Product Description
President Bill Clinton's year of crisis, which began when his affair with Monica Lewinsky hit the front pages in January 1998, engendered a host of important questions of criminal and constitutional law, public and private morality, and political and cultural conflict.

In a book written while the events of the year were unfolding, Richard Posner presents a balanced and scholarly understanding of the crisis that also has the freshness and immediacy of journalism. Posner clarifies the issues and eliminates misunderstandings concerning facts and the law that were relevant to the investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and to the impeachment proceeding itself. He explains the legal definitions of obstruction of justice and perjury, which even many lawyers are unfamiliar with. He carefully assesses the conduct of Starr and his prosecutors, including their contacts with the lawyers for Paula Jones and their hardball tactics with Monica Lewinsky and her mother. He compares and contrasts the Clinton affair with Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, exploring the subtle relationship between public and private morality. And he examines the place of impeachment in the American constitutional scheme, the pros and cons of impeaching President Clinton, and the major procedural issues raised by both the impeachment in the House and the trial in the Senate. This book, reflecting the breadth of Posner's experience and expertise, will be the essential foundation for anyone who wants to understand President Clinton's impeachment ordeal.Amazon.com Review
Richard Posner is a top-ranking member of the United Statesjudiciary and one of the most highly respected legal theorists andphilosophers. In An Affair of State, he turns his attention tothe impeachment of President Bill Clinton, which stemmed from chargesof perjury and obstruction of justice regarding statements about hisadulterous relationship with former White House staffer MonicaLewinsky. While Posner focuses on the actual legal issues involvedrather than attempt to make a case for Clinton's or any of hisRepublican adversaries' being evil incarnate, he does not treat thepresident with kid gloves. Not only does Posner claim that Clinton isa brazen liar who "flaunts his religiosity, but gives religion a badname," he makes a strong case that the charges of perjury against thepresident were valid, "that [he] in several instances obstructedjustice in a legal sense, and that he has never admitted lying abouthis relationship with Lewinsky." Along the way, Posner considersseveral fascinating topics, including whether the president can pardonhimself--theoretically, except in cases of impeachment, he can--andeven, on occasion, displays a subtle dry wit. (Among the bestone-liners: "[Alan] Dershowitz criticizes Clinton, but largely for theblunders he committed in trying to conceal his affair ... andimplicitly for not having retained Dershowitz as legal advisor.") An Affair of State is the smartest, most level-headed bookwritten to date about what Posner calls "the wholeClinton-Lewinsky-Starr-impeachment business"; it is likely to retainthat status for some time to come. --Ron Hogan ... Read more

Customer Reviews (40)

Like Danielle Steele
Judge Richard Posner churns out books with the speed and depth of Danielle Steele. 'An Affair of State' was the second of his that I read, and it will be the last. This review was written six years ago. Nothing has been revealed since to make me change a word of it.

Richard Posner cheerfully admits he knows nothing of the background to the Clinton scandals, only what was published in the press or in legal documents.
This is not really true, as he does claim to know that Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr is an upright fellow, with no sexual hangups, which is not an opinion that a reasonable man could form from any available reports.
Posner's obvious goal is to save Starr. But Starr is indefensible; not just suspect of many serious crimes, but vehemently suspect, as the medieval jurisconsults had it, meaning that no innocent explanation is possible.
Posner's strategy is to foist off Starr's transgressions on other players. For example, he asserts that the storm-trooper tactics of Office of Independent Counsel were the result of "aggressive" underlings, all "experienced prosecutors" who were able to maraud freely because their boss had no experience as a prosecutor.
This argument does not work. The previous special prosecutor, Robert Fiske, was removed improperly, as even Posner admits, by a panel of three right-wing judges. Joe Conason and Gene Lyons (in 'The Hunting of the President') have made an excellent case that the removal was a criminal conspiracy to impede justice.
The Three Stooges met with a right-wing Republican senator the day before Fiske was canned. Conason and Lyons believe the stooges knuckled under to right-wing pressure. Posner says since they all denied it, there is no "proof" that that is what happened.
Maybe not court proof, but is it plausible that that is not what happened? No.
Either the Three Stooges colluded in an illegal conspiracy to obstruct justice, or they made an honest decision to replace Fiske, followed by an unbelievably stupid one to appoint a special prosecutor with no experience. It was hardly a task at which the nation could afford to sponsor on-the-job training.
Even without a mealymouthed, self-righteous sicko like Starr at the top, the OIC was corrupt.
The strongest of many examples was the OIC's tampering with witness Sarah Hawkins. Conason and Lyons tell this sordid tale; Posner, revealingly, does not.
In the whole book, Posner does not devote even one whole sentence to the massive allegations against Starr.

Judge Posner does it again!!!
Judge Posner has written a concise and accurate analysis of the impeachment and trial of President Clinton, and included thorough and accurate assessments of all parties involved.Judge Posner concludes that the articles of impeachment filed against the President were indeed within the realm of high crimes and misdemeanors; additionally, Judge Posner argues that, contrary to popular spin, the actions of the President went beyond that of a private matter, bringing shame, disgrace, and disruption to the executive office -- actions which by themselves supported impeachment.Of most interest, however, is Judge Posner's excoriating portrayal of all parties involved.A president, who deliberately lied to the nation, his family, his cabinet, and his supporters, in a blatant effort to obstruct justice.A prosecutor, who failed in his effort at developing a strong case against the president, provided an overly lurid account of the case, and then buried the record in mountains of evidence.A house of representatives, incapable of developing accurate articles of impeachment, and then failing miserably in the prosecution of the case in the senate.A senate, so inept as to have never developed appropriate rules for an impeachment trial.And finally, partisan groups from both sides, who in the urge to defend or defeat the president, daily set forth on a path of lies and insinuations, often with the sole purpose of damaging the characters of individuals under media glare.The book is well worth reading, and is an excellent reminder of the damage an impeachment trial can do.Readers who are further interested in impeachment generally should consider Michael J. Gerhardt's The Federal Impeachment Process:A Constitutional and Historical Analysis.

Excellent on the Law, but falls short of its goal
Posner promises to rip the cover off the impeachment process by sorting through the spin and uncovering the truth of what Clinton was charged with, what he did, and how the impeachment process worked.

As a judge, he does a magnificent job (especially as he completed this book within days of the final vote) of cutting to the quick of the legal charges against Clinton, and examining the evidence that pretty undisputably proves Clinton "guilty".

But, and this is a very big but, his strength as a judge is Posner's weakness as a historian.He assumes, without proving, that the true issue in impeachment is (or should be) the legal issue.He virtually ignores the competing view, that the key issue is (and should be) political.Only by reading this book in combination with Rhenquit's history of the Samuel Chase and Andrew Johnson impeachments can you get a more rounded view.

As a matter of law, Clinton was guilty.However, we were not involved in a criminal trial.We were deciding whether to remove this country's highest elected official.This is a highly political question, to which the legal issues are relevent, but hardly decisive.

By failing to grapple honestly with this dichotomy, Posner's book ultimately falls short of being the definitive work on impeachment it could have been, given his incisive analysis of th elegal issues and the evidence.

Best of all impeachment books
After reading all of the impeachment books, and I mean all of them, including Benedict's fabulous book on Johnson's impeachment trial, this is the best.Posner removes the gloves for all parties involved and strikes many direct hits.While most of Posner's books are for the lawyerly elite, this book can be enjoyed by anybody who has a basic understanding of what happened during the Clinton scandal and is looking for a brilliant analysis.

Promises more than it delivers
Judge Posner promises a far-reaching analysis of the impeachment and trial of President Clinton.In his introduction, he notes that the "ordeal" presented numerous axes of analysis: issues of law, issues of jurisprudence, issues of morality, theories of conflict, issues of political and cultural sociology. (p. 3)

In applying these analytical perspectives to the particular issues raised within the context of President Clinton's impeachment, I think Judge Posner does an excellent job at cutting through the political spin and identifying the essential legal points.He deftly exposes "it's all about sex" as the dishonest mantra that Clinton supporters, such as James Carville, used to divert the public's attention away from the basic legal issues.His discussion of the relevant legal charges--obstruction of justice and perjury--is clear and accessible.Once the political spin is redacted, the conclusion is inescapable--Clinton committed perjury and thus violated the law.

Yet Judge Posner's book is ultimately dissatisfying.His book promises more than it delivers, and what I think is a significant issue--the nature of impeachment as it has been understood and used within the American constitutional order--remains relatively untouched by Posner's book.This is frustrating.

Beyond passing references to Samuel Chase and Andrew Johnson, Judge Posner never discusses their impeachment or their resulting trials.He notes the distinction between impeachment standards for judges versus the President, but he never discusses in any detail the impeachment and conviction of any judges.(The only discussion is Judge Posner's reference to Judge Nixon's impeachment and conviction for perjury in 1989, but this is made in a single-sentence footnote on page 103.)In his discussion of censure, Judge Posner writes that "Congress has used censure sparingly" (p. 191), but beyond a couple references to President Jackson, he never discusses any of the situations in which Congress has censured a government official and what this meant for Congress in 1998-1999.

Maybe I had unrealistic expectations, but with a chapter entitled "The History, Scope and Form of Impeachment," I was really hoping for some substantial scholarship on the constitutional issue of impeachment as it has been used against many judges and two Presidents in our nation's history.This type of analysis would have ensured that the latest edition of Posner's annual publications would stand the test of time and would always remain relevant, especially when President Clinton's impeachment simply becomes another paragraph in U.S. history textbooks.Unfortunately, I was left with the sense that Judge Posner should have spent a few extra months doing additional research to produce a true scholarly exegesis, rather than join the rush to publish in the wake of the media frenzy. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

excellent compendium of transcripts
it is hard to imagine a more useful Clinton impeachment resource than this stellar volume. ... Read more

Product Description
This book argues that although Johnson's impeachment did not succeed in ousting him, it was a justified step. It describes the critical issues and events leading up to the impeachment and then discusses the trial itself: what the grounds were, what the different sides' motivations were, why the attempt failed. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (4)

Strongly Stated, Interesting, Readable
Professor Benedict makes a pretty strong case for impeaching Andrew Johnson in 1868.Benedict shows that Johnson was an obstructionist President who failed to execute reconstruction policies, and that the radical Republicans in Congress were determined but non-fanatical opponents desiring to help newly-freed slaves.Clearly Johnson, a Southern loyalist, cared little for ex-slaves; his military governors in Dixie favored "black codes" curtailing their rights. How different history might have been had Johnson shared the civil rights objectives of radical Republicans.Still, the author doesn't entirely erase the sense that this impeachment was more about politics than crimes and misdemeanors.The Tenure in Office Act seemed like a pretext - alaMonica Lewinsky in 1998 - and one Senator voting to convict (Ohio's Benjamin Wade) stood next in line for the Presidency.Either way, this is an informative look by an excellent Professor - I took his Constitutional History class years ago at Ohio State University, and he was a truly inspiring lecturer.

One wonders how the author would view Bill Clinton's impeachment - would he buy dubious Republican claims of perjury in a sexual matter, or see it as inspired by GOP hatred for a guy that beat them twice at the polls and shattered their illusions of a lock on the White House? Benedict should also write about Clinton's impeachment.

Good Factual Analysis, But Bad Conclusion
Benedict studies contemporary newspaper accounts and private correspondence from the participants to put together a nicely detailed account of the 1868 impeachment effort against Andrew Johnson. He seeks to correct what he perceives as history's overly unkind treatment of the radical Republicans who sought to remove Johnson from office. He states that the modern view is that the Republican efforts were well-meaning, and if anything did not go far enough. While Benedict's account is well researched, his conclusions are not supported by the facts or by the law, or by good political sense. There was an honest disagreement over whether the Tenure in Office Act even applied to Johnson; further, there was doubt as to whether it was even constitutional, and Johnson's view that it was not was vindicated years later when the Supreme Court declared a similar law unconstitutional in 1926. The real core issue here is how broadly one is supposed to read the impeachment clause in the Constitution. The broad interpretation urged by Benedict amounts to the President serving at the pleasure of the Senate, a view that was specifically considered and rejected by the Constitutional Convention. In light of that, Benedict's conclusions make little sense, though his scholarship is laudable.

An apologia for the impeachers
Professor Les Benedict lays out the case for President Johnson's impeachment in this 1972 monograph.The narrative is highly sympathetic to the radical-Republican impeachers, and unsympathetic to Johnson: Les Benedict embraces an emerging theme among historians who "now speak in terms of well-meaning efforts of conscientious Republicans to establish national security on the basis of equality before the law" in the highly volatile post-Civil War era, and he complains that "[o]nly one event has resisted this historical reversal--the impeachment and trial of President Andrew Johnson."The book paints the congressional Republicans as conscientious and rational politicians interested in restoring the Southern economic base (and securing their own political ascendancy) after the War, and Johnson as a power-hungry executive who thwarts the congressional policy using his military authority and other constitutional powers--all to the point where the restrained and long-suffering congressional majority is left with no choice but impeachment (the chapter leading up to the impeachment is titled "Johnson Forces the Issue").The book paints the politics with a very broad brush, and unfortunately gives short shrift to Johnson's motives, even though Johnson himself is portrayed as a capable and determined politician and not as the out-of-touch bumbler that some histories have made him out to be.But the book tells an engaging story from the congressional viewpoint, and offers a detailed and balanced view of the legal issues on which the trial ultimately hinged.

Makes Lewinsky Battle Seem Tame
Now Andrew Johnson may not have been hiding with an intern in the oval office, but this book has a lot more to offer.Drama in the House, drama in the Senate, verbal fights, threats, it sure beats the heck out of blue dresses and cigars. I don't think people have any idea how close Johnson was to being kicked out of office, let alone for what reason.Benedict does a remarkable job chronicling the times surrounding the day.Going in I found the battle to purely partisan, but after reading I agree with Benedict, the impeachment was justified. ... Read more

Product Description
This is a reproduction of a book published before 1923.This book may have occasional imperfections such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. that were either part of the original artifact, or were introduced by the scanning process.We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections, have elected to bring it back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed works worldwide.We appreciate your understanding of the imperfections in the preservation process, and hope you enjoy this valuable book. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (4)

EXCELLENT SOURCE
The Federal Impeachment Process is described in this book.Fortunately, we have not utilized this method of removal often, so there is not a lot of precident established.While this is one of the three most authoritative sources on the subject, I wish that the author had described in greater detail some of the precidents in English law, the thinking of the framers, contrasts with state impeachment procedures, and a more thorough procedural analysis of impeachment cases brought before the House and Senate ...Next book, maybe?At any rate, this is an excellent book, one certainly worth the used price!

Necessary Information for a necessary process
This is a book for the serious political participant and observer.It is technical in its nature although fairly easy to read and comprehend.Gerhardt is straightforward in his purpose: (1) provide readers with a historical perspective on Federal impeachment processes and (2) provide readers with necessary information on just what impeachment means and how the process works.He achieves both purposes very well.Since there is at least a possibility of one Congressional house changing party control in November, and that the new party in control (Democrats) likely will call for the impeachment of George W. Bush, citizens should be well informed on what the process means and how it impacts their nation.This book is an excellent choice for becoming so informed.

Well written overview for both lawyers and general readers.
Thought provoking and clearily written. While primarily limited in scopeto impeachment of federal judges (because more cases exist), theinformation on the origin of the impeachment provisions in the federalConstitution and the thinking behind the adoption of the provisions by theframers is relevant to issues of presidential impeachment. The reader willfind that it is useful as a guide to following the current hearings of theHouse Judiciary Committee as the members refer to precedents andhistory.

Prof. Gerhardt includes excellent signposts for further researchinto the innumerable Constitutional questions raised. The work is awell-constructed combination of law text and book for the general readerwith a scholarly turn of mind. Each section is prefaced by a briefstatement of its objective of the sort found at the start of scholarlypapers. The annotations and bibliography arewell done.

A thorough and well-written guide to impeachment
The last major treatments of impeachment were written by Raoul Berger andCharles Black a quarter century ago.Yet, in fact, quite a bit hashappened since then:though no Presidents have been impeached (so far),cases involving federal judges in particular have made new law and raisednew questions.Gerhardt's book goes into more depth than either Black orBerger, and provides an excellent guide to a wide range of issues. Gerhardt is more a Blackian than a Bergerian -- heavily influenced bystructure and relationship, and prone to avoid judicial review ofimpeachment in most circumstances.An excellent book, and well-written. ... Read more

Product Description
Contemporary events have emphasized, beyond the world of specialized history, the significance of the impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson as a precedent for the use of this ultimate weapon of Congress against the President.In Impeachment of a President, Hans L. Trefousse focuses on the causes of the failure to convict, the consequences of the acquittal, and the relationship of the impeachment to the ill success of the Reconstruction.Drawing on a wealth of material, some only recently made available, Professor Trefousse sheds new light on the President’s objectives and character.

In investigating the motivation of the Republican who first feltcompelled to indict the President and then failed to muster thenecessary two-thirds majority to convict, Professor Trefousseelucidates Johnson’s determination to keep the South "a white man’scountry." His findings, sure to spark controversy, assert thatJohnson knowledgeably risked impeachment to accomplish his own goals– to thwart radical Reconstruction and maintain white supremacy inthe South.Johnson is portrayed as honest, stubborn, and certain ofthe justice of his cause; he did not flinch from action that wouldserve his long range aim.In the process, he alienated potentialallies, but nevertheless he achieved his purpose – the underminingof Reconstruction.And in retarding the program, Johnson played amore fateful role in American history than has generally beenrealized.Moreover, the acquittal established the principle thatAmerican Presidents could not be removed from office for mere political differences with Congress.

Johnson’s character, too, bears re-examination.Was he, after all, really so rash?Did he, in fact, speak without thinking beforehand?A dedicated Unionist who remained determined to preserve the social order of the South, the Tennessean is shown to have been capable of careful planning and was not as unsuccessful as it sometimes thought.The subsequent failure of the effort to reform the South cast serious doubt on at least some of these suppositions. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (1)

Impeachment for Christmas, Prosecution for New Year's
Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3CCMBH56R3PKI The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush ... Read more

Product Description
Analyzes the Constitution's provision for impeachment and chronicles how this law has been used throughout American history to remove elected officials from power. ... Read more

Product Description
An inside look at the possible impeachment of PresidentClinton and what it would mean to the country. Including detailedinformation on the Starr report, a history of impeachment and theimpeachment process.

- A look at the legal and political issues involved in the impeachmentprocess.

- A dissection of the Starr Report and what it means to futurepresidents

- The lowdown on how Kenneth Starr shifted his focus from Whitewaterto a sex scandal ... Read more

Customer Reviews (9)

Enjoyable political reading
My husband and I read the Complete Idiot's guide about the impeachment of the President of United States.We have disagreed about issues surrounding this subject for months. We decided to read the book together and discussit as we went along.The authors spoke volumes to the issues giving myhusband and I plenty of points to discuss.We enjoyed the book very muchand have passed it along to our friends. We hope these two authors willcontinue to write more books along the same vein...we look forward toreading more.

It all makes sense now!
I have just finished reading The Complete Idiot's Guide to theImpeachment of the President.I was anxious to know more and makesense of all of the media mess, but found the newspapers and the television reports so predjudice in their condemnations.I found this book in the bookstore, and felt it was just what I was looking for to help sort things out. The authors brought the evidence to light in a clear and concise manner without beating around the bush.Unfortunately, that sort of hard hitting, non-bias fact finding, isnt what a lot of people want to hear.I found the book well thought out and very straight forward.I also found it to be an easy read that finally made sense of all of the confusing media mess.I would recommend this book to any student of political science or the lay person wanting to know more.I give this book four stars!END

Not a tongue-in-cheek-titled book
The title of this book turns out to be a good deal more descriptive than one might believe.Take what the authors have to say about the death of Deputy White House Counsel, Vincent W. Foster.This is from the heart oftheir discussion on pages 153 and 154:

"The [Vincent Foster] deathwas reported as a suicide, but many Clinton bashers still don't believe it,even though numerous investigations have so concluded.

"Even KenStarr has ruled it a suicide.His report on Foster's death concluded thatFoster was seriously depressed about his work at the White House,specifically the Travelgate 'crisis,' took a revolver from a closet in hishome, placed it in an oven mitt, and on the afternoon of July 20, drove toa Virginia park and shot himself.

"The report contained new forensicdetails that refuted the conspiracy theories that surrounded Foster's death(more on those in a bit).As part of the investigation Starr consultedrenowned medical and forensic experts, including Henry C. Lee, a crimeexpert made famous in the O. J. Simpson trial, who determined that thecondition of the body and other physical evidence unequivocallydemonstrated that Foster shot himself.Alan L. Berman, an expert in thefield on suicide, found that 'to a 100-percent degree of medical certainty,the death of Vincent Foster was a suicide.'"

Surely it would take aperson of low mental wattage to believe that a psychologist such as Dr.Berman could pronounce upon the "medical certainty" of anything,much less upon a person's addled mental state, the principal evidence forwhich is the writing in an obviously forged note.

The authors, as wesee, draw heavily upon the final report on Foster's death by Kenneth Starr. That would mean that they would have to have obtained a copy to read. Having done that they could not have helped but notice that it wasaccompanied by a 20-page addendum, ordered included by the three judges whoappointed Starr, over Mr. Starr's strenuous objections.The addendum is aletter by the lawyer for aggrieved witness, Patrick Knowlton.That letter,ignored by the national news media, using publicly-available evidence,utterly destroys the suicide conclusion.The complete story is availablefrom FBICover-up.com.

The "demolished" "conspiracytheories" are red herrings put out by phony right-wing critics, andthese authors would most dishonestly have us believe that they constitutethe sum total of the reasons to reject the cover-up story ofsuicide.

They really do take us for idiots.

Very interesting and even-handed
I liked it a lot.I thought the authors did a good job of presenting both sides of the story.That it very occasionally tilts in Clinton's favor only reflects what most people think about this case.The authors prettymuch slam Clinton, Starr and Congress equally.Easy to read and fun too.

Partisan tripe
My summary says it all. A liberal democrat -- see the author bio -- gives the official party line.

A disgrace for a supposedly reutable publisher.

It is also out of date now. ... Read more

Product Description
A guide to presidential impeachment. Charles L. Black seeks to clarify the issues and questions that surround this controversial subject. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (5)

A good introduction to a grave matter
Black's "Impeachment" is the ideal guide for the average citizen who hasn't studied constitutional law.Black gives a thumbnail sketch of the impeachment process' mechanics and explains what we know about the framers' intentions.He discusses the most often debated impeachment issues, and he offers his own interpretation of the process in general and comments on Nixon's impeachment.

The main points I took from this book are that impeachment gravely frays the fabric of American society, and that partisan politics has no place in the process; the linchpin of impeachment is the solemn statesmanship of our congressmen.If another impeachment comes about in my lifetime, I'll let my congressmen know early in the proceedings that I'm counting on them to act without partisan bias.

An excellent book written for the layman in layman's terms.
Black's book is remarkably relevent to the current impeachment situation, even after 25 years.Though his examples are comtemporary to the Nixon near-impeachment (and prior to his resignation), it is refreshing to read atreatise on impeachment that does not constantly refer to Starr, Lewinsky,Tripp, et al.It is not written for the lawyer, so it has a popular flavorthat made it a quick read while still imparting a great deal ofinformation.

An invaluable guide to the process of impeachment
'The process of presidential impeachment and trial thereon, culminates in a judgement of the Senate, either that the president is not guilty, or that he is guilty on one or more of the Articles of Impeachment voted by theHouse, and is to be removed from office. Is this judgement of convictionfinal, or is it in some manner appealable, to the United States SupremeCourt or elsewhere'?

Good question, huh? And so begins Chapter 4 ofCharles L. Black's marvelous essay on the subject of impeachment. Blackwrote this book when President Richard M. Nixon occupied the White House,yet the clarity of his writing, the reasonableness of his arguments and thevigor of his analysis, still hold true today nearly a quarter of a centurylater. This edition, republished in 1998, includes an impressive newforward by Prof Akhil Reed Amar of Yale University. If you're lookingsomewhat bewildered by the goings on Capitol Hill, and by implication, thelead stories on the news, rest assured you're not alone. One moment youhear the House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee recommending fourArticles of Impeachment and the next moment you see the House vote to sendthe President to be tried by the Senate. What gives? You ask.

Black'sbook takes the reader on a journey in search of the facts relating toimpeachment: what it means, where it originated and how we apply tests todetermine the case for or against an impeachable offence. Black alsoexamines the role of lawyers and of the Courts.

The author's objectivethroughout is not so much as to provide the reader with solutions, ratherit is to illuminate why certain answers are incorrect. He does this bylaying the evidence before the reader, so that the reader has every chanceto examine both the evidence and his conscience, prior to arriving at adetermination. As in other aspects of life, the book highlights that notall issues are clearly defined, and there is indeed room for someinterpretation Irrespective of whether you're keen to turn the first sod inthe political grave of the President William Jefferson Clinton, or whetheryou'd prefer to stand at his side as the United States Senate charges him;Black's essay is lucid, elegant and entertaining.As a contribution to thedebate it is invaluable.

Should be everyone's first book on the subject
Black's book is now a bit dated, and his treatment is certainly more broad-brush than that of, say, Michael Gerhardt's "The Federal Impeachment Process" but this is still a wonderful book.A classicand, like all Black's works, beautifully written. If you're interested inimpeachment (and who isn't these days?) this ought to be the first book youread.

An excellent study!Perhaps to be back in print, soon....
Black's book is now a bit dated, and his treatment is certainly morebroad-brush than that of, say, Michael Gerhardt's "The FederalImpeachment Process" but this is still a wonderful book.It ought tobe brought back into print and -- given political events at the moment --maybe it will be.A classic and, like all Black's works, beautifullywritten. ... Read more

Product Description
Baumgartner, Kada, and their contributors examine the extraordinary process of presidential impeachment and add to a virtual vacuum in political science literature on presidential impeachment, especially in countries other than the United States. The contributors examine presidential impeachment attempts in such varied settings as the United States, Russia, Colombia, Brazil, Venezuela, the Philippines, and Madagascar. ... Read more

Product Description
"A tour de force." (The Washington Post Book World)

"Gripping...a great contribution to history...beautifully written." (*Helen Thomas)

The incredible inside story of Clinton's impeachment-from the Washington Post reporter who broke the Lewinsky "connection"...

The Lewinsky scandal made headlines. It will also make history. An event that illustrated the impact of new forces in Washington, it is already becoming a force in itself, affecting the nation, and world, of tomorrow. This "very absorbing and very thorough" examination is "a tale with continuing relevance" (Publishers Weekly, starred review)-and a fascinating look into the breach that continues to fracture the American body politic.

"A serious first-draft history of the Lewinsky scandal." (The Weekly Standard)

"Thoroughly researched and balanced." (The Christian Science Monitor)Amazon.com Review
In case you missed "our long national nightmare" the first time around, or have recovered from the stunning deluge of coverage and pundit-babble inflicted upon the nation, or if you're just hazy on some of the details, The Breach is for you. Peter Baker, a longtime reporter for the Washington Post, covered the White House from 1996 to1999. He has used his experience and access to write the ultimate Beltway book about the six-month saga of the impeachment and trial of President Clinton, from the unfortunate, verb-parsing grand jury testimony of August 1998 to the Senate acquittal in February 1999.

The Breach is a refreshing departure from the daily onslaught of revelations, spin, and commentary that characterized the affair as it unfolded; it's a rigorously researched and extremely detailed account of what happened. Some of the information is new, even shocking, and often depressing. But mostly it's a reminder of how savage and surreal the whole thing was, with adulterers accusing adulterers and the fate of the Executive held to ransom. In a tale of rampant male ego, it is the old feminist saw "the personal is political" that perhaps best encapsulates the experience. Though The Breach is detailed, compiled from hundreds of interviews, investigation files, diaries, and recordings, it lacks that numbing quality the contemporary coverage had. This is inside baseball, written for C-SPAN geeks, Beltway bandits--wannabe or actual--and curious citizens alike. Perhaps the highest praise for such an endeavor is that even after all the hype, this book still manages to be a page-turner. --J. Riches ... Read more

Customer Reviews (27)

A fascinating tour of the sausage factory
There's an old gag:laws are like sausages - you really don't want to know how they're made.

Here, in the run-up to the 2008 presidential elections, this book is still a worthy read - and not just because of the potential for the Clintons to find themselves back in the White House.

Breach makes clear some very important points.First, it becomes evident that the frequent bitter charges of 'partisanship' made during the run-up to the impeachment were purely tactical - and driven by the White House.

The book is oddly comforting in several respects.First, it reveals how gut-wrenching members of both parties found the situation - and how seriously most involved took it.Contrary to public opinion, this episode actually wasn't a partisan food fight.The majority of Republicans are shown as being concerned primarily with the rule of law and the concept that the President cannot be above it.The majority of congressional Democrats viewed Clinton with extreme anger and disappointment - after all, he had lied to them as well.Indeed, the earliest threat to Clinton's presidency came not from Republicans but infuriated Democrats.Views softened as the tale wore on - and most congressional Democrats sincerely did not feel that the case rose to the level of 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors.'

That there were partisan attack dogs on both sides of the aisle is almost secondary to the fact that most members of Congress, regardless of party took the situation extremely seriously and agonized over it.

There are no heroes in this story. One might argue that there are really no villains, either - although if not a criminal (and that's certainly still open to debate) Bill Clinton certainly emerges as a self-obsessed cad of the first order.

The book is a little dry and extremely dense.Still, it's a fascinating look inside the machinations of Washington - and if it lacks for one thing, it's a better understanding of Hillary Clinton's role throughout.She's virtually invisible throughout most of the book.Given her latter-day national clout, one might wish to have a clearer view of her activities - although the idea that she would make a serious run at the White House herself was but a rumor at the time Breach was written.

Page Turner
I don't know where the author got all of his insider material, but it is fascinating and ridiculously insightful. I could not put this book down, and began it with little interest. It was given to me by someone who accidentally bought two copies, and I am glad they did.

A Breach Too Far
I am always a little hesitant to pick up a book on the impeachment or any troubles that Bill Clinton had because they are usually so partisan on one side of the story or the other.The number of books that try to stay in the middle and give a fair telling of the story is a somewhat limited group.This book has to be the gold standard for fair and impartial reporting.The author tells a story that is both infuriating and disappointing all at the same time.He does a good job of detailing out the sometime rabid prosecution of President Clinton and the rather slimy way the Democrats and Clinton got himself out of trouble.I kept looking for any bias on the authors part, especially when he was covering areas I did not feel too comfortable in reading and I just could not find any.

I have always enjoyed the way Bob Woodward tells a story with all the detail.The reason I bring it up is that this author comes close to the Woodward standard.I say comes close as he has not mastered the technique of impartial, detail soaked story telling with a touch of drama.The detail was here but it did get a bit dry at times.This is a minor point as the few parts of the book I felt were a bit slow were few and far between.The author also gives the reader a nice inside look at the process.Who did what and when. I enjoyed the detail as to what the members of Congress were doing and saying.Who would have thought some many Democrats were so upset and so many Republicans were on the fence as to if the trail was right.About the only area that put a smile on my face was the actions of the Chief Justice.From the yellow arm bands to the poker playing, it was all humorous and remarkably common activity.

The book ends with a small side story of who the only winner was in the whole mess.Hilary Clinton is about the only one who came through this process with something better.Even here the author stayed above the fray and gave us a straight telling of this briefly touched on topic.What I find ironic is that Bill Clinton wanted nothing more then a strong legacy and to be remembered positively in the history books.The impeachment trial grantees that an average President that would be relegated to the mediocre pile is forever going to be brought up in history as one of the few Presidents to be impeached primarily due to partisan politics.

WELL DONE!
This is easily a five star book.A reviewer of David Schipper'sunsurprisingly one-sided and surprisingly naive book "Sell Out" recommended this book for a unbiased view of the impeachment and I echo that recommendation!

What was Mr. Baker's opinion or attitude about the impeachment process?I guess he was opposed to it.The key word in the previous sentence is "guess".My guess is based upon him being a journalist, a profession that is regrettably over populated with liberals and Democrats.His employment with the Washington Post (a.k.a. the Washington Pravda to many conservatives) further enforces my guess.However, it is just a guess because I do not recall anywhere in the book where Mr. Baker revealed his true attitude.He offered criticism to the Republican leadership as might be expected, but also criticized the Democratic leadership.Conversely, he also presented good reviews to both the Republican and and Democratic leaderships when it was called for.He even, in my opinion, sympathized at times for the poor House managers who were ridiculed and chastised for daring to take the case to the Senate when conviction was a virtual impossibility.

Mr. Baker explores how the Democrats were less than satisfied with Mr. Clinton's post-grand jury speech to the nation on 17 August 1998 and how they were seriously contemplating a trip to the White House to request a resignation.Of course, the mid-term elections offered a "reprieve" and from that point on the end result of his survival was pretty much a foregone conclusion.But his actions and unconvincing words of grief and apology to all concerned were not able to prevent the actual impeachment process from continuing.

I do wish Mr. Baker had waited until after Mr. Clinton left office before publishing the book.I would have been interesting to read his assessment of how the impeachment affected the 2000 campaign.But, on the flip side, his publishers might have felt it would be better to get the book out before impeachment faded completely into history and oblivion.

fair and balanced, too bad clinton was involved
This is a very balanced view of the impeachment. The cards were laid out for Gingrinch and his difficulties, the Managers and the Senate. No one was demonized, but it is obvious that the former President Clinton is a spoiled sociopath that at some point is going to have to be dealt with. After what this book describes in detail the House vote and the Impeachment trial in the Senate, the Country was brought to a standstill on a matter that is so ridiculous, but was brought on by one silly man!With kind of distraction, it is no wonder that September 11 th happened. This book clearly brings the depth of a crisis in our government and how this dominated the agenda for a better part of almost a year and a half. The most stunning part of the book is the end, where the Author does not go into detail, but that Clinton could have generated another a scandal with the pardons after what happened in the Congress is incredible! Great book, read it in a weekend, and I am wiser for it. ... Read more

Product Description
As a former Chicago prosecutor, David Schippers thought he had seen everything -- treachery, double crosses, sell-outs. But what he saw behind the scenes at the Clinton impeachment shocked him to his core. This is his story -- the story from a man who knows more than anyone else about what went on behind closed doors leading up to the impeachment of President Clinton. David Schippers, the former Chief Investigative Counsel of the House Judiciary Committee and a loyal Democrat, went against his party, the press, and public opinion to build a powerful case against the most corrupt President in American history and bring him to justice. But in this startling book, Schippers shows how the entire impeachment process was what Chicago politicians call a 'First Ward election' -- a rigged ball game, a sellout. And he tells you who took the dives. This is a stunning indictment of President Clinton's corruption -- and of the congressional leaders who let him get away with it.Amazon.com Review
While no one came out of the Monica Lewinsky scandal looking good, David Schippers, the chief investigative counsel for the Clinton impeachment, wants to be sure Americans know just who contributed to the debacle and how. A trial attorney and a Democrat, Schippers was hired by Republican congressman Henry Hyde to lead an oversight investigation of the Justice Department, then was redirected to handle the impeachment. The quintessential honest man, Schippers was shocked, not so much by Clinton's actions (which he calls a far-reaching conspiracy to obstruct justice with perjury, lies, and witness tampering), but by Republican and Democratic politicians who sold out the impeachment process.

If you ever want to vote again, you might not want to know what went on behind the scenes in the Capitol Hill meat grinder leading up to and during the impeachment proceedings against William Jefferson Clinton.... Lies, cowardice, hypocrisy, cynicism, amorality, butt-covering--these were the squalid political body parts that, squeezed through the political processor, combined to make a mockery of the impeachment process.

Most of the documents related to the impeachment are still sealed, so Schippers's story is more diatribe than new information. Perhaps what this book confirms most (besides the ugly, self-serving side of politics) is the chasm between those trying Clinton, who firmly believed that his lying was destroying the structure of government, and those who felt that lying about sex was nobody's business. Schippers is clearly in the first camp: "I do not care what you are lying about. If you're the President of the United States and you lie under oath, you should be removed from office." --Lesley Reed ... Read more

Customer Reviews (107)

great book, very detailed account about Clinton impeachement proceedings
David Schippers was an attorney who was asked by his friend Congressman Henry Hyde to help find a person to be Chief Investigative Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the possible impeachement of President Clinton. Based on Hyde's resume needs for the person, Schipper acknowled that he fit the mold and was subsequently chosen for the job.

Schippers, a long time Democrat, was picked as the head of the Committee to investiage possible crimes committed by then sitting Democratic President, Bill Clinton.

In his time, Schippers discovered not only direct abuses of power by the president which included obsturction of justice, lying to a grand jury, and witness tampering, but also key background information from back in 1996 regarding the illegal passing of legislation to ease the regulations regarding immigration. In this finding, Schippers and his group discovered that the Clinton White House had eased immigration regulations and restrictions in hopes that a flood of immigration right before the fall 1996 elections, would all but ensure the re-election of President Clinton. This allowed illegal aliens who had suspect criminal backgrounds to be allowed legally into the country. Schippers and his group discovered FBI background files that had not been inserted into alien files which allowed criminals into the country.

Schippers also discovered Clinton's past with women, including a rape accusation back when he was the Attorney General for Arkansas. Through his investigation on Clinton's checkered past regarding accused sexual encounters, the pattern seemed the same. Women where offered legal paperwork to quell investigations and stories didn't seem to jive.

Then came the Monica Lewinski investigation. Again here, Schippers discovered that not only did Clinton use and abuse his power as President to spin the character and stories of Lewinsky and Kenneth Starr, but Clinton also had conspired with Lewinsky to keep her quiet by offering her a lucritive job in New York in exchange for her silence. Clinton also went on full spin attack mode, painting Lewinsky as a "stalker" who was "obsessed" despite the fact that Clinton had a special arrangement with her and his assistant, Betty Currie so he could meet up with Lewinsky in private.

Clinton conspired with Lewinsky into signing a false affidavit only days before he himself testified before the grand jury. False affidavit meant Clinton could testify that whatever Lewinsky said in her affidavit was true (when it wasn't).

The American people were split between moral and ethical values of preserving, protecting and defending the constitution, while others saw Clinton's impeachment proceedings as more of a sexual crusade to embarass Clinton for his wrongdoing. These were the same people who argued, "the country is in good shape. Economy is up, unemployment down, and you want to impeach because of infidelity?"

In the end, Schipper and his group did what they were supposed to do with the limited time and means that they could. Based entirely on "bipartisinship" and self political interest, the Senate failed to vote successfully to remove Clinton from office with the Democrats never even bothering to look at the evidence during the proceedings, let alone allow for witnesses to be called. Further investigations were deterred because of "ongoing" criminal investigations, and in the end, only Clinton won.

Lewinsky is forever tainted, Starr was painted as a wreckless at all cost prosecutor who abused his power, and the entire proceedings were viewed as a Republican right wing attempt to overthrow a popular president, despite the fact that the Chief investigative counsel was himself a democrat.

By book's end, the question has to be asked. Despite seeming as a minor offense, can and should a president be removed from office when they in fact are the highest authority in the land, in spite of how minor an offense is? Is there really a difference between a misdeameanor and felony when in fact you can justify that a crime itself was in fact committed? Did Nixon's impeachment really differ from Clinton's? Nixon sought to protect his people, Clinton to save himself.

and lastly, are we willing to overlook the criminal activities of one President because we like and benefit from him while the other we loath and despise?

Maybe we could use a little heavenly wisdom, as in Isiah 5:20, "Woe unto them that call evil good"

Politicians and dealing
A very revealing insight into the rotton mess called "politics."Facts abound. This book shows in easy to understand language that our coungress and white house needs a thorough clensing.

This book should be an high school text book.Our children are so dumbed down that they had rather get their government hand out than see capitalism survive. This book will help you understand why.

My recommendation: Buy and READ.

Factual but mostly speculative.
I read this from cover to cover and found that Mr. Schippers substantial information listed.However, I also found that all but one accusation was pure speculation and was mostly contradicted by contrary evidence.I'm a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty.

Schippers Claimed that Clinton & Gore pushed to get Aliens registered so they can vote for Democrats.
- Wrong. The INS was way behind schedule and so Gore and Clinton both pushed to get on track. Needless to say, It was a really bad idea as people serving time found themselves being naturalized.

He also claims that Clinton coached Lewinsky, Curie and Vernon.
- Correct. He did seem to advocate denial and probably even directed Lewinsksy on how to set up an affidavit so she wouldn't have to testify.

Lewinsky's affidavit was purchased in exchange for a job she wasn't qualified for.
- Unsubtiated. She did create a affidavit and found a job that Schippers considered her to be unqualified for.

He stated that Paula Jones's affidavit was purchased in a out of court deal.
The record was sealed shortly afterwards.

He raped Juanita Broddrick.
- Unknown. This coming from a 3rd party, not Ms Broddrick.In '92, Miss Broddrick signed anaffadavit stating that Clinton didn't rape her.

* Clinton and Gore deliberately solicited donations from foreign governments.
Clinton requested a thorough investigation of the issue, resulting in several friends of Clinton and Gore being convicted. But no one could find a tie to Clinton/Gore despite the flowing testimony. Schippers claimed that he was not given sufficient time to investigate the issue.

Whitewashing High Crimes and Misdemeanors
Chicago attorney David Schippers accepted the historic and ultimately thankless task of prosecuting the President of the United States of America. When the House of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton, it marked only the second time in US history that a president had been impeached. "Sell Out" is the account of Mr. Schippers going to Washington.

Unlike the previous impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, there are few members of the Senate likely to be immortalized as "Profiles in Courage" for displaying heroism and integrity during the trial. Schippers was not given a meaningful opportunity to present his full case before the Senate. Relevant evidence was suppressed. Unlike the House of Representatives which performed its constitutional duties, the Senate wanted no part of the impeachment and several notables worked behind the scenes to make certain that Clinton would obtain a prompt acquittal regardless of his guilt. The show trial that resulted bordered upon theater of the absurd.

Columnist Ben Stein observed that whatever one might think of former President Richard M. Nixon, he had the underlying decency to resign rather than subject the nation to an impeachment proceeding and a trial. Clinton had no such scruples and chose to play politics. Character assassination attacks (remember the F.B.I. raw files that the White House improperly collected after Clinton was first inaugurated?) were conducted against several Representatives who took an active role in pressing the impeachment issue, including the late Henry Hyde.

Following Hyde's recent death, it has been reported that the leaders of the House of Representatives were prepared to accept a resolution censuring Clinton for perjury, but attempts by the White House to blackmail various members of the Congress by exposing past scandals in their private lives had an unintended consequence: rather than causing Congress to dismiss the censure resolution, it actually stiffened the resolve of those favoring impeachment and solidified several wavering votes of those who had been sitting on the fence.

This book paints a damning picture of the political class that is bipartisan. Senator Trent Lott wanted no part of the impeachment and scolded the House Managers for bringing the case. This is a depressing, but nonetheless vital read. It seems especially relevant in light of the fact that another election featuring the Clintons is fast approaching.

The short book contains numerous pages of documents and exhibits. The actual text is not that lengthy as exhibits make up a considerable portion of the volume. The narrative is adequate, but not quite perfect otherwise I would have rated the book higher than I did above.

The truth matters!!!
Do you remember: "Just the facts mam".I am glad that I read this book before the 2008 election. I have a few questions--1. Why did Janet Reno and the Justice Department refused to cooperate with the investigation? 2.Why is it that some people want to kill the messenger than look at the message? 3.Why did 5 Democratic congressmen (Barney Frank-Mass., Howard Berman-Calf.,Rick Boucher-Va.,Jerrold Nadler-Ny., Melvin Watt-NC.) on the committee, never signed into the secure room to view the evidence? 4.What evidence is sealed and under lock and key for the next fifty years? I do not have a short memory and I will remember. I am amazed and disappointed that some Republicans and Democrats were not familiar with honesty, justice, good moral character and doing the right thing. Thank you David Schippers, the title Sell Out-fits like a glove. ... Read more

Product Description
A tenacious young State Police Investigator develops circumstantial evidence identifying a suspect in a rape/murder case. Incredibly, that suspect is the President of the United States. The murder was committed while he was a student in college and went unsolved for 25 years.

President Thurston Winslow is an extremely powerful and popular president, and when he realizes that State Police Investigator Ron Keston is investigating him, wields his power and has Keston assassinated. Lieutenant Richard Miranda, Keston’s supervisor, commences an investigation and survives a diabolical attempt to destroy his career and, later, an attempt at assassination because of intuition, intelligence, skill and lots of luck.

Miranda utilizes his own brand of diabolical skill to develop prima facie evidence against the President, but is unable to cause his arrest and flounders in frustration. The President seems above the law and too powerful for prosecution. By fate or divine intervention, Miranda connects with the rape/murder victim’s brother and sister who, over the course of years since their sister’s death, entered careers which provide them access to the President.

A race begins to destroy the most powerful man in the world before he destroys them. Who wins? The excitement mounts and climaxes in a crescendo of irony. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (4)

A Must Read
An exciting story of an investigation of the most powerful man in the world. It has an ending that will make you feel satisfied that justice was done. If you like mystery mixed with politics; read Fatal Impeachment!

Justice
An enjoyable read! A timely story that may remind one of actual characters on the national scene in the recent past. The ending leaves you with a feeling that justice was done. If you like mystery and politics, you need to read Fatal Impeachment.

Arizona Reader
Author Wayne Beyea takes you on a suspense filled journey where a young State Police Investigator working on a cold case of rape and murder meets his own death. Destined to bring justice to this complex investigation, his supervisor, Lieutenant Miranda tirelesslypursues the new leads. The author knows the world of police investigation and what happens in this case is gripping and suspenseful."Fatal Impeachment" is a must read.

Arizona Reader
Author Wayne Beyea takes you on a suspense filled journey where a young State Police Investigator working on a cold case of rape and murder meets his own death. Destined to bring justice to this complex investigation, his supervisor, Lieutenant Miranda tirelesslypursues the new leads. The author knows the world of police investigation and what happens in this case is gripping and suspenseful."Fatal Impeachment" is a must read. ... Read more

Product Description
For the first time since the judicial impeachments of 1986-1989, the House of Representatives has impeached two federal judges. On June 19, 2009, the House voted to impeach U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The impeachment trial of Judge Kent before the Senate was dismissed after Judge Kent resigned from office and the House indicated that it did not wish to pursue the matter further. ... Read more

Product Description
The American judicial branch is out of control,dominating both the executive and legislative branches. This bookreveals how the Founders restrained overactive courts, utilizing theonly Constitutional tool available - impeachment. With conciseclarity, the historical perspective on impeachment is described, andaptly compared with the current misconceptions on impeachable offenseswith the Constitution's original intentions. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Impeachment - it's not just for the president
A short book, but loaded with quotes from our nation's founders showing that the Judicial branch of the government was intended to be the weakest of the three. All federal judges are subject to impeachment and being booted off the bench. This is not what you learned in school, you need to read it here. ... Read more

Product Description
Edmund G. Ross' tale of that other impeachment. ... Read more