Star Witness At Starr Hearing?

House Democrats hope Susan McDougal will be the star witness at a hearing next month on whether Congress should renew the Watergate-inspired law that gave Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr his job.

Republicans so far aren't standing in the way.

Â"I anticipate that she will testify,Â" said Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., a member of the House Judiciary's subcommittee on commercial and administrative law. Â"Obviously, she gives a perspective that we haven't heard from yet.Â"

McDougal, the one figure in the Whitewater case who refused to talk to Kenneth Starr's investigators, walked out of a Little Rock courthouse Monday a free woman after a jury found her innocent of obstructing justice, CBS News Correspondent Eric Engberg reports.

McDougal spent 18 months in prison for refusing to testify. She said her decision was based on a fear that she would be charged with perjury unless she falsely accused President Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton of wrongdoing.

A mistrial was declared on two contempt charges against her. For now, McDougal would be the star witness in a hearing that could open as soon as May, said Democratic counsel Julian Epstein. But he cautioned that no decision had been made.

McDougalÂ's attorney, Mark Geragos, told CBS This Morning Tuesday that calling some of the prosecutors who worked for Starr as witnesses was a turning point in the case.

Â"When [the jurors] saw this thing was about anything but seeking the truth, they were pretty convinced that there was no way that McDougal could be found guilty,Â" Geragos said.

Geragos said Starr gives good prosecutors a bad name.

Â"What heÂ's done in Arkansas and to the country in general is an outrage,Â" Geragos said. Â"What he had was an agenda and he was going to try and fill that end at the taxpayersÂ' expense. So I had a lot of choice words for him and IÂ'll continue to do so.Â"

Geragos added that if a new trial were brought against McDougal on the two criminal contempt charges, the result would be the same as in the obstruction case.

Â"IÂ'm confident another jury would say the same thing: that [Starr] was not interested in the truth, that it was nothing more than him fulfilling a political agenda. So if he wants to do it, weÂ're here ready, willing and able,Â" Geragos said.