Format: PaperbackChange
Price:$19.68+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
on March 28, 2017
A 2012 book. Audible, with its usual approach, seems to keep the actual publication date from view. If you're looking for something recent from Jeffrey Toobin, keep looking. The three stars is a compromise between one star for Audible and five for Toobin.
on July 20, 2000
This is a detailed, thoroughly researched account of the events that led up to President Clinton's impeachment, and the backgrounds and motivations of the people who brought it about. Unfortunately, there is scant new information in the book for political and news junkies, like myself. Anyone who read the newspapers, magazines like "Newsweek" or "Time", will see "Vast Conspiracy" as a retread over old material.
Some of Toobin's characterizations of the people in the book are hilarious, like when he describes Lucianne Goldberg as a creature out of the bar in the Star Wars movie. Toobin also accurately assesses the consequences of the actions of some of the players. No matter how odious it seems, Linda Tripp's advice to Monica Lewinsky to save the stained dress was what helped bring about Clinton's "confession" to their affair. Otherwise, Clinton might have gone on denying that he even knew Monica Lewinsky.
This book was somewhat of a let down after reading Toobin's excellent book about O.J. Simpson, "The Ride of His Life." In that book, Toobin gave more background into both the city of Los Angeles and its inhabitants. True, the people in Los Angeles were probably more colorful, and thus more interesting to write about. However, at best in "Vast Conspiracy", the people come across as sketchy, and hardly anything was said about the city of Washington, D.C. at all. Toobin would have done well to explore why there was such a difference between Clinton's high popularity poll numbers, and the insistence of the D.C. media that he was on his way out. Now THAT would have made "Vast Conspiracy" a worthwhile read.
Some of Toobin's characterizations of the people in the book are hilarious, like when he describes Lucianne Goldberg as a creature out of the bar in the Star Wars movie. Toobin also accurately assesses the consequences of the actions of some of the players. No matter how odious it seems, Linda Tripp's advice to Monica Lewinsky to save the stained dress was what helped bring about Clinton's "confession" to their affair. Otherwise, Clinton might have gone on denying that he even knew Monica Lewinsky.
This book was somewhat of a let down after reading Toobin's excellent book about O.J. Simpson, "The Ride of His Life." In that book, Toobin gave more background into both the city of Los Angeles and its inhabitants. True, the people in Los Angeles were probably more colorful, and thus more interesting to write about. However, at best in "Vast Conspiracy", the people come across as sketchy, and hardly anything was said about the city of Washington, D.C. at all. Toobin would have done well to explore why there was such a difference between Clinton's high popularity poll numbers, and the insistence of the D.C. media that he was on his way out. Now THAT would have made "Vast Conspiracy" a worthwhile read.
on July 14, 2000
Toobin is certainly an accomplished author. His organization and expression are first rate in a topic that is data dense. However, Toobin fails to note the major legal events that created Clinton's predicament. In 1994, the Congress passed and Clinton signed a "Crime Control" bill. Among other things, the bill granted to plaintiffs in quid pro quo sexual harrassment suits, the power to ask the defendant about prior sexual relations in ordet to prove "pattern and practice." This new legal power is significant is two ways. First, it is a reversal of 200 years of American jurisprudence. That is, instead of a plaintiff having to prove that the defendant committed a certain act on a certain date, the plaintiff could persuade a jury that the defendant had a "pattern and practice" of the alleged behavior. Historically, such evidence would not have been allowed because it is "prejudicial" (making the jury hate the defendant) and not "probative" (does not prove the allegation that the defendant committed the alleged act. Second, the law ended the concept of "personal life" as we had come to know it.
When Paula Jones brought her suit, it proceeded under this rule. When Clinton obstructed the court from learning the truth about his relationships, he was defending his "persona; life" from the very same invasive law that he created.
This, and every other analysis that I have seen leaves out another important fact. Paula Jones was bringing a law suit alleging that Bill Clinton used the priveleges of his office to trade sexual favors for employment oppurtunites. Knowing that this "Vast Conspiracy" was investigating this, Clinton engaged in the precise behavior that the investigators were trying to uncover. After procuring sexual favors from Lewinsky, Clinton made several attempts to procure employment. Quid pro quo!
Many Americans felt that the investigation moved unfairly into Clinton's personal life. The media, like ABC and Toobin, fed the public's concern about the scope of the investigation, never reporting the relevant law. Even after all of these pages, Toobin has kept the secret (or maybe he just does not know the law). Toobin would have us grant some clemency because there were people who pushed the law suits and investigations forward without revealing the single most important legal implications: that this invasion into the "personal life" can happen to anyone anytime a quid pro quo suit is filed.
When Paula Jones brought her suit, it proceeded under this rule. When Clinton obstructed the court from learning the truth about his relationships, he was defending his "persona; life" from the very same invasive law that he created.
This, and every other analysis that I have seen leaves out another important fact. Paula Jones was bringing a law suit alleging that Bill Clinton used the priveleges of his office to trade sexual favors for employment oppurtunites. Knowing that this "Vast Conspiracy" was investigating this, Clinton engaged in the precise behavior that the investigators were trying to uncover. After procuring sexual favors from Lewinsky, Clinton made several attempts to procure employment. Quid pro quo!
Many Americans felt that the investigation moved unfairly into Clinton's personal life. The media, like ABC and Toobin, fed the public's concern about the scope of the investigation, never reporting the relevant law. Even after all of these pages, Toobin has kept the secret (or maybe he just does not know the law). Toobin would have us grant some clemency because there were people who pushed the law suits and investigations forward without revealing the single most important legal implications: that this invasion into the "personal life" can happen to anyone anytime a quid pro quo suit is filed.
on January 18, 2000
I felt a little disappointed in Toobin, the writer, after having read this. The text seemed a bit hurried in places, the research wasn't up to his usual standard, and even though Toobin is careful to state several times that Clinton's behavior was shameless, his criticism of Republicans does seem to go over the top. At times the tone almost becomes smarmy when Republicans are discussed. Toobin's own politics are no mystery after finishing the book.
That said, it is a good read, and provides some new insight to the case. It's not nearly good as his earlier book, on the OJ Simpson trial, titled "The Run of His Life", but I'm sure he was under more of a deadline for this one. Check out the paperback edition when it becomes available.
That said, it is a good read, and provides some new insight to the case. It's not nearly good as his earlier book, on the OJ Simpson trial, titled "The Run of His Life", but I'm sure he was under more of a deadline for this one. Check out the paperback edition when it becomes available.
on January 22, 2000
Only a true Clinton-hater could call this book pro-Clinton. It is a fair and balanced account of an ugly episode in American history. Clinton bears the ultimate responsibility for this matter. However, that does not change the fact that there were many people who worked obsessively and unscrupulously to end this presidency by any means possible. But as Toobin points out, this was payback for liberals who for years have been using the judicial system to accomplish what the democractic process has denied them.
on January 12, 2000
Yes, here we go, a book about how poor Bill got himself in trouble, but it was not really his own fought. The powers that be were out to get him from the start. He may of made a few mistakes, but he said; "he was sorry" and we should move on. Mean old Ken Starr was the one with the sorted pass and anyone he questioned about the Clintons and answered honestly, were as bad as him. We are to think that new rules were written only to get the Clintons and the same rules would not have been used on someone else. Jeffery Toobin has his own agenda in this book, and that is to make Bill look like a victim and not the one who made the mistakes. Mr. Toobin wants us to think that lying under oath is not enough to be booted out of office. He wants us to think that although you could go to jail for lying under oath it is not enough for an impeachment. My thought on this is, if you can serve time for lying under oath, then it is an impeachable offense. Yes; this is another attempt for the mass media to swing far to the left. The book is a poor attempt to try to save a failed presidency. The book is an attempt to convince us that what we learned about "OLD BILL" was wrong, and that the only real wrong he did was lying to his wife about the scandal. And that Ken Starr forced him to go to TV and lie in our faces.
If the blue dress would not have been kept, we would still be hearing the same old lies, and Monica would have been much worse off for it. But then; Mr. Toobin would not have a book would he?
If the blue dress would not have been kept, we would still be hearing the same old lies, and Monica would have been much worse off for it. But then; Mr. Toobin would not have a book would he?
on October 15, 2001
I absolutely loved Jeffrey Toobin's O. J. Book, The Run of His Life, so I was really looking forward to his taking on the Clinton Scandal(s). Unfortunately, Toobin has taken his cue from Paul Begala, James Carville, and their ilk and decided to take on Ken Starr instead. The book is rich in detail and undeniably entertaining, but Toobin just doesn't seem to get the magnitude of the President, having sworn to defend and uphold the constitution of the United States, swearing falsely before a Grand Jury. In addition, the single most important fact of this whole ordeal is completely absent: that is, the fact that any man of honor would have resigned his office in the wake of such scandalous behavior.
on January 21, 2000
Are any of you shocked at the amount of vitriol in these reviews? I am not. The whole idea of unity is a crock. You choice is the devil, or the deep blue sea.
on January 10, 2000
I gave this book three stars because that's the current average of the 11 "reviews" I've seen to date, and I didn't want to skew it either way with this note. Too bad there's no way to ensure that someone has actually read a book before reviewing it, instead of using this forum as yet one more chance to promote a political point of view or make personal attacks anonymously. Nice idea, Amazon, but this system leaves no way to separate real reviewers from spinmeisters.
