Media reports that Kenneth Starr opposed Donald Trump’s attack on the Clintons raise questions about his role as special prosecutor in the nineties.
Since the New York Times takes for granted that Kenneth Starr opposed Bill Clinton, this story treats Starr’s recent comments as surprising.
An unlikely voice recently bemoaned the decline of civility in presidential politics, warned that “deep anger” was fueling an “almost radical populism” and sang the praises of former President Bill Clinton — particularly his “redemptive” years of philanthropic work since leaving the White House.
The voice was that of Kenneth W. Starr, the former Whitewater independent counsel, whose Javert-like pursuit of Mr. Clinton in the 1990s helped bring a new intensity to partisan warfare and led to the impeachment of a president for only the second time in the nation’s history.
The New York Times and everyone else know that Starr is responding to Trump and his effective attacks on Hillary. The story characterizes Trump as trying to “relitigate” accusations that Trump dealt with.
But Mr. Starr expressed regret last week that so much of Mr. Clinton’s legacy remains viewed through the lens of what Mr. Starr demurely termed “the unpleasantness.”
His remarks seemed almost to absolve Mr. Clinton, if not to exonerate him.
Indeed, his worship of Bill Clinton seems to be unlimited. Starr insists that Clinton’s “I feel your pain” was authentic and that he was “the most gifted politician of the baby boomer generation.” Turning Clinton’s corrupt, money grabbing “foundation” as a virtuous act that balances his sexual adventurism is quite a trick.
Rather than be “surprised” by Starr’s words, perhaps we should revisit a 1999 NewsMax story by Christopher Ruddy: “Kenneth Starr – The Clintons’ Accomplice.”
Just how pitiful Starr’s “prosecution” has been was demonstrated this week when Webster Hubbell admitted to committing a felony by misleading federal investigators, and a misdemeanor by failing to pay taxes.
Any normal citizen would have been jailed and fined for such crimes. Not Webster Hubbell. Under Starr’s plea agreement, Hubbell will be on parole and serve no jail time. He won’t even pay any fine or restitution.
Worse, Webb Hubbell still doesn’t have to cooperate with Starr in his investigation of the Clintons. Hubbell continues to insist, “… I have no knowledge of any wrongdoing on behalf of the president or Mrs. Clinton.”
Starr’s failure to seek Hubbell’s cooperation — a basic condition of granting a plea agreement — violates the most fundamental procedures followed by federal prosecutors. But flouting procedure is nothing new for Starr.
In December of 1994, when Hubbell admitted to having bilked his clients at the Rose Law Firm and evading taxes, Starr purposefully botched the plea agreement by not demanding Hubbell’s cooperation. Starr’s actions so infuriated Starr’s own trial attorney, Russell Hardin, that Hardin resigned.
Hardin was incensed that Starr planned on signing a plea agreement without debriefing Hubbell as to what he knew and how he would cooperate — a mandatory procedure for any plea bargain.
Ruddy claimed that Kenneth Starr and Bill Clinton perpetuated a good cop/bad cop charade on the American people. His claim seems much more plausible now!
Ironically, Kenneth Starr is also in some kind of trouble at Baylor University for not doing anything about a reported rape.