Ken Starr shines at hearing

Whether you're for him or against him, whether you think he's the best pursuer since Dick Butkus or just another ambulance-chaser, you have to say this about Ken Starr: Aren't you glad it's not your life he investigated?

Is Starr knowledgeable or what? Is he smooth? He sat there in front of the House Judiciary Committee yesterday and never flinched. He knows the Monica Lewinsky case like Martha Stewart knows compost. Debating him on the topic is like debating Rick Majerus on man defense.As the hours lengthened at the "historic impeachment inquiry," lawyers and representatives sympathetic to the president of the United States kept trying to undermine Starr's credibility. Totally without success.

Do you get it? I don't get it. Why challenge Ken Starr? Isn't the case against the president slammed shut? Didn't Bill Clinton have an affair, however sexually borderline, with Monica Lewinsky and then do his level best, if not to cover it up, at least not uncover it?

As Starr outlined, the evidence discovered by the office of the independent counsel suggests there were six times during the past 11 months when the president had a choice - truth or deception - and he went six-for-six for deception.

On Dec. 17, Dec. 23, Dec. 28, Jan. 17, Jan. 21 and Aug. 17, Starr detailed, the president misrepresented himself in interrogatories, depositions, conversations with aides, and on national TV.

Neither the president nor anyone else has disputed any of this - and none did again yesterday.

With the stock market up, with Saddam Hussein down, with the Democratic Party rolling, isn't it best for the president when Ken Starr stops giving sound bites?

Isn't now the time to fire all the lawyers?

The ambiguity of just what constitutes the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that mandate impeachment, and the fact that politicians with an eye on the polls get to decide, is what's on Clinton's side, not the undermining of Ken Starr and his case.

As University of Utah law professor Paul Cassell notes, the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is borrowed from the English, who coined it in 1388 for the trial of the Earl of Suffolk. The original intent was to make sure scoundrels in public office could be ousted from office and still not ousted from life. The Renaissance English had more than 200 "high crimes" punishable by death. Beyond that were more benign misdemeanors - such as insulting a woman.

At the U.S. Constitutional Congress of 1787, it was George Mason who insisted that "high crimes and misdemeanors" be added to "treason and bribery" as impeachable offenses. If the Democrats want to blame anyone for the current anxiety, blame George Mason.

My favorite moment yesterday came when the newest judiciary committee member, Mary Bono of California - she took over after her husband Sonny skied into the tree and died - asked Starr if he had a personal grudge against Bill Clinton.

During a long day of political debate, it was a nice, guile-free moment - like a question-and-answer session at a supermarket grand opening.

"I hold no animosity," Starr said, beaming at the question and remembering back to a time when he tried to step down as special prosecutor and move to California. "I would prefer to be almost your constituent," he said, "only a little farther west. I looked at a house in Malibu Country Estates, long before Monica Lewinsky walked into the nation's life. That is where I would like to be."

It was a wistful moment for Starr, quite out of step with the atmosphere of the day. So he is human, and he dreams of a simple life and a house on the beach.

He's killing 'em up there. Maybe not to the point to get the president impeached, but you never know. They should be buying him that house in Malibu, and throwing in two weeks at Grand Cayman. When Ken Starr's lips stop moving, that's when Bill Clinton can relax.