WASHINGTON -- When he was appointed independent counsel more than four years ago, even a number of Democrats had to concede that the Kenneth W. Starr they knew, although fervently Republican, was "fair-minded," "judicious," "a man of tremendous integrity."
All in all, said one self-described pro-Bill Clinton liberal Democrat who knew him, "a good man."
Today, as he faces the House Judiciary Committee as the key witness in the impeachment hearings against the president, Starr's reputation has undergone a remarkable transformation. The investigator has been nearly as damaged as his target.
"He will never again enjoy the admiration and respect he had across the board," said constitutional law professor Garrett Epps, the liberal Democrat and Starr acquaintance who sang his praises four years ago. "His reputation is in tatters."
Starr emerges from his $40 million-plus investigation of Clinton and his associates as one of the least popular figures in America, attacked by the White House as a partisan zealot on a mission to bring down the Democratic president, and criticized by even some of his former admirers for reaching too far, too wide and for too long.
"Having known him, I had hoped he would comport himself in a nonpartisan way," said Epps. "I think, for reasons I can't begin to fathom, he has not done that. He has become captive to the extreme Clinton-hating fringe of the Republican Party and used the office of the independent counsel to further that agenda in ways that have been shocking and really disgraceful."
Former White House counsel Abner J. Mikva, who served with Starr on the federal appeals court in Washington, said similarly, "The Ken Starr I knew and the Ken Starr I praised when he was first appointed is nobody I recognize in the Ken Starr who wrote that prurient report and has been responsible for outrageous prosecutorial excesses. I can't explain it."
To be sure, many Republicans and Clinton foes beg to differ, hailing the special prosecutor's work as courageous, his tactics routine and his vilification the product of the masterful White House spin machine. To them, it is the ultimate irony that Starr -- not Clinton -- is in the hot seat having to defend his actions.
He's 'been demonized'
"This hard-working, mild-mannered fellow has been demonized," says Miguel Estrada, a Washington lawyer and former colleague. "But it's more a tribute to the PR savvy of his target than it is a statement about Ken Starr as a lawyer. He does not seem to me to have changed at all."
Still, gone are the pre-Whitewater whispers of Starr, a former appellate judge and solicitor general in the Bush administration, as a likely Supreme Court nominee. So much hostility exists between Starr and the Democratic Party that there is virtually no chance he would be appointed to any post needing Senate confirmation, much less the nation's top bench, friends and foes agree.
"If I were he, I wouldn't start getting my robes fitted -- no matter who's the president," says Alan B. Morrison, a lawyer with the public interest law group Public Citizen, who knows Starr and has been an admirer.
Polls show that the public, by a 2-1 margin, disapproves of the way Starr has handled the investigation. His personal approval ratings are in single digits.
Starr is said to be mystified by the public's disdain for him and its continued approval of the president. That bewilderment, said one who knows him, has inspired a fierce determination to prove himself right.
Mock hearings
For the past couple of weeks, Starr, who plans to lay out a case that Clinton engaged in a pattern of obstruction, has been staging mock hearings in his office conference room, with his deputies firing difficult questions at him in anticipation of those expected from the Judiciary Committee Democrats.
Democrats are eager to question the independent counsel about his prosecutorial conduct, including his wiring of Linda R. Tripp before he had the authority from the attorney general to investigate the Lewinsky matter.
Another episode Democrats are likely to bring up -- one being examined by the Justice Department -- is the confrontation of Lewinsky by Starr's deputies in January.
Lewinsky testified that Starr's lawyers discouraged her from calling her lawyer at the time, suggesting that if she did, she would lose her opportunity for immunity from prosecution.
Under Justice Department rules, it is unethical for federal prosecutors to prevent criminal suspects from calling their lawyers. In a statement this week, the Justice Department said it was seeking additional information on the matter from Starr's office before determining whether to start an official ethics probe.
Starr is also likely to be grilled about his contacts, before he sought the authority to investigate the Lewinsky matter, with Tripp and those associated with the Paula Corbin Jones sexual-misconduct lawsuit. Some Clinton allies see Starr's discussions with the Jones team -- and his failure to disclose it to the attorney general -- as part of an effort to "entrap" the president into lying when he gave his deposition in the Jones case.
Another matter dogging Starr -- evidence of leaks from his office to the media -- is under investigation by the federal judge who supervises the Lewinsky grand jury.
For all their insistence that they get the chance to interrogate Starr, Democrats fear the independent counsel -- an experienced litigator who as solicitor general argued cases before the Supreme Court -- will make an impressive witness, perhaps bolstering his image in his first presentation before the nation.
'A beautiful case'
"He's a very skilled oral advocate," says Georgetown University law professor Paul F. Rothstein. "He will present a beautiful case against the president and probably refuse to answer questions about any impropriety of his own investigation. I don't think they're going to be able to inflict damage."
Rothstein said that while there is much talk within the legal community that Starr has "lost perspective" and become too "personally committed" to making a case against Clinton, many also blame the independent counsel statute for giving Starr limitless power and resources.
Some lawyers also point to Starr's lack of prosecutorial experience in explaining what they see as excessive zeal. "He was getting advice from some tough-minded prosecutor types who pushed him quite far," says James McKay, a former independent counsel who investigated Reagan Attorney General Edwin W. Meese III.
George Washington University law professor Stephen A. Saltzburg faults Attorney General Janet Reno for repeatedly expanding Starr's mandate, fostering the impression of the independent counsel as a permanent Clinton inquisitor.
Other lawyers believe Starr's moralistic -- and partisan -- predisposition led him to pursue the Clinton White House so tenaciously.
It's not unusual for a special prosecutor investigating the president to make enemies and emerge from the inquiry on the losing end of the deal.
"Lawrence Walsh became anathema to Republicans -- even though he was a Republican," Saltzburg says, referring to the Reagan-era Iran-contra prosecutor. "He went in having had a distinguished career, and came out tarnished. For many people, he will always be the guy who tried to bring down a president and do in [then-Vice President George] Bush."
But while all agree that Starr, once he closes up shop, is more likely to return to private practice than win a political appointment, his friends say they aren't too worried about his future.
"Ken Starr will do just fine," says Republican lawyer Joseph E. diGenova, a former independent counsel. "He'll make a lot of money, have a lot of clients and be welcome in appellate courts."
But the intense partisan animosity that has developed over the Whitewater independent counsel could have a bearing on much more than Starr's personal fortunes.
Saltzburg points out, for instance, that some Republicans have not forgiven Democrats for quashing the nomination of conservative Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987 and have done their best to hold up all sorts of Democratic nominations since.
He predicts similar long-lasting ramifications from Starr's aggressive pursuit of the president. "This will be with us for a while," says Saltzburg. "We don't know who's going to want to have payback -- and when it will come."
TV coverage
Television networks plan coverage of independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's scheduled appearance today before the House Judiciary Committee. His testimony is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m.
ABC -- 10 a.m., live coverage of Starr's opening statement. Length of coverage undetermined.
CBS -- 10 a.m., live coverage. Length of coverage undetermined.
NBC -- 10 a.m., live coverage. Length of coverage undetermined.
CNN -- 9: 30 a.m., live coverage. Length of coverage undetermined. Recap at 8: 30 p.m.
Fox News Channel -- 10 a.m., live coverage of entire hearing.
MSNBC -- 9 a.m., live coverage of entire hearing.
PBS -- 10 a.m., live coverage of entire hearing. Recap at 10 p.m.
C-SPAN -- 10 a.m., live coverage of entire hearing. Proceedings rerun at 7 p.m.
Court TV -- 10 a.m., live coverage of entire hearing.
Associated Press
Pub Date: 11/19/98