Suddenly, Starr's Their Man!
carolyn By Carolyn Gargaro
Rightgrrl Co-Founder
March 12, 1999
"Ken Starr looked into Broaddrick's rape charges during the Lewinsky investigation and found her allegations 'inconclusive'. Thus, since Ken Starr found her claims to be inconclusive, her claim isn't valid. So there."

This is the sentiment I have heard from numerous people, and one I find extremely interesting since these are often the same people who have blasted everything else Ken Starr did during his investigation, and chalked his actions up to those of a "sex obsessed investigator."

I find this attitude highly hypocritical.

Everything Ken Starr did has was wrong and partisan in these people's eyes until he does something that would benefit Clinton. How interesting! If Ken Starr was so sex obsessed than why did he not investigate Broaddrick's charges further and include them in the impeachment referral? It is very telling when these people bash Ken Starr left right and center, but are then suddenly willing to discount Broaddrick's claim because KEN STARR didn't add it to the referral! Can't they see the hypocrisy in their own logic?

The spin has been that Ken Starr was an out-of-control prosecutor who wanted to peek into everybody's sex life (we'll just ignore the perjury and obstruction of justice part). In actuality, Starr doesn't have the temperament of a prosecutor, probably because he never prosecuted a case before being assigned as the Independent Counsel. Starr tends to follow leads he has been given, and is far from the aggressive monster people paint him to be. In fact, some people have even claimed that he isn't aggressive enough! In any case, I accept that Ken Starr did not include that information. I stand by his decision like I have his others - I am not going to suddenly deem him incompetent because he did something that would be of benefit to Clinton.

Despite what many claim, I do not and did not stand by Starr just because he was "after the President." Starr is an expert in Constitutional law and one of the most respected in his field - respected until he was labeled as a "partisan investigator" by the White House and others.

Yes, because Broaddrick first lied in the affidavit and because the allegations are 21 years old, and most importantly, because what she told investigators did not relate to perjury and obstruction of justice, Starr did investigate her story further. That does not mean that Broaddrick's story is not credible in general. It merely means that it was not relevant to Starr's investigation.

To all those who claim that Starr is a "sex obsessed investigator", do you have an explanation as to why this "sex obsessed investigator" did not press Broaddrick further? Why do you suddenly find him credible when he makes a judgement that favors Clinton? So credible, in fact that you are willing to discount a very believable allegation by one of the many women who have asserted that Clinton has abused them in one way or another? Or are people just willing to throw rational thought to the wind if it means defending Bill Clinton?

This article copyright © 1999 by Carolyn Gargaro and may not be reproduced in any form without the express written consent of its author. All rights reserved.