WaxWorks
|
Monday, February 13, 2006
Irony Alert
Ken Starr has been representing a death row inmate in a high-profile case. Well, news reports have shown that it's highly likely that Starr suborned perjury from people in declarations he submitted in support of his filings. But due to the fact that that case only involves a man's life and does not involve sex in any way, it's unlikely that the right-wing will get too worked up about it.
Reminds me of what ended up happening in the Kathleen Willey/Julie Hiatt Steele case, prosecuted and investigated by Starr. Willey, as you probably recall, had made allegations that Clinton had acted improperly towards her, and Starr, by some ridiculous finagling, had gotten that case included within his jurisdiction. Steele initially supported Willey's allegations, but later recanted, saying that Willey had pressured her to support the allegations. Starr then prosecuted Steele for lying to investigators, based on her recanting, since Starr believed Willey over her. (Which, interestingly, is precisely why Susan McDougal was so afraid to testify before Starr's grand jury, since she thought he would prosecute her for perjury if she testified truthfully and didn't support her husband's story.)
However, it then came out that Willey had lied under oath to Starr's investigators about an affair she had. Just like a certain person named B.C. So Starr must have prosecuted her like crazy, right? Nope. He granted her immunity. You lied about sex? No problem. You're not Bill Clinton.
Comments:
Post a Comment
