Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, November 19, 2008 03:18 PM

  nagging example

  I respect Eric Holder personally and professionally but the decision he made to authorize Ken Starr to investigate Monica Lewinsky showed either remarkably little thought or else remarkably little backbone.

  Starr had to get permission to widen his mandate beyond Whitewater, which as you may recall was going no where. In order to show that the Lewinsky issue was a natural outgrowth of the Whitewater case, Starr asserted to Holder that by showing Clinton was lying in the Lewinsky matter he could establish a pattern to support his contention that Clinton was also lying in the Whitewater case.

  By this standard, no investigation on any issue would ever be ruled out. By the time Holder approved this, Starr's behavior had already compromised his integrity as a neutral investigator. Why didn't Holder appoint a different counsel to handle this issue, either from DOJ or from outside.

  So I always ask myself, why did Holder let Starr assume this investigation. it. Did he actually believe there was a connection. Was he too busy to look for another independent counsel? Was he afraid to stand up to Starr? I don't know but this was a momentous decision that, with Clinton's avid assistance, sent his administration into a ditch.

  —crooked timber Read crooked timber's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel