Timehost: Kenneth Starr is still testifying before the House
Judiciary Committee. We're now joined by TIME senior writer Eric Pooley. Welcome Eric.
Eric Pooley: Good to be here.
Timehost: First, what are your general impressions of today's
hearings?
Eric Pooley: I was struck by the almost plaintive tone of
Starr's opening statement. He clearly has heard the criticism, and he was
trying to respond. Defensive. Stubborn. Persuaded that he has the correct
position, and unable to understand why so many people disagree with him.
But he seemed to offer the Committee a way out when he held up the referral
and said, "This is a tool. This is only a tool for you to use as you see
fit."
Timehost: We're also joined by Jon Bonne, senior editor of COURT TV Online.
Jon Bonne: Well, today showed us one thing we already knew: Ken
Starr won't be getting any offers soon from Hollywood. Admittedly, some
drama was drained from the moment because his testimony was already
released last night, but his delivery lacked a certain, um, flair. That
said, the interactive parts of the hearing, especially those involving
perennial Starr critics such as Maxine Waters have proved fascinating to
watch.
Eric Pooley: I thought he did better in his responses to
questions than in his opening, which was horribly stiff.
Jon Bonne: Democrats, for their part, have not yet gotten to the
core issue, though which is: does Starr have the legal backbone to
demonstrate that his charges rise to the level of impeachment?
Eric Pooley: Agree. Starr assumes it rises to the level
impeachment, it seems, because he feels it in his bones. The sanctity of
the law, as he said. But he hasn't been pressed on the point.
echoing_red asks: How do you feel about the constant
interruptions the Democrats are making?
Eric Pooley: Predictable tactic, but bad TV.
Jon Bonne: From the TV side, we're happy to see anything that's
more interesting than Starr's opening. Like I said, interesting to watch,
but not really useful except to prove to the party faithful they've done
their job.
Eric Pooley: I think Zoe Lofgren drew blood with her questions
about when Starr first heard of tapes about a woman and Clinton. But the
format made it impossible to pin Starr down.
Jon Bonne: If the Democrats could have made one change today, it
probably should have been to take some of the wind out of Abbe Lowell, who
seemed so riled up by Starr's investigative tactics that he appeared to
have forgotten to do his job as chief Democratic counsel for the committee.
appaulled asks: Was anything "new" (substantively speaking) to
the controversy added today?
Jon Bonne: All I saw was Starr's acknowledgment that the rest of
his investigation -- Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate -- is essentially
over. Eric, did you see anything new and noteworthy?
Eric Pooley: No, but it wasn't meant to be about new charges.
There's plenty on the table -- now the Committee needs to decide what to do
about it. A lot of the members, especially Republicans, looked like they
wanted very badly to be elsewhere. It's like watching a football game on
videotape, and you already know who won. And the Giants are playing the
Eagles.
Timehost: Here's a follow-up from your first answer, Eric, your
characterization of Starr as "stubborn"...
appaulled asks: "Stubborn"?! Eric, that characterization seems a
bit harsh compared to the mild-mannered man on TV today. How was he
"stubborn"?
Eric Pooley: He was mild-mannered, but I think he was also
stubborn. Tenaciously sticking to his judgment--that lying under oath is
impeachable behavior-- even though the majority of Americans disagrees.
Jon Bonne: Of course, to his credit, he managed to maintain a
remarkably even keel given the tenor of the questioning. This is a man who
spent four years getting grilled like this by no less than the Supremes
when he was solicitor general -- and if you think Congress is tough, try
the nine justices...
Eric Pooley: Right. He's not quite the political naif he claims
to be, either. He navigated the upper reaches of the Reagan and Bush
Administrations pretty well.
Timehost: Here's a question that gets to the heart of today's
hearings....
jgirl519 asks: Is Starr investigating the President's lies, or
his affair?
Eric Pooley: He claims it's the lying. The Democrats have done a
good job making the case that it's the sex. Today, I think Starr did help
himself. He basically said he was doing his duty, uncovering the
President's lies, and the House can do with this information what it will.
Jon Bonne: Exactly.
nemco_98 asks: DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THIS IS A FAIR HEARING ?
Glad I am not an American.
Eric Pooley: No, it's political theater.
Jon Bonne: Exactly what Eric said. It's the Congressional
equivalent of a show trial.
Eric Pooley: If Starr were a defendant -- or if there was
anything at stake -- it would be troubling. But everybody on both sides have
made up their minds.
Jon Bonne: And it's clear this inquiry is going nowhere, so this
all amounts to naught.
Timehost: This next question raises another issue Democrats spent
a lot of time talking about...
frankie31 asks: Linda Tripp recorded conversations illegally: How
can this have become the basis for Starr to pursue the President? Shouldn't
that have been dismissed?
Jon Bonne: Well, that's all a matter of which lawyer you ask.
Eric Pooley: David Kendall will likely make that case when he
questions Starr tonight.
Jon Bonne: Some will say that the federal investigation
superseded the Maryland state law that made it potentially illegal. Tripp
and Lucianne Goldberg argue that because Tripp didn't know about the
Maryland law, it's not illegal. And if it's true Tripp didn't know, case
law backs them up. But the Maryland grand jury has reportedly heard
testimony from a Radio Shack employee who told Tripp when she bought the
recording equipment about the Maryland law.
Eric Pooley: Starr's people argue that they rewired Tripp and
recorded Monica legally in Virginia, a no-consent state, and used that tape
as the basis for going to Reno.
Jon Bonne: It will also probably depend on whether Tripp's
indicted, and in what venue they pursue the charges. And as Eric pointed
out, the Virginia wiretap at the Ritz Carlton was legal. (though not
really audible.)
Timehost: Let's do a little historical comparison...
thrillerfromvanilla489 asks: Is this like the Watergate hearings?
Eric Pooley: Less drama. In Watergate, there was a rising sense
that a president would be forced out. Here, we already know that's not
going to happen.
Jon Bonne: Precisely. I think the only way the two are
conclusively linked is that they're both about impeachment. This time,
there's absolutely no sense of bipartisanship and the entire pacing and
structure of the investigation is different, plus there was no independent
counsel in 1974.
Eric Pooley: And let's face it: the crimes here are of another
level altogether.
SnickersKid asks: Will Starr's testimony significantly help the
President, significantly hurt him or do no real damage at all?
Eric Pooley: My guess is no change. Here's why: At every step of
the way, we've awaited Big Moments: Clinton's testimony, release of the
tapes, Starr's referral. But none of it has changed public opinion, though
at every turn the pundits predicted that it would. I think minds are made
up. Even Starr must know that, which accounts for the defensiveness of his
statement.
Jon Bonne: I, too, will choose what was behind door #3. It's
clear at this point that despite whatever laws the President might have
broken, the American public is clearly determined to live with it and move
on. Which translates to: anything Starr does, short of unveiling some
devastating new charge, will fall flat.
Timehost: So at this point, what does Starr hope to get out of
all this...
Jeremy_Long87 asks: Is Starr really using this report for the
impeachment process or is he using it as a way to let the Americans know
how bad a president we really have?
Eric Pooley: I think he'd like to salvage his own reputation. He
came into this as a sort of Washington wise man--friends of Democrats and
Republicans alike (remember, Democrats called him in during the Packwood
case). But he leaves it with that reputation in tatters. He thinks that's
unfair, and today was an attempt to set the record straight.
Jon Bonne: Aside from that post at Pepperdine he hoped to get,
he's going to have a hard time finding some work at this point. He's let
down his faithful followers, he's permanently embittered his Democratic
friends and his name is proverbially mud.
Eric Pooley: I don't agree. He'll make millions as a private
lawyer. But he had dreamed of the Supreme Court!
Jon Bonne: Well, *that's* certainly gone. It's sad in a way,
because his legal skill is truly formidable.
Eric Pooley: I meant I don't agree he'll have trouble finding
work. But I agree he's mud.
Jon Bonne: Now he'll be using it to, at best, defend some of
Kirkland & Ellis' deep-pocketed clients.
Timehost: Here's a follow-up comment from one person about the
Watergate parallels..
CaptainMorgan3_16 asks: #1 thing in Watergate: Lying to the
American people. Isn't this what Clinton did
Eric Pooley: Yes. But doesn't it matter *what* you lie about?
I think people are appalled at Clinton. But they don't want to chuck him
out for lying about sex.
Jon Bonne: Eric said it. Plus, Americans have made clear they're
drawing differences when it comes to a lack of veracity. It seems to
horrify the people who've hated him all along, but no one else seems to
care anymore.
Timehost: Here's a follow-up about Starr...
thereal_janelle asks: Do you think Starr will face any
ramifications because of his actions in this matter?
Jon Bonne: Not officially. Though the White House and the House
Democrats will certainly try. But like we said, unofficially, his
reputation is burnt to a cinder.
Eric Pooley: I agree. The alleged prosecutorial misconduct
doesn't add up to all that much, when you really look at it. It's
distasteful, but probably not actionable.
Jon Bonne: It's also no more than many, many U.S. Attorneys could
be accused of.
Timehost: We're still waiting for David Kendall to start his
questioning...it looks like it's going to be a long night...what tactic do
you think he should take?
Eric Pooley: I think he should present his questions in mime. It
would be more fun.
Jon Bonne: To paraphrase Ken Starr quoting Jack Webb, he should
stick to just the facts. It would get this thing wrapped up much quicker.
Eric Pooley: Aw, there you go being serious again.
Jon Bonne: I think I've been watching this too long.
Eric Pooley: Jon's right. Kendall has made some strong charges
about collusion between Starr and Tripp and the Jones team. Can he back
any of it up? Can he crack Starr? Doubtful, but here's his chance. And
the cool thing is, Kendall got his big break winning a libel case for the
Washington Post. And the judge on that case was... Ken Starr.
lilpeachez3 asks: Do you think that the Congress next year will
vote against the independent counsel resolution?
Jon Bonne: No question about it. Most of them have been
complaining for years about it already, and there's already bipartisan
support for serious revisions to the statute.
Eric Pooley: When my kids and I say our prayers at night, we pray
that they will.
Jon Bonne: btw, Mary Bono, wife of the dearly departed Sonny,
just asked Ken Starr what motivates him to keep going on with this
investigation. I feel the love in the room.
Eric Pooley: Ken: I would like to be living my life with my
family. American people: We would like you to be doing that, too.
Jon Bonne: Ken Starr: "I love the Justice Dept." Somehow, I
think he might have a grudge against one or two people there.
blahblahblah11 asks: What happens after Starr's testimony?
blahblahblah11 asks: Will Hyde call more witnesses?
Jon Bonne: There's plans for more witnesses, Kathleen Willey's
lawyer and so on, but there are no more official hearings scheduled.
Eric Pooley: After this, the members run and hide for Thanksgiving.
Jon Bonne: So if they actually plan to get testimony, they'll
have to carve out some time for it along with their turkey. Otherwise,
it'll have to be by deposition only.
blahblahblah11 asks: Do you think today's testimony would have
been shorter if it hadn't been televised?
Jon Bonne: Actually, I think it might have been longer. The GOP
looks less driven to scandal when they're not on TV.
Eric Pooley: At least we might not have had so many empty
speeches from both sides.
Timehost: They're recessing for about half an hour for dinner...
Jon Bonne: Any guesses what they'll be eating? Our bets are on
the closest bar to the Hill.
Eric Pooley: Let's see: Ham? Crow? That depends on how you define
'eating.'
Timehost: I think we're going to be taking our dinner break soon
also...any closing thoughts?
Eric Pooley: They used to say every generation gets the
leadership it deserves. Monicagate proves that we get the scandals we
deserve, too. Tabloid culture begets tabloid politics, and tabloid politics
begets this tiresome mess.
Jon Bonne: At this point, it seems we in the much-maligned media
may have actually worn this story out. I'm just wondering what the
irresistible story will be for '99. Certainly, it will not emanate from
the White House or Capitol Hill.
Eric Pooley: Can McGwire beat his own record?
Jon Bonne: Will the Millennium spell the end to mankind as we
know it? And can Dennis Rodman stay married longer than a month and a
half?
Eric Pooley: I wish the newlyweds every happiness.
Timehost: And with that, we're going to wrap things up...live
from comedy central... Thanks, Eric and Jon, for joining us tonight!
Eric Pooley: Thank you, folks.
Jon Bonne: Thank you, everyone! And thank you, Eric!
Copyright © 1998 Yahoo! Chat and TIME. All rights reserved.
