KAVANAUGH’S BOSS IN CLINTON PROBE, KEN STARR, COMES TO TOWN

Ken Starr, the smug and prissy Independent Counsel in the Clinton Investigation and Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh's former boss, has once again made a grab at the headlines with a memoir, “Contempt”, which details his four and half year investigation into Bill and Hillary Clinton. Starr, twenty years later, placed the blame on Clinton’s Attorney General, Janet Reno, for his going off at such a massive tangent from his original mandate to investigate an illicit land deal and alleged murder by the Clintons to Bill lying about a sexual affair. As Reno died in 2016 who can argue with him?  

Starr still believes that a President can be subpoenaed as  he did to both Clintons. He consequently asserts that President Trump should give evidence before the Mueller team. Significantly he believes that a President can be indicted. Starr’s position places him in stark opposition with his second in command in the Clintons’ investigation, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, whose  controversial nomination for the Supreme Court is in process. Kavanaugh has done a one hundred and eighty degree turn around on a President’s relationship to the law since the Clinton probe, now arguing that a POTUS should not be subpoenaed let alone be deposed or indicted. 

 Starr's reemergence is not to back up his colleague, although he supports his nomination. Rather he is on a journey to resusitate what is left of his own tattered reputation. One thing is for certain twenty years later is that the two zealots, who led the Clintons’ investigation, are a pair of self righteous sanctimonious hypocrites all be it for differing reasons. Their paths have diverged, one fired for ignoring sexual assault and the other a highly flawed, accused of sexual assault and unashamedly political Supreme Court nominee, who if appointed will never cast off the cloud that has bedevilled his nomination process.

Jay H. Ell will detail Starr’s previous efforts to regain prime time. His positions have altered to suit the times.

STARR WAS FRONT AND CENTER IN THE MEDIA IN THE 1990’S AND RELISHED IT

 Kenneth Starr dominated the political stage in the 1990’s to such an extent that he was elected Time’s Man of The Year for 1998.  His, for those with a long term memory, only claim to immortality was his eighty million dollar Independent Counsel investigation of the Clintons which resulted in the partisan impeachment of the POTUS 42. 

Everything about the Starr probe was an abomination from his appointment to his deliberately tricking Clinton in an unrelated deposition to the disgraceful third degree tactics he used to bully witnesses in attempt to “persuade” them to testify against Clinton. Former Appellate Chief Justice, Richard Posner, a highly respected judicial academic criticized Starr for his entrapment of Clinton which Posner claimed was “outside the accepted norm”. Posner added that the unecessary gratuitous sexual detail that went into in his report was plainly to embarrass the President. (For the record that sexual detail, which has been likened to ponography, in Starr’s referral was written by the coach of young girls, family man, Brett Kavanaugh). Posner opined further that the motive for this was because Starr detested the President. Posner concluded that, “We expect better from our prosecutors, They are not supposed to hate their quarry”.

 STARR ON CLINTON AND THE TRUMP PROBE (BEFORE THE BOOK).

Starr loves the limelight and has made attempts in the recent past to become relevant. In 2016, where he was invited to discuss the Reagan Presidency he was highly complimentary about Clinton. He stated that Clinton was the most gifted baby boomer politician, had remarkable gifts and a genuine empathy for human beings. Interestingly enough Starr’s belated tell all is entitled “Contempt” because he now argues that this is what Clinton had for the law and he has now painted a picture just the opposite of his talk in 2016, on "Presidents and the Constitution".

By reason of his past experience in such a rarefied field any pronouncement by a former Independent Council, in a similar investigation of a Presidency, should make news. The fact that Starr has been getting so little coverage is telling. Anyone who was involved in the Watergate legal proceedings is on every night on one or other network and asked to interpret. Starr who was the mover and shaker in the Clinton impeachment is rarely featured, even on Fox. The reason for him being ostracized is that it is common cause, that Starr’s appointment and investigation was a politically motivated affair, dare Jay H. Ell say "witch hunt" and bares no resemblance to the circumstances that precipitated the Nixon and Trump probes. 

Interventions iniatiated by Starr on the current probe include:

“Mr. President Cut It Out”. (Washington Post).

The first Starr intervention was in an opinion piece where he sort to protect Attorney General Sessions from Trump tweets. He cautioned that Trump’s actions were one of “…the most outrageous - and profoundly misguided - courses of presidential conduct I have witnessed in five decades in and around the nation’s capital. What you are doing is harmful and inimical to our foundational commitment as a free people to the rule of law”. Starr’s peroration was, “Mr. President, for the sake of the country, and for your own legacy, please listen…. by being faithful to the oath of office you took on Jan. 20 and by upholding the traditions of a nation of laws not men.” Not suprisingly his criticism of Trump has now become far far more mooted.

“Ken Starr  - We don’t want a fishing expedition”. (CNN}.

In a report on the CNN webpage entitled “Ken Starr killed irony”, Starr’s opinion on the current investigation by Bob Mueller was spelt out. The former Independent Counsel questioned whether the current Special Counsel might be overstepping the bounds of his mandate in investigating Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election - “I think the gravamen of the original complaints was, was there collusion. To the extent your’e moving beyond collusion with Russian operatives or Russian interests or the Russian government itself, and into that which doesn’t seem to have a direct tie to Russia, these questions are in fact raised”.

So on the one hand Starr states categorically that Trump’s behavior is far worse than Clinton or Nixon and tells the President to “cut it out”. He then, in spite of the fact that Mueller’s mandate, clarified by Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, to explore all matters related to Russian intrusion into the 2016 USA Presidential Election and any other subjects that might arise from the investigation, warns him not to go on a “fishing expedition”. Now Starr should recognize what a fishing expedition is as he conducted the mother and father of all fishing expeditions.

 STARR'S OWN MOTHER AND FATHER OF ALL FISHING EXPEDITIONS

It was Bill Clinton himself, in the teeth of persistent rumors that he and his wife had acted illegally in connection with what became known as The Whitewater Land Deal, asked his Attorney General to appoint an Independent Counsel to investigate the matter, as he had nothing to hide. Janet Reno appointed Counsellor Robert Fiske, a Republican, who expanded his probe to include the suicide of a Clinton staffer Vince Foster. The Clintons were being accused of murdering him to cover up their Whitewater scandal. 

Fiske completed his investigation and was about to submit his final report which exonerated the Clintons but needed his continuing appointment ratified by an Appeal Court of Judges appointed by Republicans. The latter refused as they claimed his nomination had been made by Democrat Janet Reno. They named Kenneth Starr. There were also several contemporaneous Congress investigations controlled by the Republicans all of whom could find no wrong doing on the part of the Clintons.

Starr started all over again. He subpoenaed both Clintons before a Grand Jury. He expanded the investigation to include a travel Investigation and improper collection of FBI files by the Clintons. He charged a succession of those involved in his ever widening inquiry. He had some jailed for offenses that had nothing to do with his mandate but that were uncovered during it. He also started looking into Clinton’s sex life by questioning State Troopers to that effect. (This it is alleged long before he learned about Lewinski).

He locked up those who refused to give evidence before his grand jury. One of those was an associate of the Clinton’s, Susan McDougal. She claimed that unless she said what Starr wanted her to say she would have been charged with perjury. Her assertion proved valid when a Kathleen Wiley alleged that Clinton propositioned and groped her. A colleague of Wiley’s, Julie Steele issued an affidavit that she was asked by Wiley to lie and corroborate Wiley's story about Clinton. Starr acting on Wiley's uncorroborated accusation, promptly charged Steele with perjury and obstruction of justice for her denial of Wiley’s claim. The case against Steele collapsed as Wiley was not found to be credible. Wiley had a history of fabrication and Steele charged Starr with prosecutorial misconduct. 

McDougal served an eighteen month sentence for refusing to testify to Starr’s grand jury. On her release from prison he sought to try her for a second time for refusing to appear before his grand jury. The jury refused to convict her sighting jury nullification. The latter is a very rare judgement used when the jury refuses to apply the law even though the defendant has broken it in the belief that the prosecution was ill conceived and or not constitutional or humane. There can be no bigger condemnation of a prosecutor than that.

With limitless money and time at his disposal Starr soldiered on his fishing expedition on steroids. He finally hit pay dirt when a Linda Tripp informed him that Clinton had an illicit affair with an intern Monica Lewinsky.  Special Counsel colluded with the lawyers representing Paula Jones who was suing the promiscuous Clinton for sexual harassment. On being questioned Clinton denied a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. 

Starr then presented a referral to the Republican Congress for impeachment on the basis of perjury. It should be noted that Clinton’s impeachment by the House was a a partisan event, unlike Nixon’s arraignment which was bipartisan.
Throughout the process his approval ratings improved and the then Republican Senate Leader, Trent Lott limited the Senate“trial” due to the negative publicity it was receiving. 

AND NOW THE BOOK

There are two principal themes of Starr's memoir, a detailing of all he did in four and half years and a berating of "contemptious" Clinton for demonizing him.  The former Independent Counsel also argues that Trump has taken a page out of Clinton's playbook. When challenged that Clinton did none of the attacking himself he is at a loss to  other than to state that Trump and Clinton are different personalities! Finally, he comes to the obvious conclusion that for impeachment you need a national consensus.

What is left hanging is as there was a "national consensus" not to impeach Clinton why on earth did he recommend it as well write a book justifying it? 

STARR AFTER CLINTON

 Starr in his post Clinton life went into the academic world. In his last position he was forced to resign as President of Baylor College as he failed to act on innumerable complaints of sexual assault and harassment by members of the Baylor football team. He apparently overlooked these crimes due to the importance of the football team.

Jay H. Ell has said again and again that the only positive outcome of Starr's abuse of power was that he could never be nominated as a Supreme Court Judge. Ironically it is the author of the pornography, the purveyor of filth, Brett Kavanaugh, in the Starr referral for Clinton's impeachment that is the controversial Trump pick. His selection largely because he has changed his position on Presidential subpoenas and indictment.

By way of a footnote Starr claimed that he takes all allegations of sexual assault seriously, (sic) but as Judge Kavanaugh's accuser had not, (at the time of interview), identified herself matters had to be left there. One wonders whether the Independent Prosecutor, himself fired for ignoring sexual assault and a recommender of impeachment for lying about a consensual affair will support an alleged liar about sexual assault now that the accuser has named herself? As the Republican support wobbles under this revelation it is anyone's guess what Starr will do.

One wonders too if Kavanaugh and Starr would agree that the lurid detailing of Trump’s sex life, which he has lied about, would be appropriate material for Mueller’s investigation. Would they back Mueller, if he found no obstruction of justice or “collusion” so he just subpoenaed Trump on his sex life and the recommended impeaching him for his lies?

What a fine pair they turned out to be. With a bit of luck Kavanaugh won’t become a Supreme Court Judge either.