In a new book out about his experiences leading an investigation into President Bill Clinton, his wife Hillary, and their involvement in a shady land deal back in their home state of Arkansas, infamous special prosecutor Ken Starr revealed for the first time that he seriously considered bringing perjury charges against the First Lady in 1995.
In “Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation,” Starr reveals that after Hillary Clinton gave investigators a “preposterous” set of facts during a deposition early in the case, he mulled over the idea of prosecuting her for the lies.
“I was upset over Mrs. Clinton’s performance, and was even considering bringing the matter before the Washington grand jury for possible indictment on perjury,” Starr writes, according to Fox News, which obtained an advance copy of the book.
The deposition in question took place in January 1995, only a few days into the president’s second term. The subject of the deposition was the controversial suicide of White House adviser Vince Foster and other issues related to the Whitewater deal.
Starr said President Clinton was his usual, evasive self – they didn’t call him Slick Willie for nothing – but that he was generally “pleasant as he avoided answering” the questions.
Hillary, on the other hand…
“In the space of three hours, she claimed, by our count, over a hundred times that she ‘did not recall’ or ‘did not remember,’” Starr writes. “This suggested outright mendacity. To be sure, human memory is notoriously fallible, but her strained performance struck us as preposterous.”
Of course, Mrs. Clinton knew what she was doing, as Starr concedes.
“Proving that someone knowingly lied when they said ‘I don’t recall’ or ‘I don’t remember’ is extremely difficult, especially if that person is the First Lady,” he writes. “What was clear was that Mrs. Clinton couldn’t be bothered to make it appear as if she were telling the truth.”
This all may seem like ancient history to some – particularly those who weren’t old enough during the 1990s to really grasp what was happening during that sordid period. But it’s instructive to look back for a couple of reasons: One, for a soft reminder that Hillary Clinton’s corruption did not suddenly appear out of nowhere in 2016. And two, for a moment of recollection of how the media treated THIS special counsel when the target in question was a Democrat. It was quite a different story, to be sure.