Starr Emerges as Key Lawyer for N.Y. Times

I wonder if Jeff Gerth recommended his old buddy?


As the New York Times gears up for what it argues is a First Amendment fight to stop federal prosecutors from learning the identities of two reporters' confidential sources, the paper is enlisting a surprising ally.

The Times, which is suing Attorney General Ashcroft in federal court in Manhattan, has retained Kenneth Starr, the former special prosecutor who, in years past, was a darling of the right and felt the sting of the paper's editorials.

Mr. Starr is teamed up with the New York lawyer Floyd Abrams, a veteran First Amendment lawyer, to block a federal prosecutor at Chicago from obtaining phone records of reporters Philip Shenon and Judith Miller. The two reporters covered national-security issues following the September 11 terrorist attacks.
http://www.nysun.com/article/2457

I had commented on the Plame threads this morning that this should put to rest the rumor that the NYTimes is "liberal." It's a wonder that they didn't hire James Baker.

Good move on the New York Times' part! I'll never believe they're liberal again.

In matters that could be construed as political. Dems hire Pubs, pubs hire dems. For example, Limbaugh hired an uber liberal.

While I think you may a valid point, I think that it would be very difficult to make the case that the owners of the NYT or the reporters in question are democrats. Rather, I think that they hired Ken Starr because he is good at what he does. I do not like him, or admire his talents, but one would have to admit that he did exactly what the devils who promoted his efforts against the Clintons wanted. His job in this is to stretch it out, and bring an issue for appeal to the Supreme Court in hopes that they will - again - rule in a manner that is not in step with the law of the land, but is political in the ugliest sense.

Starr has very little actual expertise in this area.

The cynic in me says they hired Starr to prevent FitzGerald deposing him.

underestimate Starr. I am not saying I like him. Just that he has the ability to abuse the legal system.

I am curious why you think that being hired in that position would prevent the Bulldog from deposing him? What are you basing that on? I'm not saying that I know different; just curious your reasoning.

Not that Starr's directly relevant to the Plame matter, but there was a humongous pattern of the Independent Counsel's office leaking allegations about the Clintons to the Times, which printed everything as hard news. If FitzGerald is broadening the scope from the Plame case to include, say, Judith Miller being Ahmed Chalabi's stenographer, then Starr's experience would be relevant.

As blogger Teresa Neilsen Hayden says, the thing I resent most about this administration is how much they make me feel like a nutbar conspiracy theorist!

I am certain that there are many Republican Attorneys with just as much experience as Ken Starr. So... why weren't they hired instead of the very controversial Ken Starr?

investigation, Abrams and Starr for the Plamegate investigation.

There are too many instances of this. It's as if the same people are always called on over and over...because they are the "keys to the Gate of Secrets."

This isn't a matter of coincidence or the "most qualified." This is the same cast of characters always involved in any DC scandal. These people never get sick or die or retire. It's quite bizarre.

?

They know they cannot get their way without people on the inside.. They are long-term planners.. They are content to whittle away at the edges..

They have done this in radio, TV, colleges, publishing, law, science, medicine..

Republicans are patient..they are willing to work their way up the ladder and they never quit sticking that foot in the door.