Ken Buck Quotes Jerry Nadler’s 1998 Opposition to Releasing Starr Report

Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) on Wednesday quoted House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler’s (D-NY) statements opposing the release of Ken Starr’s report detailing how Bill Clinton lied under oath.

As the House Judiciary Committee considered whether to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for refusing to hand over the unredacted Robert Mueller report, Rep. Buck resurfaced some quotes from Congressman Nadler opposing the release of the Ken Starr report. The Starr report detailed how then-President Bill Clinton lied under oath about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Buck said, “Mr. Chairman, you said in 1998 that a report of this kind is ‘a prosecutor’s report,’ by its nature a one-sided report.”

The Colorado Republican also referenced Nadler’s comments that grand jury testimony is often “unverified” and could be “salacious,” and its release would be “unfair.”

“You said it would be ‘grossly unfair’ to allow members of the Judiciary Committee to see the materials in relation to a report involving obstruction of justice by a Democratic President,” Buck said.

“Given your position, I offered an amendment several weeks ago to protect those materials [grand jury material], and the Democrats on this committee objected and voted against my amendment,” Buck added.

Congressman Buck said that during the Richard Nixon impeachment proceedings, the committee adopted rules to protect against leaks but, “I note for the record, we have not.”

“Mr. Mueller said no collusion, no provable obstruction,” Buck added.

Congressman Buck then said that Nadler said that impeaching Clinton would amount to a “partisan coup d’etat.”

Stumbling over his words, Rep. Nadler then responded, “The amendment incompletely and mischaracterizes my position of 20 years ago. It mischaracterizes my position of today. I in any event reserve the right to learn over a 20-year period,” Nadler said.

“Yes a prosecutor’s report is a prosecutor’s report, it is not necessarily totally objective, yes we should look at other evidence too, but that’s where you start,” the chairman said.