Why did Ken Starr force Bill Clinton to testify in front of a grand jury?

[bluestateguy]

We keep hearing that the target of a grand jury inquiry does not usually testify, and would certainly not be expected to do so.

Yet, as Ken Starr was wasting everyone's time, and over $70 million and taking Clinton's attention away from the brewing Al Qaeda threat, it was made very clear that Clinton was expected to testify. Starr issued a subpeona and only withdrew it when Clinton "voluntarily" agreed to testify.

Why was Clinton below the law here? Why was he essentially compelled to testify, when he did not wish to do so, and the normal practice is for the target of the inquiry to not testify?

[Gman]

1. Why?

For the spectacle of it. It damn sure wasn't in the name of justice.

[LawDeeDah]

2. Clinton himself dragged it out for that long -

and lied to a lot of people along the way that trusted him. He could have prevented all this. I'm not defending Starr the asshole at all, just a simple fact that that 70 million was flushed down the toilet by Bill.

[Gman]

4. He didn't spend that money. It's just like now

Repunlicans wasting money like its not theirs.

[cpwm17]

6. Lying was justified

Ken Starr was a pervert. Clinton's sex life was of no business to Ken Starr.

Ken Starr was investigating various made-up Republican conspiracies about the Clinton's. Bill Clinton only owed that treasonous bastard a middle finger.

[LawDeeDah]

7. That's a pretty expensive middle finger.

Hope Bill got some real satisfaction from that

[NYC Liberal]

3. It was voluntary.

[former9thward]

5. There is no rule about this.

And I doubt appearing before the grand jury took a lot of time from the "al Qaeda threat." If Obama plays golf we don't say he should be using that time to deal with more U.S. military adventurism.