In article ,
Michelle Steiner wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
Nope. There were other more appropriate methods to take care of this.
I never saw any reason for a special prosecutor back to the days of
Nixon. That was a political expediency that took turns biting the
butt of whoever was in office at the time. I would argue that it
actually politicized the situation even worse than it would have been
What more appropriate ways that could withstand Nixon's stonewalling?
The system was cranking its way toward the final outcome even
without the special prosecutor.
The Republican congress formed the Starr Chamber (to invesigate
"Whitewater"; then they added "Fostergate", etc.), and every time they
got even a whiff of something they could try to nail Clinton with, they
passed it on to Starr. All of the original allegations were disproved
by him--in fact, the only thing he was able to get was the minor perjury
charge. Not all perjuries are equal.
No, actually the Star Chamber (cute little bit of PR BS by the way)
was constituted, by three federal judges per the statute. Changes in
direction, again per the statute, were approved by the same three
judges. Also, the GOP let the authorization act expire, but Clinton, to
what must have been his later chagrine lead the charge to re-authorize
the law, including the requirement of the involvement of the judges,
when he took office.
Oh, by the way, Starr wasn't a "special prosecutor"; he was an
Actually he was neither. They have all been officially independent
counselors, but the terms used in the press and most other places has
been "special prosecutor".
The presiding judge in the Paula Jones case cited him for civil
contempt, which is not a criminal judgement. The Arkansas bar suspended
him for five years.
I can't think of any major felonies that came out of ANY of the
ICs. Most were lying to investigators, tax evasion, can't get them on
anything else so we'll throw the kitchen sink at them charges.