Full text of Starr's report and the White House rebuttal are online. Related Links • Full Coverage: Including the Latest Post Stories

Saturday, September 12, 1998; Page A11

Following are remarks by David E. Kendall, President Clinton's lawyer, at a news conference yesterday:

We have not had the opportunity to fully review the voluminous referral from the prosecutors in the Office of Independent Counsel. . . . Please keep in mind that these allegations are not intended to be nor do they purport to be anything other than the prosecutor's collections of charges and accusations. By its very nature, this document is one-sided.

But I want to try to begin this afternoon the process of telling the other side of the story.

This is not a new story. A man tried to keep an inappropriate relationship private. The president has acknowledged his personal wrongdoing and sought forgiveness from his family, Ms. [Monica S.] Lewinsky, the Cabinet, the Congress and the country. In light of that acknowledgment, the salacious allegations in this referral are simply intended to humiliate, embarrass and politically damage the president. In short, this is personal and not impeachable.

The referral alleges obstruction of justice in the testimony of Monica Lewinsky, but Ms. Lewinsky's own testimony confirms that the president never told her to lie.

The referral alleges witness tampering of Betty Currie, but Miss Currie was not a witness in the Paula Jones lawsuit. She was not on any witness list, nor was she in fact ever called as a witness.

The referral also alleges abuse of power, yet details conduct that is nothing more than an assertion of constitutionally protected rights.

But the referral does not allege anything of substance that has not already been leaked illegally before the Congress or the president even had a chance to review it. . . .

The president has acknowledged his personal wrongdoing. And so no amount of gratuitous allegations about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, no matter how graphic, can alter the fact that the president did not commit perjury, he did not obstruct justice, he did not tamper with witnesses, and he did not abuse the power of his office.

There are a lot of lurid allegations in the prosecutor's referral, but there is no credible evidence of impeachable offenses.

We received this report only a short time ago. We haven't been able to fully review it or digest its allegations. We don't know what supposedly backs it up. . . . But thanks to illegal leaks from the office of the independent counsel, we have been able to prepare a 78-page rebuttal. . . . What we have here is a preliminary review by the House Judiciary Committee of the prosecutors' allegations to determine whether an impeachment inquiry would be justified. This is not an impeachment inquiry, and we believe there are no grounds for such an inquiry.

[T]he independent counsel says that he had no choice but to include these lurid, salacious details because the president . . . denied a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky and referred to the definition that was given to him and said his remarks were legally accurate. Didn't the prosecutor in this case have no choice but to make the case that the president lied and provide all those details?

No. The amount of lurid, graphic detail here far exceeds any legitimate justification. . . .

[T]he first point that you make is that the president never told Monica Lewinsky to lie. Are you saying explicitly he never said to lie? Or are you saying that there may have been cover stories talked about, as the independent counsel alleges?

No. The president never, never advised her to testify falsely. He has admitted a wrongful relation. And the fact is that in all such wrongful, improper relations, there is a concomitant concealment by its very nature. That's all that is involved here. The independent counsel has extravagantly exaggerated that to try and make allegations of obstruction of justice. . . .

[In the White House rebuttal,] you say that "if answers are truthful or literally truthful but misleading, there's no perjury as a matter of law, no matter how misleading the testimony is or is intended to be."

I wonder if a president ought not be held to a higher standard in your estimation. I know that you're both lawyers. But essentially what you're saying is, the president can mislead anyone he wants to as long as he literally doesn't lie. And is that an acceptable standard?

No. That's not what we're saying at all. This – the answers that you reference were in the context of the Paula Jones lawsuit, a highly charged lawsuit by political enemies meant to do nothing but entrap the president. He testified accurately. It was not his obligation to help Ms. Jones's lawyers.

Federal Document Clearing House