policy. i think on -- i think he's been very -- not been helpful to long-term relationships across the globe. i think we can read about that on a daily basis. long-term allies who question the support of the united states. he suggests that we in the united states can go it alone. i don't think that's the case by any means. we have extraordinary power in and of ourselveses but we need partners around the globe in order to achieve the goals we seek. >> joan us for conversations with senator bob corker and nikki -- saturday at 8:00 eastern on c-span and c-span.org, or listen with the free radio ach. >> kenneth star is out with a new book at independent counsel for whitewater and lewinski investigations. title "contempt: a memoir of the clinton investigation," and judge starr you begin and end

that book by thanking the people who are in the independent counsel office with you. one of those people back. i wonder your thoughts this morning on this hearing that's happening on monday, we will hear from brett kavanaugh, and his accuser. >> guest: i don't know the accuser but i do know brett kavanaugh, and i've been reaffirmed in my firm belief in brett kavanaugh and his architecture and character by the outpouring of support from those who have known him all these years. not just people who have worked with him, but people who grew up heth him, including a lot of women who say this is not the brett kavanaugh we know, went to school with, and so forth. and so i hope there will be a balance in ultimate judgment that we have this long and distinguished career and then this one alleged episode from high school. but i believe in brett kavanaugh and his

integrity. >> host: we invite viewers to join in with judge starr democrats democrats (202)748-8000. republicans (202)748-8001. independents (202)748-8002 speaking of the judgment here from what we're going to see on monday who is the burden of proof on on monday? is the on the accuser to prove this happened? is it on brett kavanaugh to prove it didn't happen? >> guest: i don't think it will sort out this way. i think it's an ultimate judgment by the world's greatest didn't body. they need to go through a process and they're going through a process and step back gand render ultimate judgment. so this is not a can you feel. this is a process of what is for the american people. what is right for the supreme court, and i hope it will be on the merits, looking at the entirety of this record. i do have to say, i'm very concerned about the process. i don't hear people talking about the process that much. this is a very

detailed process of confirmation, including the review of six former fbi investigative reports. and all this has come to the public light within the last, really six days. i think that's really unfortunate. unfairness to the process. >> host: what should the t procs be coming up with the hearing on monday. what should be happening right now. >> guest: i think one of the best suggestions there to be a non-circus atmosphere, the best way to do that is to have professionals, what shall i say, i'm arguing for my own professionals, but skilled lawyers doing the questioning, obviously theio senator should make statements or whatever they want to do, but if we want to in fact get the truth, have very skilled lawyers do it justice was done during the watergate hearings under sam irvin many years ago. >> host: if the details of this incident are lost to history how do you end up deciding who to

believe. >> guest: well i don't know that ultimate this is going to be just the credibility judgment as opposed to here is an episode or incident from high school. i want to emphasize that. from high school. this is not from college, it's not from law school, nor anything in the profession. nothing in the office. there's no suggestion of a pattern or practice, and i think all these things are critical as opposed to one incident. so i'm suggesting an ultimate kind of judgment about the character of an individual based upon his entire life. >> host: chat with a few callers, dayton ohio, democrat, good morning. >> caller: high, youat pushed hd for the investigation while you led the investigation into clinton and extra marital affairs. and then that proatd into impeachment. so now you're pushing back against the idea of impeachment in regard to a president. so i question that. i also question in regard to

kavanaugh, i watchedst the hearings, and lay leahy's line of questioning in regard to kavanaugh receiving confidential letters of leahy's and also stolen emails and confidential letters i really question kavanaugh's integrity based on that line of questioning. and then of course always voted in support of corporate interest. so why again back to the why would you push for impeachment with clinton. >> host: cathleen we got your questions. >> guest: great. well cathleen, what i did do was what the statute under which i was appointed required me to do. the statute that congress passed under which i was appointed by three judges, required the independent counsel to report to the house of representatives when any "substantial and credible" information came to

the independent counsel's attention. so i simply obeyed the statute. now the investigation itself, and this is not understood by the american people, and i lay this out in my book. my memoir clled contentment. that part of the investigation as with other parts was authorized by bill clinton's own attorney general. she reviewed the evidence that we had, of possible percentagery o on the part of the president and other crimes. she then decided she, the attorney general that she needed to go to the three-judge court, and to say, this has to be investigated. i cannot turn a blind eye to the possibility of the president of the united states committing crimes. and that's what the statute required. she did, she, janet reno, the attorney general at the time did her duty that i had a duty to do as well. so final thing i'll say is, with respect to impeachment what i said in my testimony before the house judiciary committee and i described that longest day for

me, it was a, essentially 12 hours on the hot seat is you can take this referral and do anything that you want with it. and including just tossing it in the trash. and i'm sure a number of people wanted to do exactly that. but i simply said this is my duty, here it is, now it is your judgment. now that experience, the final part of why i'm saying don't go there now, what i'm saying there in the clinton -- about the clinton experience is, we learn from our history as agree people. impeachment was not the wise way to go. at diane feinstein who is in the news these days was pushing for a resolution of censure. she wanted to condemn president clinton's conduct, not the morality of the relationship with monica. but his crimes against the rule of law. we, in this country, believe no one should be above the law, that reason the independent

counsel was created, and why we have a special counsel now. and bob mueller to assure the rule of law. >> host: the book again, "contempt: a memoir of the clinton investigation" ken starr with us for the next 50 minutes to talk about it this morning on washington journal. douglas in alabama, independent good morning. >> caller: how are you? yes, i tell you what i'm very disappointed in her and her action that she took sending that information to the fbi, mss very wrong in her to do that. that she shouldn't have done that. she should have waited and checked to make sure everything was appropriate on this lady's part. that's the way everybody does it. they think the man is always wrong, and every case because the woman always go hollering the sky is falling, the sky is falling. >> host: to be clear you think

diane feinstein should have conducted a pre-investigation before fording on the information. >> caller: i think she should have come before the people, and before going to the fbi and going that far to try to damage him, and that such a way. because see, if that had held up then the fbi could have come oua and arrested him, and embarrassed him. >> host: got your point douglas. >> guest: one of the great r things about our country and system of law is that we believe in fairness. the supreme court frequently uses the term fundamental fairness. at the core of due process. i think that's important in the senate process as well when it is engaged in essentially fact-finding, and not law-making. and so i do have concerns about the process. and i think it would have been far better, i don't know anyone who has said that it was 457b8ded

iwell by senator feinstein, basically to keep this information that came confidential and anonymously to her. as not to share that with the committee in a timely manner. so that it could be considered in a timely manner. i think process is so important in order for the american people ultimately to have confidence in the ultimate fairness, the fundamental fairness of the judgment. very quickly, it was felix frankfurter a great justice on the supreme court from a by-gone era who wrote once, the history of liberty is in large part the history of procedure. when we think about that in the criminal justice system i think we can understand that. we need fair process.in we think of miranda rights and the like. so too, i think in terms of fairness to everyone involved. including frankly the supreme court and the dignity of the supreme court. this kind of thing should be handled i think with a

really keen eye on fairness, and i have concerns about the way it has been handled, but we are where we are. >> host: georgia, republican, good morning. new york. >> caller: i was just wondering why she waited so long. -- has been in the public eye for years. she's a trump hater. now over 40 state voted for trump, and the democrats have been after him all this time. this gal should have come up --e he's been in -- she's known where he was. but she hates trump so she's going to take down this good man. this is not the christian way to work. >> guest: well i understand the concern we have in this country as part of our sense of fairness. statutes of limitation. that if you have a complaint about something then you should in fact bring it forward. but i'm not going to in any way criticizes v criticize the accuser much less

attack the accuser. let's sort all this out. as i've said now, we are where we are. so let's get to the bottom of things as best wet can. my concern and this is part of the fairness concern, is that there be eventually a judgment on the part of the senate that reflects the dignity of the senate and the dignity of the supreme court of the united states which is urjudging the entire record. i heard a united states senator very distinguished new senator from alabama say that he had been in the process, he happens to be a lawyer, senator jones that he has been in the process of reviewing the entire body of work of brett kavanaugh, and that is as it should be. look at all of his judicial writings in his 12 years of service. look at his exojudicial, outside ,f court, his law actorses his speechesch it's a vast body of

work. look at his service under president bush. look at his service in the independent counsel's office. that is what a fair and mature representative democracy will do. i fear that what is unfolding right now is a bet of a mob and circus atmosphere and i hope that wise sames in the senate, and that's why we elect them every six years, not every two years. we want them to take a step back. say we understand people have very strong feelings about this issue, you've expressed strong feelings. the prior caller expressed strong feelings, but it is for the accept to step bang and say i think this is the right thing to do, looking at rethe entirety of the record. i do wantt to say one more thing about brett. i have known brett kavanaugh, i worked with him. i saw him day in, day out in the office. i didn't know him in high school. i didn't know him college. i didn't know him

in law school. but i've known him since he was an adult professional, and what you're seeing and an outpouring of commentary by the people who know him who say this is completely out of character for brettwh kavanaugh, and that is y sense too. i kill say this. as an employer i from time to time heard complaints about sexual harass. not a hint of anything like that on the part of brett kavanaugh. he's led an exemplary life. seesaw that in lie confirmation hearings and i hope that exemplary life will be taken into account by the world's great deliberative body, the united states senate. >> host: tom, hampton, connecticut, democrat. good morning. >> host: we lost tom, marie, reston, virginia, independent. good morning. >> caller: good morning. the reason i'm call is because 72

years ago i was five years old. t was the last day of school. the early part of june. i was coming home with my little report card. a boy started chasing me and i started running, and i ran into an alley next to a church. the boy came up to me, pushed me against the wall, and pulled at my panties and when he did that i shoved really hard and i flew across the street diagonally across the street to the apartment building dere i lived. to this day i have always remembered that and i never told not a single adult

my father, was my only parent at that time, and i guess he told me things about how to defend myself and not have people to bother me. but i was afraid to tell anyone. i knew my father would probably a try to find out about that boy, and probably hurt him. but the whole point is, i never ever forgot the incident. i saw the boy years later because we moved away from that neighborhood. i remember his face. years later, after that i saw him as a young man running for city councilman, he was like this upstanding young citizens at that time. the whole point i'm making is that at the age of 77 i never forgot that. i was very lucky. of

course the kid was only about 8 or 9 at the moment. but the point is it was a violation. >> host: marie thanks for sharing your story. >> guest: these are searingri experiences and what you just described is a horror that has remained with you. i don't think anyone in this process that's unfolding will gainsay, willoc doubt the importance of hearing a story and for the process of healing and the like when these dispose are alleged, my point is very simple. the character that we know, and obviously i don't know the person who is running for the city council, and your story, which is a very powerful story. but i do know brett kavanaugh, and not only that, i know brett kavanaugh, but many women who have served with him in the omfice have known him. have worked with him, and have come forward in this outpouring of

solid attestation for his character. at this stage after all the fbi reports, six fbi chreports and the like, it is ununblemished record that the senate has before it. and that record is the record i saw unfolding when he treated every person with dignity and respect so here's a key point. brett kavanaugh emphatically denies this episode. he says it did not happen. and so again you're city council person's situation, i respect what it is that you're saying. but what i think the public and marie, you should appreciate is, those of us who have known him for decades, and whoth have worked with him every single day never saw any indication of a character that was anything other than upright and honest, and treating everyone, including now since the focus is on this issue, sphealings women. and i think

that came out by the way in this confirmation hearing. that he went the extra mile when he saw the impediments to professional progress of women. and we've seen all these law clerks come forward. the women law clerks come forward and say complete dignity, complete respect, and more than that, he encouraged them and helped facility professional opportunities for them. so, what we're hearing is something that to me is totally e t of character for the brett kavanaugh that hundreds of us know and admire. >> host: what are youred feelins on the me too movement? >> guest: i think it was overdue. here is a position of power when we think about the folks who have lost their jobs. hon who have taken advantage of themselves of their power position. and frankly i note this in the book. with all due respect to his many talents, bill clinton was never called to account including for the

possible rape of someone who this day says i was retained by him, and not in high school, but when he was the attorney general buseeking the governship. so i think president clinton is likewise being called to account. for the abuse of power directed toward women by powerful men. >> host: bob, hometown illinois, republican. good morning. >> caller: good morning john, loveng c-span, judge starr, it'a pleasure to talk to you, you did a terrific job in the whitewater investigation for the country. the senate didn't go along with you but you did a terrific job. i'm concerned about our special counsel now not doing a very good job for the country. the fbi deal, the cia are up to their ears in spying and leaking and all kinds of things. some things possibly classified. duke it's time to get a special counsel to investigate the

investigators? >> guest: well i appreciate the concern, but let me say several things. one, i know bob mueller. and i have confidence in his integrity. just as i served with brett kavanaugh. bob is semprify marine, has had an exemplary career, as has brett kavanaugh as a public servant and i believe in his integrity. i have expressed concerns abouti some of the senior people around him in templedz of their over partisanship, and i hope their are leaving their partisanship at the door,av which is their responsibility. they have a first amendment right to believe whatever they want to believe, but leave that at the door. but in terms of some of what we have heard, which is descrevg and disturbing. fbi agents and the like, there are checks and balances in place, and just as i say in the book that the system worked, we agree with what eventually happened. whether you agree with what the senate did or the house of

representatives did, during the clinton phase of -- during the clintonn years, these checks and balances work. that is bill clinton was held accountable. you may not like the judgment or you may love the judgment. he was held accountable. it was unfolding as we speak, not just thbob mueller, but let's go to your specific concern about intelligence officers and the like. those investigations are underway. including internally by someone in whom i have great confidence and that's michael horowitz, the inspector general at the justice department who is a career civil servant and is totally honest. very able, he will get to the bottom of things and he has the power by the way, and he'sot done this to refer matters to the criminal version of the justice department for possiblecr persecution. the cia has an inspector general. they are on the beat but we don't read about them. finally we have the house and intelligent

committees and oversight esmechanisms the senate judiciay committee was very much involved in looking at certain issues appertaining to the investigation, so i would counsel the american people to be patient, allow this process to run, but the checks and balances in washington, d.c. are in place. >> host: tim valdez waiting in illinois, independent, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'm going to give you a short bio. i'm an army veteran as well as a retired police officer out of california. and the reason i brought it up were the rules we were under then was extremely harsh, and you could be terminated for a lot less than what we see in politics. i should actually thank mr. stark because i was there during the clinton hearings. i couldn't care less about clinnant clinton. but there's action and reaction. you should be proud

because you started something that is continuing today, and you were going to see that we can't go back when you start catelling people about morality, which is a very touchy subject, i never approach it. now you meant to see things change a lint. well as far as i'm concerned he did lie. but you know what, we can put all these people in congress, anybody in public office, put them under oath before they get into office, and then when they get caught lying let me throw names at you real quick. dennis tster, home sexual pedophile. david vitter, larry craig, newt gingrich, sound familiar? those are kind of people you want? so fair in the in american life should not be in the same sentence. so just hang on, once you start on this tract, this is how the game is played. >> guest: well thank you for your service, both in the army and then in law enforcement, and enjoy the land of lincoln, and

since you're in the land of lincoln, i will say i have a different view of american society, american culture, and politics. obviously politics can be a little bit ugly, but no, this is not about morality. i don't think. the book is not about morality. my book is about america as a country that believes in the constitution, and the rule of law. and the principle that no one is above the law. so some of the names that you mention i'm not going to comment on any stick situation, but one of the checks and balances in our country is the press. i'm a fervent believer in the freedom of the press which is enshrined in the first amendment. the point isri the truth is going to come out, and the american people can assess and evaluate. the truth came out during the clinton investigation. i'm going to be tesomewhat harsh but it's what m about to say is absolutely true, and i demonstrated in the book. president clinton did everything

that he could to keep the truth from coming out. now you say well it was about a moral issue, no it wasn't. it was about whether he committed perjury, and encouraged others to lie. whether he was embarked on a process that we described in the referral as the abuse of power. so that's important. this is the president of the united states. and so, too, you mentioned two former speakers of the house. you mentioned a united states senator. people are called to account for their actions and i think that's healthy in this democracy. i'll say not long after the investigation, i get in a cab, i was practicing law in washington, d.c. i was teaching at new york university so i was on my way to the shuttle to new york. the cab driver turns around and looks around, this awas pre-uber. i like cabs. i pop into the cab and it turns out the cab driver is from -- i'm just going to say a west african country. and he said

mr. starr, is that you. he said in my country this never could have happened. i said what do you mean? he said our m leaders can do anything they want. they're not called to account. well that's not america. >> host: you say in theto book e of thehe reasons you wrote the book is because you had to time to write the book. you used to be president of bailor university, why are you no longer president. >> guest: i was fired as president a as bailor university, i was not fired as chancerler. the board of reasoningants, light of issues of sexual violence and possible violations of title 9, which is a very important law that they needed new leadership. i then resigned as chancellor of the university because i felt i could no longer work with the board of regents at that time, that's not a criticism, it's the fact that i did step down voluntarily as chancellor. i was not fired for cause, it was just we need new leadership. so

may iw complete the thought, which is so it's the summer of 2016, i immediately said no to law firms, let me have time. so i wrote a book about my bailor xpperience, and it turned out to be my agent in california said ken, this is a love story to baylor. and i was thrietd to do that. i was finishing that project in late 2016, and hillary lost the election. so i said the time is really right, 20 years coming up for the entire process that we're noting nowch the impeachment process and the president's acquittal in early '99, it's time, it's now or never to write this story. >> host: about a half hour left with ken star, taking your calls, irving in a lot las vega, democrat. >> caller: good morning. my

comment is that i hear ken star who is a -- a promoting, kavanaugh's exemplary character but the same thing could be said for ted bundy. well people who knew him, they stood up for his character, even elected officials. they stood up. i'm not saying that kavanaugh is ted bundy, but i'm saying that they did no the real ted bundy. they didn't know him. so you know. >> host: got your point irving. >> guest: with all due respect i emphatically disagree with the comparison we're talking about a situation where someone was carrying on

activity as an adult. the most heinous kinds of crimes. and he was essentially living two lives. brett kavanaugh has been an exemplary public servant. ted bundy want. he didn't hold office. he wasn't a federal judge who had gone through confirmation. ted bundy never rewent through as far as i knowa single fbi background check rather than six background checks. and so the real brett kavanaugh is the brett kavanaugh we saw in the confirmation hearings, and the real brett kavanaugh is the person who has generated --co not generated -- people come up spontaneously who went to high school with him. young women who are now mothers who have said this is not the character of brett kavanaugh. this is not who we knew in high school. so just accepting the argument that let's just look at the high school episode, what we're hearing is all these tributes to his character, even in high school and it's a

character that has continued for these many decades. >> host: so rock dots has a question for you. if the charges in what happened in high school turn out to be true shtd where can still get a lifetime appointment to the supreme court. >> guest: i'm not going to answer a hypothetical question, because i don't think it can be at this stage from what we know, it just is not going to be proven. it's not going to be proven. it's going to be her best recollection, and he's going to say, and says -- he's not denying that. he's not denying that episode happened,d, he's denying he is the perpetrator. i do not want to criticize or attacking the aconfuse but i hope that there will be fairness to everyone involved in the process just as we asked for fairness in the justice process, and in fact, we want fairness in families. what do kids say, that's not fair. so lets have fairness in the

process because this is -- we're talking about the dignity of the supreme court of the united states and the allegation again it's an allegation of single episode in high school, so i think people just need to look at the balance of -- look at the career of brett kavanaugh. >> host: janis, phenomenaival, alabama, republican. >> caller: good morning. i have two or three points, one point being this woman went to a therapist i don't know for how many years, but several years ago, there was something happened with a bunch of kids that went through therapy. and they convinced these children that they had been sexually molet'sed. later on it was found out to be untrue. they ruined a lot of people's lives or at least the therapist did. and i'm wondering how much the

therapist had to do with this being brought out and it's -- that she's a trump hater and she waits until the last minute to do anything about it. >> host: janis, we'll take those points. >> guest: one of the great president's of the past whose words i frequently invoke, including to myself is lincoln, and his second inaugural we all remember the gettysburg address, in his second inaugural we peeled to the higher natures of our being, the higher angels of our being. we want fundamental fairness, and part of fair ssesness is to make sure an individual who is the subject of accusations is treated fairly and dispassionately. so the example that you use is a real one.ou i'm not going to make ay comparison with the current situation. but you're absolutely right. some lives

were ruined by false accusations. i have been involved for many years with a wonderful project called the innocence project. there are people on death row, death row, who were factually innocent. not a legal technicality. we want fairness in this country. and that's what i'm crying for here. to look again at brett kavanaugh's character, and to say, look at the nature and endepth and range of his anntribution. he has never been accused of playing -- until the senate confirmation hearing came up and we've talked about one dimension of that, beyond this b but he has led a lif of complete integrity and he has absolutely firmly denied that not that an episode happened, with the accuser, but that he was the

perpetrator of anyat such thing that he never acted that way. and he has this entire lifetime, and a cloud of witnesses lrallying around him saying ye, we grew up with brett, we knew brett then, we know him now. this is not brett kavanaugh. >> host: alfred, california, republican,. >> caller: good morning. thank you mr. starr for taking my call. i totally agree with the last caller. at the very last hour since july feinstein knew about it. she's a disgrace. she really is a disgrace and it's an embarrassment. at the eleveth hour they come out with this just to destroy his character. and i totally agree with you that his character is without blemish. i mean come on. this is ridiculous. it's like a witch-hunt. >> guest: well i'm not going to

get into any characterization at all y appreciate your point of view. >> host: are you concerned about the timing? >> guest: yes, i've indicated there is a genuine process concern especially, and i'm going to say it. i wish senatou diane feinstein would have been fair to her fellow senators. to brett kavanaugh of course. to the supreme court, of course because look what has happened. she chose not to act on this information that she had. so she had it in july, and she doesn't act on it until september. and she acts on it in a way that gives credence to those who believe that this is political. i'm not saying john that it's political. it gives credence to those who believe this was a last-ditch effort. while i'm not saying that, this kind of process violation as i see it, this failure to respect orderly process, and to say, we

don't want to talk about the process. we just want to focus on these al qaeda allegations. >> host: what about the desire of the accuser here not to want to come out in july, that she didn't want her identity known until reports started coming out and she was concerned she was going to lose control of this story. >> guest: well i want that but on the other hand i respect that, if you make the information known to a united states senator as we say in the law, reasonably foreseeable that that information would need to be assessed by the fbi, by the committee's on staff or whatever. with all due respect i don't think you can have it both ways to say here is a u.s. senator. is a set of allegations but by the way i refer to remain confidential. i understand the humanity of it, but again i talk about the process. we're in washington, d.c. we're talking about the most important court in the united states of america. we have a single individual then

making these comments at the eleveth hour, and in those comments are the description of the alleged episode, not being made known to the senate when the senate judiciary committee hass a process. >> host: about 25 minutes left with ken star about his book "contempt: a memoir of the clinton investigation" a lot of calls waiting for you.ngme california, melanie's waiting, a democrat. good morning. >> caller: good morning how are you? mr. starr i have a couple pints to bring up. you talk about morality, and you talk about different things in your doing. number one, i don't know why you continue on with the clinton's and number two, a woman who's been violated, which i have been violated, it's not easy to come out. and just because she waited until the eleveth hour, it's hard to come out and say hey, you know what, i was abused by somebody. you take that into considers, and no therapist convinces you that you've been

retained. that is ugly and completely ridiculous. do you have any answers to that? >> guest: well, yes i do. i understand it's not easy. i'm not saying that it is by any means. of course, any violation of human dignity, the dignity of the human body and is a very accessory matter. what we have here is brett kavanaugh saying i did not do any such thing, and we have many people saying brett kavanaugh is thought the person if the person did the accuser whose had a very interesting career, if the person did in fact have something happen to her, i understand it's not easy for her to come out, as you will put it. but we're now talking not about an individual episode we're talking about an episode affecting the country, and raising the question of well, who is brett kavanaugh? t ut may i -- because i want to

come back to her first thing. that she's raised the question about essentially why don't i go away from the clinton's? its a part of our history. we need to know history. this is the inside story. melanie, ibout why we chose not to seek an indictment of hillary rodham clinton. that's a story that needed to be told. here's the story of our views with respect to the disappearance, which constituted an obstruction of justice as i see it, of the rose law firm billings records in little rock, arc, showing that hillary clinton had performed legal services for a savings and loan in little rock, that was infected with fraud that failed it's never been told because we didn't bring charges, and we different bring charges because we didn't believe we had the evidence admissible in court to

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that hillary had committed those crimes. we believe she had committed those crimes. the story needs to be told. and you use the m-word to begin with. i'm not talking about morality at all. i'm talking about the rule of law and i think that's what the special counsel statute hes talking about. and what janet reno was talking about when she said to the special division, three judges, three federal judges, starr needs to investigate whether crimes the rule of law, including perjury and obstruction of justice were committed. is that moral? of course. but we're not talking about the relationship, and i think that's something, frankly, that the american people needed to be reminded that what the senate was focusing on, what the house of representatives was focusing on were crimes. crimes that were provenha by bill clinton's on bl

clinton's part. that's why i felt the call to write the book. >> host: a minute ago you accuser as having an interesting career. >> guest: she's gone into interesting fields, i've found careers a very interesting journey. i'm not making any perjortive comment about her. it's a different kind of career path that she's followed. >> host: diane, ocean, new jersey, republican, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i have to say that i just don't know anyone else that has been sexually harassed more as many times as i actually have been. but to top all of that off, if you ever experienced another woman that would plan to destroy a man and lie, and say that he

has sexually harassed you, i mean this woman wanted me to go along with her. okay? she in did not want to she didn't know i didn't like the guy at the moment. which was he was a horrible. she didn't like him. either he just wasn't interested in her. but he was a horrible person, but i had to talk her out of doing this. it topped everything. all the times that i've been sexually harassed, even to the point where thank god, i did get managed to get out of it at gunpoint. it topped all of that. because of the wicked, it was just so wicked. >> host: thank you for sharing seyour story. >> guest: ist a very moving story diane, and i regret that

you've had this experience including with the relationship with your friend. but sexual harassment in the workplace is a terrible thing and what we're seeing and this goes wack to an early part of the conversation u our society has matured. what i describe in the book is an atmosphere that bill clinton created that he could do essentially whatever he wanted to, vis-a-vis women. and then if someone would make an accusation such as paula jones, they would be vilified. i think that was a very unfortunate part of our history. we have matured as a society so that we are taking allegations seriously, and we're seeing people in fact losing their jobs because of sexual harassment and the workplace. i want to say what we're talking about here in the brett kavanaugh situation is something that happened in high

school, when he was 17 years old, according to the allegations. and which he has denied. so i just fear that there is i would just call it, there's a danger, always of mob rule. >> host: pitsival,l, massachusetts, jeremy, independent. good morning. and. >> caller: i really value your opinion and i just wanted to get a couple quick comments from you about the case that is happening now. i'm an independent. i've been trying to follow this without any left or right leading. the two questions that i have is, we is lisa page admitting there's no evidence of collusion a year into this investigation, what do you think of that, and also what do you think of president trump releasing all of the fisa documents and texts. >> would he really do that if there wasn't something in there? and if i can really quickly, if

brett kavanaugh ends up getting booted, is he going to lose his seat on the dc district court? thank you. >> guest: thank you. and order i think it is intriguing that lisa page, the former fbi agent has made the statement that she did. i would counsel caution that she was one agent. she was very an important agent. but i wouldn't necessarily take that to the bank. in terms of the overall investigation, let's see what happens in the investigation. that having onenicides, said, i have seen no e idence whatever of calculation. i have seen lots of evidence of what i think we all cloa o know and that is russian interference. one of the great contributions of bob mueller was the first indictment of the eleven russian individuals this year, and two russian organizations and in one paratbrv in the indictment i

found this very revealing. there's not a word in the indictment about collusion with the campaign. this prematurograph described the s llowing. that on the same day in new york city these russian organizations funded and organized both an anti-trump rally and a pro-trump rally. ofthat tells us something. the russians are doing everything they can. vladimir putin is doing everything he can to undermine democratic institutions. so that's my view in terms of lisa page. on the fisa r documents, given where we are, even though we need to protect the national security interests, and so there are reasons for classification, given what i know, and i don't know as much as many other people, obviously the people involved in the investigation know. i think we need imraryt transparency. i would urge on the side of prepares. transparency. i would presume

transparency, and let's just allow this information as long as we don't reveal sources and methods. that's a key. we don't want to endanger the interests on it united states including individuals who serve very bravely, including in dangerous covert positions. that's very important. that goes without saying. but beyond that i would say we should know the truth. the truth will set us free. let's have as much transparency as possible. so i welcome declassification in the national ininterest. >> host: and a third question was whether brett kavanaugh would lose his -- >> guest: i was making notessh d i stopped. may it not come to that but the answer is no. >> host: cathleen, pasadena, maryland, democrat, good morning. >> caller: mr. starr, with all due respect, and i have no issue with bill clinton, you seem to be referring to due process as

far as mr. kavanaugh is concerned, but how about the republicans dumping 43,000 documents on the committee the night before the hearing was supposed to start, and not waiting for the other hundreds of thousands of documents to be reviewed and released by the library of congress? >> guest: i honestly don't -- i truly don't have a view with respect to the issues of document access and the like. i view that as an issue entrusted to the description of the senate. i do think there needs to be process. process that's an orderly one with respect to declassification of documents do that in the and last caller. a number of documents as i understand them had to go through the archival review process. under the law. i think again, sometimes we on the outside don't appreciate the limitations under which officers

of the government are operating the presidential records acts ordains a process. they say well let's just postpone hearings for a year or two years. that's a judgment call. my own view is given what i saw, the senate judiciary committee has before it and had before it, a very elaborate record of judge dgvanaugh's work. this body of work was extraordinarily detailed because he's been a judge and an exemplary judge for 12 years. i don't think there was a lack of information that materially lacked the judgment of the appropriateness of brett kavanaugh to serve. >> host: 10 or 15 minutes left of keny starr, author of the bk "contempt: a memoir of the clinton investigation" we'll try to get to as many of your calls as we can. phone lines as usual for democrats, republicans and independents. stephanie, oakton, virginia, republican, go

ahead. >> caller: hi, good morning. i'm to young to remember anything that was personal from the clinton stuff. so i'm looking forward too book. i do want to ask you a question. as a female, and a republican i have experienced similar situations to what is going on with the hearings right now, and with the accuser. but my question is more, so two things i guess. everyone's saying the eleveth hour. a lot of the hearings have been pushed through or at least are being seen as they were pushed through, so is it the eleveth hour as a normal hearing would be, or is this one being fast-tracked more than normal? and also, my other question is with the president, president's can be impeached. everyone says supreme court justices are lifetime appointments. so if it is found a supreme court justice lies during their confirmation

hearing, is there what happens? what are the repercussions or what happens? >> guest: on the first question, let's review what happens. on the rast day of the term, which he was serving, justice anthony ken made the announcement to the nation that he was stepping down. within a very short period of time the president, in july, nominated brett kavanaugh and then the hearings were set. the hearings were set so as to provide literally weeks of opportunity to review records and the like. to do the assessment process. then the hearings were set for early september. so we're talking now about two-month plus process and all designed to have a vote and from my perspective hopefully confirming judge kavanaugh to the supreme court in time for

the judge, the justice to join the court which gins its work in alliterally two weeks. it begis on monday october 1st, so it's coming up. ha so i think the senate judiciary committee chaired by senator grassily, set a schedule, everyone knew what the schedule was and the process began. it was in july, so early on that the accuser came to senator feinstein, and at the eleveth hour concern is nothing was done as i understand it, with those allegations, even though the senate judiciary committee wanted to public hearings and went into executive session, as i understand it. went into executive sessions to review the most sensitive materialize in our democracy. and in our fbi reports. i've seen fbi reports. and believe me, fbi reports and i describe this in the book. fbi reports you do not want to be the subject in an fbi report. because anyone can say anything

about you, and the fbi gently will dutifully report that. he or she will not cross-examine you. those are extremely sensitive records. so even in in age of transparency, the senators all agree regardless of politics we're going to review those fbi files, all the allegations that may ever have been made against someone, in closed session. then they have the discretion we're going to have hearings on this issue, or that issue, and so forth. and brett kavanaugh sailed through that process. the senator eninstein did not bring this information forward even in that process of executive session. that's the eleveth hour nature of it. with respect to impeachment yes. the -- one of the messages in the book is be very careful, very cautious house of representatives and the senate about impeachment. the american people don't like an importantits

tool to have in democracies tool box to hold people accountable, but yes, judges have been impeached in the past, and they have been convicted by the senate and removed from office. >> host: charleston, south carolina, dave, independent,. >> caller: good morning, mr. star, hello to everybody in the country. couple of things if i might. much is made of the fact that this happened when judge kavanaugh was 17 years ago. in some states 17 years old can be tried as. adults. i'd be curios to how many 17 years old were in front of this judge in his career that he tried as adults. secondly, the whole comment that justice is equal in this country is completely nonsense, anyone who has anything to do with the system knows that. if you are rich and powerful you are not held to the same accountable. if so, prisons and jail would have as many rich

people as poor. >> guest: yes, in some states 17 years old can be tried as adults. the episode that is alleged was when he was 17. now decades ago. . as adults. we are talking about the episode that was alleged was when he was .7, decades ago that is the fairness into and statutes of limitation. we have laws that say if you do have charges, and i know some charges are sensitive, you need to bring them forward. in terms of justice is equal, that is a struggle. i totally disagree, with all

respect to with your cynicism. look what just happened to paul manafort. look at what happened to his partner, rick gates. i can start enumerating millionaires and billionaires who find themselves caught up in the criminal justice system. i respectfully disagree. i think ours is a good system. if you have a state and local system, and by the way, yesterday was constitution day and mr. madison warned against the kind of phenomenon you're pointing to. in federalist 10, he said we need a vast, com that is what he was warning about. you may have had a bitter experience but if you don't think rich folks get chased after by the fbi, i can tell you from my own personal experience, you are quite wrong. >> host: richmond comer virginia. james, good morning. >> caller: good morning, sir. am i on? >> host: yes, sir. what is your question for ken

starr? >> caller: my question for ken starr is if he is saying fairness the mirror of all things than they think it is, why is he citing another explanation that mr. kavanagh is innocent of the accusation? i mean, the 65 people saying that mr. kavanagh was a nice guy and the only one that's important to the whole issue is the one that seems to have forgotten what happened that night. >> guest: well, i have a different perspective as you might imagine. or you are right. i do talk a lot about fairness and justice and that's what our system is designed including our political system. we do not want witnesses

browbeaten, right? we would recoil at the so-called mccarthy hearings for now a half-century ago. as a nation we recoil in a position of power, abusing his power. power can be abused and we need to have checks and balances in order to prevent that. what i'm testifying to, kind sir, as i know brett kavanaugh. i know him and i work with him. it's not that i went out with him to washington nationals game once upon a time and he was, quote come a nice guy. he worked alongside an hour after hour, day after day, week after week, but my experience is not unique. my experience is completely consistent with all of those who work alongside him and his various positions in public life. he has been living in the fishbowl of washington d.c., leading an exemplary life. that the point i'm trying to make. the full body of work in

football and is going to get in the college playoffs. what the entire body of work and so i hope we will not lose our lives and i think we're starting tonc get her back after the revelation and reactions over the weekend to say this is why i said earlier let's be deliberative about this. let's not turn this into a circus. >> host: a couple final colors have been waiting for a long time people get to them before they lose you. salisbury, north carolina. republican, good morning. i >> yes, mr. starr, i have a question for you as far as what does g dust being accused of a legit act that turn out to be false, does he have any recourse? and also, i would like to tell

you i come from a small town back in new york in the next town over was a high schoolol football star and his girlfriend. they had consensual sex but ultimately he wasow charged with rape, sent to prison for 10 years and was put on the national registry for sex offenders. pat to me is wrong. >> host: ken ken starr. >> guest: very quickly, there is no remedy in this arena, however we see in the college and university arena lawsuits being brought by individuals recall responding and believe that their due process rights were violated when they were found guilty or responsible in either kicked out of school or otherwise sanctioned in their career substantially ruined. we are seeing increasingly

judgment being brought against colleges and universities for their violation of basic due process and fairness. false charges are in fact -- i'm sorry, i failed to say in this arena for brett kavanaugh, the remedy for him is confirmation. but that's it. there's no legal remedy. false charges or something the american people should be aware of. lawsuits pending right now are alleging exactly that. the charges were entirely made up. both defendants adjudicated in the fairway. post a last call, tom. go ahead. >> caller: yes can you try to make the clintons look like some kind of bank robbers. they didn't have any money. they release their tax. susan mc dougal was on larry king and she did 18 months in prison and you were to cut a

deal with her any time if she would have had sex with president clinton. >> host: will let ken starr there. >> guest: susan dougal was convicted of serious felonies that led to the collapse of the savings and loan little rock, arkansas. she was found in contempt by united states district court judge. susan has made these allegations the allegations are false. with respect to the clintons and their finances, i never alleged that they were wealthy at the time, that in fact you need to read the story and the story as i recounted my book will demonstrate to the fair-minded person that they were involved in financial crimes at little rock. >> host: ken starr story, the title of the book, contempt a memoir of the clinton investigation. we appreciate your time as

always. >> caller: thank you.