'If. F******. Only': Monica Lewinsky Imagines Life if Ken Starr's Report Got Mueller Treatment

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

On Monday, Monica Lewinsky weighed in on Attorney General William Barr’s summary of Robert Mueller's report into alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump presidential campaign.

Sharing a tweet that envisaged the similar communication of a 1990s report detailing the sexual activity between President Bill Clinton and the former White House intern, Lewinsky commented: "If. f******. only."

The tweet that spurred the reaction came from University of Southern California Gould School of Law professor Orin Kerr, who wrote on Monday: “Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.”

From 1994 to 1998, independent counsel Kenneth Starr investigated alleged abuses including the dismissal of seven Travel Office employees and conduct relating to former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones's sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/if-f-only-monica-lewinsky-imagines-life-if-ken-starrs-report-got-mueller-treatment/ar-BBVi3dZ?li=BBnbcA1

[at140]

1. I think Starr operated under different statute

Than Mueller. From what I understand, Mueller was working under Special Counsel statute which has more restrictions than the Independent Counsel statute of old which is what Starr was.

[UniteFightBack]

2. #ReleaseTheReport nt

[PandoraAwakened]

3. Clearly, we need a different system

So now that we have historical evidence of how the "rules" of both types of investigations can and have been abused, how friggin' hard can it be for Congress to just come up with a bullet-proof process going forward?

I mean for Christ's sake, it's 2019. We have computers that can actually run risk aversion analysis on any conceivable process you might anticipate deployment of, identifying potential outcomes that could subvert the process.

At the risk of sounding ageist, this is why a big chunk of Congress needs to be overhauled and replaced with younger legislators whose grasp of technology isn't limited to "how to open email, but still ignorant enough to be phished."

[PandoraAwakened]

4. LOL

I just realized I said "bullet-proof process" in reference to Congressional action. I forgot...Republiscums don't do bullet-proof!

Yet another reminder that Democrats MUST take the Senate in 2020.

[at140]

5. And the White House

Because it is never easy to override a veto.