This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/us/politics/ken-starr-impeachment-trump-clinton.html
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Ken Starr Returns to the Impeachment Fray, This Time for the Defense | Ken Starr Returns to the Impeachment Fray, This Time for the Defense |
| (about 2 hours later) | |
| WASHINGTON — The last time a president was on trial, few were more responsible for putting him in the dock than Ken Starr. Now the former independent counsel whose investigation led to President Bill Clinton’s impeachment two decades ago will come to the defense of another president charged with high crimes and misdemeanors. | WASHINGTON — The last time a president was on trial, few were more responsible for putting him in the dock than Ken Starr. Now the former independent counsel whose investigation led to President Bill Clinton’s impeachment two decades ago will come to the defense of another president charged with high crimes and misdemeanors. |
| In adding Mr. Starr to his legal team, President Trump enlisted one of the best known and most polarizing lawyers in the country, someone who in recent months has become a regular defender of the president on Fox News. Mr. Starr will argue that while Mr. Clinton’s impeachment was legitimate, Mr. Trump’s was out of bounds. | In adding Mr. Starr to his legal team, President Trump enlisted one of the best known and most polarizing lawyers in the country, someone who in recent months has become a regular defender of the president on Fox News. Mr. Starr will argue that while Mr. Clinton’s impeachment was legitimate, Mr. Trump’s was out of bounds. |
| But Mr. Starr’s return to the public stage 21 years after Mr. Clinton’s trial was just the latest head-spinning turn in a saga that at times has echoed the dramatic battle of the late 1990s in oddly distorted ways. Many players from that impeachment are leading figures in this one, though on the other side. Democrats now make arguments often heard last time from Republicans and vice versa. | But Mr. Starr’s return to the public stage 21 years after Mr. Clinton’s trial was just the latest head-spinning turn in a saga that at times has echoed the dramatic battle of the late 1990s in oddly distorted ways. Many players from that impeachment are leading figures in this one, though on the other side. Democrats now make arguments often heard last time from Republicans and vice versa. |
| When Mr. Starr takes his place at the defense table on the Senate floor, his presence will almost guarantee that the battle over Mr. Trump’s impeachment in some ways will effectively replay the battle over Mr. Clinton’s. And every word Mr. Starr uttered and every position he took back then will be subject to new scrutiny by Mr. Trump’s adversaries, who will try to use them against the current presidential defendant. | |
| “The addition of Ken Starr to President Trump’s legal team for the impeachment trial is a shrewd move,” said Ken Gormley, the president of Duquesne University and the author of “The Death of American Virtue” about the struggle between Mr. Starr and Mr. Clinton. “Starr clearly brings with him abundant expertise,” knows many of the senators sitting as jurors and once worked with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who will be presiding. | “The addition of Ken Starr to President Trump’s legal team for the impeachment trial is a shrewd move,” said Ken Gormley, the president of Duquesne University and the author of “The Death of American Virtue” about the struggle between Mr. Starr and Mr. Clinton. “Starr clearly brings with him abundant expertise,” knows many of the senators sitting as jurors and once worked with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who will be presiding. |
| But Mr. Gormley added that Mr. Starr’s participation in the new Senate trial is sure to bring back memories of a divisive time that seemed to presage the red-state-versus-blue-state fracturing of the country that has become so pronounced in Mr. Trump’s era, a time when a low-key former judge became one of the biggest lightning rods of his generation. | But Mr. Gormley added that Mr. Starr’s participation in the new Senate trial is sure to bring back memories of a divisive time that seemed to presage the red-state-versus-blue-state fracturing of the country that has become so pronounced in Mr. Trump’s era, a time when a low-key former judge became one of the biggest lightning rods of his generation. |
| “Half the country loved him. The other half loathed him,” Mr. Gormley recalled. “Those deeply personal feelings will be revived, with more intensity, as Starr steps back onto the stage in the Trump trial, creating flashbacks and a sense of unfinished political combat for those who lived through those divisive and painful days in the late ’90s.” | “Half the country loved him. The other half loathed him,” Mr. Gormley recalled. “Those deeply personal feelings will be revived, with more intensity, as Starr steps back onto the stage in the Trump trial, creating flashbacks and a sense of unfinished political combat for those who lived through those divisive and painful days in the late ’90s.” |
| Even some of those who once worked for Mr. Starr wondered on Friday whether his selection would distract from Mr. Trump’s case by essentially relitigating Mr. Clinton’s. In his report to Congress, for instance, Mr. Starr argued that Mr. Clinton had committed an impeachable offense by unlawfully invoking executive privilege to try to block witness testimony and documents. One of the articles of impeachment passed by the House last month charged Mr. Trump with obstructing Congress by blocking testimony and refusing to turn over documents. | |
| “I do not see how this benefits President Trump,” said Paul Rosenzweig, who served as a lawyer in Mr. Starr’s investigation. “Throughout the Clinton impeachment, Judge Starr consistently opposed the invocation of executive privilege and called for all the witnesses to come forward. Trump will have a hard time squaring that historical record with his current conduct.” | “I do not see how this benefits President Trump,” said Paul Rosenzweig, who served as a lawyer in Mr. Starr’s investigation. “Throughout the Clinton impeachment, Judge Starr consistently opposed the invocation of executive privilege and called for all the witnesses to come forward. Trump will have a hard time squaring that historical record with his current conduct.” |
| Others said Mr. Starr would be best suited to explain the principled differences because of his experience. “Ken is an excellent choice to help the president,” said Robert J. Bittman, a former deputy. “Ken is one of the few lawyers who has extensively studied and experienced the precedents and nuances of the impeachment process. He will be a valuable resource to the president and the Senate.” | Others said Mr. Starr would be best suited to explain the principled differences because of his experience. “Ken is an excellent choice to help the president,” said Robert J. Bittman, a former deputy. “Ken is one of the few lawyers who has extensively studied and experienced the precedents and nuances of the impeachment process. He will be a valuable resource to the president and the Senate.” |
| For a time in the 1990s, Mr. Starr, 73, was a household name, the prosecutor pursuing Mr. Clinton first over the Whitewater land deal and then over the president’s efforts to thwart a sexual harassment lawsuit by covering up an affair with a White House intern. To his admirers, Mr. Starr was an upright pursuer of a lying, philandering president who had dishonored the Oval Office. To his critics, Mr. Starr was a moralistic, sex-obsessed Inspector Javert persecuting a president out of ideological animus. | For a time in the 1990s, Mr. Starr, 73, was a household name, the prosecutor pursuing Mr. Clinton first over the Whitewater land deal and then over the president’s efforts to thwart a sexual harassment lawsuit by covering up an affair with a White House intern. To his admirers, Mr. Starr was an upright pursuer of a lying, philandering president who had dishonored the Oval Office. To his critics, Mr. Starr was a moralistic, sex-obsessed Inspector Javert persecuting a president out of ideological animus. |
| Mr. Starr’s investigation confirmed that Mr. Clinton had a sexual relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky despite the president’s denials under oath and efforts to coach other potential witnesses to hide his indiscretions during a lawsuit brought by Paula Corbin Jones, a former Arkansas state worker who accused him of sexual harassment when he was governor. | Mr. Starr’s investigation confirmed that Mr. Clinton had a sexual relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky despite the president’s denials under oath and efforts to coach other potential witnesses to hide his indiscretions during a lawsuit brought by Paula Corbin Jones, a former Arkansas state worker who accused him of sexual harassment when he was governor. |
| Acting on Mr. Starr’s findings, the House impeached Mr. Clinton in December 1998, largely along party lines, but the Senate acquitted him in February 1999, concluding that the president’s wrongdoing did not justify removing him from office. Mr. Starr testified in the House but played no direct role in the Senate trial. | Acting on Mr. Starr’s findings, the House impeached Mr. Clinton in December 1998, largely along party lines, but the Senate acquitted him in February 1999, concluding that the president’s wrongdoing did not justify removing him from office. Mr. Starr testified in the House but played no direct role in the Senate trial. |
| Mr. Clinton was separately found in contempt of court and fined by a federal judge and later struck a deal with Mr. Starr’s successor in which the president admitted not telling the truth under oath, paid a fine and surrendered his law license. | Mr. Clinton was separately found in contempt of court and fined by a federal judge and later struck a deal with Mr. Starr’s successor in which the president admitted not telling the truth under oath, paid a fine and surrendered his law license. |
| Mr. Starr, who served as a federal appeals court judge and then as President George Bush’s solicitor general, was once a legal star among Republicans and seen as a possible Supreme Court justice. But his time as independent counsel made him politically radioactive. | Mr. Starr, who served as a federal appeals court judge and then as President George Bush’s solicitor general, was once a legal star among Republicans and seen as a possible Supreme Court justice. But his time as independent counsel made him politically radioactive. |
| He went on to serve as dean of the Pepperdine University Law School and as president of Baylor University but was demoted and later resigned from Baylor after an investigation found the university mishandled accusations of sexual assault against members of the football team. The investigators rebuked the university leadership, saying that it had “created a perception that football was above the rules.” | He went on to serve as dean of the Pepperdine University Law School and as president of Baylor University but was demoted and later resigned from Baylor after an investigation found the university mishandled accusations of sexual assault against members of the football team. The investigators rebuked the university leadership, saying that it had “created a perception that football was above the rules.” |
| Mr. Clinton’s circle remains as critical as ever. “Whether it was representing Big Tobacco, obsessing about President Clinton’s sex life or disgracing himself in the Baylor rape scandal, Ken Starr has always been on the wrong side of history, ethics, and common decency,” said Paul Begala, a former White House counselor to Mr. Clinton. “He is therefore the perfect lawyer for Donald Trump.” | Mr. Clinton’s circle remains as critical as ever. “Whether it was representing Big Tobacco, obsessing about President Clinton’s sex life or disgracing himself in the Baylor rape scandal, Ken Starr has always been on the wrong side of history, ethics, and common decency,” said Paul Begala, a former White House counselor to Mr. Clinton. “He is therefore the perfect lawyer for Donald Trump.” |
| In the past 18 months, Mr. Starr has sought to reshape his legacy, publishing a new memoir about his time as independent counsel called “Contempt” sharply criticizing Bill and Hillary Clinton. He also has become a regular commentator defending Mr. Trump against House Democrats seeking to impeach him for abuse of office and obstruction of Congress. | In the past 18 months, Mr. Starr has sought to reshape his legacy, publishing a new memoir about his time as independent counsel called “Contempt” sharply criticizing Bill and Hillary Clinton. He also has become a regular commentator defending Mr. Trump against House Democrats seeking to impeach him for abuse of office and obstruction of Congress. |
| Mr. Starr has distinguished between Mr. Clinton’s actions, which he called clear felonies, and Mr. Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to provide incriminating information about Democrats, which he called “woefully inadequate” justification for removal from office. | Mr. Starr has distinguished between Mr. Clinton’s actions, which he called clear felonies, and Mr. Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to provide incriminating information about Democrats, which he called “woefully inadequate” justification for removal from office. |
| “That is abuse of power,” Mr. Starr of the House vote to impeach Mr. Trump in December, speaking on Mark Levin’s Fox News show. “We are going to impeach him before he’s done anything. Excuse me, you are using your power in a very vicious way. Whatever you think of him — you don’t think well of him; you think ill of him — it is not your business to use power in such an unprincipled way. Again, shame on you.” | |
| His defense contrasted with previous moments when he seemed more critical of Mr. Trump. After Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, testified to the House about Mr. Trump’s Ukraine pressure campaign, Mr. Starr said it was “bombshell” testimony that would be cited by Democrats as evidence that “the president, in fact, committed the crime of bribery.” | |
| He said the testimony could prompt Republican senators to decide that “we need to make a trip down to the White House” to tell Mr. Trump to resign the way Republican lawmakers did with President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. He added he did not think that would happen but that Mr. Sondland’s account had “the potential to be a game-changer.” | He said the testimony could prompt Republican senators to decide that “we need to make a trip down to the White House” to tell Mr. Trump to resign the way Republican lawmakers did with President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. He added he did not think that would happen but that Mr. Sondland’s account had “the potential to be a game-changer.” |
| As the proceedings made their way to a final vote, however, Mr. Starr firmed up his position on the president’s side, condemning House Democrats for what he called an “anti-constitutional exercise of power” by impeaching Mr. Trump. | As the proceedings made their way to a final vote, however, Mr. Starr firmed up his position on the president’s side, condemning House Democrats for what he called an “anti-constitutional exercise of power” by impeaching Mr. Trump. |