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

To: FreeTheHostages
One of the concerns I had about Klayman's lawsuits against the plethora of Clinton operatives was that he was trespassing on territory, and possibly poisoning evidence and tainting witnesses, that the Independent Council were prepared to move against in a Criminal indictment. Klayman was in everything ... Filegate, Chinagate, the Travel Office ... he was stepping all over Starr's inquiry in what seemed to me to be a manic onslaught of filings.

You seem to know the legal environs, are my concerns founded?

39 posted on 05/23/2002 4:34:02 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: ArneFufkin
[H]e was stepping all over Starr's inquiry in what seemed to me to be a manic onslaught of filings.

If you're asking me whether Ken Starr would have wanted Klayman to just go away, the answer would be an emphatic yes. Judge Starr's job as IC was to call it as he saw it and present a politically neutral assessment of whether there were crimes. This I thought Judge Starr did *brilliantly.* Perfect performance. It was not helpful, and played into the Democrat's hands that Starr was some politically-motivated star chamber, for Klayman to hop about the periphery and try to grap some limelight.

Truth in advertising: as you can see, I'm no fan of Klayman's. But especially when it comes to the IC process, I think it's certifiably poor tactics, even if one generally likes his work, to get involved in *that* one. However, doing so gave him a measure of noteriety and hence some more access to some more fundraising. There are certainly those who could argue reasonably and well, in opposition to me, that a Larry Klayman making those filings is better than radio silence. E.g., he certainly did a job on Commerce!! Who can disagree that he was helpful there? I just often wish it was someone else being helpful: someone who was a better lawyer. I'm really not trying to get personal, but as a lawyer, I really think there's a reason that a lot of the conservative leading lights lawyers like Starr and Olson stay as far away from him as possible. I don't think it's just differences in roles. I think it's differences in levels of accomplishment and seriousness and gravitas and all of that.
72 posted on 05/24/2002 5:37:09 AM PDT by FreeTheHostages
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

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