Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kenneth Starr to lead legal team challenging campaign finance legislation
Associated Press ^ | 3-21-02 | JIM ABRAMS

Posted on 03/21/2002 1:29:30 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:39:59 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

WASHINGTON (AP) --

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: campaignfinance; cfr; cfrlist; kennethstarr; kenstarr; silenceamerica
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-348 next last
To: deport
Did he? Heck I don't know... Do you? If not then maybe you can ask the man you claim that did it?

It sure would be nice if you would repeat the portion of my post you are referring to so that others know the context.

Of course, then they might realize how uninformed you are, rather than just accept your statement that I "claimed" something.

I assume you were answering my statement "Why did he (Starr) allow those illegal files to remain in democRAT hands?".

My response to you is where have you been? This has been talked about numerous times.

The person who indicated that the FBI files were still in the Whitehouse towards the end of Clinton's reign is none other than Independent Counsel Ray.

He said it in a live television interview several years ago.

You believe Ray, don't you?

301 posted on 03/22/2002 7:45:52 AM PST by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
You asked, I responded....

What part of Heck I don't know... Do you? " do you not understand?

GO STARR GO

302 posted on 03/22/2002 8:03:38 AM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
You've got to be joking with that last item.

It may or may not be funny, but it was a campaign promise of the kind which gets pointed out by the media. In any case, we are talking about a more instant disclosure, as I understand it, and it would be up to the poltical opposition or the press (fat chance) to point it out

303 posted on 03/22/2002 8:13:07 AM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
How about the questions regarding his honesty and impartiality?

They are not relevant to his skills. If Starr deliberately throws a case, he could be disbarred. If you think that all of the people involved in the anti CFR case are conspiring to lose it, and are out to defraud their contributors, put on your tinfoil hat, take your meds, and post to me when the voices in your head are a little less noisy.

304 posted on 03/22/2002 8:19:10 AM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
They are not relevant to his skills.

So being dishonest and possibly being controlled by the democRATS is not relevant? Welcome to the NEW Republican party.

put on your tinfoil hat, take your meds, and post to me when the voices in your head are a little less noisy.

One can't help but notice that you completely avoided the facts I mentioned which indicate that Starr might be bought and paid for by the other side.

I would be happy to debate the Ron Brown facts with you and the curious timing of Monica's "discovery". Let's see how "tin foil" that theory is?

As we saw in Whitewater, the Foster investigation and during impeachment, someone owned by the other side, when they are leading the legal team as Starr was in each case and you want Starr to do in this case, CAN in fact get away with not doing a very good job. Let's talk about Foster ... and Starr's "skills"?

305 posted on 03/22/2002 8:57:12 AM PST by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
"Perhaps they would do better if you were the attorney."

LCS, Possibly, but thank God, I'm NOT a lawyer. Judge Kenneth Starr had a mountain of evidence to impeach a president, but he turned the WHOLE thing to a presidential blowjob and willfully ignored damning evidence in his presentation. Not to mention that he confirmed TWICE that there was no coverup of Vince Foster's suicide at the park, DESPITE the FACT that Foster dodn't have any keys in his pocket at the park with which to drive his car to the park. The keys were nice enough to return while Vince was in the Virginia morge. Kenneth Starr is THE quintessential antidisestablishmentarianist to call when things get tough. His penchant to "err" correctly is unsurpassed. Peace and love, George.

306 posted on 03/22/2002 8:57:58 AM PST by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
One can't help but notice that you completely avoided the facts I mentioned which indicate that Starr might be bought and paid for by the other side.

I did not, that is why I suggested you take your meds!

307 posted on 03/22/2002 9:00:25 AM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
LOL.

1. You don't recognize a conspiracy to obstruct justice between Bill Clinton, Vernon Jordon, Bill Richardson, the director of Revlon, Monica Lewinsky and others? Ken Starr didn't.

2. You don't think Clinton should have prosected for committing perjurty? Ken Starr didn't.

3. You don't think any heads should have rolled for close to 1000 FBI files finding their way to the White House? Well Ken Starr didn't. A member of Nixon's staff went to prison for obtaining one FBI file.

There was plenty for Ken Starr to file charges against Clinton over. My point is that Mr. Starr turned into a blocking mechanism rather than a facilitator.

I don't want him anywhere near important conservative causes. If you wish to think less of me for that opinion, have at it.

308 posted on 03/22/2002 9:01:00 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
Peace and love, George.

It looks like your meds are starting to work! Please give some to BAC, he seems to need them worse than you do!

309 posted on 03/22/2002 9:02:13 AM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: antaresequity
Exactly Starr = Republicans The lamestream media is having an orgasm already. You think that "the media" who have just been made the "kingmakers" in perpetuity via the CFR bill are gonna let Starr alone for one second.This bill should have never been allowed to get this far. I doubt Bush will veto it's just "politics" to him. It's gonna be a rough ride.
310 posted on 03/22/2002 9:06:11 AM PST by lawdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
1. You don't recognize a conspiracy to obstruct justice between Bill Clinton, Vernon Jordon, Bill Richardson, the director of Revlon, Monica Lewinsky and others? Ken Starr didn't. FAILURE TO INDICT IS NOT PROOF OF THIS

2. You don't think Clinton should have prosected for committing perjurty? Ken Starr didn't. FAILURE TO INDICT IS NOT PROOF OF THIS

3. You don't think any heads should have rolled for close to 1000 FBI files finding their way to the White House? Well Ken Starr didn't. A member of Nixon's staff went to prison for obtaining one FBI file. FAILURE TO INDICT IS NOT PROOF OF THIS

There was plenty for Ken Starr to file charges against Clinton over. My point is that Mr. Starr turned into a blocking mechanism rather than a facilitator.FAILURE TO INDICT IS NOT PROOF OF THIS

I don't want him anywhere near important conservative causes. If you wish to think less of me for that opinion, have at it.

I think you are a leading conservative activist. On matters such as this, however, I trust the judgement of those involved in putting Mr. Starr in charge more than I do yours. No hard feelings I hope.

311 posted on 03/22/2002 9:08:51 AM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
"Licensed the right to free speech"

Can you or anyone else in this thread tell me just how this is so? Have you read the bill?

Theoretically, Dough-Boy Starr will lose the case only if this is true. If it's not true, he won't win the case.

312 posted on 03/22/2002 9:09:58 AM PST by eaglebeak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: lawdog
The lamestream media is having an orgasm already. You think that "the media" who have just been made the "kingmakers" in perpetuity via the CFR bill are gonna let Starr alone for one second.

The media are irrelevant on this, it is a court case. If the SCOTUS was going to let the media make decisions on things like this, Al Gore would be President today!

313 posted on 03/22/2002 9:11:14 AM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
No hard feelings here. Your can use the "Failure to Indict Is Not Proof" arguement, but it has it's costs. Under that policy Starr either didn't recognize the events for what they were, or he let them slide knowing what they were. That's what others have tried to point out on this thread. I don't think they are wrong to think along those lines.

Look LCS, if I adopted your "On matters such as this, however, I trust the judgement of those involved in putting Mr. Starr in charge more than I do yours." policy, I'd never be able to criticize the right side of the isle. I won't stand by and watch the right side blow it any more that I would the left.

It is our duty to watch and criticize when warranted. With Starr I think there's more than ample room for criticism.

Thanks for the comments.

314 posted on 03/22/2002 10:11:45 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I believe that if Starr thought that he could not obtain a conviction, he was obliged not to indict. To suggest that he is a criminal conspirator or incompetent because of this is not reasonable.
315 posted on 03/22/2002 10:16:35 AM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
While I agree with your statement regarding the presidential election I am not comfortable with Starr as an advocate in the CFR challenge. This is "one big bite of the apple" and I want a guy who has and WILL USE all of his teeth
316 posted on 03/22/2002 10:27:16 AM PST by lawdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
As I said once before, you're welcome to believe whatever you like. At this point I feel that defense of Starr is not only unreasonable, it's defenseless.

One FBI file = Prison
One thousand FBI files = Free Pass

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

317 posted on 03/22/2002 10:38:22 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
If you think Starr is a crook, why don't you arrest him?
318 posted on 03/22/2002 10:50:44 AM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
Because I'm not in a position to do such a thing. In my capacity I am in a position to counsel that he not be placed in a position of trust again. That's what I am doing.
319 posted on 03/22/2002 11:18:24 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
The essence of a competent prosecutor is not his academic curriculum vitiae, but his ability to try a case to a jury. Mr. Starr may be smart as a whip, but he flubbed his presentation of evidence to the House managers.

Sorry, but the Demo Senators NULLIFIED their jury -- did any even LOOK at the evidence?? Meanwhile, the House Managers were 'managing' what, exactly? Answer: prosecution in the Senate. They and Starr did well. The Demo Senators did not.

320 posted on 03/22/2002 1:34:37 PM PST by dodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-348 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson