Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David B. who wrote (16206)	6/16/1998 6:28:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 20981

The Independent Counsel Act is often described as too far-reaching. But Mr. Starr has demonstrated that even being armed with it is no guarantee of getting the truth from this Administration. From today's lead NYT editorial which dismisses Brill's shoddy "journalism" as just that: June 16, 1998 Mr. Starr Keeps Talking If the art of public relations were a handgun, Kenneth Starr would have been footless long ago. The independent counsel has a perverse gift for talking when he should remain silent and for saying all the wrong things when he opens his mouth. An interview in which he confessed to giving information to reporters is the latest of Mr. Starr's golden bloopers. The interviewer, Steven Brill of Brill's Content magazine, argues that Mr. Starr broke the law against disclosure of grand jury information, and the White House weighed in with its usual pitch for investigating Mr. Starr rather than President Clinton. In tracing coverage of the Monica Lewinsky story, Mr. Brill makes telling points about journalistic excess and Mr. Starr's clumsiness. But he also loads his legal argument against Mr. Starr and seems na‹ve about White House spin. There are, for example, Federal court decisions that support Mr. Starr's contention that he can discuss matters that do not come directly from grand jury testimony. In our interpretation, Justice Department rules do allow prosecutors latitude in talking about investigations and in defending against calculated attacks like those orchestrated by the White House. Mr. Brill documents Paul Begala's decision to hit Mr. Starr with a "food fight" over leaks and Lanny Davis's determination to divert attention from what the President's secretary said about Ms. Lewinsky's contacts with the White House by starting "a fight about the process and the prosecutor." Such tactics, of course, inhibit rather than promote the public interest. In that regard, Mr. Starr needs to produce his report to the House of Representatives and bring any appropriate indictments, and Mr. Clinton needs to countermand his lawyers' strategy of delay. Since one of those lawyers, David Kendall, has asked a Federal court to look into Mr. Starr's contacts with the press, the question of Mr. Starr's conduct is already before the proper forum. Judge Norma Holloway Johnson has jurisdiction to discipline Mr. Starr if he has broken the rules, or Mr. Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno can dismiss him. But the political situation remains fixed where it has been for some time. Mr. Clinton's leadership stature has declined steadily for definable reasons: deceptive or missing answers about his personal and campaign finances, his response and that of his associates to legal inquiries, his own abandonment of the plan to explain his mystifying dealings with Ms. Lewinsky. The Independent Counsel Act is often described as too far-reaching. But Mr. Starr has demonstrated that even being armed with it is no guarantee of getting the truth from this Administration. nytimes.com