Thought for the day
March 17, 1999
Today, in the trial of Susan McDougal, one of the former grand jurors was asked "Do you believe the grand jury was out to get Bill Clinton?" The juror replied, "No".
Later, under defense cross-examination, the same juror was asked if Starr informed them that some of the witnesses brought in to testify against the President, First Lady, and their friends had received payments from Starr's office. Gee, guess what? They didn't know about that either?
Was the jury made up of retards? Were they mentally defective or possibly on Starr's payroll also? Nah, I doubt it. But this case illustrates the danger of having an "independent" (Republican appointed and Scaiffe-Mellon beholden) prosecutor. Starr doesn't have to allow cross-examination in front of a grand jury. In fact, witness aren't even allowed an attorney. Then, if Starr doesn't like what they say, he can find them in contempt or threaten them with having their adoptions "examined" or any other torture his little inquisition could imagine.
During Starr's testimony to the House and Senate he was forced to admit under Democratic questioning, that President Clinton and his wife had been completely exonerated of all charges relating to Whitewater, Filegate, Travel-office firings, Vince Foster's suicide and everything else except receiving oral sex.
If Starr wasn't lying like a snake (under oath) to Congress, what sort of "justice" was Susan McDougal "obstructing" by not testifying in his little drumhead trial? Were you lying then Ken? Or are you lying now?