created as a public service by american's cable television companies. and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house. the supreme court, and public policients in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> kenneth star is out with a new book. the title "contempt: a memoir of the clinton investigation" 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

brett kavanaugh. i wonder your thoughts this morning on this hearing that's going to be happening on monday. we'll hear again from brett kavanaugh and his accuser. >> guest: i don't know the accuser but i do know brett kavanaugh and i have been reaffirmed t in my firm belief n brett kavanaugh and his integrity and his character by the outpowering of support from those who have known him all these years, not just people who have worked with him, but people who grew up with him, including a lot of women who say this is not the brett kavanaugh who we knew, who we went to school with, and so forth. so i hope there will be a balance in ultimately 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, 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's has the burden of proof on on monday? is it on the accuser to prove this happened? is it on brett kavanaugh to prove that it didn't happen? >> guest: i don't think it is going to sort out that way, i think this is a judgment by the world pfsz greatest deliberative body. they're going through a preuses and to step back and render ultimate judgment. this ba not a court of law. this is a process of what is right 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, and unfairness to the process pra. >> host: what should the process be with this hearing coming up on monday? should be happening right now? >> guest: i think one of the best sutionzicize 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 profession am, but very skilled lawyers doing the questioning. the senators should make statements but if we want to get the truth have very skilled lawyers do it justice was done during this watergate hearings irvin many years ago. >> host: if the details of this incident are lost to history how do you end up deciding who to believe.ng >> guest: well i don't know ultimately this isve going to be just a credibility judgment as

to opposed to here is an episode 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 of these things are critical as apoached to one incident. so i'm suggesting an ultimate kind of judgment about the character of i an individual based upon his entire life. >> host: cathleen, dayton, ohio, democrat, good morning. >> hi mr. stark, you pushed hard for the investigation while you led the investigation into clinton, and extra marital affairs. then that proceed into impeachment. cuso now you're pushing back against the idea of impeachment in regards to a president. so i question that. i also question in regard to kavanaugh, i watched the hearings, and leahy's line of

questioning in regard to kavanaughug receiving confidentl 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 interests. so why again back to the why would you push for impeachment with clinton. >> host: cathleen, we got your questions. >> guest: cathleen, what i did do was what the statute under which i was appointed required me to do. the statute under which congress passed 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 i think this is not

understood by the american anople, and i lay this out in my book, my memoir called "contempt: a memoir of the clinton investigation." that edpart of the investigation as with other parts was authorized by bill clinton's own attorney general. she reviewed the evidence on personalry and other crimesnd and she then decided, e 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, janet reno, the attorney general at the moment did her duty, then 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 essentially 12 hours onon the hot seat, is you can te

this referral and do anything that you want with it, including just tossing it in the trash, and i'm sure a number of people , wanted to do exactly that. bt i simply said, this is my duty, here it is, now it is your judgment. now that experience, the final part of why am i 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 a free people. and impeachment was not the wise way to go. diane feinstein, who's in the news these days was pushing for a resolution of censure. she wanted to condemn his conduct, not the morality of the rights with mom cu, but his crimes against the rule of law. we in this country believe no one should be above the law. that was one of the reasons the independent counsel was created and why we have a special counsel now, and bob mueller to

assure the rule c of law. >> "contempt: a memoir of the clinton investigation" out last week, ken starr with us for the next 50 minutes to talk about it this morning on the washington journal. douglas, in alabama, independent, good morning. >> caller: how are you? i tell you what i'm very disappointed in her and her action that she took sending that information to the fbi. i felt like that was 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, and that's the way everybody does. they think the man is always wrong, and in every case because the woman always goes hollering, the sky is falling, thee, sky is falling. >> host: to be clear you think diane feinstein should have dnducted a pre-investigation before affording 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 out and arrested him, and embarrassed him. >> host: got your point douglas >> guest: one of the great things about our country and submits of law is we believe in fairness. be the supreme court frequently uses the term "fundamentall fairness" at the core of due process, and 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 it was handle well by senator feinstein. basically to keep this information that came

confidentially 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 bygone era who wrote once the history of little bit 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. we think of miranda rights and the like. so, too, 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: derek new york, georgia, republican. >> caller: i was wondering why she waited so long. ier she's been in the public eye for years. she's a trump hater. over 40 states voted for trump, and the democrats have been after him all this time. this gal should have come up -- 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 aeroer our sense of fairness. steuches 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 criticize the accuser much less attacking 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 the best as we possibly can. but my concern, is this is part of the fairness concern is that there be very much 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 judging the entire record. i heard a united states senator very distinguished news senator from alabama say that he had been in the process or 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 that is as it should be. look att all of his judicial writins in his 12 years of service. look at his exojielings. outside of court his law review articles, his speeches, 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 betts of a mob and circus atmosphere and i hope that wise sages in the senate, and that's why we elect them every six years yoo not every two years, we want them to take a step back, sigh we understand people have strong feels about this issue. you've expressed strong feelings. the prior caller expressed strong feelings, but it is for the senate to step back and say i think this is the right thing to do looking at the entirety of the record. i do want to say one more thing about brett. i know 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 in college. i didn't know him in law school. but i'ved known him since he ws an adult s professional, and wht you're seeing is an outpowering

of commentary by the people who know him, who say that this is completely out of character for brett kavanaugh. and that is my sense too. ac and i will say th as an employer i from time to time heard complaints about sexual harassment, not a hint of anything like that on the part of brett kavanaugh. he's led an exemplary life. we saw that in the confirmation hearings. and i hope that that exemplary life will be again taken into account by the world's greatest deliberative body, the united states senate. >> host: tom, in hampton, connecticut, democrat. good morning. >> host: we lost tom, marie, reston, virginia, independent. good morning. >> caller: good morning. it the reason why i'm calling is because 72 years ago i was five years old. it 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. and 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 where i lived 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 botherer me. but i was afraid o tell anyone. i knew my father would probably 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 remembered his face. years later, after that i saw him as a young man running for like city councilman or something. he was 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: right. and these are searing 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, will doubt the importance of hearing a story, and for the process of healing and the like when these kinds of episodes 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 counts il, and your story, which is very powerful story. but i do know brett kavanaugh. and not only do i know brett kavanaugh, but many women who have served with him in the office have known him. have worked with him, and have come forward in this outpowering of solidd attestation of his character. at this stage after

all the fbi reports, six fbi reports and the like, it is an unblemished record that the senate has before it. that record is the record that 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 your city council person situation, i respect what it is 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 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, especially women. i think that came out in this confirmation hearing. 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, 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 out of character for the brett kavanaugh that hundreds of us know and admire. >> host: what are your feelings on the me too movement. >> guest: i think it was overdue. and the me too movement was here is a position of power. men who have taken advantages of themselves, men who have taken advantage of their power position. frafngly 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 to this day says i was retained by him, and not in high school,

but when he was the attorney general seeking the governorship. i think president clinton is being called likewise to account for the abuse of power directed toward women by powerful men. >> host: bob, hometown, illinois. republican. good morning. >> caller: good morning i john. love c-span. judge starr it's a pleasure to talk to you, you did a terrific job in the whitewater investigation. senate didn't go along with you but you did a terrific job. i'm concerned with our special counsel now not doing a good job for the country. the fbi, the doj, the cia are up to their ears in spying and leaking and all kinds of things. some things possibly classified. do you think it's time to get a special counsel to investigate the investigators? >> guest: 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 semper fi marine, has had a exemplary career. and i believe in his integrity. i have expressed concern about someed of the senior people arod him in terms of their overpartisanship, and i hope their are leaving their partisanship at the door. they have a first amendment right to believe what they want to believe. but leave that at the door. but in terms of what we have heard, which is distressing and disturbing, fbi agents and the like. there are checks and balances in place, and just as i say in the place that the system work we agree with what eventually happened. whether e u agree with what the senate did or the house of representatives did, during the clinton phase of -- during the clinton years. these checks and

balances work. that is bill clinton was heldicality. you may not like the judgment or you may love the judgment. but he was held accountable. and i think that's unfolding as we speak. not just bob mueller, but let's go to your specific certain 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's done this to refer matters to the criminal division of the justice department for possible prosecution. the cia likewise has an inspector general. they are on the beat, but we don't read about them. finally we have the house and senate intelligence committees and other oversight mechanisms that the senate judiciary committee

was very much involved in looking at certain issues appertaining to the investigation. i would counsel the american people to be patient, looking this process to run, but the checks and balances in washington, d.c. are in place. th >> host: tim valdez, waiting in nepalten, illinois, independent good morning. >> caller: good morning. i am going to give you a short bio. i'm an army veteran, as well as a retired police officer in california. the reason i brought that us f up is because the rules we lived under then was extremely harsh, and you could be terminated for a lot less than what we see in politics. i should thank mr. staph because i was there during the clinton hearings. i couldn't care less about president clinton. but the fact is there's action and reaction. you should be proud because you started something that is continuing today and you are going to see that we can't go

back. when you start telling people about morality, which is a very touchy subject, i never approach it. and now you want to see things change a little bit. well as far as i'm concerned he did lie. but you knowno 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 a throw some names at you real quick. dennis laster, homosexual pedophile. day david vitter, larry craig, newt gingrich, those are the kind of people you want? fairness and american life shouldn't be in the same sentence. hang on. what you start on this track this is how the game's played. >> guest: thank you for your service. both in the army and then in law enforcement, and enjoy the land of lincoln. since you're in the land of lovin'en 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 ruleie of law. and the principle that r no one is above the law. so, some of the names that you mention i'm not going to comment on any specific situation. but one of the checks and balances in the country is the press. i'm a furve want believer in the freedom of the press, is enshrined in the first amendment. the truth is going to come out, and then the american people can assess and evaluate. the truth came out during the clinton investigation. i'm going to be harsh but what i'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 as we said the abuse of power. this is the president of the united states. and so too, you mentioned two former speakers of the house. you mentioned the united statesa senator. people are called to account for their actions. i think that's healthy in this democracy. i'll say not long after the investigation i get in a cab, practicing law here in washington, d.c., teaching at new york university, on my way to get the shuttle to new york. the cab driver turns around and looks thisd is pre-uber. i pop into the cab, and it turns out this cab driver is from i'm just going to say a warveggen country, west african country. 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 leaders can do anything they want. they're not called to account. well that's not america. >> host: you say in the book one of thehe reasons you wrote this book is because you had to the time to write this book. you used to be president of baylor university. why are you no longer president? can. >> guest: i was fired from baylor university. i was not fired as chancellor. the board of regents in light of issues of sexual violence and the like, possible violations of title 9, is a very important law 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, that's the fact that i did step down voluntarily as chancellor. i was not fired for cause, it was just we need new leadership. may i complete the thought which is the summer of 2016, i

immediately -- said no to law firms, let me have some time, i wrote a book about my bailor experience, and it turned out to be my as myagiant said a love story to bailor. i was delighted to do that. i was finishing that project, and in late to 16, hillary lost the election. so i said the time is really right. 20 years coming up r for the entire process that we're noting now. the impeachment process and the president's acquittal in early '99, i said it's now or never to write the story. >> host: about a half hour left with ken starr. everying in las vegas, democrat, good morning. >> caller: good morning. my comment is that i hear ken starr

who's promoting -- kavanaugh's exemplary character -- but the same thing could be said for like ted bundy. well people who knew him or whatever, 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 didn't know the real ted bundy. you should. >> host: got your point irving. >> guest: with all due respect irving y emphatically disagree with the imharyn. a situation alwhere a person was carrying on activity as an adult. the most heinous kinds of crimes, and

essentially living two lives. brett kavanaugh has been an exemplary public servant. ted bundy wasn't. he didn't hold office. he wasn't a federal judge who had gone through confirmation. ted bundy never went through as far as i know a single fbi background check, rather than six backgroundchucks. 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 -- not generated. people have came unspontaneously who have gone to high school with him. young women who are now mothers who 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: rock dots has aw

question for you. if the charges about what happened in high school turn out to be true, should brett kavanaugh 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, i deny it. he's not denying that an episode happened. he's denying that he is the perpetrator. and i must say, i don't want to criticize or attack the accuser. but i hope that there will be fairness to everyone involved in the process justto 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 let's 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 a single episode in high school. so i think people just need to look at the balance. look at the career of brettpr kavanaugh. >> host: janis, falkville, alabama. republican. good morning. >> 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 - ey had been sexually molested later on it was found out to be untrue, they ruined a lot of people's lives, or at least the therapist did. i'm wondering much the therapist had to do with this being brought out and

it's very suspicious that she's a trump hater and she waits until the last minute to do anything about it. if she -- >> host: janis, we'll take those points. >> guest: one of the great presidents 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 me peeled to the higher natures and angels of our being. i'm just saying we want fundamental fairness, and part of fairness is to make sure that an individual, who is the subject of accusations, is treated fairlyra and dispassionately. o the example that you use is a real one. i'm not going to make any 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. note 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 depth and range of his contribution. he has never been accused of -- until the senate confirmation hearing came up, and we've talked about one dimension of that, beyond this. but he has led this life 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 any such thing. he never acted that way and he has this entire lifetime,

and a cloud of witnesses rallying aroundri him and saying yes, we grew up with brett, we knew him then, we know him now, this is not brett kavanaugh. >> host: amare for in california, republican. >> caller: good morning. thank you 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 inaiment at the 11th 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. i appreciate your point of view. >> host: are you concerned about the timing?

>> guest: yes, i've indicated that there is a genuine process concern, especially, and i'm just going to say it, i wish senator 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. 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 just say went don'tl want to talk about the process. we just want to focus on the allegations.

>> host: what about the desire of the accuser not to want to come out in july. that she didn't want her identity known until reports started coming out,rd and she was concerned she was going to lose control of this story? >> guest: i respect that. but on the other hand if you make the information known to a united states senator, it is as we say in the law, "reasonably foreseeable" that that information would need to be assessed, by the fbi, by the committees on staff, or whatever. i don't think with all due respect you can have it both ways to see here to united states senator is a set of allegations, but by the way, i prefer 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, and we have a single individual then making these comments at the eleveth hour, and in those

comments are the description of the alleged possessed not being made known to the senate when the senate judiciary committee has a i process. >> host: about 25 minutes left with ken starr to talk about his book "contempt: a memoir of the clinton investigation" a lot of calls waiting foror you. california, melanie is waiting. a democrat. good morning. >> caller: good morning, how are you? mr. starr i have a couple of points to bring up. i don't understand 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 has been violated. which i have it's not easy to come out. and just because she waited for the eleveth hour, it's hard to come out and say hey, you know what i was abused by somebody. do you take that into consideration, and no therapist convinces you that you have been raped. that is utterly and completely ridiculous. do you have any answers for 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, is a very serious 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 not the person. if the person did the accuser who's had a very interesting career, if the person did in fact have something happen to her, i understand n it's not easy for r to come out, as you will put it but we're now talking not about an individual episode. we're talking about a episode that's affecting the country, and raising the question of well, who is brett kavanaugh? but may i -- because i want to come back to her first thing. because she's raised the

question aboutvi 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, about why we chose not to seek an indictment of hillary rodham clinton. that's a story that needed to be told. here's a story with our views with respect to the disappearance which constituted an obstruction of justice on -- as i see it, of the rose law firm billing records in little rock, arkansas, showing that hillary clinton had performed legal services for a savings and loan that failed and was infected with fraud. we -- and that story needed to be told. it's never been told because we didn't bring those charges, and we didn't bring those 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. but we believe that she had committed those

crimes. the story needs to be told. and you use the m-word to begin with. morality. 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 was talking about. and what janet reno was talking about when she said to n the special division, three judges, three federal judges starr needs to investigate whether crimes against 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 the american people needed to be reminded that what the senate was focusing on, what the house of representatives was focusing on were crimed. crimes that were proven on bill clinton's part, and so that's why i felt the call to write the book. >> host: a minute ago you

described brett kavanaugh accuser of having an interesting increase, what do you mean by that?? >> guest: i find her career as i've read about very interesting journey. yum not making any pejorative comment about her. it's a different kind of career path that she's followed. >> host: diane in ocean, new jersey, republican, good morning. >> caller: yes, 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 didn't want to -- she didn't know that i didn't even like the guy at that time. he was a horrible. she just didn't like him. or either he 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 -- manage to get out of it at gunpoint. it topped all of that, because of the wicked. it is just so wicked. >> host: thanks for sharing your story. >> guest: well, diane, it's a very moving story, and i regret that you've had this experience including with the relationship with t your friend. but sexual

harassment in the workplace is a terrible, terrible thing. i think that what we're seeing, and this goes back to an early part of the conversation is 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, visa vee women. then if someone would make an accusation, such as paula corbyn 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 seizurer seriously. and we are seeing people losing their jobs because of sexual harassment in the workplace. i want to say, what we're talking about here in the brett kavanaugh situation s 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: pittsfield, massachusetts. jeremy. good morning. >> caller: good morning mr. starr. i really value your opinion, 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 solve this without any left or right leading. the two questions i have is lisa page admitting there was 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 fica documents and texts? would he really do that if there wasn't something in there? and if i can really quickly is brett kavanaugh ends up getting booted, is he going to lose his

seat on the district court? >> guest: thank you. and in 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 as it were, take that to the bank. in terms of the overall investigation, let's see what happens in the investigation. that having been said, i have seen no evidence whatever of collusion. i have seen lots of evidence of what i think we all know, and that is russian interference. one of the great contributions of bob mueller was the first indictment of the eleven runningsen individuals earlier this year, and two russian organizations. in one paragraph in the indictment i found this really revealing. there's not a word in the indictment about collusion with the campaign.

this paragraph described the following, that on the same day in new york sit ity, these russian organizations funded an organized both an anti-trump rally and a pro-trump rally. that 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 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 w volved in the investigation know. i think we need greater transparency. i would err on the side of transparency. i would presume transparency. and let's 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, 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 interest. >> host: and his third question was whether brett kavanaugh would lose his -- >> guest: no. may it not come to that, but the answer is no. >> host: cathleen, pasadena, maryland, democrat. good morning. >> caller: good morning. mr. starr with all due respect, and i have no issue with what happened with bill clinton. but you keep referring to due process as far as mr. kavanaugh is concerned, but how about the

republican's dumping 43,000 documents on the committee the night before the hearing was supposed to start, and not waiting for the other hunsz of thousands of documents to be reviewed and released by the library of congress? >> guest: i honestly don't have -- 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 in the description of the senate. i do think there needs to be process. a process that's a' orderly one with respect to decrassification of documents, as we just said, and the lost caller. now a number of the 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. but the presidential records act, ordains a process. you say well

let's 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, havery elaborate recording record hof judge kavanaugh's work. this body of work has been extraordinarily detaillight because he's been a judge for 12 years. i don't think there was a lack of information that materially affects the judgment of the appropriateness of brett kavanaugh to serve. >> host: just about 10 or 15 minutes to left. with ken starr, and his "contempt: a memoir of the clinton investigation." we'll try to get to as many of your calls as we can. stephanie, oakton, virginia, republican. go ahead >> caller: hi. good morning. first off, i'm too young to

remember anything that would be personal from the clinton stuff, but i do want to ask you a question. as a female, and a republican i have experienced similar situations to what is going on to the hearings right now, and with the accuser. but my question is more if -- 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 that they were pushed through, so is it the eleveth hour as a normal hearing would be or is this one kind of being fast-tracked more than normal, and then also my other question is with the president, president's can be impeached, and everyone says supreme court justices are lifetime appointments, so if it is found that a supreme court justice lies, during their confirmation hearings s there what happens? what are the repercussions or

what happens? >> guest: on the first question let's review what happened. on the last day of the term, which he was serving, justice anthony kennedy 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 seattle process. then the hearings were set for early september. so we're talking now about two-month j plus process, and al designed to have a vote and from my perspective, hopefully d confirming judge kavanaugh to the supreme court in time for the judge, the justice, to join the court, which begins its work in literally two weeks. it begins on monday, october 1st,

so it's coming right up. so i think the senate judiciary committee chaired by senator grassley, 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 snoefort feinstein, and the late-breakingth hour concern he nothing was done with those allegations even though the senate judiciary committee went into 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 our fbi reports. i've seen fbi reports and believe me, fbi reports, and i described this in the book, fbi reports, you do not want to be the subject of an fbi report because anyone can say anything about you, o and the fbi agent will dutifully report that. he

will not cross-examine you. those are extremely sensitive records. so even in an 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, and they of course 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. and the senator feinstein did not bring this information forward even in that process of executive cession. 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 impeachment. it's an important 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, scawferl, dave, independent. >> caller: good morning. hello to everybody in the country. a couple things if i might. much is made of the fact that this happened when judge kavanaugh was 17 years old. in some states in this country some 17-year-olds can be tried as adults. i'd be curious as to how many 17-year-olds 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's who's had anything to do with the system knows that if you are rich and powerful you are not held to the same accountable. otherwise prisons and jail would have just as many rich people as they do poor. >> guest: very well. brett kavanaugh has never been a trial

judge so he's not had the kind of issue that you talked about, but yes in some states 17-year-olds can be tried as an adult. i think the relevance of what we're talking about is the episode that is alleged was when he was 17, now decades ago. that's the fairness issue. and statutes of limitation. we do in fact have laws that say if you do have charges, and i know some of these charges are sensitive, and so-forth, you need to bring them forward. in terms of justices equal, that's a struggle but i totally disagree with all respect with your cynicism. look at what has just happened to paul manafort. look what happenedch to his partner rick gates. look at what's happening. and i can start enumerating. millionairess billions, who find themes in the criminal justice system. so i respectfully disagree. i think ouricize is a good system.

if you have a state and local system, and by the way, yesterday was constitution day, and mr. madison warned againence against the kind of phenomenon that i think you're both to. in federalist 10, he said we need a vast commercial republican are for this vast nation because oppress will more likely occur at the local level. so think of boss hog, ran that little community in that sit com. that's what he was warning about.t so you might have hada bitter experience, but if you don't think rich folks get chased after by the fbi, i can tell you by your own personal experience you are quite wrong. >> caller: good morning sir. my question for mr. starr is if he's saying that fairness and

justice is premier of all things, and i think it is, why is he siding in every explanation that mr. kavanaugh is innocent? f of these accusations? the 65 people that is saying that mr. kavanaugh was a nice guy and the only one that's important to the whole issue is the one that seemed to have forgotten what happened that night. >> guest: well, i have a different perspective as you might imagine but you're 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 that. the so-called mccarthy hearings from now a half century ago. as a nation, we recoiled as a united states snoefort 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, is i know brett kavanaugh. i know him and i worked with him. it's not that i went out with him to washington nationals game once upon a time and he was "a nice guy. ". i worked with him hour after hour, day after day, week after week. my experience was not unique. my experience was consistent with all those who have workedd alongside him in hs various positions in public life. he has been living in the fishbowl of washington, d.c. leading an exemplary life. that's the point i'm trying to make. weigh the entirety of this record, the full body of work as they say, in football, and seeing whose going to get in the college playoffs, what's the entire body of work. . . in k

football and see who is going to get into the college playoff. what is the entire body of work? i hope we will not lose our perspective, and i think we are starting to get our perspective back after the revelations of the weekend to say, let's be deliberative about this and not turn it into a circus. host: a couple final colors have been waiting a long time. augustine is in north carolina, republican. good morning. guest: good morning. mr. starr, i have a question for theas far as, what does >> caller: and also i'd like to tell you i come from a small town back in new york, and the next town over there, there was

a high school football star and his girlfriend. they had consensual sex, but ultimately he was charged with rape, sent to prison for ten years and was put on the national t registry for sex offenders. that, torr me, is wrong. >> host: ken starr? >> guest: very quickly, no, there's no remedy in this arena. however, we're seeing in the college and university arena lawsuits being brought by individuals that we call responsibilities in the title ix area who -- respondents who believe their due process rights were violated when they were found guilty or responsible and either kicked out of school or otherwise sanctioned and their careers substantiallyt ruined. and we're seeing increasingly judgments being brought against colleges and universities for their violation of basic due process and fairness. with respect to the the

second -- 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. no, there's no legal remedy. but falsefa charges are somethig that i think the american people should be aware of. there are lawsuits pending right now that are alleging exactly that, that the charges were entirely made up. so let's have fairness. let's get things adjudicated in a fair way. >> host: last call, tom. paynesville,aw ohio. democrat. good morning. >> caller: yes, you try to make the clinton the look like some kindy of bank robbers. they didn't have any money. they released their tax funds. number two with, susan mcdougal was on larry kink, and she said she did 18 months in prison and you would have let

her --mb >> host: we'll let him respond. >> guest: susan mcdougal was convicted of serious felonies that led to collapse of a savings and loan in 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 this were wealthy at time -- that they were wealthy at the time. but there, in fact, you need to read the story, and the story as i recount in my book will demonstrate to a fair-minded person that they were involved in financial crimes in the little rock. >> host: and the title of the book, "contempt the: a memoir of the clinton investigation." we appreciate your times, as always. >> guest: thank you, john. >> booktv is on twitter, facebook and instagram. follow us @booktv for behind the scenes videos and pictures