A L S O +T O D A Y Kenneth Starr has lost his credibility By Joe Conason and Murray Waas Legal experts raise questions about the prosecutor's apparent conflicts of interest T A B L E+T A L K NATO expansion: Nutty or necessary? You decide in the Politics area of Table Talk R E C E N T L Y The man behind the mask By Karen Rothmyer Shy, secretive and of regal bearing, Richard Mellon Scaife has worked hard and spent millions to dictate the nation's political agenda (04/07/98) Clinton's "Soviet connection" By Murray Waas GOP money man discussed digging up dirt on Clinton (04/07/98) A diminished view of manhood By Earl Ofari Hutchinson Reggie White's remarks that homosexuality is a sin reflects a widespread fear of gays in the black community (04/06/98) Republicans to Ken Starr: Ugh! By David Corn Now that Paula Jones has gone, all the Republicans have left against President Clinton is a 20-year-old land deal (04/03/98) Turning the tables on Starr By Murray Waas and Jonathan Broder Attorney General Janet Reno considers investigating key Whitewater witness David Hale (04/03/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		See some evil, hear some evil ... KENNETH STARR SAYS HIS ONLY CONCERN IS THE TRUTH. THEN WHY IS HE GIVING FREE PASSES TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIED AND BROKEN THE LAW? BY GENE LYONS LITTLE ROCK, Ark. --The impeachment drums heard along the Potomac have fallen quiet since Paula Jones' lawsuit against President Clinton was tossed out by a Republican judge last week. Still, independent counsel Kenneth Starr soldiers bravely on, wrapping himself in the mantle of Sgt. Joe Friday, vowing to get to the "facts" as they pertain to Whitewater, travelgate, filegate and Monica Lewinsky. And if there are doubts aplenty, even among Republicans, that Starr, after nearly four years of trying, will ever get there, there are no doubts among his supporters about the man's rectitude. The lead editorial in Sunday's New York Times, titled "Fairness for Ken Starr" again reminded us that Starr, for all his public relations mistakes, is the man to be trusted to get to the bottom of the Clinton scandals. His acolytes in the Washington press corps -- like Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio, who regards the independent counsel as her "friend and colleague" -- can scarcely enumerate his virtues: modest, studious, temperate, judicious, fair-minded and devout, a man of spotless integrity and matchless dedication to the rule of law. But to others, who have followed his $30 million march from the land tracts of Arkansas to the bookstores of Washington, D.C., Starr smacks more of Oliver Cromwell than Oliver Wendell Holmes. Not only have his moves had a distinctly political tinge, they may even be in violation of the rule of law. Let us look, for example, at the independent counsel's handling of four witnesses -- banking investigator L. Jean Lewis, Arkansas troopers Roger Perry and Larry Patterson and chief Whitewater witness David Hale. Thanks in large part to the assiduous efforts of Starr's pet reporters at the New York Times and the Washington Post, Starr's efforts to protect this odd quartet have escaped critical scrutiny. Yet persuasive evidence exists, on the public record, that all four have lied under oath for political or other self-serving motives. To expose them would be to expose Starr's clear indifference to the truth. David Hale. The "scandal" Starr was originally appointed to investigate essentially began in response to Hale's media-amplified charges that Clinton, when governor of Arkansas, "pressured" Hale to make a fraudulent $300,000 loan to James McDougal's wife, Susan, ostensibly for the benefit of the failing Whitewater land development. At the bank fraud trial of Jim and Susan McDougal and Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker in 1996, the president testified that he'd never had a substantive conversation with David Hale, anywhere, any time. Clinton's testimony stands unrefuted to this day. Assuming that Starr's prosecutors at that trial believed any of Hale's own testimony, they appear to be the only courtroom observers who did -- contrary to how the national press has assessed Hale's contribution to the case. Jurors unanimously told reporters they hadn't believed a word Hale said against the president, and believed he'd fabricated his claims against Clinton as part of a strategy to protect himself. To understand why they came to that conclusion, it helps to know how Hale got into trouble in the first place. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N E X T+P A G E+| The con man's web