tv Washington Journal Ken Starr CSPAN September 22, 2018 9:00pm-10:05pm EDT
to make our walking together a little easier. while we have this time under this deep sky under these reaching trees. these hidden stars, thank you, thank you, thank you. [applause] ... washington journal continues. host: ken starr that with his new book, about his work as the independent counsel to the whitewater and lewinsky investigations which is been
titled the memoir of the clinton investigation. you begin and end that book by >> one of those people brett kavanaugh, i wonder your thoughts this morning on this hearing that's going to be happening on monday where we're going to hear again from brett kavanaugh and his accuser. >> well, i of course don't know the accuser, but i do know brett kavanaugh. i have just been reaffirmed in my firm belief in brett kavanaugh and his integrity and his character, by the outpouring of support from those who have known him for all these years. not just people who have worked with him, but people who grew up with him including a lot of women, who say this is not the brett kavanaugh who we knew, who we went to school with and so forth. and so i hope that there will be a balance in ultimate judgment that we have this long and distinguished career and this one alleged episode from high school. i believe in brett kavanaugh and his integrity.
>> we would like viewers to join in this segment by the way. speaking of the judgment here, from what we're going to see on monday, who is the burden of proof on on monday? is it on the accuser here to prove that this happened? is it on brett kavanaugh to prove that it didn't happen? >> i don't think it is going to sort out that way. i think this is an ultimate judgment by the world's greatest deliberative body. they need to go through a process. they're going to go through a process and then to step back and render ultimate judgment. this is not a court of law. this is a process of what is right for the american people, what is right for the supreme court, and i hope it will be on the merits, looking at the entirety of the record. i do have to say, i'm very concerned about the process. i don't hear people telling about the process. this is a very detailed process
of confirmation, including the review of six former fbi investigative reports. and all of this has come to the public light within the last really six days. so i think that's really unfortunate and unfairness to the process. >> what should the process be right now with this hearing coming up on monday? what should be happening right now? >> i think one of the best suggestions is for there to be a noncircus atmosphere, the best way to do that is to have professionals, what shall i say i'm arguing for my own profession, but very skilled lawyers doing the questioning. obviously the senators should make statements or whatever they want to do. but if we want to in fact get the truth, have very skilled lawyers, just as was done under the watergate hearings under sam irvin many years ago. >> if the details of this incident though are lost to history, how do you end up deciding who to believe?
>> well, i don't know that ultimately this is just going to be a credibility judgment as opposed to here is an episode or incident from high school. i want to emphasize that, from high school. this is not from college. it's not from law school nor anything in the profession, nothing in the office. there's no suggestion of a pattern or practice, and i think all these things are critical as opposed to one incident. so i'm suggesting an ultimate kind of judgment about the character of an individual based upon his entire life. >> few callers, kathleen, dayton, ohio, democrat, good morning. >> caller: hi, you pushed hard for the investigation while you led the investigation into clinton and extramarital affairs and then that proceeded into impeachment. so now you're pushing back against the idea of impeachment in regard to a president. so i question that. and i also question in regard to
kavanaugh, i watched the hearings, and leahy's line of questioning in regard to kavanaugh receiving confidential letters of leahy's and stolen e-mails and confidential letters. i really question kavanaugh's integrity based on that line of questioning and then of course always voting in support of corporate interests. so why again back to the -- why would you push for impeachment with clinton? >> we got your question, kathleen. >> well, kathleen, what i did do was what the statute under which i was appointed required me to do. the statute that congress passed under which i was appointed by three judges required the independent counsel to report to the house of representatives when any quote, substantial and credible information came to the independent counsel's attention.
so i simply obeyed the statute. now the investigation itself, and i think this is not understood by the american people, and i lay this out in my book, my memoir called contempt, that part of the investigation as with other parts was authorized by bill clinton's own attorney general. she reviewed the evidence that we had, of possible perjury on the part of the president, and possibly other crimes, and she then decided she, the attorney general, that she needed to go to the three judge court and to say this has to be investigated. i cannot turn a blind eye to the possibility of the president of the united states committing crimes. and that's what the statute required. she did, janet reno, the attorney general at the time, did her duty, and i had a duty to do as well. final thing i will say is with respect to impeachment, what i said in my testimony before the house judiciary committee and i
described that longest day for me, essentially 12 hours on the hot seat is you can take this referral and do anything that you want with it, including just tossing it into the trash and i'm sure a number of people wanted to do exactly that, but i simply said, this is my duty. here it is. now it is your judgment. now that experience, the final part of why am i saying don't go there now, what i'm saying there in the clinton -- about the clinton experience is we learn from our history as a free people. and impeachment was not the wise way to go. and dianne feinstein, who is in the news these days, was pushing for a resolution of censure. she wanted to condemn president clinton's conduct, not the morality of the relationship with monica, but his crimes against the rule of law. we in this country believe no one should be above the law. that was one of the reasons the independent counsel was created
and why we have a special counsel now and bob mueller to assure the rule of law. >> the book again out last week contempt a memoir of the clinton investigation. ken starr with us for the next 50 minutes to talk about it this morning on "washington journal". douglas in alabama, independent, good morning. >> caller: how are you? >> doing well, go ahead. >> caller: yes, i tell you what, i'm very disappointed in her and her action that she took sending that information to the fbi. i felt like that was very wrong in her to do that, that she shouldn't have done that. she should have waited and checked and made sure everything was appropriate on this lady's part. and that's the way everybody does. they think the man is always wrong in every case because the woman always goes hollering, the sky's falling, the sky's falling. >> to be clear, you think dianne
feinstein should have conducted a preinvestigation before forwarding on the information? >> i think she should have come before the people and then before going to the fbi and going that far to try to damage him in such a way because see, if that had held up and everything, then the fbi could have come out and arrested him and embarrassed him and everything. >> got your point, douglas. >> well, one of the great things about our country and our system of law is that we believe in fairness. the supreme court frequently uses the term fundamental fairness, at the core of due process. and i think that's important in the senate process as well, when it is engaged in essentially fact finding and not law making. and so i do have concerns about the process. and i think it would have been far better -- i don't know anyone who has said that it was
handled by senator feinstein, basically, to keep this information that came confidential -- confidentially and anonymously to her and not to share that with the committee, in a timely manner, so that it could be considered in a timely manner. i think process is so important in order for the american people to have ultimate confidence in the fundamental fairness of the judgment. very quickly, it was a great justice on the supreme court, from a by gone era who wrote once the history of liberty is in large part the history of procedure. when we think about in the criminal justice system, i think we can understand that. we need fair process. we think of miranda rights and the like. so too i think in terms of fairness to everyone involved, including frankly the supreme court and the dignity of the supreme court. this kind of thing should be handled i think with a really
keen eye on fairness, and i have concerns about the way it has been handled, but we are where we are. >> georgia, republican, good morning. >> caller: i was wondering why she waited so long. kavanaugh has been in the public eye for years. 40 states voted for trump and the democrats have been after him all this time. this gal should have come up. he's been in the public eye. she's known where he was. but she hates trump. but she's going to take down this good man. this is not the christian way to work. >> i understand the concern we have in this country as part of our sense of fairness, statutes of limitation, that if you have a complaint about something, then you should in fact bring it forward. but i'm not going to in any way criticize the accuser much less
attack the accuser. let's sort all this out. as i have said now, we are where we are. so let's get to the bottom of things as best that we possibly can, but my concern, and this is part of the fairness concern, is that there be eventually a judgment on the part of the senate that reflects the dignity of the senate and the dignity of the supreme court of the united states, which is judging the entire record. i heard a united states senator very distinguished senator from alabama say that he had been in the process -- he happens to be a lawyer, senator jones, that he has been in the process of reviewing the entire body of work of brett kavanaugh. and that's as it should be. look at all of his judicial writings in his 12 years of service. look at his extrajudicial -- in other words outside of court -- his law review articles, his speeches. it is a vast body of work.
look at his service under president bush. look at his service in the independent counsel's office. that's what a fair and mature representative democracy will do. i fear that what is unfolding right now is a bit of a mob and circus atmosphere and i hope that wise sages in the senate. that's why we elect them every six years, not every two years. we want them to take a step back, say we understand people have very strong feelings about this issue. you've expressed strong feelings. the prior caller expressed strong feelings, but it is for the senate to step back and say i think this is the right thing to do, looking at the entirety of the record, but i do want to say one more thing about brett. i know brett kavanaugh. i worked with him. i saw him day in day out in the office. i didn't know him in high school. i didn't know him in college. i didn't know him in law school. but i've known him since he was
an adult professional, and what you're seeing is an outpouring of commentary by the people who know him who say this is completely out of character for brett kavanaugh. and that is my sense too. and i will say this, as an employer, i from time to time heard complaints about sexual harassment, not a hint of anything like that on the part of brett kavanaugh. he's led an exemplary life. we saw that in the confirmation hearings. and i hope that that exemplary life will be again taken into account by the world's greatest deliberative body, the united states senate. >> tom is in connecticut. democrat, good morning. we lost tom. marie, virginia, independent. good morning. >> caller: good morning. the reason why i'm calling is
because 72 years ago, i was 5 years old, the last day of school, in the early part of june, and i was coming home with my little report card, and a boy started chasing me. and i started running. and i ran into an alley, next to a church. and the boy came up to me, pushed me against the wall, and pull pulled on my panties, when he did that, i shoved really hard and flew diagonally across the street to the apartment building where i lived, and to this day, i have always remembered that and i never told not a single
adult, my father was my only parent at that time, and i guess he told me things about how to defend myself and not have people to bother me. but i was afraid to tell anyone because i knew my father would probably try to find out about that boy and probably hurt him. but the whole point is, i never ever forgot the incident. i saw the boy years later because we moved away from that neighborhood. i remembered his face. years later after that, i saw him as a young man, running for like city councilman or something. he was like this upstanding young citizen at that time. the whole point that i'm making is that at the age of 77, i never forgot that. i was very lucky. of course the kid was only about
8 or 9 at the time. but the point is, it was a violation. >> thanks for sharing your story. >> right, i must say, these are searing experiences and what you have just described is a horror that has remained with you, and i don't think anyone in this process that's unfolding will doubt the importance of hearing a story and for the process of healing and the like when these kinds of episodes are alleged. my point is very simple. the character that we know, and obviously i don't know the person who is running for the city council and your story, which is a very powerful story, but i do know brett kavanaugh. and not only do i know brett kavanaugh, but many women who have served with him in the office have known him, have worked with him and have come forward in this outpouring for
his character, at this stage after all the fbi reports, six fbi reports and the like, it is an unblemished record that the senate has before it. and that record is the record that i saw unfolding when he treated every person with dignity and respect. and so here's a key point, brett kavanaugh emphatically denies this episode. he says it did not happen. and so again, your city council person situation, i respect what it is that you're saying. but what i think the public should appreciate is those of us who have known him for decades and worked with him every single day never saw any indication of a character of anything that was other than up right and honest and treating everyone including now since the focus is on this issue, especially women, and i
think that came out by the way at his confirmation hearings, that he went the extra mile when he saw the impediments to professional progress of women. and we've seen all these law clerks come forward, the women law clerks come forward and say complete dignity, complete respect and more than that, he encouraged them and helped facilitate professional opportunities for them. so what we're hearing is something that to me is totally out of character for the brett kavanaugh that hundreds of us know and admire. >> what are you feelings on the me too movement? >> well, i think it was overdue. then the me too movement was here's a position of power, when we think about some of the folks who have lost their jobs, men who have taken advantage of their power position. frankly, i note this in the book, with all due respect to his many talents, bill clinton was never called to account
including for the possible rape of someone who to this day say i was raped not in high school, but when he was attorney general. >> bob hometown illinois republican, good morning. >> caller: good morning, john, love c-span, pleasure to talk to you, you did a terrific job in the white water investigation in the country. the senate didn't go along with you, but you did a terrific job. i'm concerned about our special counsel now not doing a very good job for our country. the fbi deal, even the cia are up to their ears in spying and leaking and all kinds of things, some things possibly classified. do you think it is time to get a special counsel to investigate the investigators?
>> well, i appreciate the concern, but let me say several things, one i know bob mueller and i have confidence in his integrity, just as i served with brett kavanaugh. and bob has had an exemplary career as has brett kavanaugh as a public servant, as i believe in his integrity. i have expressed concerns about some of the senior people around him in terms of their overpartisanship and i hope they are leaving their partisanship at the door which is their responsibility. they have the 1st amendment right to believe whatever they believe, but leave it at the door. in terms of some of what we have heard, which i think is distressing and disturbing fbi agents and the like, there are checks and balances in place. just as i say in the book, the system worked, whether you agree with what eventually happened, what you agree with the senate
did or house of representatives did, during the clinton phase -- during the clinton years, these checks and balances worked, that is, bill clinton was held accountable. you may not like the judgment or you may love the judgment. but he was held accountable. and i think that's happening. it's unfolding as we speak, not just bob mueller, but let's go to your specific concern about intelligence officers and the like. those investigations are underway. including internally by someone in whom i have great confidence and that's michael horowitz, the inspector general at the justice department who is a career civil servant and is totally honest, very able. he will get to the bottom of things, and he has the power, by the way, and he's done this to refer matters to the criminal division of the justice department for possible prosecution. the cia likewise has an inspector general. they are on the beat, but we don't read about them. finally we have the house and
senate intelligence committees and other oversight mechanisms, the senate judiciary committee was very much involved in looking at certain issues pertaining to the investigation. so i would counsel the american people to be patient, allow this process to run, but the checks and balances in washington, d.c. are in place. >> to valdez waiting in mapleton, illinois, independent, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'm going to give you a short bio. i'm an army veteran as well as retired police officer out of california. the reason i brought that up is because the rules we lived under then were extremely harsh and you could be terminated for a lot less than what we see in politics. and i actually should thank mr. starr because i was there during the clinton hearings. i couldn't care less about president clinton. but the fact is, there's action and reaction. and you should be proud because you started something that is
continuing today, and you're going to see that we can't go back. when you start telling people about morality, which is a very touchy subject, i never approach it, and now you want to see things change a little bit. well, as far as i'm concerned, he did lie. but you know what? we can put all these people in congress, anybody in public office, put them under oath before they get into office, and then when they get caught lying then we throw some names at you real quick. david vitter, larry craig, newt gingrich, sound familiar? fairness and american life should not be in the same sentence. just hang on. once you start on this track, this is how the game's played. >> well, thank you for your service, both in the army and then in law enforcement and enjoy the land of lincoln. and since you're in the land of
lincoln, i will just say i have a different view of american society, american culture and politics. obviously politics can be a little bit ugly, but no, this is not about morality, i don't think. the book is not about morality. my book is about america as a country that believes in the constitution and the rule of law, and the principle that no one is above the law. so some of the names that you mentioned, i'm not going to comment on any specific situation, but one of the checks and balances in our country is the press. and i'm a fervent believer in the freedom of the press, which is enshrined in the 1st amendment. the point is the truth is going to come out and then the american people can assess and evaluate. the truth came out during the clinton investigation. i'm going to be somewhat harsh, but what i'm about to say is absolutely true and i demonstrate it in the book.
president clinton did everything he could to keep the truth from coming out. you say well it was about a moral issue and -- no, it wasn't. it was about whether he had committed perjury and encouraged others to lie, whether he was embarked on a process that we described in the referral as the abuse of power. so that's important. this is the president of the united states. and so too, you mentioned two former speakers of the house, you mentioned a united states senator, people are called to account for their actions, and i think that's healthy in this democracy. i will say, not long after the investigation, i was practicing law here in washington, d.c., and i was teaching at new york university, so i was on my way to get the shuttle to new york, and the cab driver turns around and looks at it -- this is preuber, but anyway i like cabs, i pop in the cab and it turns out this cab driver is from a west african country, and he
said mr. starr, is that you? i said yes it is. he said in my country this never could have happened. i said what do you mean? he said our leaders can do anything they want. they're not called to account. well, that's not america. >> you say in the book one of the reasons why you wrote this book is because you had the time to write this book. you used to be president of baylor university. why are you no longer president? >> i was fired as president of baylor university. unfortunately, i was dismissed. i was not fired as chancellor. i held two positions. the board of regents made a determination in light of issues, that they needed new leadership. i then resigned as chancellor of the university because i felt i could no longer work with the board of regents at that time. it's not a criticism. it's just the fact that i did step down voluntarily as chancellor. so i was not fired for cause. it was just we need new leadership.
so may i complete the thought which is so it's the summer of 2016, i immediately -- i said no to law firms, let me have some time. so i wrote a book about my baylor experience. and it turned out to be as my agent in california said ken this is a love story to baylor. and i was delighted to do that. i was finishing that project in late 2016, and hillary lost the election. so i said the time is really right, 20 years coming up for the entire process that we're noting now, the impeachment process and the president's acquittal then in early 99. so it's time. i said it is now or never to write this story. >> half hour left with ken starr taking your calls, your questions. irving is in las vegas, democrat, good morning. >> caller: good morning. can you hear me? >> yes, sir, go ahead with your question or your comment.
>> my comment is i hear ken starr, you know, who is, you know, promoting kavanaugh's exemplary character, but, you know, the same thing could be said for like ted bundy, where people who knew him or whatever, you know, they stood up for his character, even elected officials, stood up or whatever. i'm not saying that kavanaugh is ted bundy but i'm saying that, you know, they didn't know the real ted bundy. so, you know, you should -- >> got your point, irving. >> with all due respect, irving, i emphatically disagree with the comparison. we're talking about a situation where someone was carrying on
activity as an adult, the most heinous kinds of crimes. he was essentially living two lives. brett kavanaugh has been an exemplary public servant. ted bundy wasn't. he didn't hold office. he wasn't a federal judge who had gone through confirmation. ted bundy never went through as far as i know a single fbi background check rather than six background checks. ::
him. >> host: the charges about what happened turn out to be true should brett kavanaugh still get the lifetime appointment went. >> i will not answer the hypothetical question because i don't think at this stage, we know it will not be proven. her best recollection and he will say i deny. he's not denying an episode happened that he is the perpetrator. i do not want to criticize or attack the accuser but i hope there is spared is to everyone involved in the process. what do kids say that's not fair? >> test fairness because
talking about the dignity of united states. episode it is so about this woman went to a therapist and several years ago something happened with a bunch of kids and they convinced the children that they were molested but later on that wasn't true they ruined a lot of people's lives or at least the therapist did so i'm
death row who are factually innocent once fairness in this country to look again at his character and to say nature d-letter - - and death has never been accused until the senate confirmation hearing one dimension of that he has led his life completed and absolutely firmly denied not an episode happened but that
states from america to at the 1h hour that is the know that you should have. >> his book content. >>caller: good morning. i have a couple of points talk about morality i don't know why you continue on with the clintons and number two it's not to come out is not easy to say i was abused by somebody that into consideration?
>> especially if you were raped. do you have a ounce answers for that quick. >> i understand it is not easy i'm not saying it is. any violation of human dignity is a very serious matter. and i did not do any such people say brett kavanaugh is not the person. accuser has had an interest but if they did have something happened to her about episode and then raises the question so who is brett kavanaugh?
>> but first i want to come back to her first thing because she raised the question about essentially why don't i go away from the clintons? >> it is part of our history. this is the inside story why we chose not to seek the indictment of hillary rodham clinton and that needs to be told. and our views with respect with the obstruction of justice so that to perform legal services because we did not bring those charges. and did not believe with
evidence admissible in court to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. but to believe they had committed the crimes. the story needs to be told. >> i'm not talking about morality. it isn't about the rule of law. so what janet reno was talking about to the special division three federal judges star needs to investigate whether crimes against the rule of law including perjury and obstruction of justice is committed. that were not talking about the relationship that frankly the american people needed to be reminded what the house of representatives was focusing o on, was crimes proven on bill clinton's part.
that is why i felt called to write to the book. >> you said the accuser has an interesting career? >> remake she goes into these fields. and it is a different kind of career path. >> republican good morning. >>caller: i just don't know anyone else so to top all of that off, if you ever experience another woman to plan to destroy a man and a
collusion i hear into this investigation, what do think of that? what do think of president trump releasing documents and texts? would we really do that if there re?n't something in the if brett kavanaugh gets booted, will he lose his seat on the district court? guest: thank you. it iser, i think intriguing that lisa page, the former fbi agent has made the statement that she did and council cautioned that she was an important agent. i would not take that to the bank in terms of the overall investigation. let's see what happens in the investigation. that being said, i see no evidence whatever of collusion. i have seen lots of evidence of
what we all know, and that is russian interference. great the contributions of robert mueller was the indictment of the russian officials and organizations. in one paragraph of the indictment, i found this revealing and there was no word of collusion in the indictment of the campaign. it described the following, on the very same day in new york city, russian organizations funded and organized both an anti-trump rally and april trump aally -- and all the pro-trump. that is my view in terms of lisa page. on the documents, we need to protect the national security interests, and so there are reasons for classifications. given what i know, and i do not
, iw as much as other people think we need greater transparency. r on the side of transparency. . would presume transparency let's allow this information, as long as we don't reveal sources we methods, that is a key, do not want to danger the interests of the united states, including individuals who serve bravely and in dangerous, covert situations. that goes without saying. beyond that, we should know the truth, truth will set us free. what's have as much transparency as possible. i welcome declassification. host:'s third question was whether brett kavanaugh would lose his district court seat? guest: no, it may not come to that.
host: in maryland, democrat. good morning. morning.ood mr. starr, with all due respect, and i have no issues with what happened to bill clinton. you are referring to do process -- due process as far as brett kavanaugh is concerned, but how about the republican strapping 40,000 documents on the eve of where the hearing started and not waiting for the other bedred thousand documents to reviewed by the library of congress? guest: i truly don't have of you with respect to the issues of document access and the like. i view that as an issue and trusted to the discretion of the senate. i do think there needs to be process, orderly and respect to
declassification of documents. a number of the documents, as i understand them, had to go to the archival review process under the law. sometimes we on the outside do respect the way their operating. they may say let's just postpone hearings for a year or two years. that is a judgment call. my own view is, given what i saw, the senate judiciary committee has before and had before it a very elaborate record of judge kavanaugh's work. his body of work was extraordinarily detailed because he has been an exemplary judge for 12 years. i do not think there was a lack of information that materially affected the appropriateness of brett kavanaugh to serve. host: 10 or 15 minutes left with
ken starr, offer of the new book "contempt: a memoir of the , clinton investigation." we will try to get to as many of your calls as we can. phone lines as they normally are. host: in virginia, a republican. go ahead. caller: first up, i am too young to remember anything from the clinton stuff. i am looking forward to the book. guest: thank you. caller: as a female and as a republican, i have experienced similar situations to what is been going on with the hearings right now and the accuser. my question is more -- everyone is saying the 11th hour, and from my understanding, a lot of hearings have been pushed through your are being seen as being pushed through. is it the 11th hour as a normal hearing would be, or is this one being fast tracked more than normal?
my other question is -- with the president -- they can be impeached and everyone says supreme court justices are lifetime appointments. if it is found that a supreme court justice lied during their confirmation hearings, is there -- what happens question mark what are the repercussions? question,the first let's review what happened. on the last day of the term, which he was serving, justice anthony kennedy made the announcement to the nation that he was stepping down. within a very short period of july,the president, in nominated brett kavanaugh, and the hearings were set. the hearings were set to provide literally weeks of opportunity to review records and the like, to do the assessment process. then the hearings were set for
early september. we are talking about a two month plus process, all designed to have a vote, and for my perspective hopefully confirming judge kavanaugh to the supreme court, in time for the judge, justice to join the court which begins its work in literally two weeks. it begins on monday, october 1. judiciary-- senate committees set a schedule and everyone knew what the schedule was, and the process began. it was in july, so early on, that the accuser came to senator feinstein, and the 11th our concern is, nothing was done, as i understand it, with those allegations, even though the senate judiciary committee wanted public appearance and went into executive session, as i understand it, and wanted to review the most sensitive
materials in our democracy and fbi reports. i have seen fbi reports, and believe me, fbi reports you do not want to be the subject of an fbi report because anyone can say anything about you, and the fbi agent will dutifully reported. he/she will not cross examine you. they are extremely sensitive records. even in an age of transparency, senators all agree that they will review the files, allegations that may ever have been made against someone in closed session. they have the discretion that they will have hearings on this issue or that issue. brett kavanaugh sailed through that process. senator feinstein do not bring this information forward, even in that process of executive session. that is the 11th hour nation --
nature of it. one of the messages in the book is, be very careful, very cautious in the house of representatives about impeachment. the american people do not like impeachment. it is an important tool to have in democracies to hold people accountable. judges have been impeached and convicted by the senate and removed from office. host: south carolina, dave, go ahead. an independent. starr good morning mr. and everyone in the country. much has been made of the fact that this happened when judge kavanaugh was 17 years old. in some states, 17-year-olds can be tried as adults. i would be curious as to how many 17-year-olds were -- thised his judge judge during his career that he tried as adults. secondly, the comment that justice is equal in this country
is complete nonsense. anyone who has had something to do with the system knows that. if you're rich and powerful, you are not held to the same accountability. otherwise, jails would have just as many rich people as poor. host: we will take the comments. guest: very well. first of all, brett kavanaugh has never been a trial judge and is never had the issue you talk about. 17-year-oldsstates can be tried as adults. we are talking about the episode that was alleged was when he was .7, decades ago that is the fairness into and statutes of limitation. we have laws that say if you do have charges, and i know some charges are sensitive, you need to bring them forward. in terms of justice is equal, that is a struggle. i totally disagree, with all respect to with your cynicism.
look what just happened to paul manafort. look at what happened to his partner, rick gates. i can start enumerating millionaires and billionaires who find themselves caught up in the criminal justice system. i respectfully disagree. i think ours is a good system. if you have a state and local system, and by the way, yesterday was constitution day and mr. madison warned against the kind of phenomenon you're pointing to. in federalist 10, he said we need a vast, commercial this vast nation because of oppression will more likely occur at the local level. boss of loss called, -- that littlen community. that is what he warned about. if you do not think rich folks get chased after, i can tell you
from my own personal expense you are quite wrong. host: james, democrat, virginia. good morning. guest: good morning, sir. am i on? host: what is your question for ken starr? guest: my question is, if he is saying that fairness and injustices are a true mirror of all things, and i think it is, that mr.ou citing kavanaugh is innocent of these accusations? i mean, the 65 people that are saying that mr. kavanaugh was a nice guy, and the only one that is important to the whole issue is the one that seems to have forgotten what happened that night. guest: well, i have a different perspective, as you might imagine.
you are right. i talk a lot about fairness and justice, and that is what our system, including our political system, is designed for. we do not want them browbeaten. as a nation, we recoil at a united states senator in a position of power abusing his power. power can be abused, and we need to have checks and balances in order to prevent it. what i am testifying to, kind sir, is i know brett kavanaugh. i know him and i worked with him. it is not that i went out with him to a washington nationals game one time and he was "a nice guy," i with the various positions of public life. he has been living in the fishbowl of washington dc leading the exemplary life. the entiretyth of the record the full body of work who will
gather the college playoffs. so i hope we will not lose our perspective i think we're starting to get that back over the weekend to say let's be deliberative and not turn this into a circus. >> a a couple of callers waiting a long time that said from north carolina on the republican line. >>caller: mister star. i have a question for you as far as what about the mail that is accused of the legend acts that turned out to be false? >> does he have any recourse? >> and i come from a small
town back in new york it was a high school football star and his girlfriend and they had consensual sex but he was charged with rape. sent to prison ten years and put on the national registry for sexual offenders. to me that is wrong. >> there is no remedy in this arena but we are seeing at the college university level lawsuits fought by the individuals of the title ix era that they do feel due process rights were violated when theyun were found guilty or kicked out of school or sanctioned with their career ruined. and increasingly we see judgments brought against
colleges and universities for violation of basic to process and fairness. and i fail to say. the remedy is confirmation and this is what the american people will be aware of. the charges were entirely made up. >> so you try to make the clintons look like bank robbers. and number two and mcdougall did 18 months in prison.
and having sex of president clinton. >> and then we circle back to the book. >> she was convicted of serious felonies that led to the collapse of a savings and loan in little rock arkansas she was found in contempt by the united states district court judge and has made these allegations with respect to the clintons, i never allege they were wealthy at the time but read the story and as i recounted in my book to a fair-minded person as they were involved in those hynancial crimes in little rock. >> we appreciate your time
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on