| Printed from JudicialWatch.org Nov 20, 1998 |
Contact: Press Office 202-646-5172 |
Despite Temporary "Euphoria," Prosecutor's Testimony Shows He Is Not "Hands On" May Help Explain Lack of Results In Travelgate, Filegate, Hubbellgate, and Fostergate, As The Prosecutor Was Not Well-Served By A Staff That Is Neither Direct Nor Diligent Statement by Larry Klayman: Kenneth W. Starr does not deserve the personal attacks leveled against him and his religious beliefs. No one has defended him more -- not even Starr himself -- than Judicial Watch, who has hauled James Carville before court reporters to testify about his attempts to smear the prosecutor with information contained in files. But Judicial Watch cannot remain silent, when Starr and his staff have spent over $40 million of taxpayer money and come up with little more than a stained dress, and garden variety perjury, to show for it. Perjury and cover-up is generically present in every scandal; indeed it is the nature of scandal. Who would admit to committing crimes and risk certain incarceration? Why then focus only on Lewinsky? Notwithstanding his foundering in the Foster and Whitewater investigations -- self-evident facts known before yesterday -- is Starr's admission to the House Judiciary Committee that he never met Monica Lewinsky. Nor can he "remember" whether his staff ever questioned Mack McLarty, the White House Chief of Staff and close Clinton friend who oversaw the White House during the period FBI files were illegally obtained. We could go on, but only have one page for this press release. What emerged from the hearing yesterday was a picture of a prosecutor who sat in his office at Kirkland and Ellis, his private law firm, earning over $1 million dollars per year. Law firms do not pay for the privilege of being a partner, no more than the Riadys and others paid Webster Hubbell hundreds of thousands of dollars for the honor of being his friend. Starr obviously had to work on law firm matters to make these bucks. Hubbell was simply bribed. What appears to have happened is that Starr relied on his "government lawyers," to investigate and he stood by, allowing them to make a mess. The old adage,"It's good enough for government work," may be unfortunately true. In his legal brief, filed to try to stop the Linda Tripp deposition in Judicial Watch's Filegate lawsuit (Tripp has seen FBI files being misused in The White House), Starr's fellow prosecutor, Robert Bittman, told the Court that Tripp was not a material witness in the Filegate case. This is not true. In addition, he stated that Starr was proceeding with leads that would help Judicial Watch if the Court would just hold in abeyance the Tripp deposition. This is not true, as Starr has admittedly found nothing. Why would Bittman have lied to the Court? This, and Starr's lack of hands on control of his own investigations, need themselves to be looked into. For the cover-up of the Clinton scandals may not be limited to The White House. It may also have been furthered by an incompetent and less than candid independent counsel's office. | |