Salon | Newsreal: Starr chamber

T A B L E+T A L K
Should prostitution be legalized? Join the debate in the Social Issues area of Table Talk

D A I L Y+Q U O T E
Book 'em, Kenneth -- we'll find a crime later

A L S O+T O D A Y
Prosecuting -- or persecuting? -- the prosecutors
By Jonathan Broder
Fierce opponents of Kenneth Starr are now taking the fight right into the independent counsel's own office

R E C E N T L Y
Finish the job? Not in our lifetime
By Jonathan Broder
The U.S. can't "go all the way" in Iraq because, beyond Saddam Hussein, there's nowhere to go. Besides, his neighbors need to keep him around
(02/23/98)
Uncle Sam regrets ...
By Dennis Bernstein
When U.S. officials warn of "regrettable civilian casualties" resulting from a renewed bombing of Iraq, they should talk to Rema al-Attar
(02/23/98)
Salon exclusive: The terror at home
By Jeff Stein
The arrest of two men in Las Vegas on charges of carrying stocks of the anthrax bacteria highlights how easy it is to make weapons of mass destruction
(02/20/98)
Bigger than the pope
By Andrew Jennings
When the Olympics president says, "Come unto me," the local Catholic priests say, "How fast?"
(02/19/98)
Not over the hill
By Eve Pell
While the TV cameras at Nagano focus on the young, athletes 40 and over -- including some in their 90s -- are a growing presence on tracks and fields everywhere
(02/18/98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

starr chamber________

The deep and twisted roots of Kenneth Starr's Clinton inquisition stretch back to the dark corners of the 1992 presidential campaign.

BY MOLLIE DICKENSON
Independent counsel Kenneth Starr's interminable investigation of President Clinton began as a political dirty trick cooked up in the George Bush White House in an 11th-hour attempt to defeat Clinton and win Bush's reelection. This political scheme involved generating a bogus criminal referral that charged the Clintons with financial crimes in the Whitewater affair, and then improperly using the power of the presidency to get the Department of Justice and the Resolution Trust Corporation to act on that referral. Subsequent criminal referrals naming the Clintons, which led to the appointment of a Whitewater independent counsel, were equally politically inspired.
This startling and complex story emerges from reporting, statements and sworn testimony produced by the Whitewater congressional committees, the significance of which has never been fully reported nor put into context. The facts clearly show that the investigation of Clinton, which has dragged on for over four years and has now culminated in the sordid Monica Lewinsky allegations, was from the very beginning politically motivated. They also show that Kenneth Starr's title of "independent" counsel is ludicrous. Starr, a Bush administration official and determined enemy of Clinton's, came into his office with the intent of undermining the Clinton presidency. Starr's political motivations have been widely commented upon. But completely overlooked has been his role in covering up the Bush administration's dirty tricks -- the very dirty tricks that gave rise to the endless investigation over which he now presides. The real scandal is how the nation's elite media have failed to explore the unsavory political underpinnings of the Whitewater investigation, swallowing unskeptically whatever Starr's office leaks to them.
Jan. 20 marked the fourth anniversary of the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate Bill and Hillary Clinton's 20-year-old investment in rural Arkansas property and other subsequent matters now known as "Whitewater." After four years of intensive investigations by Starr and his predecessor, the office of the independent counsel had brought no charges of illegality against the president or first lady. The very next day, however, Jan. 21, the Washington Post broke the story that Starr had evidence alleging that President Clinton might have committed or suborned perjury in his Jan. 17 testimony in the Paula Jones case. The country has been immersed in a media frenzy ever since.
To date, Whitewater independent counsels have spent $40 million of taxpayers' money. The Republican House and Senate have each held two lengthy and expensive sets of Whitewater hearings, one deliberately extended into June 1996. Throughout that campaign year, news media in Washington and New York were abuzz with rumors that at the very least, Hillary Clinton was going to be indicted. For what? For something, was the vague answer. And still, Starr made no charges of wrongdoing by the president or first lady. Indeed, once Clinton was re-elected Starr waited three months, announced his resignation and tried to slip quietly out of town, heading for an academic post at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif. "Hey, it was only politics," was the message. But he reversed himself days later when a media firestorm erupted.
Today we know that Starr became even more determined to dig something up on Clinton to justify his costly investigation. Now, as the possibility of a constitutional crisis looms, an examination of just how and where the charges against the Clintons began is imperative.
The evidence shows that Whitewater began with the Bush White House's attempt to use the federal bureaucracy against Clinton in the 1992 election, and included collusion with a Republican banking investigator at the Resolution Trust Corporation, the agency created to oversee the liquidation of failed S&Ls, with a deep enmity toward Clinton.
The evidence shows further that, since his first days as Whitewater independent counsel in 1994, Starr has been using his position to cover up the improper and possibly illegal actions of high Bush White House officials and Bush's attorney general against then-Gov. Clinton in the final weeks of the 1992 presidential campaign. By virtue of his office, Starr has been able to continue that coverup while relentlessly pursuing President Clinton ever since.
Through the unlimited power of his office, the former appointee of both the Reagan and Bush administrations has also been able to expand and add to his investigations. In an attempt to defeat Clinton in 1996, Starr withheld his report on Vincent Foster's suicide (something Foster's family had accepted on the day of his death) until after the election. He has continually delved into the daily operation of the Clinton White House and kept the Clintons under constant suspicion of having committed financial crimes. And now, finally, Starr is using his unchecked power to discredit Clinton once and for all in an audacious personal strike at the president.
Just as Starr used his office to cover up Republican wrongdoing in the 1992 presidential election, he has also taken steps to cover up the activities of the one person who knows how Starr came to insert himself into the Paula Jones suit against President Clinton. By immunizing informant Linda Tripp, Starr is protecting her both from prosecution and from the media. Starr also prevented Tripp from testifying under oath in the Jones trial, keeping her story and the true nature of her link to him hidden.
Hillary Clinton believes this vitriol is coming from the Republican right wing, but sworn testimony reveals that Starr's tactics are part of a much broader Republican political strategy for which Starr is the front man.
That a man with so many clear conflicts of interest was chosen to be independent counsel in the first place begs much closer scrutiny than Starr has heretofore been given. In the context of today's firestorm over Lewinsky, Tripp and Jones, it is important to remember just what Starr was doing at the moment he was given the job of independent counsel.
In July 1994, Starr was publicly opposing presidential immunity for Clinton in the Jones suit and was advising Jones' lawyers on that suit and writing a friend-of-the-court brief on Jones' behalf. At the same moment, Starr was also avidly seeking the job of Whitewater independent counsel. Just days later, on Aug. 5, a three-judge panel dominated by Republican appointees chose Starr to replace the widely respected Robert Fiske, who had been in the job since that January.
Last month, three and a half years later, Starr came full circle when he succeeded in marrying the Jones civil case to his alleged "sex scandal" investigation of Clinton by using the overreaching, apparently illegal tactic of secretly taping Lewinsky and bullying her to secretly record conversations with Clinton and Vernon Jordan. These tactics, which have been criticized by lawyers and the public alike, have hugely and notoriously expanded Starr's role as an unelected and unaccountable grand inquisitor of the president and Hillary Clinton. His continual subpoenas escalate the stakes daily.
Iran-contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh said recently on TV, "Kenneth Starr's injecting himself into Clinton's private (Jones) civil case is grossly unfair to the president." Walsh, a self-described "Reagan Republican," recently added in the New York Review of Books: "Ordinarily, prosecutors do not, as Starr is now doing, investigate perjury in a civil action while that action is pending. In 60 years of practice, I have never known this to happen ... Starr's somewhat sanctimonious pronouncement at his recent press conference that he was interested in 'truth' seems to reveal an overblown conception of his responsibility."
Yet, despite extensive coverage of Lewinsky, Tripp and Jones, very little attention is being given to Starr's background and motivation. Why did Starr so eagerly, according to friends, put his hand up for this job? And why was Fiske, also a Republican, replaced by this very partisan member of Bush's administration? Why did Starr then start all over, investigating things that Fiske had thoroughly probed?
These are disturbing questions, and the answers to them are far more disturbing.

N E X T+P A G E+| Trying to "alter history" by nailing Clinton

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ILLUSTRATION BY ZACH TRENHOLM

T A B L E+T A L K Should prostitution be legalized? Join the debate in the Social Issues area of Table Talk D A I L Y+Q U O T E Book 'em, Kenneth -- we'll find a crime later A L S O+T O D A Y Prosecuting -- or persecuting? -- the prosecutors By Jonathan Broder Fierce opponents of Kenneth Starr are now taking the fight right into the independent counsel's own office R E C E N T L Y Finish the job? Not in our lifetime By Jonathan Broder The U.S. can't "go all the way" in Iraq because, beyond Saddam Hussein, there's nowhere to go. Besides, his neighbors need to keep him around (02/23/98) Uncle Sam regrets ... By Dennis Bernstein When U.S. officials warn of "regrettable civilian casualties" resulting from a renewed bombing of Iraq, they should talk to Rema al-Attar (02/23/98) Salon exclusive: The terror at home By Jeff Stein The arrest of two men in Las Vegas on charges of carrying stocks of the anthrax bacteria highlights how easy it is to make weapons of mass destruction (02/20/98) Bigger than the pope By Andrew Jennings When the Olympics president says, "Come unto me," the local Catholic priests say, "How fast?" (02/19/98) Not over the hill By Eve Pell While the TV cameras at Nagano focus on the young, athletes 40 and over -- including some in their 90s -- are a growing presence on tracks and fields everywhere (02/18/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		starr chamber________ The deep and twisted roots of Kenneth Starr's Clinton inquisition stretch back to the dark corners of the 1992 presidential campaign. BY MOLLIE DICKENSON Independent counsel Kenneth Starr's interminable investigation of President Clinton began as a political dirty trick cooked up in the George Bush White House in an 11th-hour attempt to defeat Clinton and win Bush's reelection. This political scheme involved generating a bogus criminal referral that charged the Clintons with financial crimes in the Whitewater affair, and then improperly using the power of the presidency to get the Department of Justice and the Resolution Trust Corporation to act on that referral. Subsequent criminal referrals naming the Clintons, which led to the appointment of a Whitewater independent counsel, were equally politically inspired. This startling and complex story emerges from reporting, statements and sworn testimony produced by the Whitewater congressional committees, the significance of which has never been fully reported nor put into context. The facts clearly show that the investigation of Clinton, which has dragged on for over four years and has now culminated in the sordid Monica Lewinsky allegations, was from the very beginning politically motivated. They also show that Kenneth Starr's title of "independent" counsel is ludicrous. Starr, a Bush administration official and determined enemy of Clinton's, came into his office with the intent of undermining the Clinton presidency. Starr's political motivations have been widely commented upon. But completely overlooked has been his role in covering up the Bush administration's dirty tricks -- the very dirty tricks that gave rise to the endless investigation over which he now presides. The real scandal is how the nation's elite media have failed to explore the unsavory political underpinnings of the Whitewater investigation, swallowing unskeptically whatever Starr's office leaks to them. Jan. 20 marked the fourth anniversary of the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate Bill and Hillary Clinton's 20-year-old investment in rural Arkansas property and other subsequent matters now known as "Whitewater." After four years of intensive investigations by Starr and his predecessor, the office of the independent counsel had brought no charges of illegality against the president or first lady. The very next day, however, Jan. 21, the Washington Post broke the story that Starr had evidence alleging that President Clinton might have committed or suborned perjury in his Jan. 17 testimony in the Paula Jones case. The country has been immersed in a media frenzy ever since. To date, Whitewater independent counsels have spent $40 million of taxpayers' money. The Republican House and Senate have each held two lengthy and expensive sets of Whitewater hearings, one deliberately extended into June 1996. Throughout that campaign year, news media in Washington and New York were abuzz with rumors that at the very least, Hillary Clinton was going to be indicted. For what? For something, was the vague answer. And still, Starr made no charges of wrongdoing by the president or first lady. Indeed, once Clinton was re-elected Starr waited three months, announced his resignation and tried to slip quietly out of town, heading for an academic post at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif. "Hey, it was only politics," was the message. But he reversed himself days later when a media firestorm erupted. Today we know that Starr became even more determined to dig something up on Clinton to justify his costly investigation. Now, as the possibility of a constitutional crisis looms, an examination of just how and where the charges against the Clintons began is imperative. The evidence shows that Whitewater began with the Bush White House's attempt to use the federal bureaucracy against Clinton in the 1992 election, and included collusion with a Republican banking investigator at the Resolution Trust Corporation, the agency created to oversee the liquidation of failed S&Ls, with a deep enmity toward Clinton. The evidence shows further that, since his first days as Whitewater independent counsel in 1994, Starr has been using his position to cover up the improper and possibly illegal actions of high Bush White House officials and Bush's attorney general against then-Gov. Clinton in the final weeks of the 1992 presidential campaign. By virtue of his office, Starr has been able to continue that coverup while relentlessly pursuing President Clinton ever since. Through the unlimited power of his office, the former appointee of both the Reagan and Bush administrations has also been able to expand and add to his investigations. In an attempt to defeat Clinton in 1996, Starr withheld his report on Vincent Foster's suicide (something Foster's family had accepted on the day of his death) until after the election. He has continually delved into the daily operation of the Clinton White House and kept the Clintons under constant suspicion of having committed financial crimes. And now, finally, Starr is using his unchecked power to discredit Clinton once and for all in an audacious personal strike at the president. Just as Starr used his office to cover up Republican wrongdoing in the 1992 presidential election, he has also taken steps to cover up the activities of the one person who knows how Starr came to insert himself into the Paula Jones suit against President Clinton. By immunizing informant Linda Tripp, Starr is protecting her both from prosecution and from the media. Starr also prevented Tripp from testifying under oath in the Jones trial, keeping her story and the true nature of her link to him hidden. Hillary Clinton believes this vitriol is coming from the Republican right wing, but sworn testimony reveals that Starr's tactics are part of a much broader Republican political strategy for which Starr is the front man. That a man with so many clear conflicts of interest was chosen to be independent counsel in the first place begs much closer scrutiny than Starr has heretofore been given. In the context of today's firestorm over Lewinsky, Tripp and Jones, it is important to remember just what Starr was doing at the moment he was given the job of independent counsel. In July 1994, Starr was publicly opposing presidential immunity for Clinton in the Jones suit and was advising Jones' lawyers on that suit and writing a friend-of-the-court brief on Jones' behalf. At the same moment, Starr was also avidly seeking the job of Whitewater independent counsel. Just days later, on Aug. 5, a three-judge panel dominated by Republican appointees chose Starr to replace the widely respected Robert Fiske, who had been in the job since that January. Last month, three and a half years later, Starr came full circle when he succeeded in marrying the Jones civil case to his alleged "sex scandal" investigation of Clinton by using the overreaching, apparently illegal tactic of secretly taping Lewinsky and bullying her to secretly record conversations with Clinton and Vernon Jordan. These tactics, which have been criticized by lawyers and the public alike, have hugely and notoriously expanded Starr's role as an unelected and unaccountable grand inquisitor of the president and Hillary Clinton. His continual subpoenas escalate the stakes daily. Iran-contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh said recently on TV, "Kenneth Starr's injecting himself into Clinton's private (Jones) civil case is grossly unfair to the president." Walsh, a self-described "Reagan Republican," recently added in the New York Review of Books: "Ordinarily, prosecutors do not, as Starr is now doing, investigate perjury in a civil action while that action is pending. In 60 years of practice, I have never known this to happen ... Starr's somewhat sanctimonious pronouncement at his recent press conference that he was interested in 'truth' seems to reveal an overblown conception of his responsibility." Yet, despite extensive coverage of Lewinsky, Tripp and Jones, very little attention is being given to Starr's background and motivation. Why did Starr so eagerly, according to friends, put his hand up for this job? And why was Fiske, also a Republican, replaced by this very partisan member of Bush's administration? Why did Starr then start all over, investigating things that Fiske had thoroughly probed? These are disturbing questions, and the answers to them are far more disturbing. N E X T+P A G E+\| Trying to "alter history" by nailing Clinton - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ILLUSTRATION BY ZACH TRENHOLM