Customer Reviews

The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(19)

 

 

This book, nearly 800 pages, analyzes in exhaustive detail Ken Starr's investigation as independent prosecutor of President Clinton.

Two things stand out about this book.

First, the colossal amount of research that went into it. Gormley interviewed not only all the major players in the events, including Starr, Clinton, and Monica Lewinsky, but also hosts of minor characters, relatives, attorneys, and the like. I have rarely read any book on any subject that interviewed so many different people in so much depth, many of them ordinarily difficult to find.

Gormley's extreme diligence pays off as he uncovers tragic but mesmerizing details that are not widely known. For example, he has a detailed account of Jim McDougal's death in solitary confinement including information based on his interviews with McDougal's prison psychologist. He also uncovered a report highly critical of the prosecutors' interrogation of Monica Lewinsky, which criticizes the prosecutors for continuing to question her after she had requested an attorney. What was particularly interesting is that the report was never released because, allegedly, its release would have violated the privacy, not of Lewinsky - but of her prosecutors! One of the most interesting features of this book is that while the FBI was devoting enormous investigative resources to the question of whether the president committed perjury in his Jones deposition, Clinton was sending missiles against al-Qaeda threats in Afghanistan. Some of the participants expressed exasperation that law enforcement did not consider anti-terrorism investigation a higher priority than the Jones deposition issues.

The second great thing about this book is that it's so clear and easy to read. Although it covers events over twenty years, innumerable legal proceedings and lawsuits, it's paced so that it's nearly impossible to put down. It's one thing to collect all this information, but the author also managed to have it tell an incredible tale: at times tragic, at times infuriating, at times laughable - but always fascinating.

Nevertheless, the book had a few weaknesses.

One omission generally was that the details of the legal arguments tended to be glossed over.

For example, there is no analysis of Clinton's arguments that he did not commit perjury in his testimony in the Paula Jones deposition, which are important to understand the merits of his defense. In general, the author sometimes appears to conflate similar terms for specific acts in ways the confuse the issue about perjury.

As the legal discussion, on page 172 the author describes a bill that would allow certain private litigants to sue sitting presidents as one that would "almost certainly have violated the U.S. Constitution's command against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws." This statement seems too strong. Ex post facto laws do not ordinarily circumscribe civil liability, and a bill as described could probably be drafted so as to withstand a bill of attainder challenge.

I would also have wanted to read a more detailed analysis of the legal arguments of Clinton v. Jones or Morrison v. Olson, the two key cases that led to the scandal. Interestingly, the author does include an interview with a Supreme Court justice defending the claim in Clinton v. Jones that allowing a private lawsuit against a sitting president would be unlikely to be distracting. Although the author suggests at one point that Justice Scalia supported the independent counsel, it would have been interesting to note that Scalia was the lone dissent in Morrison v. Olson, the case authorizing the law. Indeed, Scalia predicted, in his dissent in Morrison v. Olson, that the independent counsel law would gravely damage the republic because it violated the separation of powers.

The writing itself is excellent. It's clear, well-paced, and hard to put down. Still, there were some issues in the way of copy editing. On pages 88 and 554 the author misuses "bold-faced" in the phrases "bold-faced liar" and "bold-faced deception". Even if this unfortunate usage has been sanctioned by popularity, it's still better to use "bald-faced" instead. The author similarly misuses "fulsome" to mean "full" on pages 135 and 567 ("draft a more fulsome four-count complaint"; "Starr had taken in compiling a fulsome report.").

Some readers may find that portions of the book take a more supportive view of the independent counsel than the narrative suggests, but since the narrative contains the facts for the reader, the treatment cannot be said to be unfair.

In conclusion the book is well-written, well-researched and interesting. It's a superb example of journalism and an important contribution to the literature.

I've not finished this book yet, and bought it because of fine reviews I read elsewhere. It's good thing I took the time to read all the Amazon reviews; otherwise I wouldn't have known that the bad reviews were due to Kindle pricing, not book content. Why does Amazon allow this? Pricing complaints should be lodged elsewhere.

The author has done an extraordinary job bringing so much insight into the Clinton scandals. It appears he has talked to everyone and has read everything. He presents the story in a clear fashion which is quite an achievement given all the different investigations that were underway. He is fair to all the parties involved and he does not engage in baseless speculations. As the book unfolds the reader is drawn into the story and on almost every page the reader learns new things. My only regret was that the book was only 800 pages long. I could have read 800 more pages. A great book that will be the definite work on the Clinton years.

This book is surely the definitive account of the sad saga in U.S. history known as the Lewinsky scandal. Ken Gormley, a law professor, interviewed almost all the principle players in the drama (including some now deceased) -- President Clinton, Ken Starr and his wife, Lewinsky as well as both her parents, other prosecutors and judges, Linda Tripp, Susan McDougall, Webster Hubbell, Lew Merletti, head of the Secret Service, Henry Hyde and many many others. The only people who apparently declined the opportunity to speak to him were Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.

This book is exhaustive and exhausting but ultimately tremendously rewarding. Gormley has a flair for the dramatic. His descriptions of court scenes, the impeachment trial itself, the depositions and other background discussions read as if they come from the pages of a thriller. One knows the end -- but one is still gripped.

This is also a fair book. All of the main characters are given ample time to reflect and their views are fairly recounted. We get Clinton's extensive musings and his perspective years later, but also that of Starr and the other chief prosecutors.

Gormely also explodes a few minor bombshells. We learn that an investigation into the conduct of the Starr prosecutors concluded they had far overstepped their legal bounds in their first interrogation of Monica Lewinsky. They ignored her repeated requests to speak to her lawyer, bludgeoning her with crude threats of 27 years in prison while bringing her to the brink of mental collapse. Republican judges quashed the report and managed to keep it sealed to protect the privacy of the prosecutors who themselves had totally trashed the privacy of their victims.

This was not the only case of prosecutorial misconduct by the Starr team who in general comported themselves like bullies and thugs unbound by legal constraint, trampling over the privacy and rights of their victims while conducting their legal vendetta against the president.

We also learn about the strange and sinister death in prison of Jim McDougall, the rogue that set the Whitewater scandal in motion. McDougall was seriously mentally ill and a substance abuser -- also a crook and serial liar who would say anything to advance himself. But he did not deserve to die in a prison hole of medical neglect from a prison staff that was criminally negligent. His medical file strangely "disappeared" and was never recovered. Years later, a prison psychologist revealed that he had received a strange visit from an official invesigator who threatened him not to reveal what he knew.

None of the characters of this awful saga emerge looking very good. Clinton still refuses to take full responsibility for his serial womanizing, some of which comes across as crude sexual harrasment if not outright abuse. I was angry at Clinton at the time for wasting the opportunity history had given him to be a truly significant president. He was and remains a self-indulgent man with a vast sense of entitlement. Never in this book did I feel remotely sympathetic toward him.

Starr comes over as a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou crusader willing to do anything to bring the president down. Starr had acted as a legal adviser to Paula Jones before being appointed as special prosecutor, giving him a clear conflict of interest. He was clearly motivated by politics. Yet Starr was a "moderate" among the group of far-right zealots he hired as his senior prosecutors.

Lewinsky comes across as a victim. Sure, she made a big mistake but she was just a kid who deluded herself into thinking she was in love with a much older man who ought to have known better. She did not deserve to be hounded, trashed and victimized in the way that she was.

Susan McDougall, who went to jail for 18 months rather than telling Starr what he wanted to hear, is one of the few heroines of the story.

One thing that emerges clearly from this book is that when Hillary Clinton spoke of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" out to bring down her husband -- words that I had always previously dismissed as political hyperbole -- she was in fact speaking nothing less than the truth. Conservative financiers, judges, newspapers, activists, legislators, publicists, general trouble-makers and prosecutors, all motivated by acute hatred of the 42nd president, combined to bring about this crisis. The author demonstrates that numerous opportunities to settle the case honorably were sabotaged by right-wing extremists determined to press the scandal to a crisis and so depose a twice democratically-elected president.

So what was this all about in the end? Henry Hyde, himself an adulterer, who managed the House of Representatives "case" (if it can be called such) against Clinton took comfort in the fact that "were in not for the impeachment, George W. Bush would not have been elected president" in 2000.

So we can thank Mr. Starr for eight years of Bush, the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina and our massive national debt.

Thanks a lot Ken.

This book does much to illuminate the bizarre scandal that turned into a pathetic circus and sickened the nation. Strong partisans of either stripe will learn something from the wonderful research presented here. Ken Gormley interviewed the vast majority of the key players, often getting great raw material that sheds important light on the happenstance and malicious motives at play during the drama.

But there are omissions. Important omissions. Gormley does not mention, much less investigate James Carville's story that he met Ken Starr in October of 1993, where Starr launched into an attack on Clinton and announced, "You're boy's getting rolled."

He allows Starr and his prosecutors to go on for pages, repeatedly stating that they had no vendetta against Clinton, but saves for the final pages startling news of a non-partisan government investigation of Starr's office that seriously attacked their ethics, particularly in the way they tried to dissuade Monica Lewinsky from calling her attorney when cornered just before Clinton's deposition in the Paula Jones case.

Gormley also gets some interpretive facts wrong. He chastises the President for his anger in his August, 1998 television appearance after testifying to the Starr grand jury. Many commentators felt the same way. Gormley mentions, in passing, that Clinton's numbers did not fall after that appearance. Why? Because his mia culpa worked. It was honest. He was angry and he was sorry. Had he simply said anything that sounded like, "well, Ken Starr was justified in all his over-reaching," then he would have been forced out. He needed to be clear that he felt this was a private sin and that he and America should resent this kind of investigation.

The largest missing piece of the puzzle is the meta-analysis. In letting the facts speak for themselves, Gormley gives the impression that much of Starr's prosecution was fairly standard with minor exceptions. What he does not do is step back and provide context to the setting of perjury traps. My impression is that generally, perjury is prosecuted when the perjurious statements themselves mask an underlying crime. In short, if a person says under oath, "I was home watching television" and a security camera has them entering an office where prosecutors believe a scheme to embezzle money was hatched, they may prosecute, usually to get cooperation to crack the larger case. Or, in private lawsuits, where parties often dispute the facts, if the person bringing the suit can be shown to be lying, then they have abused the court. In Clinton's case, he was neither masking a crime nor assertively stating falsehoods in order to sue another party. And in most depositions, witnesses are allowed the courtesy of reviewing the testimony and making adjustments to it in order to create the most detailed factual record possible. A law expert like Gormley would have well-served his readers by including more real-world analysis, which might have shed greater light on the machinations in this case.

Another omission was Starr's attempt to have a court let him use Monica Lewinsky's confidential hand-written proffer "at no charge" - i.e., without granting her the immunity she was promised.

The House Judiciary Committee hearings and much of their nonsense is glossed over in a few pages, and there is too little counterpoint to the angry musings of Henry Hyde, who continued to complain that had Clinton just owned up to everything at various stages, it would have all been okay. This is a rationalization, and it is a pity it was left unchallenged by other voices who might have provided context.

All these beefs aside, this is the best history yet of the impeachment crisis. It is valuable for anyone desiring of a career in politics to read. It should be required reading for all prosecutors and all defense attorneys. It left me wanting more, but it also brought to light vital parts of the story too long left in the shadows.

It also left me all-too-aware of how fragile our democracy can be, and how just a few honestly misguided individuals almost wrecked out government. This time they happened to be on the Right. It could have been the other extreme. Let's just hope there is never a next time that political hatred morphs into an endless legal quest to bring down a president.

Although written by a constitutional law professor, it doesn't read like a legal brief. Clear prose details Bill Clinton's downfall and climb back up. It reads like a political novel, and even though its 774 pages may put you off initially, its a pretty good read. A lot of detail - do we need to know Monica L ate a turkey sandwich for lunch on 12/11/1997? Still enjoyable.

I'm a bit torn after reading Gormley's work. ( And apparently, I'm in the minority of reviewers. How can someone not appreciate the irony of reviewing a book they haven't read, or complaining about price to a forum that has nothing to do with pricing? ) I loved the read, had a hard time putting it down. But I had issues with a few aspects of the book that made it fall short of what it could have been:

1. As with another reviewer, I think the title is erroneously constructed. American virtue ( and I assume the writer is referring to the abject partisanship of the wars between right and left here, not Clinton's fleshly transgressions ) as such, was long dead. The days of the mentality of a "loyal opposition" began vanishing decades ago, and even if the author intended a reference to the lack of moral virtue displayed by Clinton, the record is established and vast about the peccadilloes of JFK, FDR, etc.

2. Gormley implies the objectivity of Ken Starr a little too easily. I found far too many quotes from Mrs. Starr, far too many testaments from Starr committee members to back up that observation. The facts of Starr's pre-appointment activities that Gormley freely documents should have given him more pause in this regard than they did. While Gormley documents the Starr committee's horrific treatment of the Secret Service during this time period, he does not hold Starr's feet to the fire enough for that course of action. This, more than anything, speaks to Gormley's ( albeit slight ) predisposition to accept Starr for what Starr represented himself to be.

3. Gormley takes Henry Hyde's words with near-gospel reverence, and Hyde unquestionably was as partisan as partisan can be. Gormley takes some pains to defend Hyde by questionning the fairness od the revelation that the ranking Republican himself had issues of sexual infidelity in his past, and does not call to account the excuse provided by Hyde of the offense being a "youthful indescretion." Gormley should have used that for what it was; a perfect example of the hypocrisy of Clinton's accusers. Hyde's role in the impeachment was shameful and should have been called as such. This is my biggest objection to the book.

Still, I can say that the book overall is fair and revealing and well worth reading. He documents the fact that Iraq and Bosnia were not "wag the dog" scenarios. He reveals the misconduct alleged by the FBI when they held Monica Lewinsky and refused her access to counsel. On the other side of the ledger, he says that Hillary ( one of the few principals who did not participate in the interviews ) was basically fortunate not to have been indicted. He in no way excuses Bill's dalliances, and reveals that he and Susan McDougall ( who I belive is very fairly portrayed in the book ) did in fact have an affair many years prior to all of these events.

Perhaps the most compelling portions of the book deal with the Secret Service. I found the experiences they endured because of the misconduct of both Clinton and Starr to be more gut-wrenching than any of the other betrer-known players in this unfortunate drama that, as Gormley accurately describes, had plenty of villains with too few heroes.

Ken Gormley has written what must be, and what will almost certainly remain, the definitive book on the Clinton scandal. "The Death of American Virtue" is very well written, exhaustively researched, and makes for a riveting read. Gormley brings to vivid life Clinton's jaw-dropping stupidity and moral shabbiness. All the more astonishing, given that Clinton is anything but stupid (though his amorality is beyond question). And Starr doesn't come across particularly well either. Another intelligent man who demonstrated complete lapses of judgment. It's not that the scandal shouldn't have been investigated, it's that it shouldn't have been investigated by Starr -- he had neither the authorization nor the mandate to do so.

I was impressed by "The Death of American Virtue" and recommend it with minor reservations. Yes, there are a couple of issues. First, the book is far longer and more detailed than it needs to be. Boring? No. Way too much information? Yes. Second, the topic is dated, without being historical. But as the Clinton scandal undergoes the certain transformation from yesterday's news to history, Gormley's book will grow commensurately in stature and importance.

If you are looking for a factual account and don't mind long books, I would recommend this work. If you are looking for an in-depth analysis of the currents and cross currents of the 1990s keep looking. I looked hard and could not find any prejudice what so ever, it is the most objective book I have ever read on such a controversial subject. Gormley lets the participants speak, he uses their works where possible from the period and their recollections ten years later only interjecting facts when necessary. It is as fair and balanced as it possible can be. I must admit it was difficult at times reliving these events; it was truly one of the most stupid affairs in out history.

Ken Gormley has written an surprisingly well-balanced, fair-minded and readable account of the IOC's investigation of the Clinton presidency. This is an extraordinary achievement given the powerful pull of political loyalties that nearly destroyed a president and ruined the reputations of many prominent leaders of the opposition. In fact, as the title suggests it may have created a hole in the American political fabric that continues to swallow up people to this day.

Some people might be off-put by the size of this tomb - 800 pages! But it sure didn't read that way. I found myself completely absorbed in reliving the trials surrounding Whitewater and the ultimate impeachment of the President. Part of the fascination came from the revelations of new facts and the discovery of things I didn't know about at the time. However, a greater portion of the my interest was drawn to the human faces the author brought out in the retelling of this national tragedy. This didn't necessarily make everyone more sympathetic. In fact, often you get to see the ugly, pathetic side of the players, the self-delusions and self-righteousness all cloaked in noble and patriotic intentions that helped create this drive for virtue that ultimately lead to national self-abasement.

While reading this book at times I wanted the author to be less balanced and to call out the side I thought was wrong. At times, the author did point out inconsistencies but more often he let the people tell their own stories. In the end, I agreed with him that this was the best approach. This is a fine work that I don't believe will be exceeded any time soon.