All that money and time and Starr still couldn't find anything of substance. What do you think Fitzpatrick could have found if he had pursued the outing of Valerie Plame with the same zealousness as Starr did with his investigation of Clinton? Theoretically speaking, of course.
2007-06-06 09:17:48 · 9 answers · asked by El Duderino 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Fitzgerald - my bad. Very tired today.
2007-06-06 09:21:07 · update #1
Starr spent $42 million and came up with a soiled dress that had nothing to do with Whitewater. The Fitzgerald investigation cost $1.5 million.
2007-06-06 09:22:16 · answer #1 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
First, Starr didn't "go after" Clinton, per se. He was hired as independent counsel by the Justice Department to investigate claims against the president, at the behest of Congress.
There was a judicial board that approved him to do each investigation.
There were quite a number of convictions of Clinton friends, and there was, of course, the impeachment of Clinton for his lawbreaking.
Just because Starr was a better investigator and prosecutor than Fitzgerald should not be held against him.
2007-06-06 16:30:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because Ken Starr is a radical republican who wanted to get Clinton. Fitzpatrick is a Republican not a Democrat who said he would investigate this professionally without political prejudice
2007-06-06 16:22:27 · answer #3 · answered by crossingover 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
So fifteen people were convicted and sent to prison because Starr didn't "find anything of substance"? Geez, I'd hate to see what would have happened if he'd actually found something.
2007-06-06 16:23:10 · answer #4 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
um, starr found quite a lot. the differenece between libby and clinton is that clinton has openly conceded that he lied whereas libby still holds that he cant remember a 3yr old conversation. and clinton actually lied about thigs that were criminal - libby, even if he did lie, wouldnt have been covering up any wrong doings.
i just wish he would have went after the white water scandals instead - then clinton really would have been up a creek and we wouldnt be worrying about hillary.
2007-06-06 16:22:01 · answer #5 · answered by kujigafy 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
How do you know Fitzpatrick didn't spend as much time and money as Starr? What evidence do you have to suggest this is the case? Without such evidence, the rest of your question is moot.
2007-06-06 16:20:18 · answer #6 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Because Ken Starr actually had a legitimate case against a sitting President.
2007-06-06 16:24:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
because he already knew it was Armitage that told Novak and it was a dead end.
2007-06-06 17:01:47 · answer #8 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clintons are corrupt and liars, like most liberals.
2007-06-06 16:20:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 7⤋