, constitutional or political significance of each major point as they read it. The Web gives us that kind of flexibility, something we always wished we had in the linear world of print where I spent most of my career before going online.

twwibbs: Do you think the "salacious details" contained in the report will only reinforce the popular perception that the Internet is a trashy hangout place?

Janice Castro: I think it would be unfortunate if describing the behavior of the President of the United States gives an impression that the Web is a trashy place. The same descriptions are available on the House of Representatives site and in every member of Congress' office. As well as in the Oval Office. It is the information that is disturbing. Not the place where you read it.

__NO_ID__: Janice, Please respond. Why does the MEDIA seem surprised by WJC when in '92 you all knew what type of a man he is?

Janice Castro: I think even those reporters who had been flirted with by the President were surprised by the details in the report. It really reads like a cheap novel. Here's Harold Ickes (allegedly) in the Oval Office looking for the President and calling out "Mr President!!" and here (allegedly) is the President hurrying back from the darkened alcove nearby while Miss Lewinsky (allegedly) makes her departure by another door.

taxfreemunis: I would like you to comment on our increasing lack of privacy in our private lives.

Janice Castro: I think it is a real problem. I also think that all of us bear some responsibility for it. Why do tabloids prosper so well if readers do not want to hear this stuff? Why is every development of the Clinton-Lewinsky story a new high in readership? Is this really what we want the national conversation to be about? This is regardless of the nature and seriousness of the charges. But do we all want to know too much about the private lives of public officials?


Janice Castro: By the way, Tax Free, thanks for your compliment about my fast typing. I am not a robot, but I am the most experienced reporter and fastest typist in this room.
Timehost: And Tax Free has a follow-up to our talk about trashy behavior...

taxfreemunis: Behavior is not trashy, unless you say it is. Normal sexual relations between two consenting adults should not be labled trashy. Only your mind makes it so. And yes, the internet is full of trash.

Janice Castro: Tax Free,I think you seem to be saying that there are no moral standards, that there is no social consensus of value on moral behavior. I disagree with you, and I think most people do. Some things are wrong.

taxfreemunis: I never complimented you on your fast typing. I was trying to get your job, since I think I can do a much better job. I'll work for free.

Janice Castro: Oh, thanks! :-) Send us your resume. You'll need more qualifications than typing of course. :-) And I love your salary demands.

jsepulv: How do you think the media coverage has affected the American people's views towards the President?

Janice Castro: I think the reports of the President's behavior, his consistent denials, and then his admissions that he lied, are very disturbing to all Americans, perhaps most to those who agree most with President Clinton on the important issues facing our nation. Because we look to him for leadership, not only moral leadership, but political leadership, and a leadership of inspiration and good ideas. What I keep hearing is that people are embarrassed. They don't want to know this stuff about the President. I keep hearing that people are embarrassed by these reports.

Timehost: Thanks, Janice, for joining us today.

Copyright © 1998 Yahoo! Chat and TIME. All rights reserved.