in 2010 novelist salman rushdie appeared on a monthly call-in program in depth. >> in order to create great park come here to go to some kind of edge but it doesn't happen, if you want to innovate, if you want to do things have not been done before and if you want to increase the sum total of what we can know and feel and understand and, therefore, what we can be, you need to go to the front to and pushing outwards. so those works of art which take those kinds of risk are the ones that i like the most. >> you can watch this and all other booktv programs from the past 20 years at tv.org. type the author state and the word book in the search bar at the top of the page. >> , kenneth starr is out with a new book. the title, "contempt: a memoir

of the clinton investigation." you began and ended that book i thanking the people who are in the independent counsel office with you. when those people, brett kavanaugh. i wonder your thoughts this morning on this during the 20 happening on monday where we will hear again from brett kavanaugh and his accuser. >> guest: i of course don't know the accuser but i do know brett kavanaugh and i've been just reaffirmed in my firm belief in brett kavanaugh and his integrity and his character by the outpouring of support from those who have known them for 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. i hope there would be a balance in ultimate judgment, that we have this long and distinguished career, and then this one alleged episode from high school. school. but i believe in brett kavanaugh

and hispi integrity. >> host: we invite viewers too join in this segment with judge starr. we are speaking of the judgment here from what we are going to send monday. who has the burden of proof on monday? is it on the accuser to prove that this happened? is it on brett kavanaugh to prove that it didn't happen? >> guest: i don't think he will sort out that way. i think this is an ultimate judgment by thent world's greatt deliberative body. they need to go through througa process and they're going through the process and then step back and render ultimate judgment.. this is not a court of law. this is a process of what is right for the american people, what is right for the supreme court. 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 from fbi investigative reports, and all this has come to the public like within the last really six days. i think that's really unfortunate, , and adverse to te process. >> host: much of the process be with his hearing coming up on monday? what should be happening right now? >> guest: apone of the best suggestion is for 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 profession, but very skilled lawyers doing the questioning.. obviously senators should make statement or whatever they want to dowa but if you want to, in fact, get the truth, have very skilled lawyers do it just as it was done during this watergate hearing under sam irving many years ago. >> host: if the details of the incident no are lost to history,

how do you end up deciding who to believe? >> guest: welcome ivan of the ultimate this will be just a credibility judgment as opposed to it as 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 or anything in ahe profession, nothing in the office. there's no suggestion of a pattern or practice. i think all these things are critical as opposed to one incident. i'm suggesting an ultimate kind of judgment about the character of an individual based upon his entire life. >> host: first caller that in ohio democrat, good morning. >> caller: you pushed hard for the investigation or delayed investigation into clinton and extramarital affairs. and then that proceeded into impeachment. so now you're pushing back impeachmentidea of

in regard to our president. i cautioned that and also question your regard to kavanaugh. i watched the hearings and the land question in regard to kavanaugh receiving confidential letters and also stolen e-mails and confidential letters. i really question his integrity based on that line of questioning and then of course always voted in support of corporate interests. so why, again back to you, why would you push for impeachment with clinton? >> host: we got your question. >> guest: kathleen, what i did do was what the statute under which i was appointed required me to do. the statute that congress passed and which i was appointed by three judges required the independent counsel to report to the house of representatives when any quote substantial and

credible information came to the independent counsels attention. so simply obeyed the statute. investigationhe itself, and i think this is notin understood y the american people and i lay this out in my book, my memoir called "contempt", that part of the investigation as with other parts was authorized by the clintons own attorney general. she reviewed the evidence that we had of possible perjury on the part of the president and possibly otherry crimes, and she then decided, she the attorney general, that she needed to go to the, three-judge court and o say this has to be investigated. i cannot turn a a blind eye to e possibility of the president of the united states committing crimes. that's what the statute required she did, she, janet reno, did and i had a duty to do as well. so if i don't think say is, with respect impeachment, what i said

in my testimony before the house judiciary committee and ici described that longest day for me, it was essentially 12 hours on the hot seat, is you could take this referral and anything that you want with it, including tossing in the trash and i'm sure a number of people wanted to do exactly that. but i so we said this is my duty, here it is. now it is your judgment. final partence, the of why am i saying don't go there now, what i'm saying about the clinton experience is we learn from our history as a free people come and impeachment was not the wise way to go. and diane feinstein who's 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 and

that is one of the reasons the independent counsel was created of why we have a special counsel now in bob mueller to assure the rule of law, the book begins last week, "contempt: a memoir of the clinton investigation." can start with us for the next 15 minutes to talk about it this morning on the "washington journal." douglas in alabama independent, good morning. >> caller: how are you? >> host: doing well. go ahead. >> caller: i'm very disappointed in diane feinstein and action she took come send the information to theio fbi. i felt like that was very wrong in her to do. that she shouldn't haveld done that. she should've waited and check to make sure everything was appropriate on this ladies part. that's what everybody does and to think the man is always wrong in every case because the woman always goes halderman, the sky is falling, the sky is falling

trend do you think dianne feinstein should have conducted a pre-investigation before 40 on information? , i think she should of something come before the people and then before going to the fbi and going that farto to try to damage him in such a way because see, if that it held up and everything, then at the i could've come out and arrested him and embarrassed him and everything tremors got your point, douglas. >> guest: one of the great things about our country and our system of law is that we believe in fairness. the supreme court frequently uses the term fundamental fairness at the core of due process. that's important in the senate process as well when it is engaged in essentially fact-finding and not lawmaking. 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 handled well by senator feinstein's, basically to keep this information confidential and anonymously to her. and not to share that with the committee in a timely manner so that he could be considered in a timely manner. i think process is so important. in order for the american people also like to have confidence in the ultimate fairness and fundamental fairness of the judgment. very quickly, it was helix frankfurter, a great justice on the supreme court from a bygone era, who wrote once the history of liberty iss in large part of the history of procedure. when we think about that in the kernel justice system i think we have to understand that. we need fair process. we think of miranda rights and the like. so, to come i think terms of fairness to everyone involved including frankly the l 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. we are where we are. >> host: syracuse new york. georgia, republican, good morning. >> caller: i was just wondering why she waited so long. kavanaugh has been in the public eye for years. she's a trump haider here now, 40 states voted for trump and the democrats have been after him all this time. this got should have come up. he has been in the -- she is done where he was but she hates comp so she's going to take down this good man.an this is not the christian way to work pretty well, i understand the concern we have in this country, as part of our sense of fairness. statute of limitation that come if you have a complaint about something, then you should in fact, bring it forward. but i'm not going in any way

going to criticize the accuser, much less attack the accuser. let's sort all this out. as i said now, we are where we are so let's get to the bottom of things as best as we possibly 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 judging the entire record. i heard a united states senator come 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 workk of brett kavanaug, and that's as it should be. look at all of his judicial writings in his 12 years in service. look at is extrajudicial, in other words, outside of course from his law reviews articles

and speeches. it's a vast body of work. look at his service under president bush. look at his service in independent counsels office. that is what a fair amateur representative democracy will do. i fear that what. is unfolding right now is a mop and circus that mr. and i hope that lies, sages and a second that's why we like them every sixth years, , t every two years, we wanted to take a step back and sibiu understand people a very strong feelings about this issue. you have expressed strong feelings.ex that prior call express strong feeling but it is for the senate to step back and say i think this is the right thing to do looking at the entirety ofhi the record. but but i do want to say one moe thing about brett kavanaugh. i know brett kavanaugh. i worked with him. i saw him day in and day out in the office. i did not win in high school. i didn't know him in college.

i didn't know him in law school, that i've known him since he was an adult professional. what you seen if an outpouring of commentary, the people know him who say that this is completely out ofhi character fr brett kavanaugh. and that is my sense. i will say this, as an employer i from time to time heard complaints about sexual harassment. not a a hint of anything like t on the part of brett kavanaugh. he has led an exemplary life. we saw that in the confirmation hearings. i hope that exemplary life will be again taken into account by the world's greatest deliberative body, the united states senate. >> host: tom is in hampton connecticut democrat, good morning. we lost him. marie, virginia, independent, good morning. >> caller: good morning. the reason why i'm calling is

because 72 years ago i was five years old, the last day of school, early part of june and 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. .. diagonally across the street to the apartment building where i lived, and 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, and -- but i was afraid to tell anyone, because 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 like this upstanding young citizen at that time. the whole point that 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 time, but the point is, it was a violat n violation. >> thanks for sharing your story. >> i must say, these are searing experiences and what you have just described is a horror that has remained with you. i don't think anyone in this process that's unfolding will doubt the importance of hearing a story and for the process of healing and the like when these kind 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 council and your story, which is a very powerful story, but i do know brett kavanaugh. not only do i know brett kavanaugh but many women who served with him have known him, have worked with him and have

come forward in this outpouring of solid attestation for his character, after this stage, after all the fbi reports, six fbi reports and the like, it is an unblemished record that the senate has before it, and 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 that you're saying, but what i think the public and marie 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, by the way, at his confirmation hearing, that he went the extra mile when he saw the impediments to professional progress of women, and we have 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 facilitate 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. >> what are your feelings on the #metoo movement? >> i think it was overdue. the #metoo movement was of course, here's a position of power, when we think about some of the folks who have lost their jobs, men 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 to this day says i was raped by him and not in high school but when he was the attorney general seeking the governorship. and so i think president clinton is likewise being called to account for the abuse of power directed toward women by powerful men. >> bob, hometown illinois, republican. good morning. >> caller: good morning. hello, c-span. mr. starr, a pleasure to talk to you. you have done 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, doj, even 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? >> 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, and bob is semper fi marine, has had an exemplary career, as has brett kavanaugh as a public servant, so i believe in his integrity. i have expressed concerns about some of the senior people around him in terms of their overpartisanship and i hope they are leafiving their partisanshi at the door, which is their responsibility. they have a first amendment right to believe whatever they want to believe but leave that at the door. in terms of some of what we have heard which i think is distressing 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, whether you agree with what eventually happened, whether you agree with

what the senate did or the house of representatives did, during the clinton phase -- during the clinton 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, but he was held accountable. i think that's happening. it's unfolding as we speak. not just bob mueller but let's go to your specific concern about intelligence officers and the like. those investigations are under way, 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 has 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 the senate intelligence committees and other oversight mechanisms, the senate judiciary committee was very much involved in looking at certain issues pertaining 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. >> to valdez, waiting in mapleton, 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. the reason i brought that up is because the rules we lived under then were extremely harsh, and you could be terminated for a lot less than what we see in politics, and i actually should thank mr. starr, 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, and 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 know what, we can put all these people in congress, anybody in public office, put them under oath before they get into office, then when they get caught lying, let me throw some names at you real quick. dennis hastert, homosexual pedophile. david vitter, larry craig, newt gingrich. sound familiar? those the kind of people you want? so fairness in american life should not be in the same sentence. just hang on. once you start on this track, this is how the game's played. >> well, 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 lincoln, i will just 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 mentioned, i'm not going to comment on any specific situation, but one of the checks and balances in our country is the press. and i'm a fervent believer in the freedom of the press which is enshrined in the first amendment. the point is, 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 somewhat harsh, but what i'm about to say is absolutely true and i demonstrate it in the book.

president clinton did everything that he could to keep the truth from coming out. you say well, it was about a moral issue and so forth. no, it wasn't. it was about whether he had 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. 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 will say not long after the investigation, i was a practicing lawyer in washington, d.c. and i was teaching at new york university so i was on my way to get the shuttle to new york, and the cab driver turns around and looks and -- this is pre-uber. anyway, i like cabs. it turns out this cab driver is from, i'm just going to say a west african country. i want to protect everybody who

hails from the country. he said mr. starr, is that you? i said yes. 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. >> one of the reasons why you wrote this book is because you had the time to write this book. you used to be president of baylor university. why are you no longer president? >> i was fired as president of baylor university, unfortunately, i was dismissed. i was not fired as chancellor. i held two positions. the board of regents made a determination in light of issues of sexual violence and the like, possible violations of title ix 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 just 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 i complete the thought, which is so it's the summer of 2016, i immediately said no to law firms, let me have some time. so i wrote a book about my baylor experience and it turned out to be as my agent in california said, this is a love story to baylor, and i was delighted 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 now, the impeachment process and the president's acquittal so i said it's time, it's now or never to write the story. >> about a half hour letter with ken starr, taking your calls and questions. from las vegas, democrat, good morning. >> caller: good morning. can you hear me?

>> yes, sir, go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: my comment is i hear ken starr, who is promoting kavanaugh's exemplary character, but you know, the same thing could be said for like ted bundy. people who knew him or whatever, you know, stood up for his character, even elected officials stood up or whatever. i'm not saying that kavanaugh is ted bundy. but i'm saying that, you know, they didn't know the real ted bundy. so you know, you -- >> got your point. >> well, with all due respect, i emphatically disagree with the comparison. we are talking about a situation

where someone was carrying on activities as an adult, the most heinous kinds of crimes. he was 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 background checks. 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 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. >> 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? >> well, i'm not going to answer a hypothetical question. i'm just not. 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, as he already said, i deny it. he's not denying that an episode happened. he's denying that he is the perpetrator, and i must say, i do not want in any way to criticize or attack the accuser. but i hope that there will be fairness to everyone involved in the process, just as we ask 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 brett kavanaugh. >> dennis in alabama, republican, good morning. >> good morning. yes, 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 to therapists and they convinced those children that they 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 therapists

did, and i'm wondering how much the therapists had to do with this being brought out, and it's very suspect that she waits until the last minute to do anything about it. >> well, 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. but in his second inaugural, he appealed to the higher nature of our being, the higher angels of our being. we want fundamental fairness and part of fairness is to make sure that an individual who is the subject of accusations is treated fairly and dispassionately, so the example that you use is a real one. i'm not going to make any comparisons 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 are 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 depth and range of his contribution. he has never been accused of -- until this senate confirmation hearing came up and we talked about one dimension of that beyond this, but he has led this life of complete integrity and he has absolutely firmly denyie that not an episode happened

with the accuser, but that he was the perpetrator of any such thing. that he never acted that way. and he has this entire lifetime and a crowd of witnesses rallying around him and saying yes, we grew up with brett, we knew brett then, we know him now, this is not brett kavanaugh. >> alfred is in california, republican. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. you know, i don't agree with the last caller. at the very last hour since dianne feinstein knew babout it she's a disgrace. she really is a disgrace and an embarrassment. 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.

>> well, i'm not going to get into any characterization at all. i appreciate your point of view. i have indicated i think there's a genuine process concern, especially, and i'm just going to say it. i wish senator dianne 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, jonathan, 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 just to say we don't want to talk about the process, we just want to focus on these allegations -- >> 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? >> well, i respect that but on the other hand, if you make the information known, to 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. so i don't think with all due respect, you can have it both ways to say here to a 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. talking about the most important court in the united states of

america, and we have a single individual then making these comments at the 11th hour and in those comments or the description of the alleged episode not being made known to the senate. when the senate judiciary committee has a process. >> about 25 minutes left with ken starr to talk about his book, "contempt, a memoir of the clinton investigation." lot of calls waiting. california, melanie waits iis w a democrat. good morning. >> good morning. mr. starr, i have a couple points. i don't understand, you talk about morality and you talk about different things you're doing. number one, i don't know why you continue on with the clintons. number two, a woman who has been violated which i have been violated, it's not easy to come out. just because she waited for the 11th hour, it's hard to come out and say hey, you know what, i was abused by somebody. you take that into consideration and no therapist can convince

you that you have been raped. that is utterly and completely ridiculous. do you have any answer to that? >> well, yes, i do. i understand that 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 has 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 well put it, but we're now talking not about an individual episode. we're talking about an episode that is affecting the country and raising then the question of well, who is brett kavanaugh.

i want to come back to her first statement because she's raised the question about essentially why don't i go away from the clintons. it's a part of our history. we would need to know history. this is the inside story. this is the inside story, mel ya melanie, about why we chose not to seek indictment of hillary clinton. it's a story that needed to be told. here's a story about our views with respect to the disappearance which constituted obstruction of justice 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 in little rock that failed, that was infected with fraud. that story needs 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. you used the "m" word to begin with, morality. i'm not talking about morality at all. i'm talking about the rule of law. i think that's what the special counsel statute was 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 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. i think that's something that frankly 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 proven on bill

clinton's part. that's why i felt the call to write the book. >> a minute ago you described brett kavanaugh's accuser as having an interesting career. what did you mean by that? >> well, she's gone into these different fields, moved to california. i just find her career as i read about it a very interesting journey. no, i'm not making any pejorative comment about her. it's a different kind of career path that she's followed. >> dianne in ocean, new jersey, good morning. republican. >> caller: yes, good morning. i have to say that i just don't know anyone else that has been sexually harassed more, and as many times as i actually have been, but to top all of that off, okay, if you ever experienced another woman that would plan to destroy a man and

lie and say that he had sexually harassed you, i mean, this woman wanted me to go along with her, okay? she did not want to -- she didn't even know that i didn't even like the guy at the time. okay? he was horrible. she just didn't like him. or either he just wasn't interested in her, you know, but he was a horrible person but i had to talk her out of doing this, and it topped everything. all the times that i've been sexually harassed, even to the point where thank god, i did manage to get out of it at gunpoint. it topped all of that, because of the wicked -- it was just so wicked. >> thank you for sharing your story. >> well, it's a very moving

story and i regret that you have had this experience, including the relationship with your friend. but sexual harassment in the workplace is a terrible, terrible thing, and i think that what we are seeing, 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 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 are seeing people, in fact, losing their jobs because of sexual harassment in the workplace. i want to say, what we are 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. >> massachusetts, jeremy, independent, good morning. >> caller: good morning. how are you guys today? good morning, mr. starr. >> good morning. >> 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 have been really trying to follow this without any left or right leaning and the two questions that i ask is, lisa page actually admitting there was collusion a year into this investigation, what do you think of that and also, what do you think about president trump releasing all 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 d.c. district court? >> thank you. 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 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 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 11 russian individuals earlier this year and two russian organizations,

and in one paragraph in the indictment, i found this very revealing, there was not a word in the indictment about collusion with the campaign. this paragraph described the following and on the very same day in new york city, these russian organizations funded and 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 involved 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 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 of the 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. >> third question, whether brett kavanaugh would lose his -- >> oh, i'm sorry, yes. i was making notes and i stopped. no. mate not come to that, but the answer is no. >> kathleen in maryland, democrat, good morning. >> caller: good morning. mr. starr, with all due respect, and i have no issue with what happened with bill clinton, i'm no fan of his, but you speak

regarding 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 hundred thousand of documents to be reviewed by the library of congress? >> i honestly don't -- i truly don't have a view with respect to the issues of documents access and the like. i view that as an issue entrusted to the discretion of the senate. but i do think there needs to be a process, a process that's an orderly one with respect to declassification of documents as we just said with the 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. but the presidential records act ordains a process. you say 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 kavanaugh's work. this body of work was just extraordinarily detailed because he's been a judge and an exemplary judge for 12 years. so i don't think there was a lack of information that materially affected the judgment of the appropriateness of brett kavanaugh to serve. >> just about 10 or 15 minutes left with ken starr, author of "contempt, a memoir of the clinton investigation." we will try to get to as many of your calls as we can. for democrats, republicans and independents, phone lines.

stephanie in virginia, republican, go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i'm too young to remember anything that would be personal from the clinton stuff so i'm looking forward to the book. >> thank you. >> caller: i do want to ask you a question. as a female and as 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 -- a few things, i guess. everyone is saying the 11th hour and from my understanding, a lot of the hearings have been pushed through are at least being seen that they were pushed through so is it the 11th hour as a normal hearing would be, or is this one kind of being fast-tracked more than normal? also, my other question is, with the president, presidents 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 hearing, is there -- what happens? what are the repercussions? what happens? >> 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, 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 a 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 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 chair 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 senator feinstein and the 11th hour concern is nothing was done, as i understand it, with those allegations even though the senate judiciary committee went into public hearings and then went into executive session, as i understand it, went into executive session to review the most sensitive materials in our democracy, fbi reports. i have 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 of an fbi report, because anyone can say anything about you and the fbi agent will dutifully report them. he or she 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, then they of course have the discretion we're going to have hearings on this issue or that issue and so forth. brett kavanaugh sailed through that process. and the senator, senator feinstein, did not bring this information forward even in that process of executive session. that's the 11th hour nature of it. with respect to impeachment, yes, 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, toolbox 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. >> charleston, south carolina, dave, independent. go ahead. >> caller: yeah, good morning. hello, everybody in the country. couple things, if i might. much is made of the fact that this happened when judge kavanaugh was 17 years old. well, in some states in this country, 17-year-olds can be tried as adults. now, i could be curious as to how many 17-year-olds were in front of this judge during his career that he tried as adults, okay? secondly, the comment that justice is equal in this country is complete nonsense and anyone who has had anything to do with the system knows that. if you are rich and powerful, you are not held to the same accountability. otherwise prisons and jails would have just as many rich

people as they do poor. >> take those comments. >> very well. first of all, 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 adults. 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 very sensitive and so forth, you need to bring them forward. in terms of justice is 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 at what happened to his partner, rick gates. look at what has happened, i can start enumerating millionaires, billionaires who find themselves caught up in the criminal

justice system. so 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 that i think you're really pointing to. in federalist 10, he said we need a vast commercial republic and government for this vast nation because oppression will more likely occur at the local level. so think of boss hogg ran that little community in that sit-com. that's what he was warning about. you may have had a bitter experience, but if you don't think that rich folks get chased after by the fbi, i can tell you from my own personal experience, you're quite wrong. >> richmond, virginia, james, democrat, good morning. >> caller: good morning. am i on? >> yes, sir. what's your question for ken starr? >> caller: my question for mr.

starr is you keep saying that fairness and justice is the premier of all things and i think it is, why are you siding in every explanation that mr. kavanaugh is innocent of these accusations? i mean, 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. >> 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 at a united states senator 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 a washington nationals game once upon a time and he was quote, a nice guy. i worked alongside him hour after hour, day after day, week after week. but my experience was not unique. my experience is completely consistent with all those who have worked alongside him in his various positions in public life. he has been living in the fish bowl 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 in

seeing who's going to get in the college playoffs, what's the entire body of work, and so i hope that we will not lose our perspective and i think we are starting to get our perspective back after the revelations and the reactions over the weekend, and to say, and this is why we have a senate, as i said earlier, let's be deliberative about this. let's not turn this into a circus. >> couple final callers have been waiting a long time. we will try to get to them before we lose you. augusta is in north carolina, republican. good morning. >> caller: good morning. yes, mr. starr, i have a question for you. as far as what does the male that's being accused of alleged acts 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 and the next town over there was a high school football star and his girlfriend that had consensual sex but ultimately he was charged with rape, sent to prison for ten years, and was put on the national registry for sex offenders. that to me is wrong. >> very quickly, no, there's no remedy in this arena. however, we are seeing in the college and university arena lawsuits being brought by individuals that we call respondents in the title ix area who believe their due process rights were violated when they were found guilty, are responsible and either kicked out of school or otherwise sanctioned and their careers substantially ruined. and we are seeing increasingly

judgments being brought against colleges and universities for their violation of basic due process and fairness. with respect to 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 false charges are something that i think the american people should be aware of. there are lawsuits pending right now that are alleging exactly that. the charges were entirely made up so let's get things adjudicated in a fair way. >> last call, tom, ohio, democrat. good morning. >> caller: yes. you're trying to make the clintons look like some kind of bank robbers. they didn't have any money. they released their tax forms. number two, susan mcdougle was on larry king and she said she did 18 months in prison and you

cut a deal with her at any time if she would have said she had sex with president clinton. >> let ken starr end there. we will circle back to the book. >> susan mcdougle was convicted of serious felonies that led to the collapse of a savings and loan in little rock, arkansas. she was found in contempt by a 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, but 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 little rock. >> ken starr's story, the title of the book "contempt, a minimumminimuemoir of the clinton investigation." appreciate your time, as always. c-span launched book tv 20

years ago on c-span 2. since then, we have covered over 15,000 authors, spanning more than 1,000 weekends. in 2009, autism spokesperson temple grandant was a caller to our program. >> there are people that are visual thinkers who aren't necessarily autistic. when i see a piece of equipment in a drawing, i can sketch one in my head like a virtual computer system. i thought everyone could do that but i found out they couldn't. i interviewed people about how they think and i was shocked to find out most people don't think the way i do. like for example, they think about a church steeple, i see specific ones. i can name where they're located. i put them in a church steeple file. other people get this vague generalized image. i don't have a vague generalized

image, only specific ones. >> watch this and other book tv programs from the past 20 years at booktv.org. type the author's name and the word book in the search bar at the top of the page. >> good morning. it's wonderful to see you here this morning. i'm debbie porter, the founder of the boston book festival. thank you. you know, i'm not at all superstitious, but most years, we give our authors an umbrella in their goodie bags and this year, we didn't. so sorry about the weather. i'm really excited to be hosting this wonderful panel on "not just a