| ||||||
|
Arts & Entertainment Books Comics Health & Body Media Mothers Who Think  NewsPeople Politics2000 Technology - Free Software Travel & Food  Columnists
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - Also Today For a full list of today's Salon News stories, go to the
News home page. - - - - - - - - - - - - Search Salon - - - - - - - - - - - - Salon Columnists - - - - - - - - - - - - Recently in Salon News Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Why won't Kenneth Starr release the Shaheen report? | page 1, 2
Even if the details of what Shaheen uncovered don't rise to criminal offenses, they may nevertheless be highly embarrassing to the investigation's subjects, including Starr himself. After all, at the time when these odd events occurred, Hale was a witness under the supervision of Starr's office. Moreover, according to sources quoted by the New York Daily News, "two former Starr staffers were referred [by Shaheen] to the Justice Department for a possible disciplinary probe." (That allegation elicited a "no comment" from Starr's office.) Why won't Starr release the full text of the Shaheen report? The press release offered no explanation. To date the only excuse available is that the report contains grand jury material. Staring at the five volumes of Lewinsky grand jury testimony and exhibits on my desk -- which bared the most salacious and intimate details of several people's lives -- I can only laugh at this sudden concern for the sanctity of the grand jury room. Redactions might be necessary, but suppression is suspicious. Joe Conason Joe Conason's column appears in Salon News every other Tuesday.
Two days after Starr put out his three-sentence version of the Shaheen report, the Washington Post published a very peculiar editorial about the controversy. Displaying not the slightest curiosity about the report's complete text, the editorial said that Shaheen "appears to have found nothing untoward with respect to Mr. Starr's handling of his witness"; that the report "appears to confirm backhandedly that Mr. Hale received some money"; and that Shaheen "appears to have concluded that Mr. Starr was not reckless in relying on Mr. Hale." Why should a newspaper with a crusading, aggressive self-image settle for what "appears to" be true, when there is a fact-filled document sitting in a public official's file cabinet? What happened to the spirit of Watergate, or even Whitewater? Would the Washington Post -- and the rest of the American media -- allow President Clinton to get away with what Starr has now done? Or would they be screaming bloody coverup and demanding the immediate release of the full text? The answer is perfectly obvious, and so is this: Starr should release the full text of the Shaheen report now, or else Congress should force him to do so. Until then, we will know no more about David Hale, the Arkansas Project and the Office of Independent Counsel than what Starr wants us to know -- and that appears to be very little indeed.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - Search Salon | |||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
