Take a photo of a barcode or cover
22 reviews for:
A Vast Conspiracy: The Real Story of the Sex Scandal That Nearly Brought Down a President
Jeffrey Toobin
3.62 AVERAGE
22 reviews for:
A Vast Conspiracy: The Real Story of the Sex Scandal That Nearly Brought Down a President
Jeffrey Toobin
3.62 AVERAGE
A surprisingly engaging book for which mainly revolves around American politics and law, a subject that I know not too much about. I had to concentrate quite a bit too, so I guess I’m a bit of a dumb boy.
The conclusions are a bit suspect, where the author seems to dismiss Paula Jones’ claims and also doesn’t really explore the irresponsibility and shadiness of Clinton’s actions. The most powerful man in the world was sleeping with a young public-hired intern, but it comes across as simply an extramarital affair.
It does present a good tear down of the republican frenzy that overtook the party in their goals to unseat Clinton. But barring Lewinsky, no one comes out looking good, despite the author’s attempt to side the reader with the president.
Overall a good insight into the whole debacle but draws some questionable conclusions that are growing out of fashion in today’s political and social climate.
The conclusions are a bit suspect, where the author seems to dismiss Paula Jones’ claims and also doesn’t really explore the irresponsibility and shadiness of Clinton’s actions. The most powerful man in the world was sleeping with a young public-hired intern, but it comes across as simply an extramarital affair.
It does present a good tear down of the republican frenzy that overtook the party in their goals to unseat Clinton. But barring Lewinsky, no one comes out looking good, despite the author’s attempt to side the reader with the president.
Overall a good insight into the whole debacle but draws some questionable conclusions that are growing out of fashion in today’s political and social climate.
challenging
informative
slow-paced
So I realised half way through this was a re-release of a book I had read some time ago. However this is comprehensive account of what went on during the Clinton affair and the story that almost brought down a President
Sex, lies and audiotape…
Every detail you ever wanted to know about the whole Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, and several that you didn’t. This is more than a salacious recounting of the affair that nearly brought down a President, however. Jeffrey Toobin argues convincingly that politicians on both sides of the aisle had gradually been using the courts more and more to decide political questions, and that the Clinton scandal was a clear indication that the balance of power had shifted, and that the legal system was from now on to be the arbiter of all political questions in the US. He also suggests that it was the beginning of the sordid game beloved by politicians and the media (but not so much by the public, he implies) of dragging political opponents down, not by dissecting their poor performance as politicians, but by pretended moral outrage over their private behaviour.
The book was originally published in 2000, so long before the MeToo movement but at a time when questions of sexual abuse in the workplace were being raised by feminist groups. In his introduction, Toobin admits that he may have treated Lewinsky differently had he been writing now, when terms like “power imbalance” are part of the everyday lexicon. To be honest, I’m glad he wrote it when he did then, for two reasons. Firstly, my opinion then (when I was a youngish, ambitious, working woman) and now is that a 22-year-old woman is a grown adult, perfectly capable of making her own decisions, and therefore morally responsible for her own behaviour. There was never a suggestion that Clinton forced himself on Lewinsky – quite the reverse – so while I think he’s a disgusting and rather pathetically inadequate adulterous pig, I’m not willing to see her as his victim. (Her treatment later, by her tape-recording “friend” and the lawyers investigating Clinton, seems to me far more abusive than anything Clinton did to her.) Secondly, because Toobin wrote it in the heat of the moment, more or less, it gives a much clearer picture, I think, of the attitudes prevalent at that time than any later history, trying hard to tell the story through the filter of a 2020 lens, could ever do. Although Toobin is pretty tough on Lewinsky, he also shows no mercy to Clinton, so this is in no way an apologia.
Toobin spares us none of the intimate detail, and I fear I learned far more than I wanted or needed to about Clinton’s anatomy and sexual preferences, not to mention Lewinsky’s underwear and performative techniques. (It made me realise that, back in the day, although the case was reported on at extremely boring length over here too, our dear BBC must have decided to leave out the most salacious details, for which I belatedly thank them.) However, in terms of the book I do think it was necessary to include them, because part of Toobin’s argument is exactly that public interest arguments shouldn’t justify this level of intrusion into the minutiae of sex between consenting adults. This case opened the door to the constant diet of sleaze that is now common currency in what we laughably call political debate. Does the public have the right to know their President paid a porn star for her silence about their affair? Probably – it goes to questions of character and vulnerability to blackmail. But do we really need a detailed account of the act complete with anatomical measurements? I think not.
The bulk of the book, however, is about the Starr investigation, and how incestuous the whole relationship between the legal and political systems of the US has become, with partisan lawyers and judges acting to down political opponents and circumvent the laws of the land, rather than behaving as impartial administrators of justice. This provides a lot of insight for outsiders, and I expect for many Americans too, on why the most important agenda item for many politicians seems to be to pack the courts with their own appointees. One only has to see the reaction of the left to the appointment of Kavanaugh (who plays a bit part in the Clinton story), or the desperation with which the Democrats are praying that Ginsberg will be able to remain in her role until next January, or the disgust of Republicans that Chief Justice Roberts has “betrayed” the right in a couple of recent judgements to know that this politicisation of the legal system is corrupting even the Supreme Court. Toobin shows us the origins of this, and the collusion of all sides in allowing it to happen. There were several chapters where, had the names been omitted, the book could as easily have been about Trump, Mueller, and the biased and polarised media of today’s America.
So despite all the sleazy details, I found this a fascinating and illuminating scrutiny of the modern American political system. It also surprised me that so many of the political players back then are still influential now – Kavanaugh, George Conway, Ann Coulter were all linked to the Starr investigation, while many of the Senators and members of Congress on both sides, mostly not young or junior even back then, were trotting out opposite arguments during the Trump impeachment two decades later. It made me wonder why the US seems to have stuck – these same people have been running it, badly, for decades. Maybe it’s time for a generational shift, though since the major question in this year’s election seems to be which of the candidates is less senile I’m not expecting it to happen soon. Recommended to Americans who want to understand how and why their system fails them, and to Brits and others as a stark warning not to follow them down the road of giving lawyers and judges more power than our elected politicians. 4½ stars for me, so rounded up.
NB This book was provided for review by the publisher, William Collins.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
Every detail you ever wanted to know about the whole Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, and several that you didn’t. This is more than a salacious recounting of the affair that nearly brought down a President, however. Jeffrey Toobin argues convincingly that politicians on both sides of the aisle had gradually been using the courts more and more to decide political questions, and that the Clinton scandal was a clear indication that the balance of power had shifted, and that the legal system was from now on to be the arbiter of all political questions in the US. He also suggests that it was the beginning of the sordid game beloved by politicians and the media (but not so much by the public, he implies) of dragging political opponents down, not by dissecting their poor performance as politicians, but by pretended moral outrage over their private behaviour.
The book was originally published in 2000, so long before the MeToo movement but at a time when questions of sexual abuse in the workplace were being raised by feminist groups. In his introduction, Toobin admits that he may have treated Lewinsky differently had he been writing now, when terms like “power imbalance” are part of the everyday lexicon. To be honest, I’m glad he wrote it when he did then, for two reasons. Firstly, my opinion then (when I was a youngish, ambitious, working woman) and now is that a 22-year-old woman is a grown adult, perfectly capable of making her own decisions, and therefore morally responsible for her own behaviour. There was never a suggestion that Clinton forced himself on Lewinsky – quite the reverse – so while I think he’s a disgusting and rather pathetically inadequate adulterous pig, I’m not willing to see her as his victim. (Her treatment later, by her tape-recording “friend” and the lawyers investigating Clinton, seems to me far more abusive than anything Clinton did to her.) Secondly, because Toobin wrote it in the heat of the moment, more or less, it gives a much clearer picture, I think, of the attitudes prevalent at that time than any later history, trying hard to tell the story through the filter of a 2020 lens, could ever do. Although Toobin is pretty tough on Lewinsky, he also shows no mercy to Clinton, so this is in no way an apologia.
Toobin spares us none of the intimate detail, and I fear I learned far more than I wanted or needed to about Clinton’s anatomy and sexual preferences, not to mention Lewinsky’s underwear and performative techniques. (It made me realise that, back in the day, although the case was reported on at extremely boring length over here too, our dear BBC must have decided to leave out the most salacious details, for which I belatedly thank them.) However, in terms of the book I do think it was necessary to include them, because part of Toobin’s argument is exactly that public interest arguments shouldn’t justify this level of intrusion into the minutiae of sex between consenting adults. This case opened the door to the constant diet of sleaze that is now common currency in what we laughably call political debate. Does the public have the right to know their President paid a porn star for her silence about their affair? Probably – it goes to questions of character and vulnerability to blackmail. But do we really need a detailed account of the act complete with anatomical measurements? I think not.
The bulk of the book, however, is about the Starr investigation, and how incestuous the whole relationship between the legal and political systems of the US has become, with partisan lawyers and judges acting to down political opponents and circumvent the laws of the land, rather than behaving as impartial administrators of justice. This provides a lot of insight for outsiders, and I expect for many Americans too, on why the most important agenda item for many politicians seems to be to pack the courts with their own appointees. One only has to see the reaction of the left to the appointment of Kavanaugh (who plays a bit part in the Clinton story), or the desperation with which the Democrats are praying that Ginsberg will be able to remain in her role until next January, or the disgust of Republicans that Chief Justice Roberts has “betrayed” the right in a couple of recent judgements to know that this politicisation of the legal system is corrupting even the Supreme Court. Toobin shows us the origins of this, and the collusion of all sides in allowing it to happen. There were several chapters where, had the names been omitted, the book could as easily have been about Trump, Mueller, and the biased and polarised media of today’s America.
So despite all the sleazy details, I found this a fascinating and illuminating scrutiny of the modern American political system. It also surprised me that so many of the political players back then are still influential now – Kavanaugh, George Conway, Ann Coulter were all linked to the Starr investigation, while many of the Senators and members of Congress on both sides, mostly not young or junior even back then, were trotting out opposite arguments during the Trump impeachment two decades later. It made me wonder why the US seems to have stuck – these same people have been running it, badly, for decades. Maybe it’s time for a generational shift, though since the major question in this year’s election seems to be which of the candidates is less senile I’m not expecting it to happen soon. Recommended to Americans who want to understand how and why their system fails them, and to Brits and others as a stark warning not to follow them down the road of giving lawyers and judges more power than our elected politicians. 4½ stars for me, so rounded up.
NB This book was provided for review by the publisher, William Collins.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
The reluctance to settle had dramatic–and catastrophic– implications for the Clinton presidency, and it was rooted in the complex dynamics of the relationship between husband and wife
Time for my creaking bones to sit down and read some ancient history.
How, When, Why
Instead, it established a pattern that Starr’s team would follow straight through for the rest of the year–an obsession with meaningless atmospherics, and tendentious “signs” to their adversaries, an unhealthy interest in using the media to send messages, and a predilection for canine zeal over solid prosecutorial judgement.
The thing about the late 90s “sleaze” of the Clinton presidency was that it was all very confusing. The eventual focus on Monica Lewinsky simplified it significantly, but names and “gates” continued to circulate, and why they existed and how they were connected never clicked for me. A Vast Conspiracy solves that issue. From a legal perspective of the scandal, Toobin gives extremely clear retelling of what happened and why events were connected. There is also Toobin’s commentary on the conduct of individuals and the legal teams, including apparently critical blunders or decisions that hurt or saved Clinton, which adds colour and is fine from a matter of opinion point.
The political side is weaker (and at times boring) but I suspect that is because Toobin had access to fewer written sources and the major participants had their own book-writing careers to consider. Even then, it is fine and to re-emphasize, I understand how Whitewater led to Paula Jones to Lewinsky to the blue dress back to Paula Jones and so on.
I do also note that Toobin tries promote the idea that there was a broader swing fromd:
- resolving matters politically; to
- going to courts to make decisions in your favour,
Apparently this shift in strategy started with the Civil Rights movement, but was then picked up by the right wing. I am willing to entertain that, but the subject of the book is too focused to really run this argument to ground. Toobin occasionally refers back to this idea but never properly ties off. I do not really have a problem with this though, as it was not really what motivated me to read the book.
I have seen accusations that the book is biased towards the Clintons and… …maybe? I agree Toobin stretches to make Hillary Clinton’s reference to a right wing conspiracy sound plausible, and I do set out some character issues below. You also might have issues with the Toobin’s portrayal of members of Kenneth Starr’s team as zealots, though the did not exactly cover themselves in glory based on the results. I cannot give a determinative answer on bias, partly because I agree with the conclusion that impeachment was not the appropriate penalty, so I guess read some other books and make your own call.
Character Assassination
Yet once she became famous, Lewinsky did little but dwell on her supposed privations–that her parents divorced, that a mean boy had called her “Big Mac,” that she lacked “self-esteem.” Before she became obsessed with the president of the United States, her only other serious interest in life was dieting.
I read the 2020 edition of A Vast Conspiracy, where Toobin in a new introduction acknowledges the #MeToo movement changed perspectives of power differentials and admits he was probably too harsh on Lewinsky. I guess kudos for appreciating that, though it reads as if he is trimming his sails to the new understanding rather than an in-depth reflection on the contents of the book.
My main issue is that I felt Toobin described various actions (and background history) of Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones as forming significant parts of their characters, whereas for Clinton they were moral failings – damnable certainly, but a portion of the man. Toobin sees Clinton’s sexual peccadillos as a separate element from his life:
These relationships were simply the way he lived. One part of his life never interfered with the other–as long as he didn’t get caught.
Toobin also expressly rejects the contention that Bill Clinton could have been a sex addict. Considering the information available at the time, it’s a bold call to make, though it perhaps reflected cultural norms at the time of men behaving badly without necessarily being “bad”. Since the original publication, Clinton’s continued straying well into late middle age makes that judgement weaker, and something Toobin doesn’t confront in his 2020 introduction, preferring to debate the concept of positions of power. If we are to judge Lewinsky and Jones on their actions, then Clinton’s post 2000 ones should be too!
There is also an issue of the author himself, which in this case is directly relevant to his character judgements. A child out of wedlock (which he initially denied) and an unfortunate Zoom call suggest that Toobin does have issues with portraying intimate relationships, particularly secret ones.
However… …while the reputations of a number of the women in A Vast Conspiracy do deserve rehabilitation, I am marginal on whether it would dramatically change the story. The shading of events would be different, and perhaps Toobin would conclude an impeachment would be more justified. Yet it is still hard to escape the conclusion that, to the extent that Clinton lied, it was on a personal matter that did not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, and even if his interactions with Lewinsky would potentially be considered sexual harassment today, would not be enough to overturn the will of the voters. Nor would a rewriting of A Vast Conspiracy realistically change that Jones’ case was weak, at least on the evidence presented in the book.
He was impeached for what? The answer will honor neither the president nor his times.
Feel free to judge the weaknesses in A Vast Conspiracy. They are real. Despite that, the book is a clear explanation of how it all played out and I would recommend it as a starting point, even if you intend to dive deeper into the issues.
Time for my creaking bones to sit down and read some ancient history.
How, When, Why
Instead, it established a pattern that Starr’s team would follow straight through for the rest of the year–an obsession with meaningless atmospherics, and tendentious “signs” to their adversaries, an unhealthy interest in using the media to send messages, and a predilection for canine zeal over solid prosecutorial judgement.
The thing about the late 90s “sleaze” of the Clinton presidency was that it was all very confusing. The eventual focus on Monica Lewinsky simplified it significantly, but names and “gates” continued to circulate, and why they existed and how they were connected never clicked for me. A Vast Conspiracy solves that issue. From a legal perspective of the scandal, Toobin gives extremely clear retelling of what happened and why events were connected. There is also Toobin’s commentary on the conduct of individuals and the legal teams, including apparently critical blunders or decisions that hurt or saved Clinton, which adds colour and is fine from a matter of opinion point.
The political side is weaker (and at times boring) but I suspect that is because Toobin had access to fewer written sources and the major participants had their own book-writing careers to consider. Even then, it is fine and to re-emphasize, I understand how Whitewater led to Paula Jones to Lewinsky to the blue dress back to Paula Jones and so on.
I do also note that Toobin tries promote the idea that there was a broader swing fromd:
- resolving matters politically; to
- going to courts to make decisions in your favour,
Apparently this shift in strategy started with the Civil Rights movement, but was then picked up by the right wing. I am willing to entertain that, but the subject of the book is too focused to really run this argument to ground. Toobin occasionally refers back to this idea but never properly ties off. I do not really have a problem with this though, as it was not really what motivated me to read the book.
I have seen accusations that the book is biased towards the Clintons and… …maybe? I agree Toobin stretches to make Hillary Clinton’s reference to a right wing conspiracy sound plausible, and I do set out some character issues below. You also might have issues with the Toobin’s portrayal of members of Kenneth Starr’s team as zealots, though the did not exactly cover themselves in glory based on the results. I cannot give a determinative answer on bias, partly because I agree with the conclusion that impeachment was not the appropriate penalty, so I guess read some other books and make your own call.
Character Assassination
Yet once she became famous, Lewinsky did little but dwell on her supposed privations–that her parents divorced, that a mean boy had called her “Big Mac,” that she lacked “self-esteem.” Before she became obsessed with the president of the United States, her only other serious interest in life was dieting.
I read the 2020 edition of A Vast Conspiracy, where Toobin in a new introduction acknowledges the #MeToo movement changed perspectives of power differentials and admits he was probably too harsh on Lewinsky. I guess kudos for appreciating that, though it reads as if he is trimming his sails to the new understanding rather than an in-depth reflection on the contents of the book.
My main issue is that I felt Toobin described various actions (and background history) of Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones as forming significant parts of their characters, whereas for Clinton they were moral failings – damnable certainly, but a portion of the man. Toobin sees Clinton’s sexual peccadillos as a separate element from his life:
These relationships were simply the way he lived. One part of his life never interfered with the other–as long as he didn’t get caught.
Toobin also expressly rejects the contention that Bill Clinton could have been a sex addict. Considering the information available at the time, it’s a bold call to make, though it perhaps reflected cultural norms at the time of men behaving badly without necessarily being “bad”. Since the original publication, Clinton’s continued straying well into late middle age makes that judgement weaker, and something Toobin doesn’t confront in his 2020 introduction, preferring to debate the concept of positions of power. If we are to judge Lewinsky and Jones on their actions, then Clinton’s post 2000 ones should be too!
There is also an issue of the author himself, which in this case is directly relevant to his character judgements. A child out of wedlock (which he initially denied) and an unfortunate Zoom call suggest that Toobin does have issues with portraying intimate relationships, particularly secret ones.
However… …while the reputations of a number of the women in A Vast Conspiracy do deserve rehabilitation, I am marginal on whether it would dramatically change the story. The shading of events would be different, and perhaps Toobin would conclude an impeachment would be more justified. Yet it is still hard to escape the conclusion that, to the extent that Clinton lied, it was on a personal matter that did not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, and even if his interactions with Lewinsky would potentially be considered sexual harassment today, would not be enough to overturn the will of the voters. Nor would a rewriting of A Vast Conspiracy realistically change that Jones’ case was weak, at least on the evidence presented in the book.
He was impeached for what? The answer will honor neither the president nor his times.
Feel free to judge the weaknesses in A Vast Conspiracy. They are real. Despite that, the book is a clear explanation of how it all played out and I would recommend it as a starting point, even if you intend to dive deeper into the issues.
I decided to read this because it was the source material for American Crime Story: Impeachment. I was taken aback at how hard it was on Monica, although I remember that was the sentiment at the time. It drags a bit in parts when it goes into great detail about the machinations of the various Senator and Congress people. In short, unless you are absolutely obsessed with this case you can probably learn everything you would want to know from American Crime Story and the Slow Burn podcast.
informative
medium-paced
challenging
informative
tense
fast-paced
Vast Conspiracy by Jeffrey Toobin is an immensely frustrating and, frankly, sexist take on the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. Toobin’s portrayal of Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones is nothing short of demeaning. He paints both women as manipulative and unsympathetic, completely overlooking the power imbalances at play, and, in doing so, diminishes the very real issues of sexual harassment and abuse of power that are central to the story.
Rather than engaging with the complexities of the scandal or offering a thoughtful critique of the power dynamics between Clinton and his accusers, Toobin seems determined to cast Lewinsky and Jones as little more than opportunists, which is especially egregious in Lewinsky's case, considering her age and vulnerability at the time. The book often belittles the experiences of these women, reducing them to mere footnotes in the story of Clinton’s political survival. This kind of dismissiveness sends a damaging message about how victims of sexual misconduct are viewed and treated in public discourse.
Toobin’s sympathy for Bill Clinton, a man who, by any reasonable standard, behaved like a creep and abused his position, is particularly galling. Perhaps this is unsurprising, given Toobin’s own history: he was fired from The New Yorker after being caught masturbating on a Zoom call. This uncomfortable parallel seems to explain why he might give Clinton such a pass for his predatory behavior. There’s an underlying tone of “boys will be boys” throughout the book, as if Clinton’s indiscretions are forgivable or even inevitable, while Lewinsky and Jones are treated as morally questionable.
Ultimately, Vast Conspiracy is a deeply flawed, biased, and tone-deaf recounting of the Clinton scandal. It fails to reckon with the seriousness of sexual harassment and misconduct, and it does a disservice to the women involved by casting them as villains or pawns, rather than people deserving of empathy and fairness. This book could have been a thoughtful exploration of power, politics, and gender, but instead, it comes across as outdated, sexist, and dismissive of victims.
1/5 stars (BECAUSE 0 WAS NOT AN OPTION)
Rather than engaging with the complexities of the scandal or offering a thoughtful critique of the power dynamics between Clinton and his accusers, Toobin seems determined to cast Lewinsky and Jones as little more than opportunists, which is especially egregious in Lewinsky's case, considering her age and vulnerability at the time. The book often belittles the experiences of these women, reducing them to mere footnotes in the story of Clinton’s political survival. This kind of dismissiveness sends a damaging message about how victims of sexual misconduct are viewed and treated in public discourse.
Toobin’s sympathy for Bill Clinton, a man who, by any reasonable standard, behaved like a creep and abused his position, is particularly galling. Perhaps this is unsurprising, given Toobin’s own history: he was fired from The New Yorker after being caught masturbating on a Zoom call. This uncomfortable parallel seems to explain why he might give Clinton such a pass for his predatory behavior. There’s an underlying tone of “boys will be boys” throughout the book, as if Clinton’s indiscretions are forgivable or even inevitable, while Lewinsky and Jones are treated as morally questionable.
Ultimately, Vast Conspiracy is a deeply flawed, biased, and tone-deaf recounting of the Clinton scandal. It fails to reckon with the seriousness of sexual harassment and misconduct, and it does a disservice to the women involved by casting them as villains or pawns, rather than people deserving of empathy and fairness. This book could have been a thoughtful exploration of power, politics, and gender, but instead, it comes across as outdated, sexist, and dismissive of victims.
1/5 stars (BECAUSE 0 WAS NOT AN OPTION)
informative
tense
medium-paced
informative
medium-paced