I don't spend time defending President Clinton - a man who is indefensible. I do, however, make an effort to attack Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. He, in my opinion, represents everything that honest and decent Americans should fear in a prosecutor: an obsessive desire to "get" someone to such an extent that time, money, reason, and fundamental fairness become afterthoughts. Starr's obsession became so intense that New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd penned a tongue in cheek column wherein she referred to Starr, not Clinton, when she wrote: "No matter how much he heard Monica talk about sex, it was never enough".

Some examples . . .

• The president's most recent response to the Starr report stated: "After four years, scores of FBI agents, hundreds of subpoenas, thousands of documents, and tens of millions of dollars. After hiring lawyers, accountants, IRS agents, outside consultants, law professors, personal counsel, ethics advisers, and a professional public relations expert. After impaneling grand juries and leasing office space in three jurisdictions, and investigating virtually every aspect of the President's business, financial, political, official and, ultimately, personal life, the Office of Independent Counsel has presented to the House a Referral that no prosecutor would present to any jury." I agree.
• One of the most disturbing aspects of Starr's investigation is the ambush of Monica Lewinsky at the Ritz Carlton. When she asked for a lawyer (which would have required questioning to stop if she was in "custody"), FBI agents and lawyers told her she could lose any immunity deal that might be forthcoming and even threatened to prosecute her mother.
• Although the Starr report speaks page after page regarding perjury, not once does it set forth the elements of a perjury case. (Including the need for materiality and intent). This causes me to wonder if Starr has been living in an ivory tower. A first year misdemeanor prosecutor learns one thing quickly when evaluating a case: write down everything that needs to be proven (the "elements") and then check them off as the proof develops. Despite Starr's glowing resume, I suspect he was never occupied the greatest learning position of all: a misdemeanor prosecutor.
• Is there any indication that the grand jury is in agreement with the Starr report?
• If Starr's purpose was to be a fair and even-handed investigator, why is there no effort on his part to set forth exculpatory material in the report? That is, how about a sentence that begins "On the other hand . . . ". For example, Starr failed to include Lewinsky's testimony that, "I would just like to say that no one ever asked me to lie, and I was never promised a job for my silence."  Starr also failed to mention that it was Lewinsky, not the White House, that wrote the now famous "talking points".

Prosecutorial abuse is by far the most frightening concept to an orderly democracy.  Don't let your hatred of Clinton blind you to a deterioration of civil liberties.

Barry Green is the District Attorney for the 271st Judicial District.