Ken Starr spent most of the 1990s as the independent counsel assigned to Bill Clinton's underpants. The Spice Girls are a more relevant phenomenon from that decade. However, Starr still likes to turn up on our TV and pretend he knows what he's talking about. He apparently believes his relentless war on blowjobs earned him the credibility to comment on Robert Mueller's investigation into real crimes.
Yesterday Starr told Fox's Stuart Varney that while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has the "authority and power" to impeach Donald Trump, the little lady "better not use it." Why? Because impeachment is hella "divisive" and only something you do when there's "broad consensus." For example, there was broad consensus about Clinton's impeachment. Sixty-five percent of Americans thought it was stupid.
Starr's personal speciality is fellatio felonies, and the drawback there is that he seems incapable of recognizing other crimes, such as light treason. Last year, he didn't see how Mueller had any case at all against Trump.
STARR: At least as far as we know Donald Trump has not lied under oath, as far as we know, he's not intimidated witnesses, as far as we know -- in my view -- he has not obstructed justice.
LOL, right? In fairness, Mueller hadn't released his final report yet. You'd think Starr's opinion would shift once he actually read Mueller's findings and realized that Trump is far worse than his own personal white blow-job-receiving whale. But no, Starr turned up on yet another Fox hackfest and complained that Mueller's report is just too damn long.
BILL HEMMER: You say your main point is this, the Mueller Report is wildly, gratuitously detailed.
STARR: There's just too much detail. Take one little segment, the meeting of the Russian ambassador with then Sen. Jeff Sessions during the campaign. The whole issue is, is there collusion? Well, in about a page and a half we learn everything about that meeting. It starts out with there is no suggestion of collusion, whatever.
Conversely, the whole issue with the Starr Report should've been "did they fuck?" Oh, our bad. The actual issue was "did Bill Clinton fraudulently benefit from his money-losing investment in the Whitewater Development Corporation?" Instead, Starr subjected America to 445 pages of salacious dreck in the style of E.L. James. This is from the actual table of contents.
Blow jobs happenedThe Starr Report
There are literally separate entries for the couple's break-up and then the "backslide." There's always a backslide if the sex was good enough. You sometimes have to split up at least twice for it to stick.
STARR: [There's no suggestion of collusion] and yet we read all of this detail, elaborate footnotes. There's some 17 footnotes. There are over 1,000 footnotes. I mean, why?
He sounds like us when we had to read Ulysses in college. We're talking about a report on the president's possible collusion with a hostile foreign power. Yet Starr is trying to spin it as some self-indulgent, masturbatory exercise. He wants us to believe Mueller is the Judd Apatow of special prosecutors.
STARR: The point of this report is simply to say why I prosecuted or why I didn't prosecute. This is not a term paper.
It's probably a good thing the Mueller Report isn't a "term paper." Ours were usually just four pages double-spaced and printed in 18-point Times New Roman. Has "too much detail" ever been a criticism of a student's term paper? Also, most professors will give your term paper an "F" if it reads like the Starr Report, even if the class is Softcore Porn 101.
Sweet ChristThe Starr Report
Starr did sort of admit that his own report was so "highly detailed" and melted our brains so fully that no one really wants that anymore. Future special prosecutors should just get to the blowjobs already. We miss the romance of the '90s.
Follow Stephen Robinson on Twitter.
Yr Wonkette is supported by reader donations. Please send us money to keep the writers paid and the servers humming. Thank you, we love you.
