What do you think?
Rate this book
The STARR REPORT: THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL'S COMPLETE REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
The report submitted by Kenneth Starr, independent counsel, is accompanied by a White House response and analysis by a reporter for the Washington Post
544 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published September 1, 1998
29 people are currently reading
177 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 - 16 of 16 reviews
November 7, 2019
I thought I wrote a review of this but I can't find it anywhere. Probably I was just too horrified after reading (horrified by both Bill Clinton and Kenneth Starr). First of all, this reads like a smutty romance turned crime thriller so prepare yourself for that. It's dirty but definitely not hot, so I don't think Starr has a future as a romance writer.
Second, I was disappointed to realize, in retrospect, that Bill Clinton probably should have been impeached because he clearly broke the law. The issue isn't that he was cheating on his wife, nor was it the power dynamics with Monica Lewinsky, whatever you may think about that (3rd-wave-feminist-consenting-adult-view versus the concept that she was a low-level intern and her job was negatively impacted). The issue is that he was being deposed in one of his many sexual harassment lawsuits and he lied about related and relevant questions regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. On top of lying in a sworn deposition, he almost definitely committed the relevant sexual harassment (Gennifer Flowers I think?). Though isn't it almost charming in retrospect that Clinton let himself be deposed and allowed an impeachment to proceed against him? History is definitely going in the wrong direction.
Second, I was disappointed to realize, in retrospect, that Bill Clinton probably should have been impeached because he clearly broke the law. The issue isn't that he was cheating on his wife, nor was it the power dynamics with Monica Lewinsky, whatever you may think about that (3rd-wave-feminist-consenting-adult-view versus the concept that she was a low-level intern and her job was negatively impacted). The issue is that he was being deposed in one of his many sexual harassment lawsuits and he lied about related and relevant questions regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. On top of lying in a sworn deposition, he almost definitely committed the relevant sexual harassment (Gennifer Flowers I think?). Though isn't it almost charming in retrospect that Clinton let himself be deposed and allowed an impeachment to proceed against him? History is definitely going in the wrong direction.
September 8, 2023
THE INFAMOUS REPORT THAT WAS USED AS THE BASIS TO IMPEACH CLINTON
The Preface to this 1998 book by Wall Street Journal reporter Phil Kuntz explains, “On March 8, 1992, the New York Times published a story disclosing that presidential candidate Bill Clinton had engaged in a questionable land-deal with a savings-and-loan operator he regulated as governor of Arkansas. The result, oddly enough, is this report---a shockingly explicit examination of President Clinton’s affair with a former White House intern… How could a newspaper’s conflict-of-interest exposé morph into a lurid sex scandal that prompted Congress to move toward impeaching the president for only the third time in history? The answer is a twisted tale of political intrigue putting Mr. Clinton… against two mortal enemies. One was a loose confederation of right-wing opponents whose disdain for him was almost visceral. The other was Mr. Clinton himself, whose considerable political talents seemed inextricably intertwined with his personal flaws… Key to the battle’s outcome was … Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr… initially considered by Republicans and Democrats alike as assiduously even-handed, originally was charged with untangling the … Whitewater land-deal. But, frustrated by what he considered stonewalling by the White House, he jumped head-first into the president’s sex-life when evidence of a more simple crime dropped into his lap.” (Pg. xi)
He continues, “As always, Mr. Starr’s trail seemed to stop just short of the White House gates. It was Ms. [Paula] Jones who managed to pry them open… Financed by a conservative foundation Ms. Jones’s legal team launched an intensive hunt for extramarital women in Clinton’s life… One involved a White House aide named Kathleen Willey… Newsweek … published a story detailing Ms. Willey’s claims that the president had made a groping pass at her in the White House… The story … quoted another former White House aide named Linda Tripp as having seen Ms. Willey emerge disheveled from the office that day… the president’s pugnacious lawyer … strongly suggested that Ms. Tripp was lying. Ms. Tripp got mad, and then got even… she had been Vince Foster’s secretary and was the last person to see him alive. Her testimony before Congress about the White House’s reaction to his suicide was less than complementary, and she was later transferred to the Pentagon.” (Pg. xiii)
He goes on, “It was there that Ms. Tripp met Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern… The two became friends and Ms. Lewinsky confided in Ms. Tripp that she was having an affair with the president… Ms. Tripp asked… for advice … Lucianne Goldberg, a conservative literary agent… Ms. Goldberg’s advice: Get a tape recorder. Ms. Tripp’s tapes captured an extraordinary drama as related by the unwitting Ms. Lewinsky in numerous phone calls… Ms. Jones’s lawyers had been tipped off about [Lewinsky] and named her as a witness… Ms. Lewinsky … encouraged Ms. Tripp to lie to the Jones lawyers to cover up the affair, prompting Ms. Tripp to contact Mr. Starr in early 1998…” (Pg. xiv)
He adds, “But Mr. Starr… had pretty much wrapped up … his investigation into Whitewater and suffered an embarrassing defeat when tax charges he had filed against Mr. Hubbell were dismissed… Ms. Lewinsky bargained for full immunity from prosecution. She turned over a dress that had been stained with the president’s semen… the president agreed to testify and admitted having what … was an ‘inappropriate’ relationship with Ms. Lewinsky… And he insisted his adamant denials in the Jones deposition were ‘legally accurate,’ indicating that he understood the definition of sexual relations in the Jones case to exclude receiving oral sex from Ms. Lewinsky… It was far too late, however, to stop Mr. Starr… [who] dispatched … two sets of 18 boxes containing this report … before a nationwide television audience. The boxes, he told Congress, contained ‘substantial and credible information … that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.’” (Pg. xv)
The Report states, “the President answered one of the written discovery questions posed by Ms. Jones on this issue. When asked to identify all women … with whom he had had ‘sexual relations’ since 1986, the President answered under oath: ‘None.’ For purposes of this interrogatory, the term ‘sexual relations’ was not defined… the President denied that he had engaged in a ‘sexual affair,’ a ‘sexual relationship’ or ‘sexual relations’ with Ms. Lewinsky.” (Pg. 23-24)
It continues, “The President … did explain… that there can be no sexual relationship without sexual intercourse, regardless of what other sexual activities may transpire… The President also maintained that none of his sexual contacts with Ms. Lewinsky constituted ‘sexual relations’ within a specific definition used in the Jones deposition… According to what the President testified… this definition … does not cover oral sex performed on the person being deposed… If Ms. Lewinsky performed oral sed on the President, then---under this interpretation---she engaged in sexual relations but he did not.” (Pg. 53-54)
It records, “In his grand jury testimony, the President acknowledged that he and Ms. Lewinsky ‘might to have talked about what to do in a nonlegal context’ to hide their relationship… But he also stated that ‘I never asked Ms. Lewinsky to lie.’” (Pg. 63-64) Later, it adds, “The President testified that he had said… ‘there’s nothing going on between us. That was true… I said I did not have sex with her as I defined it. That was true… They may have been misleading, and if they were I have to take responsibility for it, and I’m sorry.” (Pg. 217-218)
The report argues, “even putting aside his ‘definitional’ defense, the President made a second false statement to the grand jury. The President’s grand jury testimony contradicts Ms. Lewinsky’s… on the question whether the President touched Ms. Lewinsky’s breasts or genitalia during their sexual activity… On this issue, either Monica Lewinsky lied to the grand jury, or President Clinton lied to the grand jury. Under any rational view of the evidence, the President lied…” (Pg. 324-325) It continues, “the President lied when he said ‘I don’t recall’ … whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky... The President suggested at his civil deposition that he … had a general recollection that Ms. Lewinsky may have brought him ‘papers to sign’ on certain occasions… ‘bringing papers’ was one of the sham ‘cover stories’ that the President and Ms. Lewinsky had originally crafted to conceal their sexual relationship.” (Pg. 332)
In the Executive Summary of Key Points of the President’s Case in anticipation of the Starr Report, it states: “The President has acknowledged a serious mistake…. This private mistake does not constitute an impeachable action. A relationship outside one’s marriage is wrong… It is not a high crime or misdemeanor… this report is based entirely on allegations obtained by a grand jury---reams and reams of allegations and purported ‘evidence’ that would never be admitted in court, and that was not subject to cross-examination or any other traditional safeguards… the President never testified in the Jones deposition that he was not alone with Ms. Lewinsky…” (Pg. 445-446)
In the Preliminary Memorandum Concerning Referral of office of Independent Counsel, it notes, “The expansion of the Independent Counsel’s jurisdiction to encompass the Jones case and Ms. Lewinsky did not occur by accident or easily. The OIC deliberately and purposefully sought this expansion on an emergency basis… The series of events that led to this expansion of authority raise serious questions as to the motivations and manipulations of the OIC in securing this expanded jurisdiction..” (Pg. 513)
Starr’s investigation cost more than $52 million, and lasted for six years---yet came up with nothing about the Whitewater deal (its original purpose) implicating the Clintons, and Starr’s Report was, in the end, “all about SEX.” Sad…
The Preface to this 1998 book by Wall Street Journal reporter Phil Kuntz explains, “On March 8, 1992, the New York Times published a story disclosing that presidential candidate Bill Clinton had engaged in a questionable land-deal with a savings-and-loan operator he regulated as governor of Arkansas. The result, oddly enough, is this report---a shockingly explicit examination of President Clinton’s affair with a former White House intern… How could a newspaper’s conflict-of-interest exposé morph into a lurid sex scandal that prompted Congress to move toward impeaching the president for only the third time in history? The answer is a twisted tale of political intrigue putting Mr. Clinton… against two mortal enemies. One was a loose confederation of right-wing opponents whose disdain for him was almost visceral. The other was Mr. Clinton himself, whose considerable political talents seemed inextricably intertwined with his personal flaws… Key to the battle’s outcome was … Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr… initially considered by Republicans and Democrats alike as assiduously even-handed, originally was charged with untangling the … Whitewater land-deal. But, frustrated by what he considered stonewalling by the White House, he jumped head-first into the president’s sex-life when evidence of a more simple crime dropped into his lap.” (Pg. xi)
He continues, “As always, Mr. Starr’s trail seemed to stop just short of the White House gates. It was Ms. [Paula] Jones who managed to pry them open… Financed by a conservative foundation Ms. Jones’s legal team launched an intensive hunt for extramarital women in Clinton’s life… One involved a White House aide named Kathleen Willey… Newsweek … published a story detailing Ms. Willey’s claims that the president had made a groping pass at her in the White House… The story … quoted another former White House aide named Linda Tripp as having seen Ms. Willey emerge disheveled from the office that day… the president’s pugnacious lawyer … strongly suggested that Ms. Tripp was lying. Ms. Tripp got mad, and then got even… she had been Vince Foster’s secretary and was the last person to see him alive. Her testimony before Congress about the White House’s reaction to his suicide was less than complementary, and she was later transferred to the Pentagon.” (Pg. xiii)
He goes on, “It was there that Ms. Tripp met Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern… The two became friends and Ms. Lewinsky confided in Ms. Tripp that she was having an affair with the president… Ms. Tripp asked… for advice … Lucianne Goldberg, a conservative literary agent… Ms. Goldberg’s advice: Get a tape recorder. Ms. Tripp’s tapes captured an extraordinary drama as related by the unwitting Ms. Lewinsky in numerous phone calls… Ms. Jones’s lawyers had been tipped off about [Lewinsky] and named her as a witness… Ms. Lewinsky … encouraged Ms. Tripp to lie to the Jones lawyers to cover up the affair, prompting Ms. Tripp to contact Mr. Starr in early 1998…” (Pg. xiv)
He adds, “But Mr. Starr… had pretty much wrapped up … his investigation into Whitewater and suffered an embarrassing defeat when tax charges he had filed against Mr. Hubbell were dismissed… Ms. Lewinsky bargained for full immunity from prosecution. She turned over a dress that had been stained with the president’s semen… the president agreed to testify and admitted having what … was an ‘inappropriate’ relationship with Ms. Lewinsky… And he insisted his adamant denials in the Jones deposition were ‘legally accurate,’ indicating that he understood the definition of sexual relations in the Jones case to exclude receiving oral sex from Ms. Lewinsky… It was far too late, however, to stop Mr. Starr… [who] dispatched … two sets of 18 boxes containing this report … before a nationwide television audience. The boxes, he told Congress, contained ‘substantial and credible information … that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.’” (Pg. xv)
The Report states, “the President answered one of the written discovery questions posed by Ms. Jones on this issue. When asked to identify all women … with whom he had had ‘sexual relations’ since 1986, the President answered under oath: ‘None.’ For purposes of this interrogatory, the term ‘sexual relations’ was not defined… the President denied that he had engaged in a ‘sexual affair,’ a ‘sexual relationship’ or ‘sexual relations’ with Ms. Lewinsky.” (Pg. 23-24)
It continues, “The President … did explain… that there can be no sexual relationship without sexual intercourse, regardless of what other sexual activities may transpire… The President also maintained that none of his sexual contacts with Ms. Lewinsky constituted ‘sexual relations’ within a specific definition used in the Jones deposition… According to what the President testified… this definition … does not cover oral sex performed on the person being deposed… If Ms. Lewinsky performed oral sed on the President, then---under this interpretation---she engaged in sexual relations but he did not.” (Pg. 53-54)
It records, “In his grand jury testimony, the President acknowledged that he and Ms. Lewinsky ‘might to have talked about what to do in a nonlegal context’ to hide their relationship… But he also stated that ‘I never asked Ms. Lewinsky to lie.’” (Pg. 63-64) Later, it adds, “The President testified that he had said… ‘there’s nothing going on between us. That was true… I said I did not have sex with her as I defined it. That was true… They may have been misleading, and if they were I have to take responsibility for it, and I’m sorry.” (Pg. 217-218)
The report argues, “even putting aside his ‘definitional’ defense, the President made a second false statement to the grand jury. The President’s grand jury testimony contradicts Ms. Lewinsky’s… on the question whether the President touched Ms. Lewinsky’s breasts or genitalia during their sexual activity… On this issue, either Monica Lewinsky lied to the grand jury, or President Clinton lied to the grand jury. Under any rational view of the evidence, the President lied…” (Pg. 324-325) It continues, “the President lied when he said ‘I don’t recall’ … whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky... The President suggested at his civil deposition that he … had a general recollection that Ms. Lewinsky may have brought him ‘papers to sign’ on certain occasions… ‘bringing papers’ was one of the sham ‘cover stories’ that the President and Ms. Lewinsky had originally crafted to conceal their sexual relationship.” (Pg. 332)
In the Executive Summary of Key Points of the President’s Case in anticipation of the Starr Report, it states: “The President has acknowledged a serious mistake…. This private mistake does not constitute an impeachable action. A relationship outside one’s marriage is wrong… It is not a high crime or misdemeanor… this report is based entirely on allegations obtained by a grand jury---reams and reams of allegations and purported ‘evidence’ that would never be admitted in court, and that was not subject to cross-examination or any other traditional safeguards… the President never testified in the Jones deposition that he was not alone with Ms. Lewinsky…” (Pg. 445-446)
In the Preliminary Memorandum Concerning Referral of office of Independent Counsel, it notes, “The expansion of the Independent Counsel’s jurisdiction to encompass the Jones case and Ms. Lewinsky did not occur by accident or easily. The OIC deliberately and purposefully sought this expansion on an emergency basis… The series of events that led to this expansion of authority raise serious questions as to the motivations and manipulations of the OIC in securing this expanded jurisdiction..” (Pg. 513)
Starr’s investigation cost more than $52 million, and lasted for six years---yet came up with nothing about the Whitewater deal (its original purpose) implicating the Clintons, and Starr’s Report was, in the end, “all about SEX.” Sad…
July 5, 2010
This book followed up my conversion from a liberal to a conservative. After the the finger-wagging president admitted he had lied to me, The Starr Report further highlighted the problems I had with the man I voted for twice.
This is a must-read for any political junkie.
As I read the book, I recall e-mailing my parents a running commentary. They essentially said back to me, "We told you so."
This is a must-read for any political junkie.
As I read the book, I recall e-mailing my parents a running commentary. They essentially said back to me, "We told you so."
March 30, 2010
Romance in the form of an affidavit.
February 19, 2017
This is a scandal well known to most of us. Unfortunately for me I never had the details. I heards snippets of it from my lecturer who mentioned 'the blue dress'. At the time I was ignorant of the issue. Luckily for me, six years down the line I have gained an insight into the affair that nearly led to the impeachment of the 'leader of the free world'. It has come to be known as the greatest scandal in American history, second only to the watergate during the reign of Richard Nixon.
This book outlines in detail the result of the investigations of President Clintons sexual affair or sexual relations to Ms. Monica Lewinsky and whether the President was liable for impeachment by congress. Monica Lewisnky entered the white house as an intern when she was only 22 years old. She startes having sexual relations with president Clinton in 1996 through to 1998. They had conspired to keep their relationship a secrect till the case of Jones vs Clinton exploded.
When the case of Jones vs Clinton exploded, Jones team sought to depose Mr. Clinton on the allegations of sexual harrasment towards Ms. Jones. It is alleged that the president approached Ms. Jones and requested her to perform oral sex with him. She declined. Under United States law, it is important for witnesses to corroborate their assertions. However in circumstances where there is no corroboration, the law allows the claimants to depose other women who have been sexually harassed previously. In this case, Ms. Jones attorneys had listed as one of their witness a jane doe known as Monica Lewinsky.
After learning of the subpoena against her to testify during the pre-trial proceeding in the Jones case, Ms. Lewinsky informed the president who urged her through a Mr. Jordan to swear an affidavit describing that she has never had any sexual relations with the president. Through her lawyer Mr. Carter, the affidavit was drafted and a motion filed to allow Ms. Lewinsky to testify through her affidavit and be excused from being deposed. On instructions form the president, Ms. Betty Currie was sent to collect all the gifts which the president had given Ms. Lewinsky so as to keep them away from being obtained by the Jones team.
At the end, the committee had to determine whether the President's actions fell under the ambit of high crimes and misdemeanours to warrant his impeachment by congress. They concluded in the afirmative. It was their finding that the President's actions amounted to perjury, obstruction of justice, and tampering with witnesses.
This book outlines in detail the result of the investigations of President Clintons sexual affair or sexual relations to Ms. Monica Lewinsky and whether the President was liable for impeachment by congress. Monica Lewisnky entered the white house as an intern when she was only 22 years old. She startes having sexual relations with president Clinton in 1996 through to 1998. They had conspired to keep their relationship a secrect till the case of Jones vs Clinton exploded.
When the case of Jones vs Clinton exploded, Jones team sought to depose Mr. Clinton on the allegations of sexual harrasment towards Ms. Jones. It is alleged that the president approached Ms. Jones and requested her to perform oral sex with him. She declined. Under United States law, it is important for witnesses to corroborate their assertions. However in circumstances where there is no corroboration, the law allows the claimants to depose other women who have been sexually harassed previously. In this case, Ms. Jones attorneys had listed as one of their witness a jane doe known as Monica Lewinsky.
After learning of the subpoena against her to testify during the pre-trial proceeding in the Jones case, Ms. Lewinsky informed the president who urged her through a Mr. Jordan to swear an affidavit describing that she has never had any sexual relations with the president. Through her lawyer Mr. Carter, the affidavit was drafted and a motion filed to allow Ms. Lewinsky to testify through her affidavit and be excused from being deposed. On instructions form the president, Ms. Betty Currie was sent to collect all the gifts which the president had given Ms. Lewinsky so as to keep them away from being obtained by the Jones team.
At the end, the committee had to determine whether the President's actions fell under the ambit of high crimes and misdemeanours to warrant his impeachment by congress. They concluded in the afirmative. It was their finding that the President's actions amounted to perjury, obstruction of justice, and tampering with witnesses.
May 26, 2020
I am not a good judge of Special Commission reports but the only other one I have read, that from the 9/11 commission, was far more engaging than this. Sure there are some brief titallating descriptions of encounters between Monica and good ole Bill but only the cigar episode can be described as exceptional. This edition featured commentary outside the actual report. To read that some Congressmen were aghast at the sexual discreptions makes me wonder if those congressmen are all precursors to Mike Pence. Other than the cigar, if all married men (and many single men) have not engaged in numerous incidents of similar behaviour, what is wrong with them.
the rest of the report reads like it is beating a dead horse.
Was Bill's behaviour bad? absolutely and in so many ways. Impeachable? Perjury and witness tampering are pretty serious charges and warranted, it appears.
just a bad read
the rest of the report reads like it is beating a dead horse.
Was Bill's behaviour bad? absolutely and in so many ways. Impeachable? Perjury and witness tampering are pretty serious charges and warranted, it appears.
just a bad read
June 23, 2020
Tedious - I couldn't get through it. Although there was much information, it was full of repetition and I ended up quitting in the middle. If you're looking for something that is readable, this isn't it. It's all "legalize." It's the real report, I have no doubt. It's certainly not a narrative. I decided to read "Contempt" by Kenneth Starr--much more readable, and it goes into depth about the investigations, everyone's parts, and how they came to conclusions about criminal referrals. It's like the report, but told in a way that makes the whole thing clear.
Read
March 6, 2024Sometimes I read (re-read in this case, read it in 1998) things I'd rather not mark on GR and then mark them anyway. Call it tribute for the Year in Books god. A friend's fb post reminded me that when I read this in 1998 there were parts where I thought "ew" but a lot more where I thought "that would have worked on me" and "there but for the grace of only being in the orbit of people with a lot less power go I" and "my version of this wouldn't look great in front of a grand jury either" and I wanted to see if that assessment still held. It does.
April 8, 2022
Informative
September 10, 2025
really well organized. thorough. unnecessary.
October 5, 2024
The most legalese he said-she said, ever.
Ken Starr's report was pretty comprehensive with all the collaborating witnesses to behaviors and admissions witnessed but at times became so repetitive across his sections that he maybe didn't need to separate things apart as much. Lots of work went into all the footnotes which were also intriguing (and thorough at well over a thousand in one segment).
The initial report response back to Ken Starr is atrocious and difficult to nail down the White House's arguments to protect or diminish the behavior of President Bill Clinton. Their goal should have been to connect to the American public to dispute the allegations against Clinton of obstruction and perjury. Instead the White House cited case study after case study of mostly antiquated law (i.e. The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton), and relied on literal semantics (i.e. "it depends on what the word 'is' means") which further alienated a support base, whom accurately so, felt lied too.
Ken Starr's report was pretty comprehensive with all the collaborating witnesses to behaviors and admissions witnessed but at times became so repetitive across his sections that he maybe didn't need to separate things apart as much. Lots of work went into all the footnotes which were also intriguing (and thorough at well over a thousand in one segment).
The initial report response back to Ken Starr is atrocious and difficult to nail down the White House's arguments to protect or diminish the behavior of President Bill Clinton. Their goal should have been to connect to the American public to dispute the allegations against Clinton of obstruction and perjury. Instead the White House cited case study after case study of mostly antiquated law (i.e. The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton), and relied on literal semantics (i.e. "it depends on what the word 'is' means") which further alienated a support base, whom accurately so, felt lied too.
November 5, 2014
3.5 stars. I feel guilty for finding this as interesting as I did. It's kind of...really graphic, but the Washington Post analysis is great and the whole thing is just engrossing. Grounds for impeachment? No. That was ridiculous. Probably a good thing to read? Yes. Even though I feel like a voyeur.
If you read it, I recommend reading the report first, the referral second and the analysis third. Basically the opposite of how it's laid out.
If you read it, I recommend reading the report first, the referral second and the analysis third. Basically the opposite of how it's laid out.
March 3, 2008
Whatever you do, DON'T skip the footnotes.
January 29, 2012
Juicy story.
January 14, 2013
High level of detail in some quite private moments with the president. Worth reading for cultural literacy purposes / living history etc
January 22, 2015
it was informative, but so many things blacked out in it.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews