Kenneth Starr. Oh the irony

[VanceMack]

Yes yes... impeached for lying...about the sex scandal.

Impeached for lying while being deposed in a civil trial in which he stood accused of sexual harrassment of a democrat campaign staff worker. The douchebag you rush to defend was jerking himself off in front of her and asked her to 'kiss it'. She wasnt one of his numerous affairs. She filed a civil suit. During the deposition he lied when asked questions that would defeat his credibility. He lied about the Lewinsky affair. He is on tape trying to convince Jennifer Flowers to also perjure herself...another crime. During the trial the allegations of raping a woman at a nursing home resurfaced, as did the allegations of sexual harassment in which he is accused of pinning a woman in a doorway and groping her...on the day of her hu8sbands funeral.

Funny how steadfast people like you are and have been in ignoring the facts in that whole event. Women matter...rape victims matter...unless they are brutally sexually assaulted by a democrat.

Frankly...as long as Hillary is in the race I hope people like you keep bringing this up. It makes her and you both look like ****...but by all means...you should absolutely continue.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

1. Starr was appointed to replace someone who was already investigating Whitewater
2. Starr found evidence of perjury prior to Lewinsky, regarding Clintons testimony about Whitewater
3. Starr didnt have anyone impeached. He investigated and reported his recommendations to the House
4. That he failed to find anything substantial early, when we all know now what was happening, means that either he was incompetent or Clinton was clever. We know Clinton lied straight to our faces on television, so Im guessing its more the latter

At least get the facts right.

Why? It doesn't fit his agenda.

 

[sangha]

Good for Baylor doing the right thing

Baylor didn't do the right thing. Baylor illegally recruited players with a history of sexual assault by paying them to play for Baylor, hid that fact, and when they continued to sexually assault its' students, they attacked the victims and protected the criminals

Now that it's out in the open (a situation they tried desperately to prevent), they refuse to fire Ken Starr and instead have only demoted him.

 

[sangha]

I am not nipping at your heels nor was my response "idiotic"- it addressed your question. You expressed disbelief that Starr's investigation trailed from whitewater to Lewinsky.

She asked you a question, and when she didn't like the answer she accuses you of "nipping" at her heels.

Typical tres drama-queening

 

[jonny5]

You might want to go back and review the history of the smears. They didn't find out anything was "actually worse". Every single stated reason for the Benghazi investigation was shot down, EXCEPT it turned out that the initial assessment by the CIA that there was a spontaneous protest (as there was in about 19 other cities) was wrong.

it was ugly political theatre, pure and simple.

I did. We know now that things are much worse than we thought when the investigation started. People died because the govt was incompetent and politically motivated. We are still learning new things because the govt continues to hide information. Same with Hillarys emails.

 

[truthatallcost]

which is why each case should be looked into.
that wasn't happening here and I am 100% yes means yes or whatever you want to call it.

a lot of these kids that this happens too though are suing the colleges and winning due to lack of
due process.

what happened here though is that the complaints were not investigated properly or were
summarily dismissed simply because it was the football team.

What about the Duke Lacrosse team? They were wrongfully accused of rape, largely condemned before trial, black leaders threatened riots if those accused were not charged, jailed and convicted.
Then their accuser admitted lying, and targeting them for financial extortion. These kinds of incidences are more common than we know, as women have been told that they can concoct false allegations for money or revenge.

 

[ludin]

What about the Duke Lacrosse team? They were wrongfully accused of rape, largely condemned before trial, black leaders threatened riots if those accused were not charged, jailed and convicted.
Then their accuser admitted lying, and targeting them for financial extortion. These kinds of incidences are more common than we know, as women have been told that they can concoct false allegations for money or revenge.

this has nothing to do with what I posted. have a nice day.

 

[truthatallcost]

this has nothing to do with what I posted. have a nice day.

How do you know that Starr wasn't dismissing frivolous accusations?

 

[ludin]

How do you know that Starr wasn't dismissing frivolous accusations?

if you don't know what the topic is about or what is being discussed or why he got demoted he should have been fired. then why are you asking questions?
I guess you didn't read what the independent law firm said.

 

[Mr Person]

I did. We know now that things are much worse than we thought when the investigation started. People died because the govt was incompetent and politically motivated. We are still learning new things because the govt continues to hide information. Same with Hillarys emails.

Did they? We know there was a request for more security, but how does it stack up with other requests for security that were denied and that were granted? They're not going to send more people over simply because there was a request. It needs to be a reasonable request. Plus, is the SoS personally responsible for reviewing each such request? Or is this something that typically gets decided on well below SoS, and therefore is unfair to Bash Hillary with (nevermind that it's not what she's really being bashed with)?

And if this wasn't just a politically motivated hack job, why was so much a bigger deal made out of 4 deaths under Hillary in consulate attacks than other under presidents? For example, under Bush there were THIRTEEN attacks, which caused SIXTY deaths?


I don't think any of what you're saying changes my overall point, which is that these investigations all started as political hack jobs. The only reason not everybody admits that is because they uncovered something that persons on one side can use to attack someone on the other side....but that which was uncovered had nothing to do with the stated purpose of the sham investigation.

 

[Mr Person]

Maybe I don't understand the point then. Starr was appointed by 3 DC Circuit Court judges to investigate Whitewater and it went from there. If Clinton had not lied under oath during his deposition, then the political opponents he had in Congress wouldn't have had a reason to impeach him. That was all on Clinton - not Starr. The sitting US President shouldn't lie under oath. I know it's been popular for the last 20 years to go after Starr, but he did what he was appointed to do.

And I'm unclear what any of that has to do with the football coach at Baylor not handling allegations of sexual assault properly, and Starr being President not handling it the way others wanted it handled. That seems to be happening a lot at colleges these days, and the Presidents are taking the heat for it. I struggle to connect what happened that involved Clinton with what happened at Baylor recently.

The point is in the disconnect between the first two sentences in your post and the rest. How does someone appointed to investigate Whitewater end up confronting the President about a blowjob?

Was Starr simply confused about "Whitewater" was supposed to mean?



Or was it, as I alleged, a political hack job in which the Republicans lucked out when Clinton lied in response to questions that had no business being asked? Again, I fully recognize that it is a crime to lie under oath. What I question is why the **** that particular set of questions were being pursued given that this was supposed to be about shenanigans surrounding a land deal (which did NOT result in charges to the Clintons)

 

[tres borrachos]

The point is in the disconnect between the first two sentences in your post and the rest. How does someone appointed to investigate Whitewater end up confronting the President about a blowjob?

Was Starr simply confused about "Whitewater" was supposed to mean?



Or was it, as I alleged, a political hack job in which the Republicans lucked out when Clinton lied in response to questions that had no business being asked? Again, I fully recognize that it is a crime to lie under oath. What I question is why the **** that particular set of questions were being pursued given that this was supposed to be about shenanigans surrounding a land deal (which did NOT result in charges to the Clintons)

Did you miss the part about Starr being tasked with investigating the sexual harassment charges filed against Clinton by Paula Jones? A judge allowed discovery to proceed in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Named as a witness by Jones' lawyers was a woman named Monica Lewinsky. When Clinton was deposed by the Jones lawyers, he denied having a relationship with Lewinsky. That's how he ended up in front of a Grand Jury. Janet Reno authorized the expansion of the investigation to include his relationship with Lewinsky.

Knowing the facts and the history of the case will answer the question "Was Starr simply confused about Whitewater was supposed to mean?". That's how someone appointed to investigate Whitewater ended up confronting the President about a blowjob.

 

[jonny5]

Did they? We know there was a request for more security, but how does it stack up with other requests for security that were denied and that were granted? They're not going to send more people over simply because there was a request. It needs to be a reasonable request. Plus, is the SoS personally responsible for reviewing each such request? Or is this something that typically gets decided on well below SoS, and therefore is unfair to Bash Hillary with (nevermind that it's not what she's really being bashed with)?

And if this wasn't just a politically motivated hack job, why was so much a bigger deal made out of 4 deaths under Hillary in consulate attacks than other under presidents? For example, under Bush there were THIRTEEN attacks, which caused SIXTY deaths?


I don't think any of what you're saying changes my overall point, which is that these investigations all started as political hack jobs. The only reason not everybody admits that is because they uncovered something that persons on one side can use to attack someone on the other side....but that which was uncovered had nothing to do with the stated purpose of the sham investigation.

Thats what I said. Starts off as political hack job, and uncovers actual corruption and incompetence.

 

[sangha]

Did you miss the part about Starr being tasked with investigating the sexual harassment charges filed against Clinton by Paula Jones?

Knowing the facts and the history of the case will answer the question "Was Starr simply confused about Whitewater was supposed to mean?". That's how someone appointed to investigate Whitewater ended up confronting the President about a blowjob.

Starr was "tasked with" investigating a blow job because he *asked* to be "tasked" with it. Ironic and hypocritical that a man who espoused christian family values and enthusiastically pursued a sexual harrassment investigation is now being brought down because he not only ignored sexual assaults at an institution he was in charge of, but also was the primary advocate for bringing these rapists onto his campus and did nothing while his subordinates attacked the victims these sexual predators

When the sexual misbehavior happened in a White House occupied by a political opponent, he was eager to pursue an investigation and prosecution. When it happened on *his* turf, he ignored the crimes which allowed his subordinates to attack the victims and allowed the perverted criminals he recruited to commit more crimes.