Here is an interesting memo from brett kavanaugh to kenn starr in 1998:

To Judge Starr Date 8/15/98
From. Brett M. Kavanaugli-BK
Subject Slack for the President?

After reflecting this evening, I am strongly opposed to giving the President any "break" in the questioning regarding the details of the Lewinsky relationship -— unless before his questioning on Monday, he either resigns or (ii) confesses perjury and issues a public apology to you, I have tried hard to bend over backwards and to be fair to him and to think of all reasonable defenses to his pattern of behavior. In the end, I am convinced that there really are none. The idea of going easy on him at the questioning is thus abhorrent to me. What has especially convinced me of the appropriateness of obtaining his "full and complete“ testimony regarding the precise details of the relationship are the sheer number of his wrongful acts. The President has disgraced his Office, the legal system, and the American people by having sex with a 22-year—old intern and turning her life into a shambles —- callous and disgusting behavior that has somehow gotten lost in the shuffle. He has committed perjury (at least) in the Jones case. He has turned the Secret Service upside down. He has required the urgent attention of the courts and the Supreme Court for frivolous privilege claims —— all to cover up his oral sex from an intern. He has lied to his aides. He has lied to the American people. He
has tried to disgrace you and this Office with a sustained propaganda campaign that would make Nixon blush.
He should be forced to account for all of that and to defend his actions. It may not be ourjob to impose sanctions on him, but it is o_urjob to make his pattern of revolting behavior
clear --piece by painful piece -— on Monday. I am mindful of the need for respect for the Oflice of the President. But in my view, given what we know, the interests of the Ofiice of the President,' would be best served by our gathering the full facts regarding the actions of this President so that the Congress can decide whether the interests of the Presidency would be best served by having a new President. More to the point: Aren't we failing to fulfill our duty to the American people if
we willingly "conspire" with the President in an effort to conceal In light of all ofthat, I suggest at least some questions along the following lines (I leave the best phrasing to others).
Did you tell Monica Lewinsky that she should deny the nature of the relationship that you and she had?

If Monica Lewinsky says that you agreed to lie about your relationship with her, would she be lying?

Would Monica Lewinsky be lying if she said that you told her after her name appeared on the witness list: "You could always say you were coming to see Betty or that you were bringing me letters"?

If Monica Lewinsky says that you inserted a cigar into her vagina while you were in the Oval Ofiice area, would she be lying?

If Monica Lewinsky says that you had phone sex with her on approximately 15 occasions, would she be lying?

If Monica Lewinsky says that on several occasions in the Oval Office area, you used your fingers to stimulate her vagina and bring her to orgasm, would she be lying?

If Monica Lewinsky says that she gave you oral sex on nine occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?

If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated into her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?
If Monica Lewinsky says that on several occasions you had her give her oral sex, made her

stop, and then ejaculated into the sink in the bathroom ofi”the Oval Office, would she be lying?

If Monica Lewinsky says that you masturbated into a trashcan in your secretary's office,
would she by lying?

the two most obvious questions that arise from this list of recommended questions for clinton are:

1. how does this jibe with kavanaugh's more recent stance that even so much as questioning a president, much less indicting one, is not to be done for fear of interfering with his carrying out the duties of a president, and

2. how does this not the pot calling the kettle black? note that in no case is clinton ever accused of having assaulted lewinsky, or any of the activities' being nonconsensual. their salacious nature is one thing; their being anyone's damned business is another. kavanaugh's asking starr to ask these questions also is not itself evidence that any of the questions relate to actual events (for example, asking lewinsky to lie, which is more serious than any of the sex acts). but be that as it may, how is it he is so righteously indignant about all that and yet feels he himself is above being investigated for worse behavior now? (and wouldn't an innocent man welcome an investigation?)

g