Past and Present: The Starr Report and Clinton Impeachment

Reader Comments
Back to article

Alot of innocent(?) people like Mr McDougal, Vincent Foster et al got killed. I never did see how to take thousands of dollarsloss with IRS on an $1K investment. I had hoped that Hillary would bare those records in her 2008 race but so far they remain hidden. Judge Starr deserves the highest honor that this country has give to a man that put Clinton cronnies behind bars. People like Mrs. McDougal spent time in jail rather that confess the truth. Mrs. Bill Ayres can tell you its no fun to be in jail to avoid testifying against a friend. Judge Starr did locate a great jurist, Susan Weber Wright, who deserves to be elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court as she never ducked the truth. It is shame that Judge Starr could not get enough evidence to send other Arkansas crooks away. The greater shame is Clinton never took responsibility for his sexual activity during working hours when he should have be having BinLaden extradicted for trial. The same Asst. U.S. AG was picked by the Democrats to sit on the 911 Commission to judge the failed Clinton failure to execute the warrant. Eight years of White House sex, pressure on banks to make bad loans, creation of socialized giveaways, appointing marginal Justices and Judges and allowing 911 to occur may reflect bad on Starr; but in reality every senator who voted No to impeachment aided and abetted the Clinton abuse of power.

H E PETERSEN of FL 3:17PM September 23, 2008

[I was so caught up in responding to someone here that I forgot to address the article as much as I wanted to.]
This article is fine, and a good reminder (not a welcome reminder, but a good reminder). I have a couple of further points:
Why could Starr, who was asked to work on the Whitewater Land deal (which exonerated the Clintons in the end, after millions of dollars had been wasted), allowed to stay on when a completely unrelated 'tip' came up about Lewinsky? The ONLY connection between the two would have been: 'How to Get the Clintons'. How was this allowed? I remember that Reno had something to do with allowing it, and that maybe she didn't want to 'seem' partisan or something. Maybe she was a Puritan. Who knows? This is mostly rhetorical.
Why was Starr allowed to publish the proceedings, including secret testimony, of the Grand Jury? As I remember the Grand Jury proceedings were deemed (by what authority I don't know) to be secret. And Clinton, before he testified, as I remember, was told by Starr's minions that his testimony would remain secret. Yet Starr published all this in a thick paperback book, for all to read. Aside from his complete lack of integrity, his being run by a kind of vendetta here`, what about the law here?
To answer someone on this list, as much as I abhor Starr and his tactics, as a feminist I do, actually, feel glad that Lewinsky had the 'dress' as evidence, since Clinton was denying everything she said. Otherwise this might have resulted in a he said/she said and Lewinsky would be the one, as the women usually are, to be thrown to the wolves. Clinton was ready to deny her and to have her -- I don't know what -- somehow he could hurt her if she hadn't saved that dress. So, as much as she got herself into this whole-hog, she shouldn't have been blamed by herself, as if it were only one person involved. (And interns should never be used like this, even if they throw themselves at someone's feet, by someone in power.)
(I also abhor the tactics of the FBI who lied, lied, lied to a 23 year-old and intimidated her and her mother -- without a lawyer present -- into giving up everything she knew. They even incarcerated her, in her hotel room, as I remember, and wouldn't let her out, telling her that they already knew everything. -- She could have denied it and it would have stopped with she said/she said (her friend and snitch, Linda Tripp), if she had had a lawyer. Wouldn't it have? So Starr's power tactics had a considerable influence (as you say, even today) that it needn't have had if he had had any integrity.
Finally, more influence: the world now has in its collective mind, since that incident (the publishing of the embarassing testimony) the concept and image of 'oral sex', which it didn't before this. I suppose this might be a good thing for some who didn't know such an activity existed and have stepped into it since then with alacrity -- if the woman is interested and loves the man, that is.

Sheryll of CA 3:44AM September 16, 2008

To Thrown of CA:
Your email is the one which seems most racist to me. Pastor Wright didn't 'spew racism from the pulpit', he angrily chastised those who did practice racism and he angrily chastised people who went into Iraq with no reason but getting protecting their oil for themselves. He chastised racism and war. Now we have a man who is running for office who was influenced by his cronies, the same neocons, to pick a fundamentalist religious nut who was once a member of a party which wants to secede from the Union -- and her husband still is a member. We all know all the egregious and unethical things Palin is and has done and I won't enumerate them.
We all know that if the shoe were on the other foot, if Obama had been or was now a member of a secessionary party -- or his wife was -- he would have everything but the kitchen sink thrown at him and maybe would not be a candidate today. I don't agree with double standards depending upon what race you are. Not by you or by Congressman whatzisname in Georgia who, twice, called Obama 'uppity', a name which soundly states that someone has NO RIGHT to things and positions that people like him have. This is insanity. This is against the Constitution. This is against the Bible. This is against Common Sense. This completely shreds integrity.
McCain (your candidate, presumably) chose a partner who may well take over his job. She attends a church which insists that Jews will not get into heaven or be part of their 'rapture' or whatever they call it in that particular church. This is insane. If Obama had attended such a racist church we would have even more weeks of nonsense from MSNBC and CNN than we had over the relatively sane things ('get out of Iraq!') that we heard from Wright. That is racist. Palin's church is openly racist, not Wright's. Get over it.
From You: "The Presidents Office is so badly damaged that we are considering electing a President who had his first fund raiser for his Congressional seat at the home of an admitted Terrorist,William Ayers.Saying that William Ayers was "just a guy from his neighborhood".Next we learn that for 20 years Obama sat in a Church and listened to race hatred from the pulpit."
I don't know anything about Ayers. But it seems McCain is about to come out with ads which mention him and saying what you say. He is a mild-mannered professor in some local college. He has dealt with what he did decades ago. He is not a terrorist. Obama is not now his friend. The above is you being racist. Get over it, friend.

Sheryll of CA 3:10AM September 16, 2008

The use of impeachment was abused by Starr and the GOP to the point that America was hesitant to use it with a real criminal regime in office.
Undermining impeachment like the lapse of using special prosecutors, the GOP has attempted to undermine the checks and balances of the Constitution.
Time to reinvigorate the clauses of impeachment and use special prosecutors even though Bush's time is limited. Time to Dump the Bush/McCain Regime and reinstall a Justice Department again, to bring back justice and accountability.
There has been no accountability for the last eight years and it time to hold people responsible. McCain/Bush 2008 ticket would just extend the lawlessness of the last eight years.

Paul of WA 3:30AM September 14, 2008

The Clintons have always been under a different microscope. What BC did hurt his family, but to put the country through impeachment as the Republicans insisted, because BC lied under oath about sex, was a true waste of time/money. I still recall what the final conclusion of Starr's investigation revealed: After spending $60-80 million of taxpayer dollars to investigate Pres.Clinton and HRC, no other President and first lady have been investigated so thoroughly with so little wrongdoing found! As pathetic as BC's behavior was to his family, the Republicans' behavior was just as pathetic to the country. I recall NGingrich being one of the vocal ones, and all the while, he had himself an intern on the side. As did AHutchinson. The list of hypocrites goes on and on.
As to terrorism: If you'll read Bob Woodward's "Agenda", BC's Admin. took terrorism much more seriously than the Republicans, who tried to squelch the attention BC directed towards terrorism time and time again.
I guess with all the peace and prosperity of the Clinton Admin., there was just plenty of time to concentrate on personal distruction. We sure can't say that about the Bush Admin....Can you imagine if we spent millions to investigate Bush/Cheney?!?! It's okay to selectively pick talking points to take us into war, killing thousands of innocent Americans, and even more innocent Iraqis, or eliminating food inspectors resulting in deaths of countless pets and people from food poisoning,or not adhering to safety standards in mines, resulting in numerous coal miner deaths, or never taking seriously the threat of global warming, resulting in countless species deaths, not to count untold human deaths, and the list goes on and on....Just think, if Bush hadn't had so much war and economic destabilization occurring during his entire tenure in office, who knows what would have surfaced about his personal life!!!
The Republicans couldn't stand that BC beat them at all their games, and they considered revenge sweet justice. It's amazing BC was able to achieve so many positives, given the hounds at his back from day one. I voted for BC twice, and am still proud of my vote. This doesn't mean I wasn't upset at BC's behavior, primarily because it hurt his family, but I do keep the ridicule of the Clintons in perspective, because the microscopic scrutiny has always been way out of balance imo.

kmb08 of AR 10:15PM September 11, 2008

Kenneth Starr was a protege of a supreme court justice,who commited perjury during his nomination hearings.Like mentor like protege

J.Richard Gove of MS 9:35PM September 11, 2008

who wants to bet there won't be any feminists complaining that this article was sexist because it talked aqbout the humiliation brought upon clinton, but seemed to totally neglect lewinsky. what, she wasn't humiliated, too? they didnt make clear she was pressured with jail time and the prosecution of family members...

cuckoopants of CA 5:58PM September 11, 2008

It is amazing to sit back and realize that the Clintons brought such havoc on the Democratic Party.Had Bill Clinton simply resigned,it is likely that Al Gore would have retained the White House in 2000.Instead Bill Clinton begins a campaign to destroy Ken Starr and weather the storm.Bill Clinton was solely concerned about his own Legacy.As this article points out years later,the office of the Presidency has and continues to be weakened.The Presidents Office is so badly damaged that we are considering electing a President who had his first fund raiser for his Congressional seat at the home of an admitted Terrorist,William Ayers.Saying that William Ayers was "just a guy from his neighborhood".Next we learn that for 20 years Obama sat in a Church and listened to race hatred from the pulpit.We are offered the explanation that when he attended he never heard those fiery sermons.
The legacy from Ken Starr/Bill Clinton is that the public will listen to any spin put forward.Rather than the Public standing up and saying certain conduct by those who seek the Presidency should disqualify them from the beginning.
In the end we get the type of Government we deserve when we dont stand up.It is a shame

tbrown of CA 5:20PM September 11, 2008

Comparing the unimportant incident that Bill Clinton was impeached for, and George W. Bush's and gang's 8 years of corrupt conduct, one might wonder why Dubbya has never been impeached. The obvious answer is, our constitution doesn't provide for impeaching a vice president. Cheney would succeed Bush and the destructive Bush-Cheney administration would continue, only worse.
We need to keep this in mind during the current presidential election campaign. If McCain were to be elected, he would be free to continue the Bush administration with impunity, because he, too, would have a vice-president that most sane Americans would view as even worse.

Chuck of OR 4:24PM September 11, 2008

Bill Clinton was Impeached because he wanted to be. He could have avoided it by simply settling the sexual harassment case. (He did settle that, but only after he put the nation through all this business.) This wasn't about a tacky relationship between on powerful, charming man in his fifties, at the peak of his career, having his way with a 22 year old, it was also about his lifetime of badly using women.
Don't pity the Clintons, they did it to themselves, and also to the rest of us.

CC of DC 4:02PM September 11, 2008