Note: On May 6 and 7, 1999, President Bill Clinton's personal lawyer, David Kendall came to Brown University to deliver a lecture. Kendall has represented Clinton in the Whitewater case, during the House impeachment proceedings, and in the historic Senate impeachment trial. The day after his speech, I sat down with him for a wide-ranging discussion about Ken Starr, the independent counsel statute, Monica Lewinsky, the media, and what it is like to defend clients in high visibility cases. The following is a transcript of the interview.

A. Smart, articulate, polished, well-read, and congenial. 

A. It should be allowed to lapse as in 1994. It is hard to legislate the kind of refined act which would be desirable. As Justice Stewart said in Jacobellis v. Ohio, a case dealing with hard-core pornography, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Lots of people can well determine as to when an independent investigation is necessary. The problem when defining it is that you can make something that is abstract unduly restrictive. 

A. It is like being a long-tailed cat in a roomful of rocking chairs. Along the way, I have had several media clients. I always have been intrigued with news coverage and entertainment. It is inevitable in these kinds of cases that things get magnified. You have to be careful not to do something inadvertent to which people will attribute importance. It is like living the secret life of Walter Mitty. People will care about all sorts of things. You can't be paranoid, but as often said, the fact that you are paranoid doesn't keep other people from trying to kill you.

A. With me, it makes me more cautious. I never had leaks from my law firm about privileged information. I worry about letters. I use messengers more than faxes. I worry about how things get filed. I worry about meetings. I asked people not to take notes at White House meetings. I have a privileged position, which even the Office of Independent Counsel never challenged. It is not the same with government lawyers. People don't need to take notes at meetings.

 Q. What lessons do you think reporters should take from the events of the past year?

A. The need for skepticism. I think they should be sensitized to elemental fairness issues. I don't know where line is best drawn between public and private behavior. I can make an argument about a president that the line is where the press says it is. Politicians today in elections use their personal life. In the 1988 election, when the Gary Hart case came up, I was representing the National Enquirer. We got the Monkey Business photo [showing him on a boat with Donna Rice]. Hart said, "follow me around, you won't find anything." What he was saying was demonstrably false. When political campaigns focus on personality as opposed to issues, you invite personal scrutiny. It is hard for reporters to resist. They are like lemmings in the rush to conclusions. Editors should do that. Judge Stanley Sporkin in a prominent savings and loan case sentencing asked, "where were the lawyers?" In 1998, I asked, "where were the editors?" Editors have an obligation to put things in perspective.

A. That didn't happen often enough. I don't criticize the press for much, but it is hard not to in the case of Monica Lewinsky. We need to know how the Office of Independent Counsel acquired jurisdiction in this case. Were there legitimate issues to investigate or was it an effort to damage an individual? I do fault the press on the issue of leaks. If Claire Shipman runs a story on NBC based on a leak, I don't fault her. But if NBC reports later in the leaks controversy that the Office of Independent Counsel is blaming the White House for the leak, that's not fair. It knows the source of the leaks. They knew it was not the White House. That is a problem. It is a crime to release grand jury information.

 Q. Do you think there is a right-wing conspiracy against President Clinton?

A. I think with the word conspiracy, you have images of Lenin and bomb-makers in St. Petersburg in 1904. It is not of that nature. But you do have a broad, coordinated, and symbiotic relationship between anti-Clinton elected officials, lawyers, journalists, and prosecutors. That is shown in the Michael Isikoff book. It is interesting for what he discloses about how the OIC got jurisdiction over the Lewinsky matter. 

A. By setting up a story Isikoff could print. Leaks from Tripp and Willey were used to force Lewinsky into the case and then to tip off the OIC.

A. It ain't over yet. He still has a year and a half. I think people will give him high marks for deficit reduction and doing things Democrats are not noted for. He has been quite conservative in some ways and liberal in other ways. Since 1994, he has had to work with a Congress that is not very receptive. He has had some foreign policy success in a world that is fractious and dangerous. Kosovo is still up in the air, but he did well in Haiti, Ireland, and Bosnia. There has been the absence of any big disaster. We haven't had anything like the Marine bombing in Beirut. Somalia could be an example, but you can't fault the intention there. Clinton's presidency will be remembered for economic prosperity and wise fiscal government. It is like the War Room slogan, "it's the economy, stupid." Initially, people thought the strong economy was a Bush boom. But at a certain point, Clinton is responsible. It is like the old expression, "I don't know who won the battle, but I know who would get blamed if the battle was lost." The same is true with presidents. Carter got blamed for a lot of things like inflation and the hostage crisis.

A. I want to practice law in equally interesting, but less visible cases. I would like to get back to teaching at Georgetown, brush up on skiing, and catch up on all the vacation time forgone over the miserable last six years.

 #######