Customer Reviews

Truth at Any Cost

5 star:		(23)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

If like many other readers you would like to learn more about the facts of this case then this is the book to start with. The reader gets a good overall picture of the case as it started to unfold in January 1998, including the legal strategy pursued by both sides in the scandal. As the reader continues through the early months of 1998 it becomes apparent that Starr is amassing a wealth of evidence against President Clinton while at the same time loosing the publicity battle. By the time the President publicly admitted his affair with lewensky the public appetite for a resignation on the basis of Starr's investigation was zero. The book is useful in sketching out why Clinton's long war strategy with Starr paid of.

You also get a good personal insight into the kind of man Starr is and what drove him during the months of unrelenting criticism from the White House media machine. I found the lewensky legal strategy interesting in terms of Starr's efforts at securing a deal for her co-operation. I have to say that I agree with a comment in the book that if Susan Schmidt and Michael Weisskopf were pursuing the case against Clinton he would have been under far more pressure than was the case in reality. However as a factual analyses of the period and the players involved the book stands up.

Having read the first couple of chapters of this book I can see that Schmidt and Weiskopf are following in the "proud" tradition of Bob Woodward in telling a "story" instead of practicing journalism. There is very little information given to the reader to explain just what the foundation is for the author's description of the events surrounding those first few days when Linda Tripp came to the OIC. We are just supposed to accept on faith that they are relating the issues as they actually happened.

The problem with this is that it obscures some very fundamental questions. For example, the authors continually say that Ken Starr and his staff did not know that Linda Tripp was dealing with the Paula Jones team of legal "elves" during the days leading up to President Clinton's deposition. Yet no attribution is supplied by which we can judge this assertion. In fact, it isn't even made as an assertion so much as it is inserted off-handily in a way as to suggest that the very idea is just to absurd to consider.

Now, a real journalist would have at least included comments like "Ken Starr insists that the OIC did not know of Tripp's prior relationship with the Jones legal team". But the authors don't even give us that courtesy.

On top of this, the authors, in their attempts to decry the alleged smears by the Clinton partisans practice their own form of smear. On Pg. 14 they relate an incident in which Arkansas journalist Gene Lyons sent an e-mail to James Carville regarding a rumor about Ken Starr having a paramour of his own. The description provided in this book makes it sound like Mr. Lyons was doing this in order to instigate a smear against Mr. Starr. Unfortunately, even the short extract of the e-mail presented in the book strongly suggests that Mr. Lyons was passing this on as an example of the kind of silly rumors that are par-for-the-course in Arkansas politics. Would the full context of the e-mail confirm this reading? We don't know because the authors again don't give us that courtesy. Was this really an attempt at a smear? Or was Mr. Lyons just pointing out how silly this rumor is BECAUSE it was about Ken Starr? Maybe we are to believe that suggesting Mr. Starr is NOT an adulterer is to be considered a smear?

In one short paragraph the authors perpetrate a smear against a journalist who himself has a book out ("The Hunting Of The President", written with Joe Conason) which refutes many of the smear campaigns that have been run against the President. Furthermore, said book takes to task several prominent Clinton scandal journalists, including Susan Schmidt, for falling prey to the very same wild rumors Mr. Lyons was discussing in that e-mail.

So Susan Schmidt compounds the smear by not letting the reader know that she has a personal reason to hold a grudge against Mr. Lyons.

This is what the authors consider to be ethical journalism?

(Note: I gave this book 2 stars instead of 1 because it is a page-turner. But that only means it qualifies as entertainment, not journalism.)

I can't put my finger on it, but I was left with a dissatisfied feeling after reading this book. They do a fine job of telling what happened from Ken Starr's perspective, but too often I was overwhelmed by the minutae of what they were discussing. While far less polemical than the other takes on L'Affaire Lewinski, I just didn't get excited reading this book.

As a reader of nonfiction, specifically history or politics, I'm an avid highlighter. I underline or highlight passages for easy reference, jot a few margin notes for consideration for future research, and a few sticky notes for bookmarking. This book is filled with my personalization. Unfortunately, for the authors, virtually every marking point out factual problems, statements contradicted by the public record, or totally implausible explanations. What follows are a very small subset of the countless shortfallings.

"The presiding federal judge, Henry Woods, was one of Hillary Clinton's mentors . . . An appeals court disagreed and stripped Woods of the case, citing appearance of bias in his Whitehouse connections." P 10. The problem here is that the authors fail to tell the reader the nature of the appeal. Ken Starr used newspaper stories to support this contention. A brief review of the evidence shows the "mentor" contention came from an op-ed published in the Washington Times, written by Jim Johnson. Johnson, known as Justice Jim, along with Wesley Pruden, father of the editor-in-chief of the Washington Times, cofounded the Arkansas White Citizens Counsel. The alleged mentor concept arose from Woods asking Hillary Clinton to serve on a board that reviewed school desegregation in Little Rock. Woods was a longtime enemy of Johnson, who succeeded in removing Johnson's pro segregation clause in the Arkansas constitution. The facts reveal that Woods had often ruled against then Governor Clinton, including a case involving a planned nuclear power plant. The authors clearly fail at providing any of these facts, and instead stick to the Ken Starr line of the smear of Judge Woods. The authors never mention that the appeals court was headed by Jesse Helms sponsored Judge Pasco Bowman.

Schmidt and Weisskopf missed the most basic logical fallacy in the above passage. Even if it were correct, how do the authors square the "bias" in light that the McDougal Tucker prosecution presented the Clintons as victims, not criminals. Oh that's right, Schmidt also failed to inform the Washington Post readers of this prosecution summation in that trial. Yet another inconvenient fact that the authors chose to ignore.

The book's reporting of the Ritz Carlton room 1012 episode, (pp 38-46) contradicts Monica Lewinsky and Marcia Lewis' memory in salient details. Since it's a clear disagreement, one must rely on which version appears more plausible. One is strained to believe the Schmidt version. Can one really believe that someone who's being threatened with 27 years in prison and having their mother similarly indicted for obstruction (a fact which both Truth At Any Cost and Monica's Story agree), would not demand to speak to a lawyer? "Monica's Story" claims that she was threatened with indictment if she chose to do so. Schmidt claims that Monica was told she could leave at any time. Can anyone seriously believe she stayed for 10 hours of threats and abuse, if the TAAC version is correct. I'm strained to believe the Schmidt version. What is clear is that if the actual events are even slightly skewed to the Lewinsky rendition, the Office Of Independent Counsel clearly violated Ms. Lewinsky's constitutional rights, and committed severe breaches in law.

"In fact, Hale had not changed his story. [regarding the illegal loan from Hale to McDougal]." P 95. Sorry Ms. Schmidt, but there are at least three different versions of the story told by Hale. They include different ways that Clinton arrived, what Clinton was wearing when he arrived, and in his latest rendition added paid Clinton hater LD Brown as being present at the time. Can one seriously believe that these supporting facts would have changed over time if in fact Clinton asked Hale to commit a crime? I would assume any reasonable person would remember virtually every detail of such a significant event. But the authors never seem to want to dig beneath the official Ken Starr version, never realizing how implausible that version is.

Another reviewer gave the book two stars, calling it a page turner. Initially I concurred with that evaluation, until I realized I was turning the pages, with slacked jaw, wondering how they might next distort reality. Their premise that Starr is politically niave, is contradicted by countless examples of sophisticated acumen. The book fails miserably to support the argument the authors adduce. The basic dishonest merits my one-star rating.

As an avid reader of history, but only a now-and-then reader of journalistic commentary/history, I found many details of what happened and why, but few important new details. It was very easy to read, and considering the number of names of key people in the investigation, the authors did and excellent job of keeping us informed of who was who.

My first complaint is that the Clinton/White House side was given only a small percentage of the coverage in the book with the remainder going to the Starr Investigation. Of course the book was about the Starr investigation first and foremost, but the White House motivations and actions were not well explained, only, I presume, because the authors did not have access to them. The details in the thinking and conclusions of the Starr side were good and complete--not so the other side.

My second and final complaint is that the basic thesis of the book that Starr was naive and single-minded in his approach does not pass muster. Starr showed his adroit skills throughout the process, as well as some of his blunders. Making him out to be naive is to say that he was innocent to a fault--a virute taken to an extreme became his vice. Clinton's side was never given such a look--they were always portrayed as mean-spirited and near-unethical--in other words, bad from the get-go. Such overarching characterizations take away from the larger message of the book.

Truth At Any Cost does not pretend to be evenhanded. Instead, co-authors Susan Schmidt and Michael Weisskopf examine the Lewinsky affair from the standpoint of those inside the Office of Independent Counsel. The result is a new perspective on an exhaustively covered scandal.

This book dwells little on Whitewater and the other investigations that led to the appointment of Independent Counsel Ken Starr. The authors instead concentrate on the sexual scandal that led to Clinton's impeachment and how Starr and his subordinates responded. It would have been nice to know more about the men and women who investigated the president, but the focus is on personality rather than biography. The authors depict Starr in a much different light than the oft-demonized caricature that was spoon-fed the public. Again, it would have been nice to know more about Starr's background, but the concentration is on his character. Starr is presented here as a conscientious but politically naive lawyer better suited to the bench than to the OIC.

Although relatively brief, the book drags a bit but picks up steam in the latter chapters as the independent counsel gathers and compiles evidence against the president. A few new revelations emerge along the way. Among them is Hillary Clinton's central role in the defense of her husband and in the counteroffensive against his opponents.

This book is worth reading just to see why, as well as how, the prosecutors pursued this case so vigorously. Their motivations often run counter to the stereotypes floated at the time, and this makes for a new spin on an old story.

This book obviously inflames Clinton partisans because it doesn't deal with "spin," but only that which can be factually supported with court transcripts, produced documents and the like. There's no "Deep Throat" or other unidentified sources here. And the facts all lead to the same place: William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States lied under oath. A federal judge fined him $90,000 for that and Clinton didn't appeal the ruling. Sens. Lieberman, Feinstein and others all publicly announced their belief that the President had committed illegal acts that were punishable under criminal law, even if they didn't rise to the level of impeachable acts. Because the book relies so heavily on facts, it is somewhat slow reading and those who actually followed the events (not the "spin") will find little new here. Isikoff's book is actually more fun to read, though less encyclopedic in its fact gathering. For those who don't want the truth or can't admit to it, there's always Toobin. Starr doesn't come across as a hero really, but rather as a man who truly believes that no person is above the law and that the law is to be applied equally to low and high. If you've never been a party to a civil or criminal action or have any knowledge of the function of law in a democracy, you won't understand the importance of those two concepts - nor will you ever understand how important the service, however flawed from a "spin" perspective, Starr performed for the nation. If Starr could have only combined his legal skills with the charisma of a Clinton, the Clinton Presidency would have been over in a flash. Instead, as this book clearly demonstrates in its flat, dull language, we have established partisanship and spin as being more important than law. We will most assuredly suffer for that in the future.

Jerry

...about who was right or wrong in the Lewinsky affair and why it matters. I read this book in just a couple of days. I watched the whole Lewinsky imbroglio with strange fascination like everyone else. As a conservative, I have to admit I was quick to "side" with the Independent Counsel. And this book, although written from an apolitical standpoint, buttressed my opinion in this sense: that history will record the sad but true fact that Ken Starr unflinchingly, and to his own peril, sought truth and justice at almost every single step of the way in this investigation. Equally, it is true that Clinton unflinchingly, and to his own peril, sought to AVOID truth and justice at almost every single step of the way in this investigation. Both Starr's and Clinton's reputations are permanently tarnished. But Starr's tarnishing is undeserved and will improve as time goes on. Clinton's reputation is, deservedly, unsalvagable. This book reads almost like you're watching a gripping docu-drama unfold before your eyes. It is excellent history, excellent reporting, and unrivaled for it's ability to wring information from both the OIC and White House. Thus far, if you are going to read one book about this sordid American episode, this is the one!

An explanatory note: this book touches, but does not focus to any degree, on the media's role in this and also the impeachment proceedings. It's primary focus, however, is the inner machinations of the OIC and the White House from the time of Linda Tripp's bombshell until Starr's appearance before the House Judiciary Committee. For in depth coverage of the media, impeachment, etc aspects of this case, go elsewhere.

This is a hard hitting and fascinating look behind the scenes of one of the most sensational investigations in history. Not being particularly partisan myself, I found it to be balanced and equally unflattering to both sides, often in ways not consistent with the news reports.

During the investigation, I never found the Ken Starr described by the media to be consistent with the man I saw giving Congressional testimony. This book presents a more believable picture of the real Ken Starr. I am now convinced that it was not some right wing vendetta, but rather a quixotic quest by a politically naïve, high minded and truth obsessed prosecutor whose idealistic view of the legal system stood in the way of his effectiveness. While Starr may have out-lawyered the Clinton team in the courts, his single-minded and hubristic belief that truth would lead to justice caused many political missteps that handed his opposition all the ammunition they needed to destroy him in the arena of public opinion.... .

This treatment emphasized the OIC perspective far more than that of the White House and in that way I felt it to be an incomplete account. However, that which was included was very insightful and revealing. The OIC was always subject to wild speculation and unsubstantiated attacks because of their inability to speak openly about the investigation. Though I'm sure the prosecutors took the opportunity in their interviews to put their own positive spin on events, this book at least gives their side, and in that way it is a valuable addition to the historical record.

An intriguing book. I definitely recommend it.

At last we now have the straight scoop on much of the behind the scenes events leading up to President Bill Clinton's impeachment. Here we see Ken Starr as the professional he is, not the GOP pawn who was unfairly vilified by Democrats and Clinton supporters. Every Clinton biography collection must include this volume. I expect many future historians to copiously refer to Schmidt's and Weisskopf's extraordinary writings.