What do you think?
Rate this book
Truth at Any Cost: Ken Starr and the Unmaking of Bill Clinton
What drove the man who nearly toppled a presidency and forced the most serious constitutional crisis in twenty-five years? Conventional wisdom portrays Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr as a right-wing religious zealot out to destroy the president, and Bill Clinton as a victim whose only "crime" was a private indiscretion. In Truth at Any Cost, two of America's preeminent investigative reporters, Susan Schmidt and Michael Weisskopf, reveal for the first time what really went on inside the Office of the Independent Counsel. The book details Ken Starr's motivations, his inner struggles, and his anguish as he comes under attack by Clinton's ferocious partisans. It goes behind the locked doors of Starr's office as prosecutors make the fateful decision to pursue the case against Clinton for lying to conceal his embarrassing affair with an intern half his age. Schmidt and Weisskopf lay bare what happened on the night when FBI agents first confronted Monica Lewinsky, how the White House launched a political jihad to survive, and how Starr's team agonized over Clinton's fate. For four years, the bland, smiling man behind the investigation of President Clinton remained a mystery, both to many who supported him and to those who feared him. Until now. Truth at Any Cost shows Ken Starr in a new as an upright but politically naive prosecutor who withstood public vilification to pursue the truth--including what he and his deputies saw as the president's attempts to use the power of his office to thwart a legitimate inquiry. Here is an unblinking look at the battle between Starr's legal absolutism and Clinton's chronic evasions. It examines Starr's impassioned quest to bring the president to justice, and explains how Starr eventually became a casualty of his own mission, leaving the arena as bloodied as the man he had pursued.
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
1 person is currently reading
43 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
December 31, 2008
One of a myriad of books about the Monica Lewinsky scandal that led to former President Clinton's impeachment, this is one of the few that does not adopt the Clinton spin that Starr was a sex-obsessed, partisan, rabid right-winger. In fact, Truth at any Cost is actually about Ken Starr. It follows the Office of the Independent Counsel (OIC) from the first moment it heard about Monica Lewinsky until Ken Starr's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, defending his report.
The book is revealing. So many lies and distortion spread by Clinton and his team of spinners are exposed. So many false rumors spread by Clinton's allies in the press are punctured.
For example, Ken Starr was not obsessed with sex. In fact, the OIC debated whether they should even investigate Lewinsky and Clinton. Finally, the OIC left it up to Attorney General Janet Reno to decide, and she gave them the green light. Starr and his lawyers found the sexual shenanigans embarrassing and awkward, but to prove that Clinton lied in the Paula Jones case, as he surely did, they had to prove that sex had occurred. Otherwise, Clinton's attack lawyer David Kendall would say there was no evidence of perjury.
It's important to note that in all the attacks and accusations hurled at Starr, none proved true. The spinners didn't attack the substance of the Starr report because they couldn't. It was all demonstrably true. All the cries of leaks to the press about grand jury testimony were also false.
Ken Starr conducted himself honorably and decently. He tried his best to follow the law. He relied on guidelines from the Justice Department. For that, he was demonized by Clinton and the Democratic party. Before he became Independent Counsel, Starr enjoyed a sterling reputation by all parties in Washington. Funny how that changed once Carville and other slobbering attack dogs sprung.
If Starr can be faulted for anything, it's that he didn't play the political game. He didn't defend himself in the arena of public opinion, even as he was winning convictions and court decisions. He failed to understand that if you are going to accuse the President of the United States of criminal conduct, you must, at the very least, have the respect and trust of the public.
But that does not change the fact the he was in the right.
The book is revealing. So many lies and distortion spread by Clinton and his team of spinners are exposed. So many false rumors spread by Clinton's allies in the press are punctured.
For example, Ken Starr was not obsessed with sex. In fact, the OIC debated whether they should even investigate Lewinsky and Clinton. Finally, the OIC left it up to Attorney General Janet Reno to decide, and she gave them the green light. Starr and his lawyers found the sexual shenanigans embarrassing and awkward, but to prove that Clinton lied in the Paula Jones case, as he surely did, they had to prove that sex had occurred. Otherwise, Clinton's attack lawyer David Kendall would say there was no evidence of perjury.
It's important to note that in all the attacks and accusations hurled at Starr, none proved true. The spinners didn't attack the substance of the Starr report because they couldn't. It was all demonstrably true. All the cries of leaks to the press about grand jury testimony were also false.
Ken Starr conducted himself honorably and decently. He tried his best to follow the law. He relied on guidelines from the Justice Department. For that, he was demonized by Clinton and the Democratic party. Before he became Independent Counsel, Starr enjoyed a sterling reputation by all parties in Washington. Funny how that changed once Carville and other slobbering attack dogs sprung.
If Starr can be faulted for anything, it's that he didn't play the political game. He didn't defend himself in the arena of public opinion, even as he was winning convictions and court decisions. He failed to understand that if you are going to accuse the President of the United States of criminal conduct, you must, at the very least, have the respect and trust of the public.
But that does not change the fact the he was in the right.
December 28, 2009
Interesting view of how the truth can be subjective.
July 16, 2024
A GENERALLY SYMPATHETIC PORTRAIT OF KENNETH STARR
Authors Susan Schmidt and Michael Weisskopf are investigative reporters.
They note that in 1992 (shortly before the Democratic nominating convention) Kenneth Starr spoke with an Arkansas trooper, who "launched into a detailed history of Clinton's ... amorous adventures. Starr was astounded... just a few months earlier (Clinton) had publicly denied Gennifer Flowers's (Gennifer Flowers: Passion and Betrayal) claims of a twelve-year affair... And yet back home, it seemed, his extramarital transgressions were widely known and freely discussed." (Pg. 6-7)
They comment that Starr "believed in his own rectitude... He did not realize how important it was that before the Lewinsky investigation even began, thanks in large part to the White House, he was already widely seen as a sworn enemy of the president, as a real-life Javert pursuing his prey. He did not recognize how critical public opinion is to the work of a prosecutor, whose success depends, above all, on the citizens' trust." (Pg. 16)
Concerning Starr, they noted, "By time Starr went to work for Ronald Reagan, he had become a Republican, but he was never the hard-right ideologue later portrayed by Clinton allies... his judicial championing of First Amendment rights kept him from being nominated (to the Supreme Court; pg. 150).
They note that Monica Lewinsky "still saw Clinton through a romantic haze, though less so than in the past. She had begun to question his sincerity. Many of his gifts to her had been recycled, she thought. His talking on the phone (during their activities) made her feel 'cheap.'" (Pg. 221)
Later, "(Clinton's) wife was barely speaking to him. Clinton told a friend she even brought up the Ten Commandments... Hillary Clinton's concerns went beyond his extramarital adventure. Her husband had made it almost impossible to demonize Starr, she told a political adviser. He had given Starr credibility." (Pg. 256)
This book is of definite interest to anyone looking for more information about the infamous events that led up to President Clinton's impeachment.
Authors Susan Schmidt and Michael Weisskopf are investigative reporters.
They note that in 1992 (shortly before the Democratic nominating convention) Kenneth Starr spoke with an Arkansas trooper, who "launched into a detailed history of Clinton's ... amorous adventures. Starr was astounded... just a few months earlier (Clinton) had publicly denied Gennifer Flowers's (Gennifer Flowers: Passion and Betrayal) claims of a twelve-year affair... And yet back home, it seemed, his extramarital transgressions were widely known and freely discussed." (Pg. 6-7)
They comment that Starr "believed in his own rectitude... He did not realize how important it was that before the Lewinsky investigation even began, thanks in large part to the White House, he was already widely seen as a sworn enemy of the president, as a real-life Javert pursuing his prey. He did not recognize how critical public opinion is to the work of a prosecutor, whose success depends, above all, on the citizens' trust." (Pg. 16)
Concerning Starr, they noted, "By time Starr went to work for Ronald Reagan, he had become a Republican, but he was never the hard-right ideologue later portrayed by Clinton allies... his judicial championing of First Amendment rights kept him from being nominated (to the Supreme Court; pg. 150).
They note that Monica Lewinsky "still saw Clinton through a romantic haze, though less so than in the past. She had begun to question his sincerity. Many of his gifts to her had been recycled, she thought. His talking on the phone (during their activities) made her feel 'cheap.'" (Pg. 221)
Later, "(Clinton's) wife was barely speaking to him. Clinton told a friend she even brought up the Ten Commandments... Hillary Clinton's concerns went beyond his extramarital adventure. Her husband had made it almost impossible to demonize Starr, she told a political adviser. He had given Starr credibility." (Pg. 256)
This book is of definite interest to anyone looking for more information about the infamous events that led up to President Clinton's impeachment.
July 22, 2016
This was fascinating in that it didn't just regurgitate all the stuff we heard on the news. There was an effort to get to know the investigators and what they went through, both in their work and in their handling of the pounding they took from the White House. It was written from the perspective of being a fly-on-the-wall. Conversations were shown and thoughts were revealed. Even better was the effort to show why they did what they did. It was not a typical Clinton-bashing book. The investigators did make mistakes, both in how they handled the investigation and in how they didn't pursue certain avenues with as much urgency as they say they should have, in retrospect.
A great read for someone wanting to know a fly-on-the-wall perspective of the Starr investigation.
A great read for someone wanting to know a fly-on-the-wall perspective of the Starr investigation.
August 10, 2008
Well, I got a few chapters in and lost interest. Sent it back to the library.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews