Editing Starr Report (section)

==Response to report==
{{criticism section|date=December 2019}}

At the time it was released, the report was criticized for making accusations about exactly what Clinton did.<ref name=opa>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/whtext091298.htm|title=White House Second Response to Starr|date=September 12, 1998|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|access-date=September 9, 2011}}</ref> The report claimed "the details are crucial to an informed evaluation of the testimony, the credibility of witnesses, and the reliability of other evidence. Many of the details reveal highly personal information; many are sexually explicit. This is unfortunate, but it is essential."<ref name=opa /> Because Starr's office allegedly leaked portions to press about sexual details that were mentioned in his report, he was criticized for using the scandal as a political maneuver<ref name=starrwars>{{cite web|url=http://www.thefreelibrary.com/NEWS+LEAKS+PROMPT+LAWYER+TO+SEEK+SANCTIONS+AGAINST+STARR'S...-a083810333 |title=News leaks prompt lawyer to seek sanctions against Starr's Office |publisher=Thefreelibrary.com |access-date=May 23, 2011}}</ref><ref name=starrwars2>{{cite news|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/the-starr-report-how-to-_b_71821.html |title=The Starr Report: How To Impeach A President (Repeat) |work=Huffington Post  |access-date=May 13, 2008 |date=March 13, 2012}}</ref> and was charged for violating legal ethics by presenting information irrelevant to an investigation as evidence of legal wrongdoing.<ref name=starrwars /><ref name=starrwars2 /> Also, it is unclear whether Starr had the legal authority to ask Clinton questions about his sexual relationship with Lewinsky, as the OIC was convened solely to investigate Whitewater and Paula Jones' claim that Clinton sexually harassed her. Questioning about a sexual relationship void of assault appears to be both irrelevant under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) as a whole and under Rule 413, which allows questioning about separate allegations of sexual assault (which was never asserted about Lewinsky's relationship with Clinton).<ref>{{cite news | title= President Clinton's Deposition | url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/clintondep031398.htm | newspaper= [[Washington Post]] | access-date= August 8, 2014}}</ref>

The report was also criticized for exaggerating what the legal definition of perjury is, accusing Clinton of committing perjury after only one witness claimed he did so and saying that Clinton lied when he said he did not have sexual relations with Lewinsky in terms described by Paula Jones' attorneys.<ref name=opa /> Two of the three parts of the definition of "sexual relations" described by Jones' attorneys during her lawsuit had been ruled out by presiding Judge Susan Webber Wright as "too broad" and legally unacceptable.<ref name=opa />

The report alleged that Clinton considered oral sex to be a form of sexual relations and that the relationship between him and Lewinsky lasted longer than the date he described, but presented nothing relevant to back its claims.<ref name=opa /> The report also claimed that Clinton falsely denied under oath ever meeting with Lewinsky alone at times, despite the fact that Clinton did admit to this when he testified, and that Clinton obstructed justice by concealing gifts he gave to Lewinsky and destroying an intimate note that was left in a book he claimed Lewinsky gave him when she visited the White House on January 4, 1998.<ref name=opa /> Lewinsky's testimony that Clinton concealed gifts was contradicted by both Clinton's testimony and that of his personal secretary [[Betty Currie]], who each said that it was Lewinsky who asked him for some gifts and that he tended to give a number of his staff gifts as an act of courtesy.<ref name=opa /> Betty Currie also produced some of the gifts Clinton gave to Lewinsky before the grand jury.<ref name=opa /> Clinton also denied ever seeing such an intimate note and the Secret Service WAVES records showed Lewinsky did not visit the White House on any given date in 1998.<ref name=opa /> Starr also presented nothing credible to back his claim that Clinton obstructed justice by asking Lewinsky to file an [[affidavit]] denying there was ever a relationship between the two or that both Lewinsky and Clinton denied what had truly happened during the relationship under oath.<ref name=opa /> The report also alleged Clinton's job offer to Lewinsky was an attempt to keep her from admitting the relationship to the public and thus obstruct justice, but had nothing relevant to back this claim either.<ref name=opa />

Starr also accused Clinton of denying under oath that he ever had a conversation with [[Vernon Jordan]] about Lewinsky's involvement in the Paula Jones lawsuit.<ref name=opa /> Clinton, however, was never asked this when he testified during the Jones case.<ref name=opa /> Starr also accused Clinton of witness tampering by influencing Currie to testify in favor of him.<ref name=opa /> Currie, however, was not called as a witness when stated what she saw had happened during the relationship between Clinton and Lewinsky and it was demonstrated that Lewinsky was a friend of Currie's who had exchanged some of the gifts Clinton gave Lewinsky during a visit.<ref name=opa /> While Starr did acknowledge that Currie did visit Lewinsky's apartment and exchanged the gifts with her, he also claimed that the fact that Currie drove to Lewinsky's apartment proved Lewinsky's testimony that Clinton concealed the gifts was correct and Currie's and Clinton's were both false.<ref name=opa /> This claim about was denounced as without any basis or logic.<ref name=opa />

Starr also claimed that Clinton simultaneously delayed testimony for seven months and lied to potential grand jury witnesses by publicly denying the relationship, and thus committed a criminal felony by refusing to testify.<ref name=opa /> When Clinton made his claim about his relationship with Lewinsky to the public, however, he was not under oath and thus it legally was not a felony.<ref name=opa /> There was also no evidence that Clinton committed witness tampering by privately denying the relationship to these witnesses and asking them to testify in his favor.<ref name=opa />

Starr also argued that Clinton abused power by: denying the relationship with Lewinsky ever occurred; using executive privilege to both pursue an appeal against the case without Starr's knowledge; using executive privilege to cover up the relationship; delaying his grand jury testimony until August, and by getting the Secret Service to agree to assist in covering up the relationship in an acquiescing matter.<ref name=opa /> However, a letter was discovered that showed Clinton's legal team had informed Starr before the appeals took place.<ref name=opa /> The report was also misleading when it reflected the Supreme Court's ruling that the President could not use the Secret Service to assist in whatever they wanted help with.<ref name=opa /> Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote the majority opinion, had also stated that any case with merit, the prospect of an appeal would be granted.<ref name=opa /> When Clinton pursued the appeal before the [[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|DC District Court]], the court's Chief Justice [[Norma Holloway Johnson]] acknowledged that Clinton was cooperating with Starr and did not use executive privilege to cover up the relationship. Abuse of power had also been defined in [[The Federalist Papers|''The Federalist'' Papers]] as "corrupt use of the office for personal gain or some other improper purpose," which was not demonstrated in this case.<ref name=opa />

===Partial retraction===

In January 2020, while testifying as a defense lawyer for U.S. President [[Donald Trump]] during [[First impeachment trial of Donald Trump|his Senate impeachment trial]], Starr himself would retract some of the allegations he made in the report.<ref name=starrretracts>{{cite news|url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/clinton-independent-counsel-ken-starr-argues-against-impeachment.html|title=Ken Starr Argues There Are Too Many Impeachments These Days|first=Jeremy|last=Stahl|publisher=Slate|date=January 27, 2020|access-date=October 29, 2020}}</ref> ''Slate'' journalist Jeremy Stahl pointed out that as he was urging the Senate not to remove Trump as president, Starr contradicted various arguments he used in 1998 to justify Clinton's impeachment.<ref name=starrretracts /> In defending Trump, Starr also claimed he was wrong to have called for impeachment against Clinton for abuse of executive privilege and efforts to obstruct Congress and also stated that the House Judiciary Committee was right in 1998 to have rejected one of the planks for impeachment he had advocated for.<ref name=starrretracts /> He also invoked a 1999 Hofstra Law Review article by Yale law professor [[Akhil Amar]], who argued that the Clinton impeachment proved just how impeachment and removal causes "grave disruption" to a national election.<ref name=starrretracts />