Continuously serving Kosciusko County since 1854
I watched some of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's testimony before the Judiciary Committee Thursday.
These are my impressions.
First of all, I thought Starr was an impressive witness. I don't necessarily agree with all of his tactics, but he certainly was a very credible witness.
Despite a peppering by the Democrat counsel, Abby Lowell, the president's lawyer, David Kendall, and all 16 Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee, Starr remained unflappable.
He was calm, softspoken and professional. More importantly, his answers were unambiguous. That was quite refreshing. I am used to hearing obfuscations from the folks in Washington. It was nice to hear some straight answers for a change.
The Democrats have been demonizing Starr for months now, painting him as obsessed and out to get poor Bill. But he didn't come across like that at all. He appeared quite forthright.
All along, there were a few things that bothered me about Starr's investigation, and his testimony did little to ease my concerns.
One thing that bugged me was the way Starr left out what seemed to be some pretty straightforward testimony by Monica Lewinsky in his report.
That's the part where she said, "No one ever told me to lie or offered me a job for my silence." That quote from Lewinsky, which went straight to the heart of the issue of obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury, most definitely should have been in Starr's initial report to Congress.
But it wasn't. It was in the reams of supporting material, but not in the initial report.
This, to me, stains Starr's credibility a little. It's as if he was bending over backward to make Clinton look as bad as possible while purposefully downplaying anything exculpatory.
Starr explained this by saying that on page so-and-so of the referral it points out that Lewinsky testified that no one explicitly asked her to lie. He said that while it is probably true that no one ever said, "Monica, please lie," there was a pattern of cover stories and obstruction.
I am sure that's true, but I think it would have been better for Starr to put that Lewinsky quote right up front in the initial report. It certainly wouldn't have weakened his case. If nothing else, it would have been one less thing for his detractors to hammer him on.
But I also think it's kind of dumb for Demos to make a big deal about Monica saying she was never told to lie or offered a job.
She probably wasn't, but how many other 21-year-old White House interns spent all that time on the phone with the president, had the Oval Office secretary collecting presidential gifts from them or had Vernon Jordan performing job searches for them?
I also tend to think Starr's office was a bit heavy-handed when they detained Lewinsky for 10 hours in the Ritz hotel in Washington. The tactics used by Starr were upheld in district court, so I don't think Starr broke any laws. It's really not the big deal Democrats were making of it. But it seems odd to me that all the cloak and dagger stuff would be necessary. After all, we're talking about a lady with a tape recorder, a 21-year-old intern who diddled with the president and the diddler's mother. These are not exactly international terrorists.
But the thing that really chapped me most about Starr and his investigation was the revelation Thursday that there was no wrongdoing by the President in Whitewater, Travelgate or Filegate. Those are the three other areas he was investigating.
All along - even as late as Wednesday - we were led to believe that the investigation was still ongoing and that other referrals could be looming.
Thursday we find out that, well, you know, there was some pretty bad stuff happening in that Whitewater mess. A year ago, we wanted to send up a referral, but we just couldn't really prove anything.
If anything makes Starr look bad, it's this. He could have 'fessed up long ago that there was nothing to those other investigations, but he didn't. One can only wonder why he waited until now - after the election. His explanation was that he was not compelled to report anything unless there was credible evidence of wrongdoing. I suppose, but wouldn't common sense and a commitment to fairness dictate otherwise? Weren't the taxpayers entitled to know the results of his investigations?
I think so.
One of the most startling things I noticed in the questioning of Ken Starr by Democrats was the absence of any challenge to the facts in Starr's referral.
Democrat after Democrat - the attorneys and the members of the panel - lined up to attack Starr, his investigation and his tactics. I didn't hear any of them (I didn't hear them all, mind you) challenge any of Starr's evidence. I thought that was odd.
They were all mired in whether Starr's press releases were accurate or whether he violated Monica's rights or whether he should have released more or less or if he spent too much money or if he was too partisan.
Nobody really questioned the accuracy of the referral. I was expecting a debate over whether or not the President committed perjury. I didn't really hear that. I suppose that will come later during the hearings. It just seemed funny that all the Demos wanted to do was attack Starr instead of the allegations in his referral.
It was as if they were willing to concede the facts of the case.
Another thing I found interesting was that while Starr's detractors have been saying for months that the investigation was all about sex, sex wasn't even mentioned in Starr's opening statement. And sex got very little mention at all during Starr's testimony.
Despite any problems I have with his investigation, I generally believe Starr is an honest guy - not the evil lout the Democrats tell us he is. He may have played for a little political advantage during his investigation, but after all, he's investigating politicians.
And even if he was a little overzealous, let us not forget that Starr did uncover some pretty significant wrongdoing by the president.
Even if Starr was overzealous in some areas of his investigation, this doesn't exonerate the president.
I think everybody by now has a pretty good grasp of the facts of this case. It's all a matter of interpretation.
I think the president committed perjury. I think perjury probably could get you impeached under the proper circumstances and political climate. But I also think these are not the proper circumstances or political climate.
It doesn't speak well for morality or justice, but Clinton will get a pass on this one.
