Independent counsel Kenneth Starr and his staff have pulled together information on the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky relationship in ways that would make many investigative reporters proud.

Granted, journalists rarely have access to grand jury testimony, as Starr did. Journalists cannot issue subpoenas to witnesses, as Starr did. Journalists cannot grant witnesses immunity from prosecution, as Starr did. Journalists cannot effectively threaten hold uncooperative sources in contempt of court, as Starr could. Journalists do not have millions of dollars to spend on an investigation.

But even if you discount all of Starr's advantages over journalists, his information-gathering can serve as a primer not only for reporters and editors but also for any citizen trying to evaluate the reliability of evidence in an era of information overload.

As a subscriber to the idea that Starr has been out of control as independent counsel, I decided last week to use my investigative training to evaluate the quality of the evidence leading to his Clinton-Lewinsky findings. Surely, I thought, an overzealous and apparently partisan independent counsel would take shortcuts in his information gathering to make his case.

Surely, I surmised, a lawyer such as Starr would fail to meet the information-gathering standards of the best investigative journalists, who earn credibility through thoroughness and fairness rather than through advocacy.

So I waited impatiently for the instant books containing the complete text of Starr's Clinton-Lewinsky findings - too vast for eyestrain-free reading on the Internet, too unwieldy for newspaper special sections.

The first to arrive came from Prima Publishing of Rocklin, Calif. (473 pages, $9.99). After reading it quickly to get a feel for Starr's case, I returned to the first page. From there, I painstakingly analyzed the information-gathering techniques buttressing the narrative and the 1,692 endnotes.

As I reached the 100th endnote, I began to realize that I had been wrong in my assumptions.

Beyond the obvious sources of Lewinsky and Clinton, Starr followed these people and paper trails:

* The United States Code, a compilation of all federal laws. It might seem an obvious source, but far too many information-gatherers fail to consult it. They ignore it at their peril, because it is vital to know the law word-for-word before determining if a suspect has violated it. In his report, Starr alleges, "Rather than lie to the grand jury himself, the President lied about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky to his senior aides, and those aides then conveyed the President's false story to the grand jury."

It Starr's allegation is correct, did Clinton violate the law?

Starr says yes, according to Title 18 of the U.S. Code, sections 1503 and 1512. The key phrasing, according to Starr, provides that whoever "corruptly I engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding I shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both" (page 467, note 433, Prima edition).

* All portions of civil lawsuits. Included is the one that Paula Jones filed against Clinton for alleged sexual harassment while she worked for the state of Arkansas and he served as governor. There is far more publicly available documentation in court files than in the complaint.

In several places, Starr refers to evidence obtained from the discovery phase of the Jones lawsuit. As he explains, "The discovery process allows the parties to obtain from their respective opponents written answers to interrogatories, oral testimony in depositions under oath, documents and other tangible items so long as the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" (page 51, note 5).

Starr has effectively mined interrogatories, depositions and documents from the Jones case and other lawsuits.

* Subpoenas. Prosecutors' subpoenas are usually filed in open court. Starr's subpoena to Lewinsky directed, in part, "Please produce each and every gift including, but not limited to, any and all dresses, accessories and jewelry and/or hat pins given to you by or on behalf of Defendant Clinton" (page 447, note 158).

* Legal precedents. The judicial system is weighted heavily toward validating previous court opinions. Knowing this, Starr cites decisions in previous sexual harassment cases to show why he needs to learn as much as possible about Clinton's behavior around women other than Lewinsky.

Referring to a 1982 court opinion in a sexual harassment case, Starr says such litigation "can sometimes boil down to a credibility battle between the parties, in which the existence of corroborative evidence or the lack thereof is likely to be crucial. If there are no eyewitnesses, it can be critical for a plaintiff to learn in discovery whether the defendant has committed the same kinds of acts before or since. I In short, a defendant's sexual history, at least with respect to other employees, is ordinarily discoverable in a sexual harassment suit" (page 54, note 23).

* Current and former friends. When searching for information, too many journalists contact only the obvious sources along the people trail, sources who can be classified among the "currents" - current friends, current co-workers, current competitors, current accountants, current therapists, and so on. Starr found "formers" as well as "currents," including 11 people to whom Lewinsky confided details about her relationship with Clinton while it was still unfolding (page 59).

* Official records. These include records of gifts and correspondence to the president; records of incoming and outgoing telephone and pager calls; White House employee data forms; White House employment approvals; Secret Service itineraries; the first lady's calendar; the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents series.

Almost every office in the government and private sectors collects, files and discards documents in a systematic way. A good investigator not only makes that assumption but also finds somebody to explain the system. Even when a manager such as Clinton has reason to hide information, it can often be retrieved because those in charge lack the imagination to understand how their own files can be used against them (page 217, note 74; page 224, notes 133, 135; page 233, note 269; page 266, note 626).

* Information that serves as corroboration. During one alleged sexual encounter with Clinton, Lewinsky recalled that the president took a telephone call from a member of Congress with a nickname. Checking the White House telephone records for the date and approximate time, Starr's investigators located a call from such a member of Congress (page 228, note 184).

* Documents recovered from computer word-processing and electronic-mail systems. Obtaining access to somebody's computer memory is not always simple. But such access can yield currently listed files as well as files that appear to have been erased but leave adequate tracks so they can be recalled. Starr's investigators found numerous useful documents on Lewinsky's computer (page 237, note 315; page 240, note 350).

* Photographs. Visual evidence is often available from photographers. Even if the photographs have never been published, common sense suggests that a photographer might have attended certain events. Starr's investigators used that common-sense notion to find numerous photographs of Clinton and Lewinsky at holiday receptions and similar events (page 242, note 375).

* Classified advertisements in newspapers and other publications. On Valentine's Day 1997, Lewinsky placed an advertisement in the Washington Post. Meant for Clinton, it was addressed to "Handsome" and contained quotations from "Romeo and Juliet" (page 246, note 421).

By the time I finished analyzing Starr's information gathering, I was so impressed that I said something I never thought I would say about the president's behavior toward Lewinsky: At minimum, official censure ought to occur. As for impeachment, I no longer oppose that option.

Steve Weinberg served as executive director of Investigative Reporters & Editors, an international journalism organization, from 1983 to 1990. He still edits the group's bimonthly magazine from IRE headquarters at the University of Missouri Journalism School. He voted for Clinton in 1992 and in 1996.

Pub Date: 9/27/98