Starr Can't Redeem Himself
C-SPAN Segment Turns Failed Prosecutor Into "Hostile Witness"
by The Editors
|
And once the callers started asking the failed ex-prosecutor questions, Kenny found himself neck-deep in the brown sauce.
The segment began with a couple questions from C-SPAN "Grand Wizard of Verbal Wrestling" Brian Lamb. Starr said that "taking on expansions of my jurisdiction" were a "mistake."
Bull-hockey. They were a failure of a calculated strategy to investigate Clinton until something, anything, came up. And it did -- Monica Lewinsky. And what was the result? Bill Clinton: stronger than ever, and more admired internationally than any president since FDR. Bob Livingston: resigned. Newt Gingrich: resigned and in a messy divorce. Henry Hyde: exposed as an adulterer and home wrecker. Bob Barr: hid behind he "rule of law" to avoid answering questions in a deposition. Tom DeLay: evidence of perjury in a lawsuit deposition. George W. Bush: dogged by the whiff of scandal. The GOP Congress: scared to do anything.
And Ken Starr: a mistake. At least he admits it -- sort of.
The first caller attacked Starr for saying the President should "get right with the law" -- and Then appearing on TV attacking James Carville, insinuating that he should have drowned. The caller also mentioned a writer for the right-wing New York Post having said that Mr. Starr's successor (Bob Ray, who we wish to point out has a conflict of interest by virtue of his Giuliani ties) was going after Hillary. Starr lamented "unfortunate statements."
His hypocrisy in this very first call was hilarious -- one of our pap team shouted, "We feel your pain, Hugh Grant!" -- an allusion to Grant's "apology tour" after he was caught in flagrante humma-humma with a Hollywood hooker.
Starr then said that Bob Ray had integrity. Right, Starr -- if you ignore little things like conflict of interest.
A caller on the conservative line mentioned that if a defendant were charged by a federal prosecutor in Texas, a defense lawyer would demand a $25,000 retainer -- and defendants would "cave" because they couldn't afford defense. What should be done about unethical prosecutors? Starr looked like he was squirming at the inference -- and played up the hardball tactics of "ethical prosecutors," implying that the DOJ and Attorney General see this as no priority. This was a lie.
The next caller asked Starr how he could possibly defend Brown & Williamson tobacco -- which Starr sloughed off as "part of my private practice from some years ago," then spouted off about the technicalities of the class action lawsuit. He then hid behind the duty" of a lawyer and the "ethical" responsibility
The next caller, on the liberal line, said Starr was guilty of treason! Starr said, "I would plead not guilty" -- and asked the caller to "meditate" (how New Age) on all the awful things Clinton did involving a private consensual relationship and the [fake] Jones "civil case."
A conservative caller said she watched Clinton's deposition (which one?) and heard falsely that "he got upset" and then mentioned that two of Starr's questions during that deposition had already been answered! She then attacked the third question, implying (but not saying) that the question was unfair and meant to mislead. Starr spouted the expected rejoinders -- concerning discovery, relevance, "gather[ing] and marshall[ing] all evidence," and again mentioning the "experience of career prosecutors."
We know some ex-prosecutors, Ken, very professional lawyers -- who will admit that they would do practically anything to win.
The next caller said that Starr was "trying a comeback" -- and "to what effort do you think it served to search out every woman that Clinton allegedly had a relation with?" She mentioned Starr's hiding his ties to the Jones case from Janet Reno!
It should be pointed out that by this point Starr looker furious.
Starr answered that the moves were "mandated by the statute [to] determine the relevant facts." Again with "relevant facts" and a "search for the truth."
You want a "search for the truth" concerning "relevant facts?" Then admit that you were looking for selective "facts" and burying exculpatory evidence.
He went on at length "explaining" the duty of an independent counsel on "matters of constitutional law" -- to excuse himself from attacking at the highest judicial levels the basic right of attorney-client privilege.
A caller commented that after $60 million, this was about sex -- and his going into the "civil issue" (i.e. Paula Jones) pretty much proves it! Starr went into a spin rerun, talking about jurisdictional expansion.
He was digging himself deeper and deeper -- and we detected a note of impatience and anger in his voice as he again methodically "explained" himself. Starr was by now aware that this was not The Larry King Show.
A conservative caller thanked Starr for "service to your country" and called him "and American hero... many people know feel the same way" -- quoting the typical drivel you'd expect to see at, say, Free Republic. Starr sounded comfortable for the first time in the segment, 21 minutes in, taking on that familiar Mr. Rogers tone as he claimed that he and his colleagues tried to conduct themselves professionally.
A caller on the moderate line said he had come from "Communist China" and asked Starr about spending $50 million dollars and conducting dirty tricks after recounting "malicious prosecutions" in China!
We loved it -- comparing Starr with the "Red Chinese!" Mao Tse Starr belied his frustration as he slipped out of Fred Rodgers voice and into "irritated tone" mode. He did the "were crimes committed... the courts ruled in our favor... rule of law" song and dance with all the aplomb of Gene Kelly.
A "liberal" caller talked about Sid Blumenthal's so-called "libeling" of Monica Lewinsky, claiming that Sid and the president engaged in a smear campaign against Lewinsky. This so-called "liberal" ignored the body of evidence that shows that Lewinsky was threatening the Prez! And Starr talked about "any grounds... that would justify impeachment," saying that Congress should investigate character assassination.
What a laugh -- especially in light of Liz Drew's revelation that members of Congress themselves engage in character assassination (citing the anti-McCain whispering campaign). Yep, they're experts on character assassination, all right...
A nutcase conservative caller talked about the Foster investigation and some obscure witness saying that his testimony did not jibe with the "official" report. Starr -- catch this -- said it was a "cost issue" -- we can only guess subtly implying that more money might just have provided evidence that Hillary Clinton, Charles Manson and J.R. Ewing all pulled the trigger! He did say they did conclude that Foster killed himself.
A "moderate" caller greeted "Judge Starr," saying she "pray[ed] for him every day" -- then said that Dan Rather was on the air every night saying that Starr was investigating Clinton's personal life -- whereas if it were a GOP Prez, Rather would say that he was investigating perjury! Yeah, right -- s if this neurotic caller could tell anything that was on Dan Rather's mind -- doesn't she think that politically motivated abuse of the prosecutorial system is newsworthy? Starr slammed the press, claiming that they politicized the investigation.
And he was right -- because they were regurgitating every politically-motivated leak coming from Starr's allies, including a number that they had to retract!
Starr blathered about "festering" problems with the independent counsel statute -- and thanked the caller for her prayers.
The next caller said, "You really disappoint me... 75% of the American people had it right from the beginning.... out of the 14 so-called ark convictions, only three had anything to do for Whitewater." He then thanked Starr for setting the stage for Dems retaking the House of Representatives in 2000!
He added that the Starr Report was "angry, high-school like... you went way too far... [but what] pushed me over the edge [was] going after Julie Hiatt Steele... you can go on as many TV shows as you like [but] you'll live with this for the rest of your life... Clinton stood up to you." Starr "begged to differ" with the caller's facts.
Right, Ken -- beggars can't be choosers, especially as more facts come to light!
Starr then went into a major diversion into then-Governor Tucker's involvement with a cable business. Huh? Starr then talked about his wish to return to private life.
Hey, Ken -- if you're so eager to get back into private life, why all the TV appearances? Go back to Kirkland & Ellis. Oh -- we forgot -- you've been essentially demoted!
Starr did not say one word about Julie Hiatt Steele. This is very telling -- Starr is avoiding this can of worms at all cost. His Achilles' heel, perhaps?
The next caller said callers have faulted him for the "cost of the investigation... despite numerous convictions," then claimed the White House was "stonewalling." Starr talked about "going to court time and time again to litigate executive privilege...to fulfill our mandate to investigate whether these serious criminal acts should be prosecuted." Oh -- we see -- they're automatically serious criminal acts if Starr is investigating them. That says a lot! Starr went on at length on an investigation of then-president Carter, whom he said "testified truthfully" -- implying that Clinton lied (which Starr cannot prove).
The next caller thanked Starr and talked about how cable made her an informed citizen, and how she wanted to be "balanced and fair" (she must watch Fox). She claimed that Dems and the press "distorted... what went on in that room [the House]." The caller claimed that Clinton committed treason. Starr was smiling at this zealot as she claimed that "they were tearing you down... Democrats sabotaging witnesses...." It was pathetic. Starr thanked her and "admired her patience" in sitting through the full testimony.
A New Jersey caller said "there has always been a question about why you were appointed to replace prosecutor Fiske." The caller said that Fiske's finding was "unacceptable" to certain Senators. Starr said that the "special division" (three right-wing judicial activist judges) "made it clear that they were not quarreling... with Robert Fiske." he claimed that caller was "misinformed" about Bob Fiske "issuing a report" -- but the caller never said that!! Starr then started talking about the Vince Foster investigation again, claiming that his report somehow disproves claims that he took too long and cost too much.
Oh, please -- that report represented only a fraction of what this fool has spent.
A caller praised Starr's "honor and integrity," and asked about the House hearings, saying that Lindsey Graham feeling that the second count was unimpeachable was the "linchpin." Starr regurgitated Graham's "Peyton Place, not Watergate" comment -- then did the deposition/grand jury song-and-dance. Starr also mentioned "Dianne Feinstein's motion of censure."
A caller said that Jim Guy Tucker was going to be disbarred, then tried to "inform the nation" about a "few details" about "preferential treatment of Democrats by Democrats."
Frankly, we're shocked that party members on either side would show preferential treatment to their compadres!
What a wasted call. Starr talked integrity and public corruption. As a man whose own conduct shows a pattern and practice of lacking the former and at least tacitly promoting the latter, he's one to talk.
The final caller -- a 27-year-old -- asked about Starr's claim that he did everything within the law but did not report Linda Tripp for criminal wiretapping, then asked if he'd take on a prosecution of Texas Governor George W. Bush over Funeralgate! Starr was stuck! He had to say he would be as aggressive in any investigation.
Brian asked Starr if he would return to his law practice. Starr avoided answering -- then plugged his forthcoming book.
We thoroughly enjoyed the program -- Starr was on the defensive more than 80% of the time, forced in essence to be a "hostile witness" by callers and to fall back on his tried-and-half-true sound bites. He brought nothing new to defending his conduct. In fact, his answers ironically served to underline many of the criticisms, claims of unethical conduct, pattern of abuse, and possibly criminal behavior by Starr & Co.
In addition to evidencing Starr's desperation and "need" to explain himself, we could not help but think that this C-SPAN segment was a portent of rough sailing to come for Starr.
His law firm has essentially busted him down to rookie partner. He is the target of numerous inquiries into his conduct as independent counsel, most notably by the D.C. Bar association. And his recent decision to do both the TV and hard-right "rubber chicken" circuit only serve to reinforce the opinion that he is a political activist -- and an open invitation for press, legal and Congressional investigation into his conduct.
Copyright © 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, American Politics Journal Publications. All rights reserved. ISSN No. 1523-1690
