he kind of experience of wanted a u.s. attorney's office. i do not accept the characterization of specially remove. i want to rely upon the advice of senior prosecutors who have been around for a long time. i have no doubt that it jackie bennett had said to him camera have this woman come in? here is what she has told us. i do not think we should go any further with it. we should tell them about it. maybe we can have someone else look at it.

i do not have any doubt that he would go about it. >> why not? this had nothing to do with the initial matter. why not use discretion? >> you are asking me? >> yes. >> we did not do it that way. we are investigating a lot more than just the guarantee we were investigating a number of other things, some of which we have been asked to do -- we were but gave at and obstruction of this.

we found out he was getting $700,000 from friends of the white house. there is no suggestion whatsoever that he was engaged in any effort to silence it. he was instrumental in getting employment in getting some of those contracts including from the company. if you recall, the story turned out to be accurate about monica lewinsky. for they ever get a job? -- more than ever getting a job that we were concerned in general about the obstruction of

justice. this is something that is very similar to this. it is close enough somehow do investigate. it was almost immediately cooperated. >> did you believe that bill clinton was a fundamentally dishonest or corrupt man? what do you think now? he was there for a full decade. what was your basic take on this man? he tried to understand there is one aspect. . i do not think i am the person to ask about what they are not any politician is fundamentally corrupt. i'm not the person you want to

ask. but sworn to driven by a real fundamental in the heat of the mon moment -- in the heat of the moment? >> loven " my favorite part. -- let me quote my favorite part. i want to say this in a friendly break. this has been a very thinly sessions so far. i want to be accurate. it was very difficult. it was very difficult to investigate the clintons' if you were a prosecutor for very long and not have an animus. it is not because they were evil

are guilty. the way that the respondent to the investigation, they remember that can star -- every prosecutor should be questioned about the method. i thought he was being given to a personal vilification. it depends on what time you are talking about. it is very hard not to have one to somebody who you believe has hired private investigators. i do not know that answers your question. we would be looking for any reason to give him. if you are saying was there one, yes. >> let me say this.

what you have is a politician he lied about a sex scandal. i do not think that makes them corrupt. i do not think he was a corrupt person. he did what most politicians do. it is something that i have been interested in from the time that i was representing paula jones. it is just before the grand jury was in battle. i think it may say something about can start. i admire him greatly. abed i think he was a great person for clinton to have under these circumstances. he kept his thoughts to himself.

he did not go to the microphone and talk about how bad it was anything else. there is always -- it is always nice to know the answer. why did not your office hold the address until after the grand jury testified. but -- until they testify? >> if memory serves me correctly, the -- i am trying to remember. i think there is almost immediately a week. it may have been from the bureau. and maybe getting confused with the fingerprint on some predict in a broader sense, let me say i do not know the answer to that question.

the fact that can star made it that clear -- this is something we forget about. he worked with and made it clear to the white house what those results were. they knew because the second one was taken. if the results of the first one had not been significant, he made it clear to the white house that the president should not lie about the relationship. the question is a good one. a prosecutor would say i cannot believe you do something like that. why not keep it secret? >> the fact that he did not says a lot about him. >> that maybe get a good time for your into debt. he speaks to that. >> i was granted say, i think

that is what because it to finally end. i think when the address was delivered to the fbi, they immediately went to the white house. they to dna from the president. that is important. who knew what was on the address until they did the dna? then they establish a relationship. that is why it was important that they do that right away. they would not know what the deal would show. >> before the grand jury met, that could be. >> he has an antidote in debt. they have told you something relating to the sequence for that. >> here is the director of the secret service and fought

fiercely to per bent agents from having to testify. he thought the set a dangerous precedent. in the middle of all of this happening, he told me -- and i did check out this information back he was pulled aside by a high-level fbi officials when the blue dress was being tested before president clinton was about to testify on the grand jury. he said there is no dna on it. it is possibly a set up. >> this was an attempted said that to get him to bring that back to president clinton to have and then live on the testimony. that would be the end of things. that is what he perceived. >> you said you check it out. did you ever find any

verification? >> i did. i did not -- i did cooperate a discussion with a high-level fbi officials. >> did you know what the content was? >> that would be amazing to me at that was accurate. >> the footnotes are worth reading. i believe the person filing said "no comment." >> let's get down to the table. do you have something you a bite to weigh in on? by i have no comment to make. after reading your and ship all crack --, i've got a the by site the present -- the president lost his way.

if you are talking about abuse of power, the comparison is not even close. we came that close to a white ring true. the case was heavily political. they organize it. they conducted research in order to get that credibility. the year to take the settlement demonstrated. it is more than trying to get compensation. the replacement was all politics. it is a partisan independent counsel. it is conducted in the house of representatives. it is all politics. it is described in great detail.

the procedures were fair. everyone had an opportunity to present the case. i know the house prosecutors would disagree with my analysis. there have been an obstruction of justice. they did not get 51 votes. of all the institutions as saved it from a grotesque miscarriage of justice, that was under way for many months. >> there is a little bit every battle on that. i am a conservative republican. this is a case and not a cause for me.

when we entered the case, this is going to be a case on the court. in order to do a good job, we need something we did not have, an army of investigators. there is not any right when it -- when you are that control anything we did. you could do it. he could disclose the depositions.

this was not the case at all. does good for the group to bring down the presidency. >> i just pointed out the preposition. there may be three questions. the rest is all about monica lewinsky. >> this is another group of lawyers. this is not something that was a cause for us. we had a client. we did what we could for the client. the client did not agree with us about it. what they did, i doubt that the a cause for that.

i do not think we can all close. he lied to congress. he lied to his cabinet. he waited a long time. it is then remarked here. had it taken her statement, i think he would have been out of office. the term that he had plenty of time to get people's attention. i do not think there is any reason to think that the president himself is the one

that dug his own. >> he is it fair minded man. these are different views the we have heard. >> after august 5, i was just a spectator. betterer buy any position. >> i was not anything but a spectator until september 1998. i will say that this is where the piece of this comes in. the eight played a hand in all of this. you have all the pieces coming together like a perfect storm. some people were trying to use that to bludgeon the president even before he came into office. there were people trying to do

that. you had them pointing their figures at the clintons and saying they were participating in clinical wrongdoing. then you had the tragic suicide of vince foster followed by allegations by paula jones. people started connecting dots. you have this whole feeling of conspiracy. then you had a modicum of the wind to matter. he cannot have written this story about president clinton's participation. they are granting this in the paula jones case. these gentlemen are on television saying they will go through the issue of other

women. there is an element of recklessness that he did not have all these issues coming together. you cannot have produced this at the end of it. where there is some folks that wanted to have a regime change? i have no doubt about that at all. when we spiral into this, i do think that it was all out war there by both sides. that was not healthy for the country. crack and want to get a question to invite people to come up. -- >> i want to get a question to a black people to come up. it does strike me as one of the aspects of this whole story that has continuing real. i'm talking about the culture of suspicion and permanent warfare

that does seem to evade our politics. you said that the facts seem an ampere guess -- seem on ambiguous. there is a fool industry behind the notion that the facts are different than that. you are part of an official proceeding. many people do not want to believe that. the story never ann's. we do not have a common body of truth, things that everybody believes. >> here is your take on that.

>> we are nearing the end of it. it was important to move quickly on this. there is an issue as to whether he had committed suicide. people alleged she had been murdered because he knew too much. it was related to this. it would issue eight reports. our office must have received 500. they are all identical. this is a system. we have not issued any reports.

there is nothing for anyone to judge whether we are right or wrong. this is a preconceived view. it concluded it was a suicide it would be a huge cover-up. one of the principal allegations was that this was not a suicide. he is murdered. we retained the investigation. the chief examiner from seattle book aren't forces. -- was from the armed forces.

they voted that this was a suicide. this is what we do all the time. is this a suicide? is this a homicide? on a scale of one to 100, this is like a 99 in terms of how easy it is to conclude that it was a suicide. impossible he said. i have dealt with a lot of experts in my career as a lawyer. i've never heard anybody that categoric -- be that categoric. it is very simple. they found him in a position in the park. he was wearing a white shirt. it was spotless. as soon as they pick them up, all the blood that ran down to

his legs ran up to his chest. by the time they took him, his shirt was soaked with blood. there is no way he could have been murdered someone else. we felt this was a no-brainer. we cannot understand why they are people questioning in it. ken starr looked into this. he came to the same conclusion. it did not make any difference to the people that bought this is a some sort of a wet dream -- sir -- sort of a white ring conspiracy. >> why did they not announced

when the president was cleared that he had been cleared until the impeachment had been done. no one had announced this. >> this had been announced. was maybe three or four other matters that were open. that understanding is that we announced this. we have been criticized for taking too long on the investigation. we are in a public prosecutor. there are things that we might have done differently. i do not know the particulars of it.

there is no evil intent are anything. and the people thought we took too long on the white house files. >> i cannot speak to it. it strikes me as something reason people can disagree. >> i am not aware of that. >> any recent graduate. i was about 12 and this is going on. -- 12 when this was going on. >> you probably read in your bedroom at night. >> did you interview newt gingrich about his affair that was occurring at the same time he is trying to do this? have any few determined what the

definition is? >> i did seek to interview newt gingrich. he declined to be interviewed. most people to cooperate. there were a few who did not for various reasons. there is certainly a number of people who were directly involved. he was one of the lawyers in the impeachment trial. he pushed the impeachment at various stages. the most obvious one was robert livingston who ended up presiding after he was out it. he did cooperate with me. >> thank you. >> i with like to ask about the

star report -- starr report. alice busch troubled by his riding an indictment of the present to be a -- i was much trouble by his right cheek and indictment of the president to be. it did not support a report. every previous independent counsel had it referring to a list of things that congress should read. it is not an even-handed treatment. i talked to him about my objections. it is fundamentally troubling when you have the executive branch making the case for the

house pate it didn't think the house would have gotten as far as that have. i'm wondering what your take on that. >> >> that is a great question. >> he did not get over that. >> does not just the fact that it is written as an indictment. this page after page of nearly a pornographic detail. wasn't the intent to shop sensibility that clinton would be forced to resign? is not a legal act but a political act. blacks not on our part. i cannot speak for the people of the house.

the three different questions are the comments. resigned over that? amazingly not. he was in full agreement. he resigned because he did not believe that they should have gone when he was asked phorcys been a -- when he was asked or subpoenaed. it was mystifying to me. i think the first issue would have made much more sense. my recollection is when the

report was sent over it was made very clear. the congress to think about whether or not to release it. i can only tell you my view. i did not expected to in the form of which it was released. i am sure i believe things that happening. there were conspiratorial. i think this is a valid criticism. people have made the criticism that when he did that he just

said here was the testimony. i think your comment was that they may have not connected the dots. perhaps there was a feeling. i was not involved in the decision. certainly i felt like if you sent it over congress would not get it. i am not as concerns about the separation of power issues as you are. if you believe that was valid, i do not see anything inherently wrong. there is nothing inherently wrong with the document. i think the more troubling thing with the independent

counsel statute. this is something almost nobody has written about. q is running the grand jury. >> fish and not have been able to do it. >> we had to take in order for it. we got it. >> i got a question. what has happened to monica lewinsky? >> we are not in constant touch. she did leave the country.

they studied at the london school of economics. she apparently led a very quiet life. she is back and forth between california where her father is in new york where her mother lived. she is riding very well. i am not as in touch with her as can is. >> i tried to respect her privacy. he has clearly moved on. we talked up until the time the book was ready to come out.

she was very forthcoming. anyone who has read it knows that i was surprised myself by how much sympathy i ended up having for monica lewinsky after this. this was the most horrible experience in her life and your family's life. they do not understand the story. i do not want to go into all the details. i found her to be extremely smart. she certainly commanded this during the effort to get her to testify during the impeachment trial. she is very smart. she was burned by many people. she is one of the few people who openly said to me how much he regretted the part she played and what ended up being april tragedy. >> their rohm & hoss at the end

of our time. at a question about a lot of things. if you look at the way the public receives can start ken s --tarr's decision, it is more widely accepted. they are pointing in the independent counsel. it is they are trying to create more public confidence and what they would conclude. someone mentions the prosecutors. there are plans to arrange the other ones. it is a minute after he was appointed. there is a lot of that.

they are using that on both sides. >> and the key notice celebrities out. bill clinton always had it on. the statute of limitations is over. >> right behind her is senator mark warner. no matter what, you are always the governor. he could still be a governor. there is no higher position.

in any event, i have some final thoughts. i would like to ask everyone briefly. i think one of the forces that you put aside as part of the defense. he said that impeachment was a travesty because it would change the balance of power and we can future presence. the raises the larger question of whether this monumental battle has not have lasting consequences. have we changed things in fundamental ways?

ask people to give their take on a very quickly. >> i think one of the things is the increasing better polarization of the debate. it is a country -- problem they have in the country today. we go back 20 years and things got done. there are different views. people try to make something happen. now it is so much more. they stand on this principle. this certainly not responsible. it is reflected in what has been going on ever since. >> i think the statute or inspired.

i think it is pretty much held before the republic. i also agree that the intensity that began in the early days of the clinton administration in terms of political combat, which was unusual in that era has continued. the stakes have gotten higher. i think the bush verses and gore of litigations did not help. have been other things that have contributed. in my lifetime there is always been partisan debate in disputes with the ability to work out common resolutions. that was not possible during the clinton impeachment. you had to have votes.

>> of the talk about the consequences of this. it seems to me that clinton should not have been convicted of the impeachment. it is in place. we are lucky to be in a country we can have this go on. as bitter as the fight was in not have it. i do not think we came close enough. i think the processes worked. on the proportionality, this was an issue that had to be dealt with. it was dealt with.

he had a $90,000 content citation. she also submitted his behavior to the arkansas bar. this is a serious impact s -- a series. he had to confess to the special counsel we can push it under the rug. she tried to subvert her bright

-- her rights to his testimony and the grand jury saying the same thing. the confessed to what he said. they have survived it. i think we will do it again. we ought to be proud of the fact that our process is over 200 years. neither one ended in a conviction. it is a serious remedy. they have been enacted by all the people. his sense -- behavior was risky by all. we should have a commander in chief and their president who

has the respect and confidence in dealing with people here and around the world. i think we learned some lessons on this. i think it worked. >> i agree. i think it worked. i think the failure to continue this was a good thing. >> ditto. your book is a consensus here. it is a terrific job of importing. i do think this whole episode shows what happens in this

country is not at its best. the scene in the book with the title comes from is where all of this pandemonium has broken out. they are tumbling into an impeachment trial on both sides. they are fighting to the death. you are put here. this is in 1998. he put prices on values we did not want to drink. for fighting passed all reason his casualty's will be counted for years to come. there are times men of the year. it is a profoundly negative way.

this did mark the popularization of this angry divide in our country that we see today. certainly he had other instances of the country fighting. this is the first time with the public was dragged into the fray. if you go into supermarkets and see people pointing their fingers and saying decide was evil and decide was evil. it is the beginning of the bread state, please state. here is the scary part. one thing that was so chilling to find dow -- it turned out

were at the time we refe fighting over this, they are trying to determine which women had had affairs with then governor clinton 20 years earlier. there was an undisclosed attempt to assassinate president clinton in the philippines. they received intelligence of a possible bomb. they diverted the motorcade and found a bomb under a bridge big enough to blow up the whole presidential entourage. they determined that the bomb had been planted there by a little monetarist name osama bin laden -- a little known terrorist named osama bin laden. all the sort of obsessed with paula jones and monica lewinsky. people inside and outside our country were plotting our

attack. for me the only hero and this whole book was the american public who did get the picture very early, long before president clinton committed for his affair. they knew this was wrong. they knew the punishment did not fit the crime. let's go back to the business of governing the country. i continue to believe it is important to look in the mirror. everyone is taking ownership of this. if you do not realize that restraint is important here, we do not know that sometimes prosecutors a president can and should not do things and that he must realize that restraint is an indispensable piece of what

we call american virtue. that is what we need to come back on a wider scale. this is why i spent nine years on this book. >> thank you. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> sunday at 2:30 on c-span, a look at how public officials handle ethical issues from the intent of the founders of the

constitution to the use of e- mails by today's politicians and government workers. at 4:00 p.m., jenna bush hager talks about her memories of the white house during both her father and grandfathers terms. teaching in washington d.c., working for the "today show." that is sunday on c-span. >> is years studentcam -- this .ear's studentcam competition >> less than a decade ago, it was by believe that those who struggle with chemical dependency and mental an illness, would always be homeless. some suggested these individuals wanted to be homeless. ♪

>> when people hear the word homeless, they think drugs . people want to label them and stereotyped and. >> people can put categories like that, it can help people get through their day them on any given that america, more women, and00 men, w children are without homes that we could have a family, a network of friends, a network of maybe a church or a school. we have people who will hold us up if we fall down and the homeless people have lost those contexts. >> the most common stereotypes is folks are homeless because they are not trying hard.

, that they are lazy or victims of their own lack of initiative then i should the federal government spend federal tax money to help these people? >> their support role for the government to play in ending poverty and homelessness. people feel like the government should stay out of social service work. and the church is should be juked -- doing it all. i really don't believe that. >> when the shelters are open, food bags -- >> i think tax money should be set aside for the homeless. >> what does the government do about the homeless? >> they do quite a bit. >> they do a lot. i think of different levels of government and the federal government gives dollars in local organizations that are working under a 10-year plans to

end homelessness. >> the government has their own programs. they have social security disability. they have another kind of housing that you can get through the federal government's. >> i am living in va housing. >> they have shelters called home was the centers for it i am staying there now. they gave me a bed, a place to stay. >> the federal government provides food stamps for low income households and homeless people. because of this has dramatically risen the past few years. >> food stamp beneficiaries increased to 40 million people. it has cost $70 billion. in the long term, the cost of his anti-poverty programs is unsustainable. >> it is projected that the amount of recipients of food stamps will go up even more. does this mean more money? >> i don't know if more money is necessary.

even if we took the money that we have and would listen to people providing services, we couldn't use the money more effectively than throwing money at a problem is one solution. it is not the solution. >> if you compare how much the federal government spends on things like the war is and how much they spend on homelessness, you will see that homelessness is a sliver of the federal budget. >> you could put that money into housing for poor people. >> a lot of the money that supports program starts with the federal government. the government mandates there is a stay limit because of the money and the way it comes to us. if someone does not get stabilized and into permanent housing by the end of their stay limit, we are forced to find than a short-term alternative then i think the government could be more responsive to people providing services on the front lines. >> where are you going to spend the night? >> is pretty unsay and living

out on the streets. you don't know when someone can come up and robbing you then there's a gap in our system. >> the way the shelter system works is you can go into a shelter in the evening and in the morning, you have to leave that shelter. during the daytime hours, for many of our un sheltered communities hours, there may not be a good place to go. >> it is not a campground. you don't know where to camp. you could wind up in a doorway or us -- or i sidewalk. >> people come to the library every single day. many homeless people spend most of the day here. >> we have at least 4-5 homeless friends that i care most of the dead. day. >> i have had a homeless person

urinate on the floor. >> , as part people have not had access to showers for a baseball bat. we notice that and we try to give them the best service we can then-president obama believes and i believe everyone in this room believes that no one should be without a stable place to call home. >> if a person has the knowledge that tonight at 6:00 i can go laydown my head and have something to eat after i have had some the to be, i can lay down and sleep, that they have that small amount of security, it can be a huge life changing. >> we need to make more affordable housing. >> 6 million low-income households pay more than half their monthly income for rent . >> there might be low income housing that operated out of the community to hold up each other.

i think that would be a good use. it is not sort of money for somebody to get a house but it is how we can create community around people to preserve them and help them through life. that is what we all made them and our community needs to have more jobs to pay living wages. >> we like to find ways to create valuable work for folks with meaningful contributions to the communities so they can afford to get housing. >> what should the federal government do? is it their responsibility to take care of people who are homeless or should private organization step up and take the weight of this heavy issue? it is your choice. america is a democratic society. you get to vote and put your input into the government. these are issues that affect you. they affect every american. >> go to studentcam.org to watch all the winning videos.

>> next, live, your calls and comments on "washington journal." then details of the plan to attack prescription drug abuse and then a discussion about energy policy with t. boone pickens and ted turner. >> now available, the congressional directory, a complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress. new and returning house and senate members with contact information including twitter addresses, district maps, and assignments and information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online at c-