The Breach: Inside the Impeachment and Trial of William Jefferson Clinton

by Peter Baker

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

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, American History, Presidents, Us Presidents, Law

484 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 1, 2000

About the author

There is more than one author with this name in the database.

Peter Baker has been a journalist for the Washington Post and the New York Times. He covered President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, resulting in the book The Breach. As the Post's Moscow bureau chief, he wrote the book Kremlin Rising. He is married to the journalist Susan Glasser.

Reviews

[Mary · Rating 5 out of 5]

Written only a year following Bill Clinton's acquittal in his impeachment trial, "The Breach" is a timely book for today as the issue of a possible presidential impeachment is again in the news. Peter Baker's in-depth and meticulously detailed account highlights the difficulties involved in removing a president from office, even when the opposite party controls the Congress. Still, Clinton has hardly been exonerated in the court of public opinion, even though he remained in office. And, in a strange coincidence, just as I was finished reading, Senator Gillibrand of New York was quoted as saying that the country would have been better off had Clinton resigned at the time. With the insight I gained from reading this book, I would tend to agree.

[Lobstergirl · Rating 3 out of 5]

A solid effort from journalist Baker, although I definitely could have done without Susan Collins' insipid diary entries ("Ironically, having been through this crisis may make it easier, not harder, for us to work together. This experience has changed each of us individually, and as a Senate, forever.") and the standard hackneyed Beltwayese adjectives. Politicians are fresh-faced (Evan Bayh), crusty (Ted Stevens, three times crusty), maverick (Peter King, Lowell Weicker, Russell Feingold, and of course John McCain), feisty (Phil Gramm), iconoclastic (Arlen Specter), righteous (Joe Lieberman), boyish (Bill Paxon, Dick Gephardt). The book is short on salacious details and long, very long, on legislative procedure. It worked well for the first 11 chapters, covering impeachment, but became exceedingly dry for the last seven, when the outcome was no longer in doubt (the Democrats always had enough votes for acquittal).

[Vincent Solomeno · Rating 4 out of 5]

Two decades since publication, Peter Baker's "The Breach" remains the finest comprehensive account of the impeachment and trial of former President Bill Clinton. This well sourced history, written shortly after the stunning events of 1997-1998, provides a well rounded account from interviews with Clinton Administration officials, Members of Congress, political partisans, and the journalists who covered the crisis.

Reading the book, one is struck by the old axiom that sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. Publishers of fiction might have turned down Mr. Baker's manuscript if the events he recounts had not actually happened.

I loved this book and highly recommend it to those seeking a better understanding of the Clinton impeachment and subsequent trial.

[Kevin Kolenda · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is totally Brutal what this man did and tried to get away with . . . and as a president . . . the lying fully knowing what was "on the record" .. .this is not my opinion, as this is a record of the trial transcripts documentation

if you read this book . . you probably would not be able to look this man in the eye even when he is on TV . . . it shows how close he was to impeachment . . but that the system is set up for it to be virtually impossible after Nixon

[Josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent read. Baker is a great storyteller who is ridiculously well sourced. This isn't quite the masterpiece that 'Days of Fire' is, but it's an impressively thorough look at a vital moment in American history. By going into depth about one of two Presidential impeachment trials in U.S. history, Baker gives us lessons that might just come in handy one of these years...My main takeaway? Politicians (on every side of the aisle) are immoral, often amoral, egoists. Oof.

[Grindy Stone · Rating 4 out of 5]

This gets into the nuts and bolts of an arcane legal process without losing track of the fact that impeachment is a political process more than a legal one. Baker tells the concurrent tales of the Clinton impeachment and the fight for the Speaker’s gavel as the story of the fight for America’s soul.

[Patrick Farrell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good, but short. This book gives a suprisingly balanced and fair view of the impeachment from Congress' point of view. Because it is not overly detailed and is focused almost exclusively on Congress it should be read in concert with a book like Ken Gormley's impeachment book to get the full picture.

[Lindsey · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an incredibly detailed and thorough account of the Clinton impeachment trial. It’s dense - but very well written. Some parts did drag a bit, but some parts were incredibly compelling. It’s a lot to get through, but it’s an excellent way to get informed on the impeachment process.

[Nick Erdody · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good book.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a nitty-gritty, behind-the-scenes look at Congress and the White House during the House impeachment and Senate trial. It's a fascinating display of the way the major parties practice politics. Contrary to most appearances, Republicans and Democrats don't hate each other, at an institutional level. And rarely do their public words and utterances match their private beliefs and actions.

Peter Baker covered the White House for the Washington Post from 1996 to 1999, so he witnessed many of the events he describes. He's talked to the players, obtained private memos and other documents, and analyzed government transcripts of the major proceedings. This book is reporting at its finest - rarely does Baker write what he thinks or how he feels about his subject matter.

The book opens on the eve of the impeachment vote in the House of Representatives. Bob Livingston is the designated Speaker, following the disappointing (for Republicans) 1998 elections that forced Newt Gingrich to resign. Livingston is having second thoughts about impeachment, and considers allowing a censure vote. But an aide talks him out of it.

This isn't an easy vote for Livingston, because he reveres the institutional traditions of government, and cannot imagine any president being impeached. It horrifies him, though he is convinced it is the right thing to do. And, if he pushed for censure, he could lose the support of conservative Republicans in his Speaker bid. Can't risk that. The problem is, his Speakership may already be doomed because he heard from a White House lobbyist ally that Larry Flynt found a woman who claimed she and Livingston had an affair, but if Livingston dropped impeachment and backed censure, Flynt wouldn't publish the story in his porn rag Hustler. So what to do?

Henry Hyde faced similar tough decisions a month before, when the impeachment inquiry was conducted by the committee he chaired. The Democrats, which talked of cooperation while practicing none of it, pushed for their own impeachment inquiry plan, which was too limited for Republicans. But if Hyde rejected the Dems' plan and pushed his own, he'd look like a rabid partisan, and he didn't want that. For impeachment to be legitimate, it had to be bipartisan. So what to do?

Dick Gephardt faced a tough choice. He hated what Clinton did and at one point wondered if he and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle would have to go to the White House and tell Clinton to resign. But too many Democrats in his caucus were supportive of Clinton, not because they necessarily loved him, they just didn't want Republicans to impeach a Democratic president. Other Democrats, more moderate and conservative ones, were actually leaning toward voting for impeachment. Somehow, Gephardt had to keep both sides happy and hold his caucus together. So what to do?

Once impeachment passed and hit the Senate, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and Daschle faced more problems. They wanted to work together to avoid partisanship, yet had to keep their people happy. If the rank-and-file in both parties though their leaders were caving to the other, they'd revolt and fracture the Senate. But they had to hold a trial and come up with some process that everyone could live with. And they had other worries. Daschle had to keep the White House happy and Lott had to keep the House managers happy. Inevitably, what senators liked the Clinton team or managers didn't. So what to do?

Read the book to find out. I won't give it away here, but it may surprise you. What you've heard about the Clinton impeachment may not be true.

I'll give you one example. You may recall that Democrats constantly criticized Republicans for acting partisan and ramming Republican proposals down Democratic throats. Dems consistently implored Republicans to be more bipartisan.

You shouldn't have believed them. They didn't mean it. The truth was, Republicans in both the House and Senate bent over backwards to accommodate the Dems, and the Dems repaid them by drudging up proposals they knew Republicans couldn't accept and then complaining about Republican partisanship. The Dems did this repeatedly. Gephardt called it winning by losing. Sure, the Dems didn't have the votes to stop anything, but by concocting phony partisanship issues, they could label the whole process partisan and therefore illegitimate. It was smart politics, and they won the public relations battle, but it was also fundamentally dishonest.

So, if you like down and dirty political battles, and want a glimpse of the inner workings of the politicians that you vote for and support, read the book. You'll learn a lot. I can't promise that you'll like what you learn.

[Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Breach was not what I was expecting. Going into it, I was pretty sure it would be a political hack job against the Republicans without revealing much of the actual process that led to President Clinton's impeachment. Thankfully, Baker surprised me. The Breach reveals the absurdity of it all, without the daily, opinion-shifting political winds of the newspapers and talk shows of the time or the pro or con books showing up every Tuesday on the "new books" rack at your libraries and Borders. This is a real investigative, after-the-fact look at what happened and all the players involved. (The parts about Tom DeLay would be frightening if they weren't so pathetic.) All in all this book is excellent reporting and a solid documentation of a very weird time in American politics. The writing itself isn't as gripping as I'd hope for in good nonfiction, but it more than makes up for that with a story too ridiculous for fiction.

NC

[Alanmartinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

An in-depth account of the Clinton Impeachment, this book caused me to vascillate between disgust with our current political situation, including the failures of our constitutional system, and renewed hope for our leaders and constitutional system. I like Bill Clinton less, his advisors more, the House less, the Senate more, Tom Delay less (if that were possible), Henry Hyde more, and so on. In all, a thoughtful and engaging account of one of the more unfortunate chapters in our history.

[Rob · Rating 5 out of 5]

As someone who believes the country went crazy during this impeachment crisis, and that the whole tawdry episode was the result of jealous Republicans, this was a refreshing inside look at the whole affair. I can't count how many times I cursed Tom DeLay and his posse while I read this book. I can't decide if he looked more rediculous foaming at the mouth during the impeachment crisis, or on Dancing with the Stars.

[Damian Brew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent inside baseball look at the politics surrounding the Clinton impeachment episode. While this is almost ancient history at this point, the story is insightful regardless of your political leanings. Probably more of a case than I had expected.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid tick-tock telling of how the Clinton impeachment played out between Congress and the White House. A good book to read after reading Michael Isikoff's Uncovering Clinton.

[Peg Holsapple · Rating 2 out of 5]

Boring.....Didn't finish. His next book I read about Bush was excellent but this one not so much. Disappointed.

[Jonathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Captivating read!! I will definitely read this book again in the future. So well written!

[Ian Headon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent

Remarkably detailed summary of the impeachment

Non partisan - many new details and perspectives, including how intelligent Ms Lewinsky was viewed

Thoroughly recommend

[Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

bland but probably the most comprehensive early nuts-and-bolts account of what happened

[Phillip · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book and did learn a lot about the 90s impeachment of Clinton. One has to assume everything is true in the book - and that IS an assumption. But that aside, I did like how it focused on the members of Congress and their motivations. It is too easy to characterize the respective parties' motives, so I liked the focus on the individual members, the House manager, the Senators, the attorneys and staffers, and those in the White House. For anyone interested in US history, government, or politics, I really recommend this book. It does show that congressional members were thoughtful about how they handled this, on both sides of the aisles.