10 Questions for Kenneth Starr

Though he stepped down from his independent-counsel post nearly five years ago, the partisan rancor created by his investigation of President Bill Clinton has never fully subsided. With Clinton’s new book out and Kenneth Starr about to start a job in August as dean of Pepperdine Law School, TIME’S Sonja Steptoe caught up with him for an updated Starr report.

HAVE YOU READ BILL CLINTON’S MEMOIRS?

I haven’t, only because I haven’t had time yet. I intend to.

HE ACCUSES YOU OF BEING BIASED, HAVING POLITICAL MOTIVES AND BEING PREOCCUPIED WITH HIS SEX LIFE. WHAT’S YOUR REACTION?

I’m reluctant to answer questions about the book at this time. But I’m very proud of the contribution of my colleagues in conducting the investigation, and I am persuaded to a moral certainty that it was conducted throughout with integrity, honor and professionalism.

YOU SPENT YEARS INVESTIGATING WHETHER PRESIDENT CLINTON HAD LIED ABOUT AN AFFAIR WHILE IN OFFICE, AMONG OTHER THINGS. GIVEN THE INVESTIGATIONS UNDER WAY INTO INTELLIGENCE PRIOR TO 9/11 AND THE IRAQ WAR, DOESN’T YOUR PURSUIT NOW SEEM EXCESSIVE?

No. There were serious matters that had to be investigated. When one reviews the results of the investigation, they were, unhappily for the country, the conviction of high-ranking officials in state and Federal government–the chief justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court, the Governor of Arkansas–and all were in connection with a business deal in which the President and the First Lady were involved. So, crimes were committed. That’s pretty serious stuff.

KNOWING WHAT YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE ASKED TO TAKE THAT JOB NOW, WOULD YOU?

Yes, I would take it, but I would be inclined strongly to recommend that the Attorney General appoint five independent ounsels and not simply add other responsibilities onto the existing independent counsel.

WHAT GRADE WOULD YOU GIVE THE REHNQUIST SUPREME COURT?

The court at its best zealously protects enumerated constitutional rights while being wary of interfering with legislative judgments. That was the simple message of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. The Rehnquist court has shown great restraint and circumspection on extraordinarily sensitive issues, such as assisted suicide. On other highly controversial, divisive issues, the court has not been exquisitely Holmesian. It’s a mixed report card.

DID THE COURT LET ITSELF GET DRAWN INTO A POLITICAL FIGHT ON THE 2000 ELECTION?

It responded to a petition for review by a duly nominated candidate for the presidency, and it was faced with what I believe, with all respect, was a series of questionable actions by the Florida Supreme Court that touched on important constitutional principles. The court, I believe, came to a principled decision that the Florida Supreme Court had simply gone too far.

YOU ARGUED BEFORE THE COURT AGAINST THE CURRENT CAMPAIGN-FINANCE LAW. ARE YOU DISTURBED BY THE VAST SUMS STILL BEING SPENT ON THIS PRESIDENTIAL RACE?

I’m disturbed by the weakening of our political parties. Funds that would have gone usefully and properly and transparently to political parties are now going to these rather shadowy organizations.

AS AN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN, WHAT’S YOUR VIEW OF GAY MARRIAGE AND A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING IT?

I don’t think I’ll comment at a moral level. But at a policy level, I think gay marriage is a very important issue for the people to be able to thoughtfully and judiciously discuss. I do not think it’s an issue that should be resolved by unelected judges. I see no impediment to a constitutional amendment.

ARE THERE ANY COURSES AT PEPPERDINE YOU’RE DYING TO TEACH–MAYBE A SEMINAR ON THE INDEPENDENT-COUNSEL STATUTE OR PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT?

Nasty question! Out of order! [Laughs.] I do plan to teach a seminar in constitutional law my first year there. I am also discussing the possibility of teaching a mini-course in religious liberty.

WHAT IF YOU GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS CLINTON’S JAVERT?

I hope that won’t happen. But I will in all things be content.