Seven years ago, Ken Starr prepared a lurid report for Congress detailing
his case against Bill Clinton. At first blush, it wouldn't appear to have any
relevance to the Plame scandal affecting the Bush White House, but I was
reviewing the Starr report recently and something jumped out at me.

After he laid out the "narrative" of Clinton's alleged transgressions,
Starr wrote a section he called "Grounds."

In it, Starr details what he described as "acts that may constitute grounds for
an impeachment." There were 11 in all, most of which dealt with Clinton's grand
jury testimony and remarks during a deposition in Paula Jones' civil suit. But
the last of the grounds for impeachment went
a little further.

* Beginning on January 21, 1998, the President misled the American people
and Congress regarding the truth of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
[…]

The President himself spoke publicly about the matter several times in the
initial days after the story broke. On January 26, the President was definitive:
"I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm
going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss
Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never. These
allegations are false."

The President's emphatic denial to the American people was false. And his
statement was not an impromptu comment in the heat of a press conference. To the
contrary, it was an intentional and calculated falsehood to deceive the Congress
and the American people.

Remember, when Clinton made those remarks, he wasn't under oath; he was
answering a reporter's question. For Starr, it didn't matter. Here was a
constitutional officer lying to the country, on national television, about a
subject that was under a federal investigation. Starr said this was, quite
literally, an impeachable offense.

With this in mind, if there was evidence that a constitutional officer in
the current White House had lied to the country, on national television, about a
subject that was under a federal investigation, under the Starr standard, it too
would constitute an impeachable offense.

Well, it just so happens….In particular, I'm thinking about Dick Cheney, who claimed on Meet the Press in 2003:

"I don't know Joe Wilson. I've never met Joe Wilson. A question had arisen.
I'd heard a report that the Iraqis had been trying to acquire uranium in Africa,
Niger in particular. I get a daily brief on my own each day before I meet with
the president to go through the intel. And I ask lots of question. One of the
questions I asked at that particular time about this, I said, 'What do we know
about this?' They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said,
'This is all we know. There's a lot we don't know,' end of statement. And Joe
Wilson — I don't who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever
saw when he came back."

Patrick Fitzgerald's indictment against Scooter Libby highlights just how
little of what Cheney said was true. Despite his denials, Cheney requested and
received a briefing on Wilson's trip to Niger from the CIA.

Cheney also told Libby about Plame working at the CIA and may
have advised Libby on how to deal with questions about Wilson during a July
12, 2003, plane trip on Air Force Two.

Am I saying that Cheney's intentional and calculated falsehoods on Meet the
Press are grounds for impeachment? No, I'm saying that they're grounds for
impeachment using Ken Starr's standards.

Is Cheney a constitutional officer? Yes. Did he lie to the country? Yes. On
national television? Yes. About a subject that was under a federal investigation
at the time? Yes.

Don't blame me; Ken Starr is the one who created the standard. I'm just
wondering if it only applies to Democrats.