Replies

[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.

Ted Olson is amazing ... during that Florida recount fiasco he was 100% connected with Scalia and Rehnquist who were feeding him softballs and one step ahead of Ginsburg and Breyer who were laying traps. He's not very dynamic, but he didn't seem surprised or unprepared for any direction the argument would go. He was a pro. I'm a layman and no great judge, but Tribe (?) or Boies were flustered repeatedly by Scalia's jazz-scat mind. That guy is scary smart.

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.*

Really? Then perhaps you can explain to me why Starr allowed the Clinton administration to keep the illegally obtained FBI files in the Whitehouse for YEARS after Starr told the public that it was illegal for them to have them and YEARS after the Whitehouse and FBI told the public they had been returned? Perhaps you can also tell us why Starr did such a poor job of investigating Filegate ... never even calling many of the key witnesses? Did he EVER answer Bob Barr's letter to him about it? And the same is true of Fostergate where Starr basically just rubber stamped Fiske's report (after adding a few FABRICATIONS like the oven mitt of his own).

No, the reality is that a good case can be made that Starr was a Clinton plant from day one. His was the #2 name (after Fiske) on a list of suggested Independent Counsels submitted by Clinton. Do you imagine for one moment that Clinton would have put ANYONE in that spot that he couldn't control? And did you notice that Starr was about to wrap everything up and retire when the Ron Brown matter surfaced. Then all of a sudden, Monica was discovered and everyone, the black community included, forgot about Ron Brown. A sorbid affair trumps a mass murder any day, I suppose.

So I imagine Starr didn't welcome Klayman digging around ... but for a different reason.