Very objective analysis there, David. Serial felon? Because he wasn't totally cooperative with grand inquisitor Starr? How many convictions have there been for perjury in inadmissible testimony in a dismissed civil suit? Should I be waiting for Tom DeLay to send the FBI after me, having also said bad things about Ken Starr? I'm a participant in a conspiracy to obstruct justice!
Here's a little quote from a while back, before the videotape but after the factual and objective Starr report came out.
"I thought from day one, as I think today, that this was bad for the country," said one of Starr's defenders who now questions his tactics. "Sometimes you have to exercise prosecutorial discretion." Even though this defender of Starr said he believed the president was guilty of significant misconduct, he said, "the cost to the country far outweighs the value of proving it." (from
nytimes.com
This may well have been a House Republican, who still voted for hearings, who knows what Newt would do if somebody dared cross party lines. It's not even clear that Clinton could be found guilty of perjury, according to the only admitted lawyer to weigh in here. Doesn't matter, he's singlehandedly destroying Western Civilization. And the Republican party, with the righteous moralists at the helm, will make sure that can't happen. They're not going to be fooled by any Ronald Reagan style lip service anymore.
Oops, I forget, I'm a partisan hater, and people like you, using such judicious and Christian language as "No one can deny he's a lying sack of shit. No one can deny he is a serial felon.", are the objective, factual, and non-partisan observers. Just like any comparison with past investigations is a "historical dodge" while every piece of innuendo leaked to Drudge is something that will be looked into, again, by the House investigators. That Starr, among his other failings, was an incompetent investigator too. |
