Talk:Starr Report

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

POV[edit]

This page is absurdly biased, incomplete, and essentially advocates as an attack on the document it purports to explain. A previous commenter wrote "Wow." and I think that understates the degree of bias in this piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.116.114 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the comments above and my personal opinion on the style of this article, I marked with POV in addition to ONESOURCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llappall (talk • contribs) 01:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note - this refers to comments then visible in 2016 before someone did "rm useless stuff & fmt". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Llappall - Just added to Starr Report, the 11 points, so it’s no longer ONESOURCE and at least better by having more material that makes the prior POV a lesser factor. Tags have been removed. Just for completeness thought I should post: Was there anything else you particularly had in mind for here ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Details Of The Report[edit]

It would be great to have some details of what the report says and the evidence it provided before attacking the accuracy of the report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorryasshere154 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well there a google provides some reflections, not sure what would be good to add ... I think the Starr report description would be it, any comparison that the Mueller report is not the same basis (DOJ private report vs Congressional Independent prosecutor) or style would be a discussion for the general article.

NY Mag Intelligencer (2019) Remembering the Starr Report As We Await the Mueller Report
CNN (1998) Explosive Starr report outlines case for impeachment
NY Times (1998) THE STARR REPORT; Full Text of Findings Sent to Congress -- Part One of Thirteen
NY Times (1998) The Overview Starr Finds a Case for Impeachment in Perjury, Obstruction, Tampering (5 perjury, 4 obstruction, 1 winess tampering, 1 abuse of power)
NPR.org (1998) Starr Report Special Coverage
Washington Post (1998) The Starr Report (text)
History Place (The 11 Possible Grounds for Impeachment

--- Rebuttal ---

DL Dewey (1998) White House rebuttal
CBS News (1998) White House Hits Back at Starr

--- Complaints things were missed and/or that files were sealed

Accuracy In Media (1998) More Impeachable Offenses (The Judicial Watch additional report.)

Maybe I'll just do the 11 grounds and skip the rebuttal and complaints about what was not gone into. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]