Then tell me why...
That's your opinion, which can be debated as nauseum.
All I was stating is that Starr has won a lot more cases than he has lost and those are the facts.
Here's a little fact to consider.
Starr allowed the Whitehouse to keep the FBI files for YEARS after he told the public it was illegal for the Whitehouse to have those files. He never said one word when the Whitehouse and FBI LIED that the files were returned. We only found out about this when Ray admitted it during a live interview on TV towards the end of Clinton's 8 years. So is Starr HONEST enough to trust? Could Starr perhaps be in the democRAT camp? Afterall, Starr was the #2 name on the list of people suggested by Clinton for Independent Counsel (after Fiske's). Do you think Clinton would put a name on such a list that he didn't have some measure of control over? Does someone have Starr's FBI file and might that file be used to influence his "performance" in this case?
In fact, wasn't Starr about to return to academia (that hotbed of liberalism) when Monica surfaced? But did Starr "discover" Monica, or did she surface because questions were finally be raised about Ron Brown's death several years earlier? Perhaps Clinton knew he needed a distraction that would keep the eyes off Brown while he straightened that matter out (with a few judicious bribes to black "leaders" like Jackson)? What better distraction than all the sorbid details of an affair with an intern? And surely he knew that even if the matter reached the Senate, his democRAT pals would never convict over a little thing like his sexual piccadillos and with the FBI files (that Starr let him keep) he could blackmail a few key Republicans (like Trent "your not dumping this garbage on us" Lott). Monica could be spun and controlled. But Brown, a MASS MURDER, could not. Are you sure we can trust Starr?