Kenneth Starr Failed!

OUTCRY's Editorial: Kenneth Starr Failed to make his case on November 18, 1998

Based on Kenneth Starr's opening statements to the Judiciary Committee on November 18, 1998, it was obvious he has already convicted President Clinton based on his personal opinion. He came to the Congress to convince the people to support his position. Therefore, his subsequent arguments delineated support for his assertions and his conclusion to impeachment President Clinton. Is this what Kenneth Starr was supposed to do as an investigator?

Serious problem with Kenneth Starr's report

There is a very serious problem with Kenneth Starr's presentation which might have eluded many people. While addressing the committee, he sounded like a prosecuting attorney presenting his case to the Supreme Court based on his position on an already decided case. As a result, he lost the presumption of the President's innocence and the objectivity of the independent counsel. Seemingly, Starr has been listening to the media too much and got confused about what he was supposed to do especially when he cited newspaper articles   as sources of his information.

The processes of investigating what the President allegedly did wrong is as important as the allegation itself. The President's rights must be protected, fairness strictly maintained and confidentiality retained. So far, the president has been stripped of all his civil rights throughout the processes of this investigation. The motive behind Kenneth Starr's objective is questionable looking at news leaks from his office and his relentless desire to press for impeachment. If a murderer has more rights than the President of the United States during a trial or an investigation, then the essence of the Constitution is questionable. Starr was not asked to address the the Judiciary Committee as a hostile witness or as a defense attorney -- he was supposed to present the result of his findings as an investigator.

I could not believe that a person who has been a judge could not tell the difference between an "investigator" and a "prosecutor." Kenneth Starr did not have a case against President Clinton, the Congress and the People have a case with the President if there is sufficient evidence presented by an investigator. Consequently, Kenneth Starr should not have assumed the position of a prosecutor by presenting arguments to support impeachment. His job is to present findings and the Congress will make the decision whether there are enough grounds for impeachment. When Starr took the seat of a prosecutor instead of an investigator in presenting his findings, the objectivity of his office is lost as an independent counsel. When people look hard for anything, they will find evidence to support their positions. If an independent counsel has made up his mind, he would go out looking for evidence to support his position. At that point he stops being an independent counsel and becomes a dependent counsel for prosecution.

Importance of the Independent Counsel

The Attorney General was removed from an investigation involving his boss by selecting an independent counsel to investigate a case. An independent counsel remains a neutral party to attain objectivity during the processes of the entire investigation and to preclude personal emotions or opinions, alliance with some special interests or any group of people from influencing his findings. Kenneth Starr's investigation seems to have lost his objectivity and the results of the findings are questionable if not suspicious.

A great disappointment!

Some errors made by Kenneth Starr could be understood if his intentions were neither hostile nor adversarial. But his intention to impeach the President of the United States was very evident from his presentation as he pressed so hard for impeachment. That's not his job as an independent counsel! If he has aligned himself with the Right Wing Extremists  -- he could have done a damage to the political conservatives.

The extremism of human obsession with dangerous ambitions sets a destiny for self destruction ... Victor Vidal

Sadly, the product of Kenneth Starr's investigation of President Clinton has been very disappointing indeed thinking about the cost to tax payers! A prosecutor makes an assumption of guilt to win a case while an investigator presents the list of findings and allow a different body to draw inference and conclusions. Starr mixed up the two positions.

Moreover, it is not a crime if the President invokes an executive privilege over any subpoena -- the law gives him that right. Kenneth Starr can not make a case for the obstruction of justice against the President for exercising his legal rights   under the law. If  a President is presumed guilty because he invokes executive privilege, then all the criminal defense attorneys should be thrown in jail for the obstruction of justice!

As a result of Kenneth Starr's grave errors, he put a big dent in the results of his investigation and opened his findings to many questions. America as a democratic nation will be better served if the entire investigations and hearings are dropped.

"This country has suffered enough, put an immediate end to this Clinton fiasco." -- Linda Finney, St. Louis MO (She echoes the voices of many people across the nation)

Editorial by 'Yinka Vidal