old news - the truth will out..

[deep]

Even Ken Starr has to finally admit the impeachment was illegitimate.

Hmm. Right- wing conspiracy


Who cares? well, a presidency was crippled.

Kenneth Starr says he shouldn't have been involved in Lewinsky case

The Associated Press

Published 10:50 am PST Thursday, December 2, 2004

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. (AP) - 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.

Starr said his role in a yearslong investigation of Clinton should have focused instead on Clinton's role in the failed Arkansas land deal known as Whitewater.

"There was a sense on the part of the country that my (Lewinsky) effort was an effort somehow to expand the (Whitewater) investigation, when it was separate," he told the Santa Barbara News-Press following a speech on Wednesday.

Clinton has accused Starr of running a partisan, Republican effort to ruin his presidency. Starr, however, defended the integrity of the investigation.

"It reinforced the proposition that all of us are subject to the law, no matter how high our station," he said. "The facts are the facts."

At his 1999 impeachment trial, Clinton was acquitted by the Senate of perjury and obstruction of justice. The Whitewater case ended with the conviction of Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and two of Clinton's former business partners for fraud and conspiracy. Clinton was never charged.

 

[Se7en]

Even Ken Starr has to finally admit the impeachment was illegitimate.

i'm not sure how you got that statement out of the article.

 

[Irvine511]

in the end, we were all worse off for that whole debacle.

i don't care who started it. it cheapened us all.

 

[stammer476]

Right-wing conspiracy? A bit dramatic, to say the least.

All he said is:

1.) Someone else should have led it.

2.) The focus should have been on Whitewater.

3.) And pertaining to your claim of "illegitimate," most importantly, "Starr, however, defended the integrity of the investigation."

To quote Mr. Starr, "The facts are the facts."

 

[nbcrusader]

Re: Re: old news - the truth will out..

i'm not sure how you got that statement out of the article.

Actually, the article contridicts the statement....


deep up to his old tricks again

 

[deep]

He announced the Whitewater case closing and wanted to accept the position he now holds.

The people who were also financing Paula Jones insisted he continue and pressured him to do so. I say conspiracy.

He veered out of the authority of his special prosecutor mandate.

Most likely the Paula Jones case, which was found to have "no merit" would not have led to the so-called perjury.


Republicans should be embarassed over the impeachment.

 

[stammer476]

Um, any chance you can link an article that says of any of these things?

If so, your original statement makes more sense.

 

[pwmartin]

Democrats should be embarrassed by Clinton!

 

[Dreadsox]

Wow...you all beat me to it....

 

[stammer476]

Wow...you all beat me to it....

There seems to be a strange insurgence of conservatives on this board.

 

[verte76]

I supported Clinton's policies, on the whole, but deplored his moral shortcomings. How's that?

 

[Irvine511]

yes, 8 years of general peace, world respect, and unprecedented prosperity are entirely negated by a blow job.

how embarassing.

 

[pwmartin]

Clinton was lucky to be in office when the world was still in a general detente after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I don't think the peace and world respect had much to do with his policies. And the prosperity was due fueled by the dotcom surge and the bearing of business expansion fruit sown under the Reagan years. Again, Clinton wasn't responsible for that. He just reacted to the goodwill.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I supported Clinton's policies, on the whole, but deplored his moral shortcomings

Same here. Plus I admire his intellect and charisma. It wasn't just about the sex w/ Monica for me, it was the lying (to his family and the country) and the unfaithfulness to his wife.

I'd still rather have him as President right now, even in spite of all of that.

 

[Irvine511]

Clinton was lucky to be in office when the world was still in a general detente after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I don't think the peace and world respect had much to do with his policies. And the prosperity was due fueled by the dotcom surge and the bearing of business expansion fruit sown under the Reagan years. Again, Clinton wasn't responsible for that. He just reacted to the goodwill.

oh please.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I'm not sure why this is still a debatable topic if Clinton admitted to it years ago.

 

[Bono's shades]

When the whole Lewinsky thing happened I was of the opinion that Clinton had disgraced the office of President and should resign. However, after the past four years I would gladly have him back in the White House.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

There seems to be a strange insurgence of conservatives on this board.

With your use of the word insurgence, are you trying to say conservatives are terrorists?

 

[deep]

Um, any chance you can link an article that says of any of these things?

If so, your original statement makes more sense.

sure

here you go

Clinton rips media, Ken Starr after opening of presidential library

JAMES JEFFERSON, Associated Press Writer

Friday, November 19, 2004
(11-19) 15:55 PST LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) --

In a prime-time television outburst, Bill Clinton ripped old nemesis Kenneth Starr and what the former president portrayed as a gullible media eager to report every "sleazy thing" leaked from a prosecutor bent on bringing him down.

The exchange came in an interview with ABC news anchor Peter Jennings that aired Thursday night, hours after Clinton opened his $165 million presidential library. Clinton blasted Starr and spoke disdainfully of a national media that he suggested was complicit in a scheme to ruin his presidency.

"No other president ever had to endure someone like Ken Starr," Clinton said. "No one ever had to try to save people from ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, and people in Haiti from a military dictator that was murdering them, and all the other problems I dealt with, while every day an entire apparatus was devoted to destroying him."

The former president said he would go to his grave at peace that, while he had personal failings, he never lied to the American people about his job as president.

Clinton added that he doesn't care about what his detractors think about him. Jennings then said it seemed to him that Clinton did care.

The former president responded, "You don't want to go here, Peter. You don't want to go here. Not after what you people did and the way you, your network, what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every, little sleazy thing he leaked. No one has any idea what that's like."

"You never had to live in a time when people you knew and cared about were being indicted, carted off to jail, bankrupted, ruined, because they were Democrats and because they would not lie," he said. "So, I think we showed a lot of moral fiber to stand up to that. To stand up to these constant investigations, to this constant bodyguard of lies, this avalanche that was thrown at all of us. And, yes, I failed once. And I sure paid for it. And I'm sorry. I'm sorry for the American people. And I'm sorry for the embarrassment they performed."

Starr's former chief deputy said Friday he understood the difficulty for Clinton, but added that the bipartisan staff did what they had to do and performed honorably in seeking the truth.

"It's not easy being accused of things. We had allegations and we had to investigate them," Hickman Ewing said. "We believe we performed in an honorable manner."

As for the news coverage, he said the media "reported what they thought was news worthy."

A seven-year, $70 million investigation conducted mostly by Starr ranged from Clinton's involvement in the Whitewater land deal in the 1980s to the president's affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton was not among the dozen Arkansans indicted on criminal charges in the far-ranging Whitewater probe, but his affair with Lewinsky, a one-time White House intern, led to his impeachment by the GOP-controlled House in 1998. He was acquitted following a Senate trial.

Starr, now dean of the Pepperdine University law school, did not immediately return a call seeking comment Friday.


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/11/19/national1855EST0672.DTL

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Of course he cares, his detractors nearly jeopardized his presidency.

 

[Ft. Worth Frog]

well, I am pretty sure that with the status of partisan politics, if the case were the other way around, the Republican would be trashed. It is just the way politics goes and we should not kid ourselves into thinking that one party holds a monopoly on goodness. These parties are populated by human beings after all.

In regards to Clinton's presidency being these halcyon days of yore, that belief tends to cloud the facts. Now, before I go on , I want to state that I am not blaming Clinton for the following events:USS Cole, Embassy bombings, WTC bombings, Bosnia/Kosovo, Rwanda, constant threat of war with Irag during the latter part of his administration. All these under his watch. However, I think it is a bit naive to be nostalgic for the Clinton years. Regarding the economy, I think it is better to look at the economy within a much bigger picture. One can easily say that the U.S. economy since 1980 was on an upward trend with a small bump during the end of Bush 41, and the transition period between Clinton and Bush 43 when the stock market dropped considerably. Presidents of both parties generally rerceive too much credit/blame for economic trends. Though they contribute, ofttimes, market forces are outside their control. A good example (though somewhat date) of blame is the Van Buren presidency. The Panic of 1837 was disastrous and Van Buren was castigated for it. However, it came as a result of Jackson's war against the National Bank, combined with some other trends that had been occurring. However, Van Buren was president when the collapse occurred and he was booted at the end of four years, along with his party.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Presidents of both parties generally rerceive too much credit/blame for economic trends. Though they contribute, ofttimes, market forces are outside their control.

I agree, good points made. We often ignore what 9/11 did to our economy, or we just expect an overnight recovery for whatever reason. That's unrealistic.