The appearance of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr before the House Judiciary Committee this week could yield explosive moments, tense exchanges, angry flare-ups and memorable phrases.
Judging from history, it could even create villains and heroes.
As Starr’s date with the committee–scheduled for Thursday–approaches, congressional Democrats and Republicans are nervous about which side will benefit from the long-awaited appearance by the independent counsel, who may prove to be the only high-profile witness in a scaled-down impeachment hearing.
Once there was the possibility that Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, Vernon Jordan and others from the national melodrama would be called to testify.
But the reality that impeachment is more a political than a legal process has hit home with full force after months of polling and a congressional midterm election strongly suggesting that the American public wants a quick resolution.
Thus, Starr will appear as star witness in what could prove virtually a one-man show as he attempts to justify his four years of work and his conclusion that President Clinton has committed impeachable offenses.
“It’s risky for both sides,” said James Thurber, director of American University’s Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies. “It’s risky for the Republicans because if Starr looks mean-spirited it could backfire. Or it could flip the other way and he could be very articulate and humane and persuasive.”
Starr has kept a low profile during his investigation–somewhat paradoxically, given his enormous public impact. He has been vilified passionately and praised fervently. His report startled millions with its seamy details, and he frequently dominated the news this year. Yet, his public appearances have been rare and brief.
Starr has proven repeatedly that he can gracefully present an argument before a panel of judges, even hostile ones, and his friends describe him as earnest and persuasive. Others find him self-righteous and his style saccharine.
“There is a grave question for both sides about how sympathetic a witness he’ll make,” acknowledged one Republican source. “He’s a bit of an enigma, but so be it.”
Elaborate maneuvering has preceded Starr’s appearance. At first, it was the Democrats who vowed to summon him to eviscerate him before the cameras. Ultimately the Republicans brought him in–and suddenly the Democrats find themselves wondering if Starr’s appearance will hurt their cause.
Congressional Democrats say privately they are well aware of Starr’s skills and have little interest in giving him a platform. Their supporters say they would be wise to avoid confronting him directly on his accusations against Clinton.
“The Democrats have to be careful here in terms of the way they play it,” said Democratic consultant Victor Fingerhut. “I don’t compare them in any way, but Ollie North came on, he looked great, he was a military officer, he’d served his country. The Democrats thought they would have a field day, and he turned it around.”
Fingerhut was referring to the dramatic 1987 testimony of Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North during the Iran-contra hearings.
Congressional hearings often have been pivotal when it comes to scandal, either burying a controversy or magnifying it. Hearings have yielded famous phrases, such as Watergate’s “cancer on the presidency,” and have made household names out of people such as North, Joseph McCarthy, John Dean and Anita Hill.
At a minimum, the clash between Starr and fiery Judiciary Committee critics is likely to make riveting theater.
Starr has been allotted two hours to make an opening statement, though he is expected to take less time. Committee members will then get five minutes each to ask questions. Finally, White House lawyers will be allowed to question Starr.
Starr could take the opportunity to raise charges against Clinton other than those included in the report, perhaps about issues entirely unrelated to Lewinsky, the former White House intern with whom Clinton had an affair.
Indeed, Starr tossed a grenade into the process late last week by sending boxes of new material to Congress concerning claims by Democratic activist Kathleen Willey that Clinton groped her, an incident he has denied under oath. The episode is likely to come up at the hearing.
“What really matters is if he has any small cluster bombs to drop,” said Steffen Schmidt, a political scientist at Iowa State University. “If I were him, I would be prepared for the fact that more people know what is in his report than any other document since the Bible, and I would have kept back a bombshell.”
Starr’s office would not comment on his testimony. Despite rumors to the contrary, neither Republicans nor Democrats for now seem poised to call any major witnesses other than Starr; the Democrats are summoning several of the independent counsel’s deputies.
More Top Picks Best Blue Light Screen Protectors For Phones
As to why the Republicans are calling Starr, they hope to wrap up the hearings quickly and Starr alone can provide a single, coherent story line.
“We want to establish the facts as much as possible with the fewest witnesses and most direct means,” said Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.).
If Starr does well Thursday, that could shift momentum against Clinton. If he comes off like the obsessed zealot the Democrats claim he is, that could hasten the end of the impeachment process.
Some say Starr and his cause are so unpopular that Clinton’s foes have little to lose.
“Republicans can have it both ways,” Fingerhut acknowledged. “If Starr looks bad, they can say he is a jerk. If he does a good job, they can praise him and ride his newfound popularity. It’s not a bad strategy.”
For their part, Republicans are playing down the likelihood that Starr will make a strong witness.
“I have no great expectations here,” McCollum said. “I think it would be a mistake to overemphasize his importance.”
Starr, though, unquestionably has the experience to present a powerful case. He has been a skillful advocate in federal court, where judges often hurl bruising questions like thunderbolts. As solicitor general under President George Bush, Starr argued routinely before the Supreme Court, which can be the toughest tribunal of all.
He has developed a cool, commanding presence in these settings that might surprise those who know him only from his news conferences.
“Ken Starr, I think, will be very comfortable,” said Dean, whose Watergate testimony 25 years ago was among the most effective ever delivered. “He has testified before Congress, and I think he will be very comfortable in the congressional forum.”
Democrats are likely to hammer Starr on his personal candor and integrity of his investigation.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), a Judiciary Committee member, said Democrats will meet this week to solidify their strategy. Even if Democrats decide to hammer Starr on his conduct of the investigation, Nadler said, it is unclear how much leeway committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) will give them.
Congressional hearings have historically provided some of the starkest moments in politics. They often crystallize larger social conflicts, providing a forum for adversaries to go after each other as the public watches and judges.
The more dramatic moments echo long after the participants have departed. It was 1954 when Army attorney Joseph Welch asked Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.), “At long last, sir, have you no decency?” It was nearly two decades later when Sen. Howard Baker (R-Tenn.) asked Dean, “What did the president know and when did he know it?”
“There is an element of theater,” Dean said. “After my appearance before the Senate Watergate Committee–which I was told staggering numbers of Americans watched–people for years afterwards came up to me and said, `I enjoyed your show on television.’ They literally used those words.”