Panel debates Kenneth Starr's methods in Clinton investigation

Theodore Lowi, the John L. Senior Professor of American Institutions, takes part in a faculty panel discussion April 15 in McGraw Hall on "Evaluating the Methods and Merits of Kenneth Starr's Investigation of the President." Frank DiMeo/University Photography

By John Wilson '98

In August 1994, a special three-judge panel appointed Kenneth Starr independent counsel to investigate potential wrongdoing by President Clinton and his associates in connection with the failed land deal in Arkansas known as Whitewater. Now, more than three and a half years and $25 million later, Starr says, "The end is not yet in sight."

The length and scope of Starr's inquiry have caused some to chastise the prosecutor and his tactics, but others argue that there is nothing peculiar about his methods and that he should be allowed to complete his work. Four Cornell professors, representing both points of view, participated in a panel discussion April 15 about Starr's investigation.

A widespread complaint about Starr and his staff is that, under the independent counsel statute, they have too much power and authority. "Pardon the comparison, but it's like a police riot in Chicago," said Theodore Lowi, the John L. Senior Professor of American Institutions, in one of several allusions to events of the 1960s. "The cops were supposed to go out there and restore order, but they weren't told exactly what to do and so they went nuts."

Since its inception, the Starr investigation has been broadened to consider seven accusations against the White House. The prosecutor has closed only two of the charges, having determined that the death of deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster was a suicide and that several Arkansas bankers did not funnel illegal contributions into a Clinton gubernatorial campaign.

Starr is still looking into the abrupt dismissal of the White House travel office staff, the possibility that the Clintons hid subpoenaed documents relating to the Whitewater land venture, the alleged bribing of a former associate attorney general convicted of fraud, the illegal acquisition of secret Federal Bureau of Investigation files by a low-level White House official, and the possibility that the president lied about his relationship with one-time intern Monica Lewinsky.

The moderator of the McGraw Hall discussion, Russell Osgood, the Allan R. Tessler Dean of Cornell Law School, called Starr a "headless horseman" and likened him to a ship that is constantly being refueled but which lacks a destination.

Observed Lowi: "That's the trouble with rich folks -- they don't have to make choices. Starr has an unlimited budget."

Jeremy Rabkin, associate professor of government, defended Starr's conduct, noting that public opinion about the investigation has been influenced by Starr's inability to discuss his progress. Meanwhile, Clinton administration operatives have released a volley of unfounded allegations against the prosecutorial team in an attempt to intimidate it, Rabkin said.

"It's just White House spin, and the president has been unusually shameless and brazen about fighting back. It's disturbing," he said.

But Risa Lieberwitz, associate professor of labor law in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations, disagreed, saying: "No matter how you package it, Starr seems to be an unseemly muckraker."

The greatest disservice of the presidential inquiry, in Lieberwitz's view, was that it deflects attention from really pressing problems to which officials should be attending.

"Let's remember what the moral issues are and what Clinton is doing to our country. His welfare reform program is pushing more people out of the safety net, he's eliminating immigrants' rights, pandering to the political right and abandoning gay rights and progressive candidates," she said.

The faculty members differed on the severity of the charges of perjury and sexual impropriety leveled against Clinton and Lewinsky, which have been tied to the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. Lowi and Lieberwitz found the accusations unimportant, but Rabkin expressed deep concern. And Osgood remarked, "There is a consistent pattern of sexual sleaze emanating from the highest levels."

Of the issues Starr is investigating, Lowi wondered why the prosecutor seems not to be directing the greatest amount of attention toward "Filegate" -- which involved a White House staffer, without required clearance, accumulating more than 300 classified FBI dossiers on employees of the Reagan and Bush administrations.

"Those files are a form of political pornography. They're extremely tempting," Lowi said, going on to ask whether Clinton might have examined them. If he did, Lowi said, then "that's Watergate stuff."