New Book Sheds New Light on the Starr InvestigationBreaking News
tags: Bill Clinton, books, presidential history, Starr Investigation
Sean Wilentz is the George Henry Davis 1886 Professor of American History at Princeton. His latest book is No Property in Man: Slavery and Antislavery at the Nation’s Founding. (March 2019)
Twenty years after Kenneth Starr delivered to Congress his report recommending the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, the former independent counsel has delivered a second report, in the form of a memoir, condemning Clinton all over again. The new report, however, contains only a few air-brushed examples of the sex scenes that distinguished the graphic original. Starr goes out of his way this time to disparage Hillary Clinton, who went virtually unmentioned in the original report. And there is a great deal of Starr bemoaning what he calls his victimization by the press, supposedly orchestrated by a handful of hostile, unscrupulous aides to the former president.
Contempt’s real revelation, however, appears to be inadvertent: long before dissembling about sex became the ostensible subject of the investigation, Starr and his staff’s personal dislike and mistrust of the Clintons, especially of Hillary, hardened into an absolute certainty that they were guilty of lawlessness on a gargantuan scale. The book then shows how that certainty helped turn a faltering right-wing political vendetta against a Democratic president into a constitutional crisis over consensual private behavior.
Starr writes in the belief that history has at last turned in his favor, and that his book can set the record straight and end his reputation as a politically driven inquisitor.1“The moral compass of the country,” he writes, “has shifted.” Americans—“an indulgent” people in the 1990s—are now less willing to tolerate the alleged sins that justified his investigation of the Clintons. He expects that fair-minded readers will recoil at what he calls the Clintons’ contempt for “our revered system of justice” and Bill Clinton’s “shockingly callous contempt for the women he used for his pleasure.” Whereas his first report repulsed the public, he thinks he can now vindicate what was from the start an extremist effort to hurt and finally topple a sitting president by retrying it once again as a story of mendacity and sex.
comments powered by Disqus
- Top Ten differences between the Iraq War and Trump’s Proposed Iran War
- Woodrow Wilson Foundation Releases Findings on Why Americans Don't Know History
- How will Obama be remembered? A massive new oral history project will help shape his legacy.
- 30 Years Later, Making Sense Of The MOVE Bombing
- They Resisted Hitler. They Were Executed. At Last, They Lie at Rest.
- Historians Argue That The History Major Won’t Go the Way of the Dodo
- Tenure, Twitter and Taking Her Board to Task
- The new Statue of Liberty Museum is a quiet paean to America’s embrace of immigrants—but what is there to celebrate?
- McCullough’s new book on pioneers’ history draws criticism
- What to Do With Richmond’s Confederate Statues