A L S O+T O D A Y Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Starr By Gary Kamiya When the real Kenneth Starr finally stood up before the House, he turned out to have a split personality Starr Wars By Joan Walsh The Democrats strike back Nothing has changed Compiled by Lori Leibovich and Fiona Morgan The consensus of political experts is that no minds were changed by Starr's day in court Starr speaks The full text of independent counsel Kenneth Starr's House Judiciary Committee testimony A dozen questions Congress should ask Kenneth Starr By David Talbot, Murray Waas and Joan Walsh (11/18/98)   T A B L E+T A L K Discuss Ken Starr and his testimony in the Politics area of Table Talk   R E C E N T L Y Same Old Party By Joshua Micah Marshall New leadership can't mend the rifts among Republicans in Congress (11/19/98) Reply to C.D. Ellison By David Horowitz It's time for blacks to have a two-party system, too (11/19/98) Toppling Saddam By Frank Smyth Clinton wants a new government in Baghdad, but he and the Iraqi opposition are unlikely to be up to the task (11/18/98) Brother on brother By Murray Waas Whitewater witness David Hale attempted to suborn perjury by his own brother by asking him to falsely corroborate illegal acts by President Clinton (11/17/98) The mark of Cain: a tale of two brothers By Murray Waas Though they traveled the same path from the family dirt farm through law school, the Hale brothers turned out different as night and day (11/17/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S A L O N E M P O R I U M FREE! 12-ounce bag of Salon Blend with a purchase of $30 or more. While supplies last.
		Starr on the stand A raw transcript of Thursday's sometimes somnolent and bitterly partisan congressional impeachment proceedings. Click on the cast of characters below to jump to select transcripts or follow the link at the bottom of this, and each subsequent, page to browse the full, chronological transcript. Selected Transcripts: Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., chairman Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., ranking minority member Kenneth Starr, independent counsel Abbe Lowelll, chief Democratic investigative counsel Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. David Kendall, counsel to President Clinton David Schippers, chief Republican investigative counsel Complete Transcript: HYDE: Pursuant to notice, I now convene the committee for a hearing pursuant to House Resolution 581, the resolution which the House adopted authorizing an inquiry into whether to recommend impeachment of the president of the United States. The chair intends to recognize himself for five minutes and the ranking minority member for five minutes. Each member may be permitted to place an opening statement into the record. After the two opening statements -- my own and the ranking member's -- the chair intends to recognize the witness, the independent counsel, Mr. Starr. Without objection, after Mr. Starr's presentation, the chair will recognize minority counsel, Mr. Lowell, for 30 minutes to question the witness; majority counsel, Mr. Schippers, for 30 minutes to question the witness. And subsequent to questioning by committee counsel, each member will be recognized to ask questions under the five-minute rule. Subsequent to members' questions, the president's counsel will be recognized for 30 minutes to question the witness and the chair recognizes Mr. Delahunt, the gentleman from Massachusetts. DELAHUNT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a motion at the desk. HYDE: The clerk will report the -- why don't you read it? Read it, Mr. Delahunt. DELAHUNT: I move that counsel to the president be recognized for two hours to question the witness. HYDE: Well, the chair states that Mr. Starr is here to help us educe and understand the facts. The hearing today is not a trial, nor is it White House versus Ken Starr or Republican versus Democrat. Rather, the hearing today is another step in our attempt to carry out our constitutional duty to determine whether facts exist which indicate that the president of the United States committed impeachable offenses. If this committee... (UNKNOWN): ... two hours... HYDE: ... and the full determine the president has committed an impeachable offense, a trial may be held in the Senate. With this in mind, the chair believes that time allotments for questioning are eminently fair. As far as giving the president an opportunity to present his version of the facts, I would first ask the president and his counsel to respond to the 81 questions we submitted to him two weeks ago. This will go a long way to helping us gather and understand the facts involved in this matter. Furthermore, the president has a standing invitation to come before this committee for any amount of time and present us with his version of the facts. As I compute the timing for questioning the witness, the Democrats -- including the president's counsel -- have 140 minutes of questioning time, the Republicans 135. The Democrats are permitted two separate counsels -- that is to say the Democrat members, Mr. Lowell, and the president's counsel. We have one. Our counsel will get a half hour. Mr. Lowell will get a half hour. Mr. Kendall will get a half hour. So it's -- I don't see any imbalance there. Mr. Lowell, the Democratic counsel, will go before any of the elected members -- at Mr. Conyers' request, and I'm happy to grant that. The president's counsel will have unlimited time to present his witnesses at the end of our hearings when they're ready to do so. And so the rule that we're operating under -- which is the same rule that was used in the Rodino era. Rule 4 of the impeachment inquiry rules specifically states that the president's counsel may question any witness subject to instructions from the chairman, respecting the time, scope and duration of the examination. And so with that statement, the gentlemen's motion is denied. DELAHUNT: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. HYDE: Well, the gentleman's not recognized for that purpose. FRANK: Mr. Chairman. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. (UNKNOWN FEMALE MEMBER): May I be heard on the motion. FRANK: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. HYDE: What is the point? FRANK: The point is that the gentleman from Massachusetts made a motion. The chair then spoke to the motion, and has denied, under the rules, the right of the gentleman who made the motion to, in fact respond to it. And I make the point of order that the gentleman is entitled to his recognition. HYDE: I'm sorry. I didn't -- I was distracted. What is the point of order? FRANK: The gentleman made a motion... HYDE: Yes, I know that. FRANK: The chair recognized the gentleman to make a motion. He then -- the chair then spoke to the motion and is now denying the maker of the motion the right under our rules to speak to his own motion. And the gentleman has a right under our rules to be recognized to speak to his motion. HYDE: Well, I'll recognize the gentleman. Go ahead, Mr. Delahunt. DELAHUNT: Thank you... HYDE: I have ruled on the gentleman's motion, but go ahead. N E X T+P A G E+| "With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, if the goal is justice, this cannot be a satisfactory response" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Become a Salon member. Click here.