Posted on 12/02/2004 12:38:49 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Kenneth Starr says he never should have led the investigation that resulted in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.
The former independent counsel, now dean of the Pepperdine University law school, says "the most fundamental thing that could have been done differently" was for somebody else to have investigated Clinton's statements under oath denying he had an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
< /sarcasm >
What do you mean "save". He would have been a fine justice. And Bush 44 would have considered him too I bet. Now it's out of the question.
LOL! Reno was Clinton's gatekeeper of scandals. She denied numerous inquiries for investigations. Imagine the outrage if Ashcroft pulled such a thing. The NY Times would probably run out of ink.
Starr went after the Lewinsky stuff and ignored a lot more, in my humble opinion. I continue to believe that we didn't get the whole truth about Vince Foster.
I confess that I am too. I had opportunities to see Senator Lott speak on a few occasions after that vote, and I always got up and left the room. I'm not comfortable holding a grudge, and today I'd probably sit and listen, but what he did harmed our Republic, and put a black eye ont he rule of law.
It was not. Tripp went to Starr's people with a tale of lies about to be told under oath. That's what got the ball rolling. There was NO conspiracy to distract from Clinton's other crimes. The Lewinsky case made have ended up being a distraction because life works that way sometime. But to say there was a plan to distract from Clinton's other crimes by coming up with another crime (lying under oath) makes no sense and is silly.
Isn't that sick? You or I would go to jail!
No it could not be that.
Starr and his people had plenty of complaints about Reno and Eric Holder and thought, especially towards the last, that Reno was out to thwart the investigations and harm reputations of the people in the OIC. Starr was especially upset that Reno never blasted the likes of Carville and Blumenthall for making threats against officers of the court. It was her place to do it and she should have.
In retrospect, I really believe this was a trick so they could accuse Starr of being an anti-sex bigot, thereby distracting the public from the Whitewater indictments and findings of wrongdoing.
Starr is right. A different prosecutor should have been appointed for a different case. Another cute trick by the Clintinoids.
It was not Reno's to give. Nor was it hers to permit. She requested that Starr be given the case by the three judge panel overseeing the prosecutor. Contrary to misinformed opinions made on this thread, Starr did not work for Janet Reno. I make clear in my post that what you're claiming was indeed what Starr was trying to say. It's not news; he's said this before.
He was a milquetoast assigned to do battle with ruthless zealots. They needed a Mark Levin or Ann Coulter. Too bad; Clinton deserved to be kicked out in disgrace. But maybe it worked out. If Gore had been President, maybe that would have been worth 500 more votes in Florida.
He was a milquetoast assigned to do battle with ruthless zealots. They needed a Mark Levin or Ann Coulter. Too bad; Clinton deserved to be kicked out in disgrace. But maybe it worked out. If Gore had been President, maybe that would have been worth 500 more votes in Florida.
Yeah, someone else who wouldn't have given bill a pass........
For all you firebreathers, everything worked out the way it was supposed to. Clinton in shame...Gore not being a sitting President at election time...etc. God was truly looking over this one.
Now that is a DUMB statement if I've ever seen one.
BTW, you do know, don't you, that Starr was the number one choice of the Democrats at the time, right?
Excellent point.
I also object to people referring to the "Lewinsky Case". It was, in fact, the "Paula Jones Case" and was concerned with obstruction of justice and perjury during a civil matter accusing Klinton of sexual harassment. I believe that what Paula Jones described actually happened and that she is fortunate that she did not have to just "put some ice on it". Juanita Brodderick did not fare as well.
So what?????? It does not follow from that that Starr was going to throw the fight or whatever. If you are making that connection then it is a bridge too far. It is no different than the kind of thinking on the left that Bush stole this election and the past one.
Ahem. I happen to be a huge supporter of Kenneth Starr. I was addressing my remarks to the other poster.
I agree totally. Elections can only get nastier unless we shore up the voter fraud by the DimoCraps. Hope they get touch screen technology online in most precincts before the next POTUS election.
thank the Lord. He would have been Souter II. His malpractice on the Hillary non-indictment is a profile in cowardice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.