Professional restaurant supplies Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon $5 Albums Fire TV with 4k Ultra HD Beauty Gifts Made in Italy Amazon Gift Card Offer out2 out2 out2  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Fire, Only $39.99 Kindle Paperwhite UniOrlando Shop Now Learn more

Format: Paperback|Change
Price:$18.00+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on January 17, 2014
There are a couple of basic ground rules that you need to understand before one can the investigation of Bill Clinton in the 1990’s and his subsequent impeachment and acquittal in the Senate.

The first thing you need to know is that George Herbert Walker Bush, William Casey, Jeb Bush, Oliver North, and the CIA were running huge amounts of drugs in the 1980’s, laundering billions of dollars, and murdering people (CIA drug smuggler Barry Seal being just one) to cover it all up.

Books by Al Martin, Terry Reed, Daniel Hopsicker and the account of CIA Pegasus counterintelligence agent and assassin Chip Tatum are critical to read and understand.

The next thing you need to know is that Bill Clinton, a CIA asset since his days at Oxford (source: Roger Morris and Jack Wheeler who was personally told this by CIA’s Cord Meyer), was also up to his eyeballs in the CIA and Dixie Mafia drug trade of the 1980’s.

You next need to some just how wildly dysfunctional and epically sexually unhinged Bill Clinton has been has been his entire adult life and that Hillary Clinton has played a willing and key role in covering up all this insanity and her equally dysfunctional relationship with Bill Clinton.

As a basis for understanding the 1990’s political battles, you need to know Hillary was screwing both of her law partners Vince Foster and Webb Hubbell while Bill was attempting to have sex with anyone who was not corpse in rigor mortis. Hillary is (was) also a promiscuous lesbian who Bill would often tell his friends (not just Gennifer Flowers) that Hillary had had sex with more women than he had.

And you need to know that Chelsea Clinton is the biological daughter of Webb Hubbell and not Bill Clinton. In fact, this last point is one of the most important things to know because once you know that you will see why Bill Clinton was so comfortable in his self-justified lifestyle of over-the-top sexual promiscuity.\

Google: “The Clintons’ Greatest Shame: Chelsea is the biological daughter of Webb Hubbell and not Bill Clinton” and you will hit the motherlode of opposition research on the Clintons.

Because the Republicans were so wildly corrupt themselves at the highest levels (North, Bushes, CIA drug smuggling which they were doing with the Clintons), any special prosecutor they controlled - Ken Starr the former solicitor for GHW Bush - could not hold Bill Clinton accountable for his worst crimes because it would reflect back on the GOP.

For example, why didn’t Starr investigate Bill Clinton for the now heavily documented 1980’s CIA drug smuggling? Because Starr’s old boss George Herbert Walker Bush was the head of the pyramid of the 1980’s world’s largest drug smuggling ring: the United States government. So after the McDougals would not talk on Whitewater, Starr and the OIC could only go after the far less important “sex stuff” on Clinton.

The Clintons also have a long history of using very nasty private detectives to run terror campaigns on Bill’s sex victims and former girlfriends: folks like Anthony Pellicano (now in jail for his goon tactics) and Jack Palladino (who should be in jail), Terry Lenzer, Ivan Duda and, of course, one of the biggest Clinton goons of all in the 1980’s and 1990’s: Raymond Buddy Young the criminal head of the Arkansas state troopers.

A brief history of this pervert’s sexual history is in order: while at Oxford Bill had a minimum of 30 women according to a classmate; at Yale Bill juggled girlfriends then he met Hillary; in 1972 Texas McGovern campaign, Bill was juggling girlfriends while Hillary worked in San Antonio; in 1974 Bill had a girlfriend in every county in the congressional race he was in, while Hillary was in DC; Bill becomes a professor at Univ. of Arkanas - affairs with coeds; Bill “marries” Hillary on 10/11/75 and makes out with another woman in the bathroom of his wedding reception; Bill’s affairs with Susan McDougal (I am sure the author was “surprised” about that one - I am not), Bill’s 12 year affair with Gennifer Flowers; deadbeat Bill fathering a son with drug addicted street hooker Bobbie Ann Williams; Bill attempting to screw Gennifer Flowers literally at the party for his 10th year wedding anniversary to Hillary; Bill’s rape of Liz Ward Gracen - Miss Arkansas and Miss America; Bill’s rape of Eileen Wellstone at Oxford (it’s why Bill has no degree from Oxford); Bill’s rape of Juanita Broaddrick (1978); Bill’s vicious sexual assault on an unnamed woman interviewed by author Roger Morris.

Here is Roger Morris on p. 238 of Partners in Power:

"A young woman lawyer in Little Rock claimed that she was accosted by Clinton while he was attorney general and that when she recoiled he forced himself on her, biting and bruising her. Deeply affected by the assault, the woman decided to keep it all quiet for the sake of her own hard-won career and that of her husband. When the husband later saw Clinton at the 1980 Democratic Convention, he delivered a warning. 'If you ever approach her,' he told the governor, 'I'll kill you.' Not even seeing fit to deny the incident, Bill Clinton sheepishly apologized and duly promised never to bother her again."

Bill also savagely bit Juanita and Liz Ward Gracen.

Google “Juanita Was Not the Only One; Bill Clinton’s Long History of Sexual Violence” - a 1999 article by Capitol Hill Blue’s by Daniel Harris and Theresa Hampton.

After all that, are we really surprised Bill Clinton drop his britches and asked Paula Jones to “Kiss it?”

Ken Gormley seems to be incredulous. The best part of his book is pp. 255-261 where the author just can’t believe that Paula Jones actually stood on her PRINCIPLES and demanded an apology and admission of guilt from Bill Clinton. Clinton just wanted to pay some money, being held accountable is something that has never occurred with this psychopath in his entire life.

Gormley, in his apology for Clinton, just can’t get over that the HUSBAND of a woman who Bill Clinton has dropped his pants to and exposed his little crooked penis, would somehow insist on Clinton directly apologizing for his outrageous act.

Let’s say I pull my pecker out with employees of the Duquesne Law School where Gormley is the dean, how is that going to fly? How about if I exposed my erect penis to Gormley’s wife Laura - wonder how this liberal apologist for Clinton would feel about that? How about someone exposing their little crooked penis to some other person’s daughter?

Gormley is so stunned that Steve Jones wanted to beat Bill Clinton to a pulp.

Paula Jones wanted an apology and accountability. Gormley makes it clear he thinks a few little dollar bills is all that is necessary. Bill Clinton obviously thought absolutely no accountability was fine with him.

There is another critical event missing from Gormley’s book: Hillary Clinton murdering all those innocent people at Waco on April 25, 1993. No wonder Gormley just can’t figure out why the right wing hated the Clintons so much. Just leave the slaughter of 80 people out of sight and act dumb at the outage directed at the Clintons.

The mass murder at Waco by the Clintons, particularly Hillary who ordered the FUBAR final assault, played a huge role in the hatred of much of the country for the Clintons. It also served to psychologically collapse Vince Foster who was appalled by it. Hillary’s reaction? Cold as ice.

Gormley feels free to ignore some major criminality of the Clintons: the ransacking of Gennifer Flowers apartment in 1991; Sally Perdue having the back of her Jeep smashed in and shotgun shells put on the drivers seat (sounds like Pellicano to me!), and most of all Bill Clinton sending his inner circle Arkansas state troopers to beat up and nearly murder Gary Johnson, Gennifer Flowers’ neighbor on June 26, 1992. Johnson had a security camera videotape of Bill Clinton entering Gennifer’s condo on several occasions at the Quapaw Towers.

This is what I mean by saying this liberal professor obviously has not done his homework on the critical backstories to investigations of Bill Clinton in the 1990’s. Bill and Hillary Clinton conjointly have committed crime after crime after crime after crime - all sorts of deeply personal violations of people.

And the OIC - the Office of the Independent Counsel - run by Republican Ken Starr and the Republicans in Congress could not and would not investigate the worst of the crimes because the Republican party itself was compromised at the highest levels due to Iran-Contra.

So there was all this justifiable rage and hatred of the Clintons at the grassroots level, but the compromised official bodies could only play “small ball” in going after the Clinton sex and lies.

Then we get to Vince Foster. Contrary to what the right wing and DC Dave - real name Dave Martin thinks - Vince Foster indeed committed suicide. And contrary to what author Gormley thinks there was a huge amount of pathological lying and cover up associated with the Foster suicide by the Clintons and their coordinated-lying subordinates.

See the work of Marinka Peschmann for some very historically important work on the Vince Foster case.

Vince Foster blew his brains out in his White House counsel’s office and I think he did it in an act of aggression towards Hillary. Author Gormley has not figured out that Foster and Hillary were having an affair although this has been documented in numerous places by people close to the Clintons: Larry Nichols, Larry Patterson, L.D. Brown (who was Bill’s favorite state trooper and who Bill got into the CIA). Gormley obvious has not read Brown’s critically important book Crossfire: Witness in the Clinton Investigation. That book also goes into Clinton’s relationship with CIA drug smuggler Barry Seal.

Vince Foster was not just having an affair with Hillary - he and Hillary were emotional husband and wife while Bill was out screwing all of mankind. Vince was deeply involved with Hillary, even obsessed with her. And in the year of 1993 as scandal after scandal rocked the Clinton Administration, all Vince was getting was rejection and scorn and no nook nook from Hillary. Plus his wife Lisa had moved to Wash DC so she could nag him on a regular basis. Plus the Wall Street Journal was a danger to expose his affair with Hillary. Plus they murdered all the kids at Waco (and their parents). Plus Hillary was making him lie about who really fired the White House Travel Office (Hillary). Plus Jerry Parks, who was in the CIA drug trade and who had a sex dossier on Bill Clinton, was demanding to be paid his overdue $80,000 from the 1992 Clinton campaign.

Plus Hillary was being abusive, yelling at and nastily humiliating Vince Foster in open meetings at the White House.

Plus no sex with Hillary like back in Arkansas when they used to make out like they were in the back of a 1957 Chevy, according to L.D. Brown.


Then Hillary immediately orders Fosters’ body to be dumped off White House premises with Craig Livingstone probably being one of the ones tasked with this dirty work. Then Hillary directs a circle of lies in regards to the death of Vince Foster. The cover up was over WHERE it had happened, not the fact it was a murder.

I have not mentioned the terror campaign visited on Patrick Knowlton, a key witness who did not see Foster’s car parked at Fort Marcy Park.

The bottom line is this author did not do his homework. Gormley has no understanding of the vast crimes of the Clintons (or the Bushes for the matter). And beause he does not understand the back story, he does not understand that the Republicans and the OIC were too compromised to *really* investigation Bill and Hillary Clinton and hold them accountable for their many, many crimes.

The real tragedy of 1990’s and the Clinton investigations is not that Bill Clinton got impeached over lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky (note this is the first time I mentioned her because she is not the real story), the real tragedy is that the bipartisan criminal elite that run this country will be put into lockdown in the Super Max prisons where they belong.
22 comments|2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on June 15, 2010
For all of the time that Gormley spent researching facts to write this book he writes without conviction. It is a very poorly written account of the scams that were going on during Clinton's time. I put the book down after reading only a third of it. Boring!
22 comments|One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 8, 2010
I heard the author on NPR and had high hopes for the book. I got it via Kindle, read the first chapter or so, and pretty quickly decided it was an attempt at a whitewash in favor of Clinton, so I went to another book on my list. Then I came back to it, because it's full of [apparent] information and interesting tidbits. I've been slogging through it for hours now...

...and here it comes, roughly 75% through the book: "The dapper, mustachioed Cronkite-- by this time doing work as a commentator and film producer-- watched the Clinton saga unfold with bedevilment. He did not dispute that the Lewinsky story was fair game for coverage. 'This is the president of the United States involved,' Cronkite acknowledged. 'And therefore, the people are entitled to know peccadilloes that might have influenced the course of affairs' since these might be relevant as to 'whether the president was trusthworthy or not in other matters.'


Yet, yet, yet. Please. Let us be frank. Cronkite is a leftist; always was. He didn't like Starr or the Clinton investigation; he loved Watergate; he hated the Vietnam War (and he lied about the Tet offensive); he loved his undeserved, unearned position as America's wise man.

This is the man to whom Gormley appeals as the voice of reason?

This, on top of Gormley's constant reportage from Bill Clinton's own voice as if Clinton were the narrator? (I'm convinced Gormley got access to Clinton only through a review-and-edit agreement extremely favorable to Bubba.) This, on top of Gormley's impressive failure through 75% (all I've been through) to even slightly examine, detail, describe, discuss, or even speculate about the Clinton defense team's efforts?

I'm done at 75%. This is a work of fiction.
55 comments|17 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on February 16, 2010
I have deleted my earlier review regarding the pricing of the Kindle version versus the hard cover book. I still feel as I did, but having seen the Kindle version price come down to an acceptable (yet still high price), I bought it and read it from front to back.

I give Gormley a lot of credit for providing a great deal of depth to the facts. In most cases, he pretty much lays it out on the line and provides a solid foundation of what happens. The problem is that he on ocassion slips and, for the most part, the slippage tends to go one way.

3 examples:

There is the often repeated story of how after the Lewinsky side of the scandal exploded, he reached out to Dick Morris who offered to poll the matter for Clinton. Morris reported back and said that if it was just a sex scandal regarding his private conduct, he was fine. But if he got close to the issues of perjury and obstruction of justice, he was toast. Gormley dutifully reports the Morris discussion, but he leaves out a crucial part of the discussion that Morris has repeated time and again in public - Clinton's response to the risk to him of perjury and obstruction by saying "Well, we'll just have to win".

The implication of Clinton's excluded comment is profound - it sets the stage for much of what followed in Clinton's efforts to destroy the credibility of the Indpendent Counsel and their investigation. The omission is striking in it's bias. The comment provides context and texture to the massive response, the unusal coordinated effort to attack the Counsel and his staff on a personal level, dragging them through the mud to dirty them up. Surprisingly, Gormley assumes that Clinton, as the chief law enforcement of the nation had no responsibility to the justice system to behave more respectfully within that system. Whereas Gormley reports on many ocassions that the OIC and his minions presumed that Clinton was entitled to more deference than your garden variety criminal target, he subtly neglects to give similar treatment to the notion that as the chief law enforcement officer and as an example to the nation, Clinton had an obligation to behave in a similar fashion towards the OIC and the legal process. Instead, the book is replete with examples - most of the time without critical comment - of how Clinton's unique position as president was frequently used to BENEFIT his defense and undermine the investigative process.

More the "we;ll just have to win" comment importantly shines a light on the fundamental approach of Clinton and his defenders - to twist the argument away from the real matters of investigation which had fatal potential - whether Clinton and those close to him committed crimes in connection with what was a legal investigation and towards the far less risky issue of consensual sex between two people, sordid as it may have been.

Whatever one thinks about Clinton and those who sought to undermine him, however they came to be before a judge and jury with sworn oaths taken, there is absolutely no excuse for ANYONE, let alone the President of the US, to lie under oath, suborn perjury and obstruct justice - all of which it was essentially proven that Clinton did. This is why Morris reported back to him that the consensus of Americans at that crucial time was that he'd be toast if that's what he did - and his comment "we'll just have to win" acknowledged that. And he thereafter set upon a two track strategy - twist the attention away from his crimes and onto his less dangerous sordid sex life, while effectively reframing Starr, et al as cultural warriors and zealots.

The exclusion of the real punchline of the Morris conversation could not have been an accident. Nor can anyone legitimately argue it was benign and ineffectual. It set the scene for all that followed.

The next exclusion is just as devastating to Gormley's credibility. He includes an interview with Betsey Wright, the Arkansas advisor who knew Clinton extremely well. So well that she counseled him against running because, having seen him up close and being assigned the uneviable job of containing "bimbo eruptions", she believed his personal conduct was such that he would only get into huge trouble. She knew the man, knew the history, and made a very accurate forecast. But what was most interesting about the Wright passages in the book was her take on his famous television comment where he wagged his finger angrily and said that "he did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky, and I never told anyone to lie, not ever." Wright told Gormley that when she saw that video, knowing Clinton as well as she did, knowing his mannerisms and facial reactions, she was certain he was guilty as charged on the issue of the sexual misconduct - with the natural conclusion that his testimony was perjured.

Gormley leaves it at that. He lacks the inquisitiveness - accidently? - to ask the question as to whether others who knew Clinton as well or better - i.e., HILLARY would have naturally come to the same conclusion. I think it's fair to say that it's a legitimate argument that any balanced book that seeks the truth in these matters should have raised that issue and bootstrapped it to the obvious conclusion: Hillary was not some victimized object of pity by a dog of a husband - this is a woman well versed in her husband's disgusting ways, knew that this was one of those episodes that spun out of control and notwithstanding that, she went out of her way to demonize those who were legally charged with investigating the implications of Clinton's crimes resulting from the disclosure of this embarrassing situation. It takes a special kind of power hungry person to do that kind of thing - an exploration of Hillary's motives and a discussion of her derivative status in their lives was certainly called for. At root, Hillary is a woman who sacrificed so her husband could get power that she could bootstrap for herself. Without that marriage, she's not first lady of Arkansas, the US and certainly not a Senator or Secy of State. Say what you will about whether she can do any of those jobs well, Clinton was her golden goose and even if he crapped up the barnyard, the golden eggs were the key for her. So what if she has to destroy other people to keep them....

That discussion ever came close to being discussed.

Finally, the case of Kathleen Willey. She reported that he tried to assault her sexually in the day before her husband committed suicide. "You may want to put some ice on that" regarding the fat lip he gave her never hits the book, but that's not really a big deal. The big deal is that after she was finally coaxed to going public with her complaints about Clinton's behavior, Clinton had the White House release letters from her personnel file in an effort to dirty Willey up and undermine her credibility. Gormley reports the release of the letter and surprisingly, points to them as worthy of casting aspersions on her claims. What he doesn't do is make any reference to the fact that the letters may have been written because she feared the wrath of the most powerful man on earth. More importantly, he makes NO disclosure that the release of those letters from Willey's confidential personnel file was a CRIME which two courts, including a Circuit Court of Appeals upheld as such. Again, this speaks to the scorched earth approach that Clinton followed regardless of the consequences to others or the nation.

There's many more subtlties like that, too numerous to mention. These present color and texture and indicate that as well written and well documented as the book is, it is also dangerous. Dangerous in that it's veneer is comprehensive yet it's exclusions are subtly intended to deftly push the reader to a conclusion that is emminently favorable to Clinton.

Many in these reviews have fallen for the Clinton strategy in emphasizing the sex angle rather than the fact that the man committed crimes. He was forced to give up his law license, he paid out large amounts of money in settlements, and paid large fines. Not what innocent people do. And all of that had to do with the front part of the strategy - i.e., to avoid the legal process in a corrupt way, to twist it like a pretzel, using the presidency as a tool to do so and seeking to recharacterizing his criminal behavior to what people would normally do in a sex scandal without mentioning the fact that most sex scandal handling is not done in the context of a criminal investigation where different standards of behavior apply to all citizens and doubly so to the president of the US.
22 comments|7 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on March 27, 2010
not at this price!!! your price gouging is killing the reviews for this book. hope the author appreciates it.
11 comment|8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on February 16, 2010
Like a good Faux News reporter, Ken Gormley hides under a facade of facts, but somehow fails after nine years of research to answer the basic questions, like what were Kenneth Starr's motives for going well beyond his charter and sending investigators into Arkansas to dig into Clinton's personal life. How did Starr allow investigators to wire Linda Tripp in an effort to get to Monica Lewinsky, when Tripp's allegations had nothing to do with Starr's Whitewater investigation, but everything to do with a witch hunt? Gormley seems to think that by failing to ask the tough questions, he can make it seem like he is not taking sides, but don't be fooled. Look, if you are a Bill and Hilary Clinton-hater, you will love this book, but if you are looking for the facts and the truth, pass on this one. Gormley has nothing for you. Gormley should just crawl back under his rock, and leave publishing to journalists who know the truth when they see it. This book is nothing more than an extension of the Starr Inquisition into the next decade. Enough already.
99 comments|25 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on March 18, 2010
I just saw an interview with Gormley and came here to order a Kindle edition. I'm going to wait though until the price drops to $9.99. I have plenty of good reading to enjoy in the meantime.
11 comment|7 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on March 1, 2010
I will be voting with my dollars, or lack thereof, and boycotting any title at this price.
33 comments|9 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on February 18, 2010
Shame, shame, shame on you, Amazon. What are you THINKING? Or ARE you thinking? I was going to buy the Kindle version after the NPR program I listened to last week, but I am NOT going to pay this kind of price for a Kindle version. You folks need to find that map that tells you exactly where your heads are located.
1313 comments|20 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on February 21, 2010
I hate to say it but if this is the shape of things to come in ebooks, I'll have to go back to the library and set my Kindle on the bookshelf like any other book. I will not pay this kind of money when it's clear that publishers are making FAR more on electronic books than hardcovers / paperbacks. There is no reasoable explanation for this other than greed. Sadly, the publishers (and Amazon) will learn that people remember how to use the public library. Farewell Kindle. Sad. Amazon looked Apple in the eye and blinked.
0Comment|13 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse