Now we have Krugman doing it.

The group's efforts managed to turn Whitewater ? a $200,000 money- losing investment ? into a byword for scandal, even though an eight-year, $73 million investigation never did find any evidence of wrongdoing by the Clintons.

"never did find any evidence..."

It continually amazes me how these flying Clinton spinmonkeys are so blithe about their willful mendacity on the editorial pages. Now that lie will be sitting there in the archives of the Paper Formerly Known As The Paper Of Record in perpetuity. But they're shameless.

No, Paul. Now you're calling Mr. Ray a liar. He said himself on the teevee the other night that he had enough evidence to prosecute. He just chose not to. Prosecutor's discretion, you know...

I think that it's your pants catching on fire here...

Rand, I have to say, I admire your dedication to Clinton-hating, but c'mon, do you really believe that Ray "had enough to prosecute" but chose not to. This is code for "we had some circumstantial evidence, but would never get a conviction, so we won't waste anymore time and money." Enough to prosecute doesn't mean enough to convict, just enough to get an indictment (which really isn't very much). Anyway, Krugman is spinning, but so is Ray, so I am not sure there is anyone who can cast the first stone here.

I don't hate Clinton.

I love justice and the notion that no man is above the law.

To say that "no evidence was found" is not spin. It is a lie.

By this logic, why would a prosecutor EVER offer a plea-bargain? Isn't a plea bargain essentially a confession on the part of the DA that he doesn't actually have sufficient evidence?

But, as most folks who watch crime dramas know, plea bargains are offered, often, because they have a weak case, but not NO case. And, most prosecutors would prefer the sure-thing of a plea bargained confession, versus the omnipresent vagaries of a trial.

Given Mr. Starr's record in the Whitewater investigations, where most of his cases resulted in conviction, one suspects that Mr. Ray, following up, probably had a decent, but not guaranteed, shot at convicting. And, given the divisiveness that would have ensued from anything short of a conviction (and even that might well have been divisive enough), chose not to go the whole way. Understandable, nu?