The story Starr did not want to hear

- - - - - - - - - -

If Watt's account is true, why did the Whitewater investigators who interviewed Watt omit information from their reports that would have put Bill Clinton in a better light? Reign, the FBI agent responsible for writing up the interviews with Watt, declined to comment, telling Salon the matter was part of an ongoing investigation.

Other legal experts, while not familiar with the specifics of the Watt investigation, commented that there could be a variety of explanations for why the information was left out. "If something exculpatory does not show up in a '302' [FBI report], there can be any number of reasons for that to be the case," said John Barrett, the former prosecutor who now teaches criminal law at St. John's law school. "It might be an honest mistake by an agent. It might be an honest mistake of recollection by the witness. It could be that there was something more sinister that happened."

He added, "My own personal experience with FBI agents is that they are very by the book. A 302 is meant to be a memorandum of the interview. Agents write them as straight as they can to the best of their ability."

Another former federal prosecutor agreed there could be a variety of explanations. "To conceal exculpatory information is a crime if that was done purposely," he said. "If that is the case, someone should investigate and formally take evidence. But there are also a full range of possibilities of what could have occurred. You could have a dumb bunny, an agent without a lot on the ball. In any occupation, there is a spectrum of abilities. Independent counsels do not always get first-round draft picks."

• View blog reactions