• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Why did the impeachment trial fail? It’s simple.

Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, charged with investigating and
reporting to Congress on a series of serious, republic-threatening
charges against the president, chose to focus his efforts — for
whatever reason — on the Monica Lewinsky affair.

I’ll be charitable, for a moment, and assume he was merely an
incompetent prosecutor and investigator — the wrong man for the job.
After all, he had no experience in this area before being named to the
post by Attorney General Janet Reno. He was a judge, not a prosecutor.
Everyone who knows Starr says he is a decent man, but many of his
friends concede he does not have the stomach for a fight. He wants to be
liked. And he is deeply plugged into the Washington political
establishment — not the type of guy you would expect to light the fuse
of a potential political revolution, certainly not one that threatened
Democrats and Republicans.

So, Starr contained the damage. His first order of business was
whitewashing the mysterious and still-unexplained death of Vincent
Foster. That’s right: I said still unexplained.

Starr’s investigators were never able to answer the most fundamental
questions raised by his death: What happened to the bullet? What
happened to the autopsy x-rays? Why were Foster’s fingerprints not found
on the gun? Why do eyewitnesses insist Foster’s car was not in the Fort
Marcy parking lot after he was already supposed to be dead in the park?
Why are there conflicting accounts of the wound or wounds in the autopsy
report?

Starr had the power to get the answers. He could have exhumed the
body. He could have allowed his prosecutor on the case, Miquel
Rodriguez, to pursue a proper grand jury investigation. Instead, Starr
chose to accept the unacceptable conclusions of prior
politically-controlled probes by the U.S. Park Police and Special
Counsel Robert Fiske. He passed on the autopsy, and he fired Rodriguez.

Any hopes that Starr would be the man to bring justice to a corrupt
White House should have been dashed way back then. But there was so much
more scandal brewing, many observers believed Starr was merely looking
for the easiest and safest approach to nail President Clinton. After
all, there were more smoking guns — Travelgate, Filegate, the political
abuse of federal agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service, the
Chinese military and intelligence connections, campaign fund-raising
illegalities, hush money, intimidation of witnesses, etc.

Starr took a pass on all of them. Instead, late in his probe, he
shifted virtually all his resources to investigating the Lewinsky
matter.

But there was still plenty there. After all, even some of the
president’s staunchest defenders said publicly when the scandal first
broke that if the charges proved true, Clinton would be forced to resign
or be impeached.

Well, he didn’t resign, he was impeached, and the rest is history.
With the political trial now concluded in the Senate, Clinton has been
effectively inoculated against prosecution or accountability on the far
more serious charges never brought forward by Starr.

Where does that leave us? In a most dangerous position.

The Senate vote had not even been recorded yet, when Clinton’s inner
circle began spreading the word that there would be retribution. Sid
“Vicious” Blumenthal and James “the Hatchet” Carville would have their
day. Anyone who had crossed Clinton had better watch out.

It turns out Al Gore was right when he said there was “no controlling
legal authority.” If you have enough power in America, you are above the
law. That is the legacy of the Clinton administration. Unless. …

There are still two places the battle is raging: (1) The courts,
where Larry Klayman’s Judicial Watch,
Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation
and a handful of other freedom fighters
press on; and, (2) the court of public opinion, heretofore shaped
largely by the establishment press, but now being slowly awakened from
its slumber by the “new media,” with talk radio, the DrudgeReport
and WorldNetDaily very much in the vanguard.

Am I disappointed by the charade in the Senate? Yes. Am I frustrated
with Starr’s malfeasance? Yes. Am I worried about what this chapter of
history portends for the future of America? Yes. Do I believe Clinton
represents a clear and present danger to our freedom? Yes. Am I going to
give up? No.

It’s time for all Americans who believe in the promises of America,
the Constitution, individual rights, self-government, the rule of law
and limited powers to pick themselves up and prepare for the next
battle. Without doubt, it is coming — soon.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.