Skip to main content

tv   Kenneth Starr Contempt  CSPAN  September 17, 2022 11:41pm-12:36am EDT

11:41 pm
cox gives you a front-row seat to democracy. >> ken starr passed away on tuesday at the age of 76. a statement said it was due to complications from surgery. he is well known for investigating bill clinton as indican -- independent counsel. before that, he served as a u.s. solicitor general under george h w bush and a judge on the d.c. circuit appeals. , a 2019 interview where he reflected on the investigation into bill clinton.
11:42 pm
>> good afternoon, everyone. welcome back. if you were with us earlier. if you are just joining us, welcome to the annapolis book festival. my name is john beed. i am a former service officer with the u.s. agency for international development, but i am a proud father of three. i am delighted to be able to join this conversation with our next author, kenneth starr, who has graciously come back to the festival this year to talk about his latest book. a memoir of his time leading the 1990's investigation into whitewater and the monica lewinsky matter during the tenure of president bill clinton. when you have been in the center
11:43 pm
of the public eye as can has, he needs no introduction, but i will give you a quick snapshot of his distinguished career in law and public service. he is a graduate of brown university, duke law school. he was the u.s. solicitor general. he was dean of the pepperdine law school. he was chancellor and president of baylor university. he has been a very distinguished private attorney with firms across california, texas, and washington, d.c. he was also something called an independent counsel. even though we have a bright crowd here because this is the key school and the annapolis area, i bet if i asked you or if i said the three names, newbold morris, ashley palmer green, and john b henderson, and you not
11:44 pm
allowed to answer, ken, no one knows who they are. but i-5 said the names to bob parks, ken starr, and weller, you know i am talking about special counsel's who were appointed and have been assigned to high-level cases involving the executive branch. there are some differences and distinctions between each of those titles and we will get into that a bit later with ken, but first i want to start off by taking us back to 1994. you have been in private practice with the chicago firm kirkland ellis and enjoying a nice time in the washington, d.c. area teaching law at nyu. and you get a call from judge sentelle, who is calling to ask
11:45 pm
if you would be willing to replace bob fisk, at that time was heading up the whitewater investigation. ken, why did you want to leave this great job in the d.c. area and go back into the political arena? and did you have any idea what you are about to get into? mr. starr: i had no idea whatsoever. but when i arrived in little rock on the day of my appointment, and i had a deal in arkansas that would take six months to investigate, wrap up, it that -- there wasn't much money involved, but when i arrived on that faithful avenue -- afternoon, i had taken the oath of office. this was an assignment, go get it done.
11:46 pm
i arrived in bob fisk's office, and this is going to foreshadow bob moeller. he was appointed by the attorney general special counsel. he had a different title. he was an appointee of then attorney general janet reno. i am sitting in his office and i knew bob. he is a very distinguished lawyer in new york, i had worked with him. we had had chats about practicing together and i have the highest regard and i still do for robert fisk. bob said, and i described this, ken, move your family to little rock. you will be here for a long time. [laughter] he had found more than a blend deal in arkansas. mr. beed: could you take us into your operation?
11:47 pm
how big was your team, who was working with you, and who were some of the key actors on your team? mr. starr: the team expanded or contracted depending on the circumstances. we assigned lawyers to specific matters, the death of minced and foster junior, for example. the fraudulent billings of wednesday or hubble -- winston hubbell, and hilary's law partner at the law form -- firm had a guilty plea for defrauding clients. fraud is really bad, but one of the victims of fraud is the united states government, woe be unto that person. there were different matters under investigation, but one of the significant things happened early on, john. i went overnight from being a lot person, i had been a judge in the d.c. circuit judge as you
11:48 pm
were kind enough to mention. i had duties in the justice department, and while no one was saying bob fisk needs to go and we need a replacement, special division that did the appointment of the special counsel, independent counsel, as i was called. but it was truly independent of the justice department and bob had been appointed by the attorney general, so there is a logic there. in any event, the new york times praised my appointment. two weeks later, the new york times called on me to resign. in those two weeks, i had not done much bad. in fact, i had done nothing at all. but the political view changed, the spin cycle inside the clinton propaganda machine, and
11:49 pm
i am not being political here, this is just reality and history. this comes back to who is the team -- i see some people here who might be as old as i am who remember something called watergate. one of the heroes, a truth seeker of watergate was sam dash. sam had been successful a distant -- assistant pa in philadelphia. i knew sam well. sam comes to my office and says, ken, you are being pilloried because of your republican credentials. i said, i have noticed that. he said, i am not a republican. he was a well-known and prominent democrat. he said, you should consider retaining your evidence counsel. there was a check and balance. that was something i had not expected to have to do, but as
11:50 pm
we geared up, the final thing i will say for the trial, it turned out there was serious fraud there in little rock. as we gear up for the trial against the city governor and james and susan mcdougall, these are names from the past, but some of you may have recalled that james and susan mcdougall for the sole owners of the madison guaranteed savings and loans which collapsed fraud. madison guaranty was hilary's client of the law firm, which raised serious questions. it was also in a staycation -- an institution whose funding was inappropriately used for the land dealings. when you unravel it all, there was fraud at the core of the entire transaction of the
11:51 pm
financing of the whitewater land deal. as we looked ahead to that trial , knowing we were going to trial and we were going to get guilty please along the way, some people, you see what is unfolding now and the scandal involving a college admissions. it is an ugly situation. the people are entering guilty pleas. that is what we were experiencing in the upshot once we expanded the trial team, and the trial team included rod rosenstein, the now deputy turney general of the united states. -- attorney general of the united states. mr. beed: you mentioned it was a complex web of transactions you were looking at under whitewater. there were also prominent offshoots of the investigation, one of which was a controversial
11:52 pm
death of a confidant and former law partner of hillary clinton's , men's foster, who was at the time of white house counsel. there were questions around the circumstances of his death, but you are ultimately able to conclude it was in fact suicide. could you talk about that case and how you came to that conclusion? mr. starr: bob fisk had undertaken an examination of the circumstances of the death. vincent foster was a very successful lawyer, a law partner of the rose law firm of hillery. the three of them were very close. i am pleased to say that there was no suggestion that vince foster was somehow involved in the fraudulent transactions involving madison guaranty.
11:53 pm
within seven months of coming to washington, d.c., this successful and prominent lawyer from all appearances who is happily married with the family took his own life. bob fisk concluded that it was a suicide. there were so many conspiracy theories, so i decided we need to take a second look to make sure that we have done absolutely everything to examine the questions that were being raised because there were suggestions that vince foster in fact was a victim of homicide and that his body had been moved to the park. let's call it conspiratorial theories of different kinds. we took an elaborate look at that. we did hire experts, some of the leading experts in the country in terms of forensic examination and i think we proved jan to a shadow of a doubt, not just
11:54 pm
beyond a reasonable doubt, that he in fact did commit suicide. wes i raised in the book was why did he commit suicide? why was he depressed? and the why is something that i do speculate about in the book because i think he was a person of conscience. there were some aspects of the former partners' relationship with the rose law firm including so-called missing rose law firm billing records that showed that hillary had committed -- participated in various sundry legal advice aspects to madison guaranty savings loans, including transactions that were clearly fraudulent. that proved that she was aware of the fraud, and that is a key distinction.
11:55 pm
why would the rose law firm records in those pre-electronic days go missing? and the rose law firm said, it was stolen. this is not proper. you do not take billing records out of the law firm. they, of course, eventually found them in the residence of the white house. mr. beed: contrary to some opinions, investigations like the one that you are in have been referred to as fishing expeditions. by character and by definition, the fact that the professionals from the justice department that are carrying these out, they are anything but. to be able to take anything under the purview, you have got to get going, which is in your
11:56 pm
case, when the monica lubinski matter came under your purview. you initially had -- i would like to know how that came to your attention. and you ultimately had to get permission from the attorney general at the time move forward. could you talk a bit about that? mr. starr: that last fact was at the time underappreciated by the american people. that the investigation of the president for possible crimes such as perjury and obstruction of justice was expressly authorized by the attorney general of the united states, janet reno. this came to be because of a connection with vince foster junior. the last person who we knew saul vince foster alive in the white house was under trim. -- in trim -- linda trim.
11:57 pm
linda says a young woman, and that was monica lewinsky, working alongside me at the pentagon in the public affairs and public information office has made me aware that there is a relationship with the president, but most relevantly, she is asking me to commit her perjury -- perjury because she has committed perjury herself. at the end of that phone call on sunday night, i was away at the american bar association meeting in colorado. she said, you know me. i am linda trimp, a witness in the vince foster death investigation. we took steps, some of which
11:58 pm
have been criticized, and criticism comes with the territory, but we verify what linda had told us on that sunday evening. she had recorded a number of telephone conversations with monica, so we were reviewing those. the fbi was looking at those as well. we did have the famous episode at the ritz-carlton, which has been severely criticized, but her conduct was vindicated in litigation. we confirmed real-time that this was exactly what was underway. maybe monica was encouraging linda to file a perjurious affidavit. there were a lot of societal concerns and rightly so. this was essentially a civil rights case that had been
11:59 pm
brought by polly gorman jones at the time, an employee of the arkansas government. she alleged that there had been very horrible event that was unsettling to her. she brought up federal court action under the civil rights laws against bill clinton for his conduct -- these are allegations -- for his alleged conduct in a hotel in little rock. it was in connection with that that all of the super fit he was underway in terms of false, perjurious affidavits, encouraging others to lie and so forth. mr. beed: obviously intense public scrutiny and a lot of babbling back and forth lyrically -- battling back and forth politically.
12:00 am
you have got to have thick skin to go into these kinds of jobs. i do not want to say they are thankless, but they are difficult. and you're going to make at least half of the people upset before you come out. i wonder about the toll this takes on you personally, or bob moeller personally, and your families. your wife was quoted at one point during whitewater saying this is a nightmare which is not going to end. and one example that hit me and a lot of people who have sent their kids off to college, your daughter was accepted into stanford. a year later after, chelsea clinton went to stanford. she gets there and she is receiving what the marshals service considered to be considerable death threats and she has got 24 hour protection. how do you deal with something like that?
12:01 am
mr. starr: what a great question of the year. i cannot say enough in praise of the united states marshals service, put -- completely professional. what they have to do the job because there was -- they were appointed by the courts. why were you not protected by the fbi or the secret service? because i was appointed by the court under the statute, i was treated as if i were a judge. i was not paid as well, but protection came through the marshals, and they did a wonderful job. it was a toll. we had around-the-clock security at the house. command post outside her house, what we called -- outside our house, what we called the brady bunch. we had the press outside our house most days.
12:02 am
they would go away once i left for the office. and the press was fine in terms of that. one whimsical story is that at the funeral of antonin scalia a couple of years ago coming out of the church, the cathedral, commenting on the record about justice scalia when i had served under the d.c. circuit judge and when i served as solicitor general. i say my quick piece and i am leaving. one of the press says, i camped outside your house, and i said, i am sorry. i said, no, it is fine, we made a down payment on our house because of it. so some good came out of it paid i recount some pressures on the family, but our family was strong and we were surrounded by
12:03 am
faith and friends. just the support of our church, our neighborhood. we have a great soda involving michael moore. -- great episode involving michael moore. the filmmaker -- i do not have time to tell the story, but across the street neighbor, donna hogan, she is wonderful and had a young kid. the youngest was a future stanford quarterback, kevin hogan. small world, right? this is all captured on cnn. way to go, donna. get out of this neighborhood, you are scaring the children,
12:04 am
and everything. michael had colorful things to say to donna hogan. those are whimsical and not so whimsical moments at the time. it just suggested the controversy of the natural tone -- national town. we came through it as a country and we come through these things as we did during the administration. how do we in a free society that believes in rule of law and accountability keep the president and those around him or her honest? and if they are serious allegations of wrongdoing, are we simply going to say, excuse me, our chief executive is above the law. not in the united states, and that is part of the glory. it is unpleasant, especially not fun for those wrapped up in it,
12:05 am
and for president clinton and hillary and chelsea, this is a horrible episode to go through. on a personal level, yes, lost of -- lots of cough, but in terms of who we are as a free people, isn't it reassuring to know that truly no one is above the law? that is the goal. no one is above the law. mr. beed: that is a statement you have made publicly and also in a book frequently. it is a bedrock principle for you. the other thing that is interesting in the book are some things that come out that maybe people are not familiar with about yourself. did you know ken started as a democrat? he was a big admirer of john kennedy and still is. mr. starr: i am still in admirer of john kennedy. [laughter] mr. beed: we have a song.
12:06 am
i saw the light. this is a polite audience so there is no booing or hissing. thank you for restraining yourself. i tell that story briefly, and a great admirer of john kennedy. i was a democrat, and my epiphany for me was sitting at the feet of republican congressman from texas and just hearing his philosophy and learning about the vision of freedom, the baseline for the united states of america is freedom, so this is not the time to get into that, but you are right. guilty as charged. there is also the old saying attributed to senator shah. he is not liberal and young has no heart.
12:07 am
mr. beed: you also make the point, which i think is also personally revealing, that even though you agreed with some of the other political leanings that he had at the time, senator fulbright, his anti-civil rights record and voting actions and all of that were anathema to you. i want to try to bring some of these things together. your clear reverence for the law, the fact that you rightfully believe that no one person is above the law. i think some of your principles of social justice, and i want to get your thoughts because you have a unique per chaz a judge, a defense attorney, prosecutor -- perch as a judge, defense attorney, a prosecutor. when you look at things, african
12:08 am
americans are incarcerated at double the rate their share of the u.s. population. still have no convictions of prosecutions involved in the 2007, 2008 financial crisis. you continue to see headlines about wealthy individuals who if they do not escape prosecution, they are not getting punishment commensurate with the scale of their crimes. seeing all of these things, how can we fix the system? how can we make it more fair? mr. starr: being sensitive and skeptical about the proposed reforms, i remember all too vividly the move to the federal level, and the states have seen this as well, mandatory minimum sentences. a number of grave injustices have been done. that has fallen disproportionately heavily on the african-american community
12:09 am
because of the nature of some of these offenses. i have long been and i sat at the feet of a wonderful man, warren burger, the chief justice of the united states who i clerked for two years, and one of his limitations was that we throw people in prison and then forget about them. he quoted church hill about one of the signs of a civilized society is that it cares about those who are incarcerated or have opportunities for rehabilitation. finally, it is such a rich subject, but another thing i would need to say is that we have to, and you are hearing it from this person, to be aware of prosecutorial power. we have been involved in a supportive way of the innocence project, and the innocence project, if you go on their website, you will see case after
12:10 am
case of serious convictions for the most heinous crimes of -- kinds of crimes, and the defense was factually innocent. some thing happens to you -- this happened to me at pepperdine. i was attending a program at ucla of criminal justice issues at the ucla law school, and i am chatting with a woman who was on death row. death row in california for the homicide of a family member. she was factually innocent, exonerated by dna. one of the things i am deeply concerned about is when i hear about informally, is the self-assurance of prosecutors. we know we have got the right person, we are going to use every tool to bring that person down, and i realize that you should note that to criticism as
12:11 am
it is directed at you. almost any prosecutor has been in the business for a while. we have to be skeptical about the exercise of power, but in particular, that which is the functional equivalent of the unforgivable sin which is what we call a brady violation. that is when a prosecutor knowingly sits on exculpatory evidence. that prosecutor is duty-bound on the part of the defendant to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence. i am fearful that there is a growing sense -- i do not have an empirical study to back this up, it is conversational and anecdotal -- that we need to be really firm when we find a brady prosecution and we need to drum them out of the prosecutorial court. be skeptical of the exercise of
12:12 am
power. power corrupts. mr. beed: thank you. it is encouraging to hear about things like the innocence project and the areas you mentioned. there is some clear similarities between your work and that of bob molars -- bob muller's, which we recently concluded, but there are stark differences in terms of mandate, reporting responsibilities. you wrote a piece in the atlantic last month about this. what are the key differences between your work and bob muller's? mr. starr: one is the method of appointment. after the 21 year experiment in a counsel arena, congress saw that not to arise that we counsel law. i applaud that. we at the reagan administration objected to the special prosecutor position raising
12:13 am
serious policy issues, but it was also a constitutional invasion of the powers of the president. i said, wait a second, it was ok to fire archibald coxe who was appointed by the attorney general? no, it wasn't ok, but look at what happened. the acting attorney general promptly within 11 days appointed leon george ski. he carried on the investigation and the rest is history. while untidy, the old system worked and a little more study of history -- and history is a great teacher -- it would tell us that ulysses s grant fired the special counsel of his time, but the investigation went on that harry truman fired the
12:14 am
attorney general who fired the special prosecutor in the early 1950's, but the investigation went on. the investigation, like the proverbial show, will go on. the reforms and the unintended consequences, but to now restore the authority within the constitutional structure of article two now under the regulations under which a bob muller was appointed, the attorney general makes that appointment. rob rosenstein made this appointment as the acting attorney general when jeff sessions recused himself. the other thing i would say is so huge right now at this moment is the reporting requirement. i was obligated under the statute to send my findings to the congress of the united states. in effect, i was an arm or tool of the congress of the united states.
12:15 am
no longer. of the regulations which have been in effect for 20 years and under which bubbler has been appointed completely scaled back -- bob muller has been appointed completely skilled back the operation. i have been things in public arenas, look at the law. the attorney general of the united states who is under criticism, much of it misguided, is to follow the regulations and the regulations call for bob muller to do exactly what he has done. he is an honorable person who has now provided the attorney general with a keyword, confidential report. under the same regulations, and this has the effect of law, the attorney general's location is to notify congress? he did on march 22. he said the principal conclusions, that is what the
12:16 am
regulations called for, not to release the report. that is the law. that having been said, both in his confirmation hearings and then in his letters on march 22, he has reiterated that and in a more recent letter this past friday a week ago, the attorney general said i want to air on the side of transparency. there will be a release of the report, but it will have reductions. why would you leave anything out? you leave those things out which -- i will use two examples -- i will use three because of the nature of the starr report. grand jury information as a matter of law must come out. the court order, what would that look like. secondly, national security
12:17 am
information, all people of goodwill would say that you have got to protect national security. the third category is that of privacy. the report may very well have information that is not going to serve a public information function but could be embarrassing to one or more individuals. that was the concern with the starr report and that is one of the reasons we are seeing these episodes from now long ago with now chairman nadler at the time calling for the careful treatment of the starr report. this is going to be sensitive information in there, we should not just send it out. he voted along with many other members of the house of representatives not to release the starr report, and we encourage this careful look because of the nature of that report with very intimate details.
12:18 am
this showed that the president in rv had committed perjury and obstruction of justice, but the nature than context -- in context was private in nature. what bill barr is doing now is that which the regulations call on him to do, and the regulations said they are facing against the openness, the transparency of the old regime under the independent counsel statute. mr. beed: you were quoted saying recently that you think bob muller probably should have made the hard call on the obstruction of justice claim. why do you think he didn't? mr. starr: i do not have a good theory. i think it was his responsibility to do so. from what i have seen, and i am not one of the president's lawyers, but i will just use the example of the firing of james connie.
12:19 am
it may have been wise or unwise, but i do not see how it is a matter of law that could constitute an obstruction of there have been other things in the public domain. i think i have managed to convince on this particular point some prominent members of the media. it is not my persuasive powers, if any. it is the rulings of the supreme court of the united states, which have a narrowly construed construction of justice. why did he not do it? alan dershowitz has an interesting theory and i am interested -- welcome to pass that along. he is a great civil libertarian. his theory is that bob did not want to overrule his staff. that bob had a less capacious view of what constitutes obstruction of justice.
12:20 am
one person's theory, we shall see. mr. beed: we have about 10 minutes left, and i know there are probably a lot of people itching to ask your opinions on things, so i want to lay sometime down force questions -- for questions. if you have a question you would like to ask, please come to the mic and stand up on one side of the room. >> i have a question about the privacy criteria for reductions. --redactions. -- redactions. what are the parameters for that? mr. starr: those are judgment
12:21 am
calls. it would not serve the public interest for the following three sentences to be included because of embarrassment factors, unjustified notoriety. in terms of checks and balances, i think we are going to see that play out because what we have is the beginning of lively conversation between the house of representatives and the justice department. i envision a time will come when there will be in camera review. let's have a chairman and the senior staff people look at the full senate -- full set of information no matter how bare sing it might be. that is done -- how embarrassing it might be. the protocol will emerge from that.
12:22 am
there would not be judicial review of that. >> was that consideration in your report in terms of relevant , whether private matter was essential to include or not? mr. starr: we had a very lively and continuing conversation about the detail which we set forth the nature of the relationship, deeply private relationship. we determined these are prosecutors guiding me. we have to prove that the president committed perjury, obstruction of justice beyond any shadow of a doubt. the facts were not disputed. i still wish when we look back -- could this have been avoided? as it was famously said when i make a mistake, it's a beaut.
12:23 am
settling the civil action in january of 1998 or actually before the supreme court of united states ruled unanimously 9-0 so not one of those 5-4 ideological divides that president clinton did not enjoy immunity from facing the sexual harassment civil rights action. that would have been very good for the nation, for the first family and for the lawsuit. well over 95% of civil cases in the united states settle. this has turned out to be -- it was eventually settled but only after the country had been through this unfortunate process. >> i came here today to get a reevaluation of things that i remember that went on during the investigation of the president
12:24 am
and i have say the president's behavior, i looked at that in light of the #me too movement and some of the assumptions we were making and the prejudices or the lack of knowledge or whatever were not present. so in coming here today i have heard you speaking and you are not quite the monster we were portraying you as. sorry about that. >> i used to be a sunday schoolteacher and a little league coach. but thank you. thank you, i think. >> i was wondering if you could tell us which of the criticisms about you that were going on at that time you think might have been justified or things we could there were so many criticisms that were justified. justified or things we could look at differently. >> there were so many criticisms that were justified. let me begin. go ahead, i'm sorry
12:25 am
let me begin. go ahead, i'm sorry. >> this is one of those multipart questions. it's a long question. one of the things and now i've lost my train of thought. >> oh, i'm sorry. i intervened and i shouldn't have. i think of fair criticism that i would level on myself is that i took on the monica lewinsky investigation to begin with. not that it didn't have to be investigated. that's the key. sometimes i say that and it's misinterpreted. you don't think he should be investigated. of course i do. if the president of the united states is committing perjury and obstruction of justice, it's not russia. you can investigate it. you say that context is such, please it's sexual harassment civil rights action. everyone has his or her right to be in court. it's as simple as that. it really is. some things in life are very complicated but in a rule of law system, that is not. i think i would except criticism for taking on the add-ons such as the travel office firings that hillary and jamir. i think i can be fairly faulted
12:26 am
for taking on the file scandal. system, that is not. i think i would except criticism for taking on the add-ons such as the travel office firings that hillary and jamir. i think i can be fairly faulted for taking on the file scandal. the fbi files of republicans miraculously mysteriously i should say finding their way into the white house utterly inappropriate but the good news is we determined that there was not sufficient evidence of either of those matters to bring choices so call it an exoneration. and we were able to do it efficiently but i think what happened is as the investigation went on and took longer we did not get cooperation. this is huge and i don't know anything i could have done to stop this.
12:27 am
once we have the convictions in little rock, this was a breakthrough. the sitting governor has been convicted of serious fraud in so have jim and susan google. jim dougal began cooperating instead, and i describe this in the book, the president of the united states committed perjury during the trial. now you can accept that or reject it but this is serious stuff. we could not get at times the information that we needed from jim. jim would say you have to ask susan mcdougal. susan mcdougal declined to cooperating famously a went to civil contempt in which writer for criminal contempt for it she was acquitted of some charges and we had a hung jury on the other charges. i wish to this day and this is a regret. it's not so much criticism, it's
12:28 am
a regret that once we have the whitewater convictions let's get this darn thing over with. everyone cooperated and let's let the chips fall where they may including findings that might be very unflattering about the president of united states and the first lady. during the lewinsky phase of the investigation we were met with claims of executive privilege that were completely unmeritorious. we were met with other efforts to obstruct. that sounds familiar, to obstruct their investigations such as the creation of a privilege with no warning whatsoever in the lock called the protect the function privilege which is to create a praetorian guard that would not be able to provide evidence so imagine the president of an estate is in league with the foreign power. imagine. it might very well be that the
12:29 am
secret service agents might have been around when a meeting or conversation was had. do you think that would be relevant? yes it would be but week after week, month after month so some self-criticism is always in order. everything we did we tried to do consistent with the rule of law and as efficiently as we could and one of the reasons i wrote this book is that i felt so much of the story have never really been told and had never seen the light of day. if you don't mind if i hold it up there. thank you. this is a very distinguished foreign service officer here holding up this book. criticisms and regrets. a great question. >> my question, as a man who has
12:30 am
devoted his life to the law and the rule of law what is your opinion of the vast amount of money that has evolved in politics now and also citizens united. >> i applaud citizens united so i will probably be a minority in this distinguished group. i'm a fervent lever in freedom of speech and just as "the news york times" requires money to produce "the news york times" and "cnn" and so forth so to we make our voices heard. i was very impressed with the fact that so many candidates are depending on small contributions. i think it is simply not the case as a matter of empirical reality that the most heavily financed candidates always win. that just does not happen or the corporate contributions are going to control it. simply i don't think it's demonstrable and empirically i
12:31 am
know it seems to be the case but i think the facts rebut that. that having been said i think an enormous amount of money in politics is wasted such as on high paid consultants. i'm losing about half of my audience here. this is the washington d.c. area. i know a lot of the consultants. they are extremely bright people but it's an extremely pricey part and guides the candidates frequently and into dark holes of wasting money. president obama as a candidate obama definitely not the -- small contributions carried the day. i just worry about regulation. so much regulation ends up backfiring for not working and that coupled with the fervent
12:32 am
belief in the first amendment. also i would just say just another example if you have got the burn you've been giving money to senator sanders for these many years and he's not getting a lot of corporate support, is the? at least that i know of in so there is example after example where we have a very appealing process but that goes against the grain of thinking of a lot of thoughtful people who do worry about money in politics. i say go after corruption. there it is, corruption. quid pro quo. look at the nixon administration and the sale of ambassadorships. that was quid pro quo corruption >> i'm afraid that's all we have time for today. i want to thank everyone in the audience and i want to thank especially ken starr for coming
12:33 am
back to the keystone andapolis book festival. the book is "contempt." thank you all very much. have a good afternoon. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> c-span's washington journal every day we're taking your calls live, on the air on the news of the day and we'll discuss policy issues that impact you. coming up sunday morning, we'll look at abortion policy and the
12:34 am
2022 campaign. mother jones washington bureau chief shares his book, american psychosis. how the republican party went crazy. watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern sunday morning on c-span or on c-span's free mobile app. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> are you thinking this is the community center? new york city it is way more than that. -- no, it is way more than that. >> they can get the tools they need to be ready for anything.
12:35 am
>> come past -- comcast, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> on monday, britain says goodbye to its longest serving monarch as the state funeral for when elizabeth ii is held at westminster abby. c-span, c-span now or online at >> next, a look at how women veterans have their healthcare needs met.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on