STUART TAYLOR, The American Lawyer: The grand jury in Washington. There’s also a grand jury in Little Rock being run by the same Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr, investigating Whitewater and related matters. And the two grand juries are dividing their work up roughly with the Washington grand jury investigating the things that happened in Washington since President Clinton took office, the Arkansas grand jury investigating things that happened in Arkansas earlier, but there’s great overlap between the investigations. And they share information with each other.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. And what do we know from the subpoena or from what’s come out about what she’s going to be asked to testify about?

MR. TAYLOR: Well, the subpoena and the fact that about six or seven other people were subpoenaed seems to indicate that the Independent Counsel is particularly interested in how these Rose Law Firm billing records for Hillary Clinton appeared mysteriously in the White House living quarters some two years after they had been subpoenaed and whether someone was hiding them or obstructing justice. However, the White House statement that was put out yesterday also indicated that the First Lady was prepared to discuss the content of the billing records which suggest that some of the questions may get into looking at particular entries and how do you explain this and how do you reconcile it with your testimony on that and so forth.

MARGARET WARNER: Now in this whole Whitewater inquiry, the First Lady has already given three sworn depositions. At what point does a prosecutor say, sworn depositions aren’t enough, I want this person in the grand jury room? Can you deduce anything, in other words, from that?

MR. TAYLOR: I think the one thing you can deduce is that the level of seriousness here has racheted up. Now, most prosecutors never taken sworn depositions of witnesses. It goes straight to the grand jury. This, the fact that they did sworn depositions before was an accommodation to the First Lady. Also, remember, the President was also present at those depositions. And I think at a minimum they’re telling the White House we’re sort of taking the kid gloves off in dealing with this question of these billing records. I think the prosecutors are clearly somewhat annoyed and have pressing questions on why they didn’t get these records sooner. Beyond that, it gets to be rather speculative. For example, I’ve heard it suggested that since the First Lady last week was making noises as though she might be willing to testify before Sen. D’Amato’s committee on this matter, perhaps Independent Counsel Starr wanted to make sure he got her testimony first. And this is one way to do it.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Take us to Friday, when this happens. First of all, you know the U.S. District Court Building. Is there a way she can get in and out of the building without facing that throng of reporters that we always see when people go to testify?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes. There’s an underground garage. They could drive her in there in a car, they could have tinted windows, if they wanted, to keep her from being photographed, and whisk her up to the courtroom, and all that could be done perfectly plausibly under the rubric of security.

MARGARET WARNER: Mm-hmm. And then once she gets in this grand jury room, what’s it like? Is it like a regular courtroom?

MR. TAYLOR: I haven’t been in one, but I heard it described by prosecutors. They say it looks a little bit like a classroom with the grand jurors sitting around on benches, not so much like a regular courtroom, but maybe a kind of a classroom you go into to take a test that you really don’t want to take. The foreman of the grand jury or forewoman and the secretary and some prosecutors will be there, as well as the grand jurors. There will be a court reporter taking notes. The atmosphere is rather informal, at least so it appears to the–all the participants except the witness. It can be quite intimidating to the witness because the witness is not accompanied by a lawyer, is all by him- or herself, with this large group of people who are not there to be her friends.

MARGARET WARNER: And there–is there no judge there?

MR. TAYLOR: There’s no judge.

MARGARET WARNER: So once the questioning and answering begins, the prosecutor asks all the questions?

MR. TAYLOR: The prosecutor typically asks all the questions and typically invites questions from the grand jurors after the prosecutor’s finished. The grand jurors don’t often seize that opportunity. Sometimes the prosecutor might ask them to filter their questions through the prosecutor, or ask them individually, and in a case like this maybe some grand jurors will want to exercise that prerogative. In the typical case, they don’t.

MARGARET WARNER: And is–does the witness have to answer every question? Are there any privileges or protections that the First Lady might have here?

MR. TAYLOR: There are some privileges. The usual testimonial privileges theoretically apply. The Fifth Amendment privilege in itself, incrimination, which the White House has already said she will not invoke; attorney-client privilege, which might be a possibility in some aspects of this; executive privilege, I think the White House has indicated she is not going to claim. But what you cannot do, and, therefore, there are no privileges that she seems likely to invoke, there’s no basis for objecting on grounds of relevancy, improper question, leading, all of the types of procedural objections that you see at trials cannot be made in a grand jury. In fact, a lawyer is not there to make them.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Now, so if you’re the witness and suddenly a question comes at you that you’re very uncomfortable answering and don’t know how to answer, is there a way to confer with your lawyer?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes. You can request an opportunity to go outside and talk to your lawyer. The lawyer is sitting outside and clearly will be in this case, and have a reasonable amount of time to get the lawyer’s advice on how to respond. Then you walk back into the room alone, and you have to respond.

MARGARET WARNER: And if a potential witness has been told that the scope of this questioning is going to involve A, B, and C, is that any protection against one of the grand jurors or the prosecutors bringing in some totally other topic, for instance, in this case, going back into the nuts and bolts of the Whitewater case, itself, or Vince Foster’s death, or any number of other areas?

MR. TAYLOR: If–there isn’t any legal protection. If the prosecutors are professionals, which we assume these are, they will keep their word in their own questioning; however, they can’t stop a grand juror from asking any question the grand juror may want to ask, because, although theoretically, grand jurors–well, although in practice grand jurors usually act as rather passive rubber stamps for prosecutors, in theory they’re in charge; it’s their investigation. The prosecutor is there to help them.

MARGARET WARNER: And the witness could not object and say that wasn’t what I came here to talk about?

MR. TAYLOR: The witness probably could, and at least try it, but in the end, he or she could be compelled to answer unless the question trenched on some privilege. And I think here that’s not going to happen.

MARGARET WARNER: And finally, does this testimony remain secret? It’s supposed to be secret.

MR. TAYLOR: It’s secret by law. It would be a crime for anyone other than the witness, he or the First Lady, to disclose it publicly. The First Lady would be perfectly free to discuss anything she was asked, anything she chose to respond.

MARGARET WARNER: And does it ever become public as part of any kind of court record, or anything?

MR. TAYLOR: Sometimes it might. For example, if there’s a trial and inconsistent testimony is given, one side might make a motion to make it public, but routinely, it does not.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, thanks, Stuart, very much.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you.

The post NewsHour: Stuart Taylor on the Whitewater Grand Jury – January 23, 1996 appeared first on Stuart Taylor, Jr..