HAS STARR GONE TOO FAR?

(3 of 3)

A legitimate line of inquiry opened last week when the Supreme Court declined to review a lower-court decision granting Starr the right to see notes that White House lawyers took of their conversations with Hillary Rodham Clinton. No lawyer-client privilege exists between government attorneys and officials, the court said, so the White House gave Starr the notes he sought: five pages about the First Lady's account of her actions after Foster's suicide, a dozen pages scribbled by lawyer Jane Sherburne during breaks in Hillary's January 1996 grand jury appearance. Starr is looking for evidence that the First Lady lied in sworn statements, especially about the Foster matter or the disappearance and reappearance of her Rose Law Firm billing records. The White House says the notes are not incriminating, and most legal observers doubt the independent counsel will bring perjury charges against Hillary Clinton.

What's left for Starr? He continues his probe of Hubbell, who left the Justice Department en route to jail in 1994 but detoured into work for a host of companies friendly to the Democratic Party. Starr has just hired three seasoned prosecutors, in part because he needs the benefit of their judgment as the probe wraps up. His court victory this week could be viewed as a renewed fishing license--allowing him to subpoena notes and depose White House lawyers--but that would be a mistake. After last week, even Starr must know that time is running out.