Ken Starr Tried to Defend Donald Trump Against the Russia Investigation and Ended Up Making Democrats' Point Instead

Screengrab via CNN/Twitter

Kenneth Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated former President Bill Clinton, said sitting presidents should be indictable during what initially began as a defense of President Donald Trump.

“Do you think a sitting president can be indicted?” CNN New Day co-anchor John Berman asked Starr during an interview earlier today.

“Yes, and I disagree with the Justice Department’s guidelines but it is the historic position of the department," Starr replied.

He added:

"I think that, plus first principles, no person is above the law, means that a president can be indicted. But that's not the Justice Department policy, and Bob Mueller, as you know, is an officer of the Justice Department and is therefore required to follow that policy. He cannot indict."

Starr's comments came even as he claimed that the president likely did not obstruct justice even as host Joe Lockhart pointed out that the president fired former FBI Director James Comey and later claimed that he had the Russia investigation in mind when he ordered Comey's termination.

"There may be in some narrow legal-eagle place where that is not obstruction of justice; to the rest of us it is obstruction of justice on the face of it," Lockhart said.

"But [Trump] didn't shut down the investigation," Starr said.

"What else do you need to see this is obstruction? What else do you want to see as a prosecutor here?" Lockhart asked."

Starr responded with the following:

"You need to see action that actually results in the investigation not being able to be carried forward. And Bob Mueller as we know has done a very thorough of carrying out the investigation...

I believe that is a very, very terrible intrusion into the authority of the president. Lets look for corruption, was there bribery or a sell out to a foreign power? And that sort of thing. But not just the exercise of his authority."

Starr's comments sparked significant discussion online as Congress––and the nation––waits for Robert Mueller, the special counsel overseeing the Russia probe, to wrap up a report that many hope should provide definitive answers about the extent of President Trump's involvement with Russian operatives who worked to subvert the democratic process during the 2016 presidential election. Many agreed that sitting presidents should be subject to criminal indictments.

The topic of whether a sitting president can be subject to a criminal indictment has been a contentious issue since Mueller's investigation began, but the issue gained further prominence last year after President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh, now an Associate Justice, to the Supreme Court.

Many have expressed outrage at the notion that a president under federal investigation could nominate someone with the potential to sway the court’s opinion in the event of an indictment.

To that end, it’s obvious why the president ultimately picked Kavanaugh, who, until he was accused of sexual assault and faced an uphill confirmation process, was perhaps best known for the leading role he played in drafting the Starr report, which advocated for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and whose views about when to impeach a president are likely to become contentious subjects during his Senate confirmation hearing.

Kavanaugh, for his part, has since expressed misgivings about the Starr report; in 2009, he wrote that Clinton should have been spared the investigation, saying that indicting a sitting president “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national-security crisis.” Writing in the Minnesota Law Review, he suggested that Congress should pass laws that would protect a president from civil and criminal lawsuits until they leave office. He added that there was always a way to remove a “bad-behaving or lawbreaking President.”

“If the president does something dastardly,” he wrote, “the impeachment process is available.”

Minnesota Law Review

Rumors circulated last week that Mueller's report would drop, but Mueller's process has so far remained secretive.

CNN video; Samuel Corum/Getty Images

With the world facing a viral pathogen with no vaccine or proven effective treatment, people are understandably on edge.

Hoping to give people a smile or a laugh, lawyer and fiscally conservative Republican—and Donald Trump adversary—George Conway decided to give folks the set up for an old joke with a new twist.

Keep reading... Show less
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Even the most powerful office on the planet requires a level of humility and a willingness to admit when something goes wrong. President Donald Trump didn't get that memo.

Whether it's on Obama, the "fake news media," traitorous Republicans, the impeachment "hoax," or anything within even the most laborious reach, Trump can always find some person or entity on whom to pass the blame.

Keep reading... Show less
Fox Business

After less than a year on the job and with zero White House press briefings to her name, Stephanie Grisham will step down as White House press secretary, returning to her work with First Lady Melania Trump as her Chief of Staff.

Stephanie Grisham is the third White House Press Secretary to step down during the administration of President Donald Trump.

Keep reading... Show less
Shannon Finney/Getty Images

Across the country, states have instituted stay-at-home orders in an effort to curb the spread of the highly contagious virus that's upended daily life in the United States.

Late last month, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers issued one of these orders, urging his constituents to only leave their houses for necessary errands, such as getting groceries or filling prescriptions.

There's just one problem: Wisconsin's elections are scheduled for April 7. In addition to the Presidential primaries, Wisconsinites will vote for judicial positions, school board seats, and thousands of other offices.

The Democratic and Republican National Committees took the case to the Supreme Court, with Democrats arguing that the deadline for mailing absentee ballots should be extended by a week, to April 13, in order to facilitate voting from home.

With a Wisconsin Supreme Court Seat up for grabs on Tuesday, Republicans predictably made the case for why as few people as possible should be permitted to vote. It was a continuation of Wisconsin GOP efforts to suppress the vote, which included rejecting a demand from Governor Evers to automatically mail an absentee ballot to every resident.

The Republican majority in United States Supreme Court sided with the RNC and the election in Wisconsin will carry on as scheduled. This is despite Wisconsin being unprepared for the surge in absentee ballot requests, which leapt from a typical 250,000 to over 1.2 million in reaction to the virus. Thousands of these voters won't even receive these ballots until after the election, thereby preventing them from exercising their right to vote.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a blistering dissent to the majority's decision, saying:

"Either [voters] will have to brave the polls, endangering their own and others' safety. Or they will lose their right to vote, through no fault of their own. That is a matter of utmost importance — to the constitutional rights of Wisconsin's citizens, the integrity of the State's election process, and in this most extraordinary time, the health of the Nation."

She was flabbergasted that her more conservative colleagues didn't think a global pandemic and national crisis was enough to justify emergency policies ensuring Wisconsinites their right to vote:

"The Court's suggestion that the current situation is not 'substantially different' from 'an ordinary
election' boggles the mind...Now, under this Court's order, tens of thousands of absentee voters, unlikely to receive their ballots in time to cast them, will be left quite literally without a vote."

A majority of the Supreme Court may not have agreed with Ginsburg, but the court of public opinion was fully on her side.

The Republican efforts indicated to some that the party cares more about maintaining control than preserving lives.

Large crowds are already gathering in Wisconsin to vote.

In a bit of devastating irony, the Supreme Court voted remotely when making its decision.

For more information about the tried and true tactic of GOP voter suppression, check out Uncounted, available here.

JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

Despite numerous cautions from medical experts—including those on his staff—President Donald Trump continues to tout hydroxychloroquine as a promising treatment for the virus that's brought daily life in the United States to a standstill.

The drug has undergone no clinical trials to scientifically test its efficacy on the virus, and the evidence on its behalf is anecdotal at best. One Fox News guest, Access Health International Chairman William Haseltine, called it a "quack cure."

Keep reading... Show less
Catherine Nance / Echoes Wire/Barcroft Media via Getty Images

President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, is back in the public eye after keeping a relatively low profile following the impeachment trial against his client.

Keep reading... Show less