Posted on 12/25/2019 3:52:59 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Former independent counsel Ken Starr joins Mark Levin on ‘Life, Liberty and Levin’ to discuss House Democrats’ precedent-shattering impeachment of President Trump
(Excerpt) Read more at videos.whatfinger.com ...
Worth watching....Thanks for posting...
Dare I say it, his team’s investigation of Vince Foster’s murder was a great object lesson too?
This guy has no business critiquing anyone else’s investigation, whether I agree with him or not.
If he had done his job, we would not be facing this crisis in our nation today.
One of both of the Clintons would have wound up in prison, and a whole lot of people with them.
Think the roots of the Deep State. Coulda nipped them off at the bud.
The husband and I watched Levin’s interview with Starr. I was quite impressed. Starr came off as witty and much more thoughtful and articulate than he does on Faux News commentary shots.
Brett Kavanaugh had a hand as Starr’s associate counsel in that one, too. It smacks of pay-off to me.
He did his job. The Starr report was shocking at the time and the RATs demanded his removal and claimed he was "overzealous" and blah blah blah.
The Senate didn't do THEIR job with the sham "impeachment trial" they conducted.
At least Starr had real facts, real documents, real physical evidence, to show that crimes had in fact happened and Bill Clinton committed them. No one can explain what crimes Trump committed or what the evidence is to show such crimes ever occurred. All of the Democrat’s evidence are admitted rumors, which are really carefully constructed lies so the people saying them can not get easily charged with perjury.
I suppose it could. Then again, perhaps it isn’t.
If you’ve worked with someone before, it’s only normal for them to be on your mind if someone asks you who you think favorably of.
Just about every appointment or job slot is handed off to someone another person has thought favorably of.
I’m not trying to say you’re categorically are wrong. I’m just saying sometimes innocent things can have a somewhat sinister interpretation too, even if not true.
If you’ll remember, almost 100% of the criticism Star received was prior to the conclusion of his report. They were trying to preemptively discredit him.
Afterwards they didn’t have much to say.
At least that’s the way I remember it.
He didn’t nail Clinton’s foot to the floor on anything > IMO.
As for the Senate, I don’t think they took it very serious.
There seems to be any desire to do an in-depth investigation of the top leaders of our nation. At least the Republicans don’t seem to lust after that.
As for the Democrats, they’ll investigate what type of toilet paper you used.
Yes, I didn’t mean to imply I consider it open-and-shut vis-à-vis BK. Rather, I consider it a strong possibility, which is not to say BK seems otherwise undeserving. I say that because certain strong evidence in the case was apparently ignored. Those with responsible eyes should have seemingly dealt with that evidence openly, not by ignoring it or covering it up.
Another conservative I know believes more strongly than I that BK came in line for the job because he “looked the other way” on the Foster case, but I haven’t seen that evidence, assuming it exists.
A good many of us think they looked the other way, particularly with Foster. There were problems all over the map on that one. Maggie Williams, Hillary’s chief of staff took things from Foster’s office on orders from the First Lady alone, and then moved to France until things cooled off.
Some folks had their heads firmly implanted...
As for BK, I can’t say for sure he wasn’t the recipient of a payoff via nomination. That is possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
