David Kendall Quotations

We respectfully object to the committee's broad request for all information concerning all persons who have contributed or pledged more than $5,000 to the foundation. There are serious and substantial legal, precedential and public policy issues raised by this catch-all request.

We are hopeful that the president's testimony will finally bring closure to the independent counsel's more than four year, over $40 million investigation, which has culminated in an investigation of the president's private life,

Mr. Jordan testified unequivocally that he never at any time felt any particular pressure to get Ms. Lewinsky a job. This is plain and powerful and unrebutted testimony,

no one ever asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my silence.

Nothing in this overkill of an investigation amounts to a justification for the impeachment of the president of the United States,

My task is to respond to the two hours of uninterrupted testimony from the independent counsel, as well as to his four-year, $45 million investigation, which has included at least 28 attorneys, 78 FBI agents and an undisclosed number of private investigators ... And I have 30 minutes to do this. It's a daunting exercise, but let me begin with the simple but powerful truth that nothing in this overkill of an investigation amounts to a justification for the impeachment of the president of the United States.

I would certainly say this for Mr. Starr; he is thorough.

But we do know this. There is no basis for impeachment,

Goldberg called around to friends she has, including one in Chicago who works at the same firm Ken Starr does. This person recommended Goldberg to call Jackie Bennett at the OIC. Goldberg advised that the OIC knew who this person is, and that this person is very nervous at this time.

I think that the bipartisan manner, however, you've conducted this impeachment trial is a welcome change from the events of the last year, ... We ask only that you give this case, and give this country, the constitutional stability and the political sanity which this country deserves.

You have proposed a compromise which is basically acceptable, and will, I believe, both accommodate our concerns and allow the committee to proceed with its legitimate legislative purposes.

We want to know about that day, we really want to know about that day.

There are a lot of myths about what the evidence is in this case, ... Some of them are misunderstandings based upon erroneous media reports, some spring from confusion in the evidence itself, and some are the result of concerted partisan distortion.

to the inferences to be drawn from the uncontested fact that ... before this December 17th phone call, the president and Ms. Lewinsky had had discussions about what she should say if asked about her visits to the Oval Office.

This recommendation is wrong, and clearly contradicted by the president. We will dispute it in a court of law.

What this medicine can and should do is really enhance the treatment options for patients.

Cover stories are an almost inevitable part of every improper relationship between two human beings, ... Now to say that is not to excuse it or to exonerate it or justify it, but rather to emphasize the testimony about 'visiting Betty' or 'bringing me letters' is in the record, but it is not linked in any way to the December 17 phone call or to any testimony or affidavit with regards to the Jones case.

These leaks make a mockery of the traditional rules of grand jury secrecy. They often appear to be a cynical attempt to pressure and intimidate witnesses, to deceive the public and to smear people involved in the investigation.

Question: And did you tell them you didn't want to do that? Yes.

This has been a partisan process on the part of the House managers. In the House, they had the votes. They didn't think they needed to talk to witnesses.

It's important for the department to take whatever time is necessary to complete a thorough investigation. At the conclusion of such an inquiry, however, it will be clear that there are no grounds for the appointment of an independent counsel.

Any allegation that the president assaulted Mrs. Broaddrick more than 20 years ago is absolutely false ... beyond that we're not going to comment,

In view of the many issues the Department of Justice must resolve, today's announcement is hardly surprising.

The evidence plainly shows that the president did not obstruct justice in any way and there is nothing in this article (of impeachment) that would warrant his removal from office,

The Independent Counsel has sought, again, to prosecute Ms. McDougal, and this indictment will now be tried to a jury. Independent Counsel Starr, through his public relations officer, has seen fit to assert that the president, by his public statements, has somehow improperly 'injected' himself into the investigation of Ms. McDougal. This claim is wholly false. The president's statements have been both accurate and appropriate. Ms. McDougal has at all times been represented by her own counsel. It is for the public to judge what the Independent Counsel's motivations may be.

The leaking of the past few weeks is untolerably unfair. It violates not only the criminal rules -- rules of court, rules of ethics, and Department of Justice guidelines -- it also violates fundamental rules of fairness in an investigation like this. We have seen leak after leak which ultimately ... turns out to be false information,