May 3, 2000
Starr helps raise funds to disbar Clinton
'No regrets' on presidential probe:
'I did it honestly and honorably'
By David M. Bresnahan
� 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
Former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr would not confirm or
deny plans to indict the president or the first lady on criminal
charges when Clinton's presidency ends -- but there was a smile
on his face when he said he couldn't comment.
Starr was helping to raise money to disbar President Clinton
Saturday night, and he granted an exclusive interview with
WorldNetDaily to reflect on his experience while investigating
the president.
he Southeastern Legal Foundation is a public interest law firm
that has filed a complaint in Arkansas that may soon result in
the disbarment of Clinton. Over 850 lawyers, corporate sponsors
and private individuals paid $150 and up to hear Starr speak in
support of the non-profit group.
Contrary to the recommendation of legal scholars and
constitutional experts, the independent counsel statute was
created by Congress in 1978 in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
Renewed several times, it was recently disbanded by Congress.
Starr said he is happy to see the end of that office.
"The entire independent counsel statute built in an enormous
number of frustrations for the American people, Congress and
others," Starr explained. "And one of the reasons is that we
departed in 1978 from our system of separated powers and the
requisite accountability that should be laid at the feet of those
who exercise power. The whole idea of an independent counsel was,
at best, anti-constitutional, and it was certainly very bad
policy."
Starr said it was nearly impossible to conduct an investigation
effectively when the Clinton administration attacked him every
day. He said he was understaffed and had no one to perform public
relations that could respond to the spin team at the White House.
Clinton had an "army" of public relations people, said Starr,
while he had no one. He said members of Congress constantly
complained that they would send him letters and he never
answered. His office did not have enough staff to handle
correspondence, and no one to deal with public relations.
"The executive function should be carried on by the executive
branch, not some officer who is given independence, which sounds
so good, but then he's given no comfort, no refuge, no succor,
when things are bad. And who can be vilified and pilloried, and
his office mocked by the executive branch in a way that makes it
extraordinarily difficult for the American people to have
confidence," explained Starr.
He said that in spite of the efforts of the Clinton spin team, he
was able to obtain 14 guilty verdicts, convict a sitting governor
and impeach the president.
"We carried on. I'm not whining," explained Starr. "We carried on
and we were able to do our work effectively and successfully in
courts until the results of impeachment were in."
He claims his effectiveness ended when "we saw the jury pool in
Arkansas and the eastern district in Virginia polluted by the
residue of the very hard feelings that impeachment understandably
had left. But until that time, we did conduct ourselves with no
small degree of success against some very heavy odds, including
the conviction of a sitting governor of the state of Arkansas,
who conventional wisdom was could never be convicted in the state
of Arkansas."
Starr says he has no regrets, and he would not have done anything
differently. He does not think he was too detached from the
process, nor does he agree with critics who say he was not
sufficiently aggressive.
"I think we did what we were obligated to do, which was to
provide the information to Congress, along with an analysis of
it. And then it was entirely in the hands of the political
system, which was the way the founding generation meant for it to
be," Starr said.
"There was nothing, I think, substantially in terms of the
conduct of the investigation, that we could have done differently
from a practical matter. We determined to be fair. For that, I do
not apologize. We determined to be complete in the referral. We
don't apologize for that," he said.
Although the public was not pleased that the focus of the
impeachment trial was on Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky,
Starr said he had no choice. He said the blame should be placed
on Clinton for the direction of his investigation.
"I think the president's testimony on August 17, 1998, put us in
the unenviable position of having to show that he was not being,
in our judgment, truthful before the grand jury. Then it was for
Congress to sort out. To determine whether we needed to take
additional evidence, whether the proceedings should be in the
Senate, whether it should be a full-blown trial and the like. I
don't think we could have done anything any different," Starr
told WorldNetDaily.
He was also restricted by the requirements of his jurisdiction.
Even though his investigation turned up evidence of other
wrongdoing, he could not pursue such evidence if it did not fall
within the very narrow scope of his assignment.
Although he is critical of the independent counsel system, Starr
said the process did enable information to become public which
might otherwise never have become known.
"To be sure, this mechanism did have something going for it. It
assured the American people that the facts would come out, that
no stone would be left unturned, and that public integrity
investigations involving the executive branch would be taken
very, very seriously. And that's a good thing," explained Starr.
The investigation process was long and involved, not because of
Starr, but because of the numerous investigations run by House
and Senate committees. Starr does not believe the process took on
a circus environment, and the information gathered in Congress
exposed activities of Clinton to immediate public scrutiny.
"I don't think I'd characterize it pejoratively at all. Sometimes
it can be complicated, but I think it's good for there to be
fact-finders, and the advantage that a congressional inquiry has
is that information becomes more publicly known much more quickly
than a criminal justice investigation," Starr explained.
Starr said he felt bad for the people of "the beautiful state of
Arkansas, which has deserved better government than it has had."
He was commenting not only on Clinton, but also on others from
Arkansas who were investigated and prosecuted.
"Our investigation yielded information -- this isn't spin -- hard
cold facts leading to 14 guilty pleas and criminal convictions in
hard-fought trials, including the sitting governor of Arkansas,
Gov. Jim Guy Tucker.
"The investigation led to a referral to the House of
Representatives that voted articles of impeachment," said Starr.
Despite his success, he said the attacks prevented the American
public from understanding the nature of his investigation.
"In the inevitable assaults sure to come when the political
survival of the president himself would seem as being at stake,"
said Starr. "And let there be no doubt, there was a determined
and constant and ferocious attack on the office where I was
privileged to serve."
"All of this was highly injurious to public confidence in the
administration of justice. And I can also say, it was slightly
unpleasant for those of us who lived through it," he commented
with a smile.
Starr has been watching press reports to learn about the recently
unfolding White House e-mail scandal.
"One of the very important aspects I think of public
investigations is, was there an obstruction of justice?" Starr
asked. "So if there was, and I'm not saying there was, you need
to gather the information, and I gather that process is going on
in a very professional way."
Recent press reports identified Starr's law firm, Kirkland &
Ellis, as being a large source of donations to the campaign of
Hillary Clinton.
There are 635 lawyers in the office, and a total of 33 gave
donations to Clinton for her senatorial campaign in New York.
Over $30,000 was given, 10 times greater than the total from any
other law firm, according to published reports.
Starr has been on a leave of absence from the firm while he has
been independent counsel, and he did not make any donations to
Clinton. The reports also indicated that the lawyers at the firm
are divided on whether Starr should leave or stay on.
Starr has decided to take time out of the spotlight to write a
book about the Supreme Court, a project he said he actually
started eight years ago.
"I'm teaching at George Mason, and I'm continuing my teaching at
New York University Law School, which I've done for a number of
years. And I'm doing some law practice, and then once the book is
out, I'll return to actually making a living, I hope, as a
lawyer," said Starr.
He said he would like posterity and history to remember him as a
man who had a difficult job to do, and that he did it honorably.
He told WorldNetDaily, "I did it honestly and honorably. It was a
very difficult assignment, but that I discharged it honestly with
integrity, and I hope a little bit of diligence."
He said there is a lesson from his investigation that the nation
must learn:
"At the most general level, character counts. And for this
generation not to teach the rising generation that there is no
substitute for basic honor and character on the part of those who
hold themselves out to take the nation's trust, for any position
of high office, but especially the office of president of the
United States. Shouldn't that be an enduring lesson?"
David M. Bresnahan is an investigative journalist for
WorldNetDaily.com
=================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day.
=================================================================
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid
matters
and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
<A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
