An Affair of State: The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President Clinton

The ABA prohibits judges from speaking out about 'live' cases. This has nothing whatever to do with law and everything to do with keeping the faith within the increasingly incompetent and incestuous cabal the ABA has become. Disregard any and all the reviews questioning Posner's ethics and form your own opinions on this excellent legal opinion. For that is what An Affair of State is: a legal opinion. No more, no less; and how lucky are we to have a legal opinion from a sitting federal judge? Extremely lucky. Posner's Libertarian instincts are all over the book. While Posner represents his kindred well in accepting breaches of reason because the law accepts them, he sure as hell reveals no love for Republicans or antipathy for Democrats. Posner points out events, gives his opinions, and then footnotes and/or annotates his opinions. How much better can it get than that? Intelligent readers are provided a literal roadmap to Posner's thinking. In a sentence this is one of the most honest, well reasoned books I've ever read, period, and clearly the cream of the crop on the legalities of the impeachment. I don't agree with all Posner's conclusions, but one beauty of his book is he doesn't expect everyone to agree. It is refreshing indeed to read a book by a genius who expects others to form their own opinions and who provides all his sources to make further research a walk in the park.For anyone with an open mind and who is curious about how the law really works, this book is a treasure.

This book is not partisan as some reviewers have claimed. Itis pragmatic. It also seems strange to judge the book solely bythe highly debatable point of whether or not Posner violated the Canonof Judicial Ethics in writing it. Should Clinton have been impeached, and if impeached, convicted? Richard Posner says the question is unanswerable. So why read this book?This book shows how an outstanding mind thinks through important legal and moral issues where existing law and precedent are unclear or inconclusive. It is highly critical of almost everyone involved, including Republicans, the Supreme Court, Clinton's defenders, William Bennett, the TV pundits and 'intellectuals' who commented on the case. The four hours I spent reading this book were far more interesting, clarifying and valuable by far than the many hours I spent in front of the TV during the year or so of the crisis. Too bad this book wasn't available in the early months of the crisis. A lot of misleading and inaccurate information and thought could have been sorted through much more easily.Here are a few of the many interesting points made by Posner, with which I agree:1. It is on the ground of disrespect for his office and for decency in the conduct of government that the most powerful case for impeachment and conviction could have been pitched.2. A President has a duty to avoid becoming enmeshed in a scandal that is likely to weaken his effectiveness. In running that risk, for wholly personal rewards, the Clinton exhibited a high degree of personal irresponsibility. That was a personal failing. But the avoidance of scandal is also a public duty - a precondition to the effective discharge of the President's other public duties.3. A pragmatic decision-maker wants decisions to be based on an assessment of their probable consequences. In legal cases, and a fortiori in impeachment, which is only quasi-legal, this is a legitimate or at least common approach when the conventional materials of legal decision-making, such as precedent or a clear statutory or consittutional text, yield no direction. Since it is unknowable whether the good consequences of impeaching and removing Clinton outweigh the bad, the pragmatist would lean against impoeachment.4. Those who claim that the failure to impeach Clinton makes what he did OK, or puts him 'above the law' are just wrong. He remains subject to the ordinary processes of the law, whether during or after his term.5. To keep on lying after no one believes you does not mislead, but it shows contempt for truth and truthfulness.6. Clinton made a travesty of the religious rite of atonement by asking for forgiveness and absolution without offering to incur any cost.

A number of reviewers of this book incorrectly state that Posner takes a partisan, Republican view of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. I'm a Democrat who voted twice for Clinton, but this characterization of this book is completely untrue. This book is pragmatic, not partisan.Should Clinton have been impeached, and if impeached, convicted? Richard Posner says the question is unanswerable. So why read this book?This book shows how an outstanding mind thinks through important legal and moral issues where existing law and precedent are unclear or inconclusive. It is highly critical of almost everyone involved, including Republicans, the Supreme Court, Clinton's defenders, William Bennett, the TV pundits and 'intellectuals' who commented on the case. The four hours I spent reading this book were far more interesting, clarifying and valuable by far than the many hours I spent in front of the TV during the year or so of the crisis. Too bad this book wasn't available in the early months of the crisis. A lot of misleading and inaccurate information and thought could have been sorted through much more easily.Here are a few of Posner's more interesting views, with which I agree:1. The volume and brazenness of Clinton's lies are impressive. As Posner says, to keep on lying after no one believes you does not mislead, but it shows contempt for truth and truthfulness. 2. Clinton made a travesty of the religious rite of atonement by asking for forgiveness and absolution without offering to incur any cost.3. The Supreme Court should not have allowed Paula Jone's suit to proceed during Clinton's presidency.4. The avoidance of scandal is a public duty of the President, since it weakens his effectiveness in discharging other public duties.5. Failing to convict Clinton does not send a message that what he did was OK, or that he is 'above the law'. He remains subject to the ordinary processes of the law, whether during or after his term.

Looking for a good book on the ins and outs of impeachment? Looking to find out what Congress goes through during the whole process? Want to know what the Independent Council does? The pick up a copy the An Affair of State by Richard Posner and you'll find out.Posner has an excellent work with this book. He is able to remain impartial while reporting the facts. While I may not agree with everything he has written, one thing I can say, Posner's ability to show how complicated things can get certainly had me thinking.I was impressed by the attention to detail, and Posner's ability to bring each character's personality out in this book. A well-written and well-researched piece of work. Posner has done himself and this country proud.You can certainly find a slew of books on the subject of impeachment, however you might want to start here first. This book should be required reading of every member of Congress. Remember to keep an open mind in order to judge this book fairly; an I am sure you will be impressed.

This book does a superb job of exploding arguments offered by both supporters and opponents of impeachment. Posner's writing is engaging and lucid, and his analyses are usually compelling. While some think he is too easy on Ken Starr, the fact is that Starr's prosecutorial tactics are used routinely by Clinton's own Justice Department and by state prosecutors across the country. I happen to believe that over the past two decades or so the Supreme Court has given prosecutors too much power, but the suggestion that Starr's tactics were somehow unique is a distortion.One of the arguments heard repeatedly during the impeachment hearings and Senate trial is that the President's lies were justified because the questions put to him were improper. In a new twist on this argument, one of the reviewers below goes so far as to suggest that "Biblical" conceptions of morality dictate this conclusion. (If there is a Biblical precept that justifies lying under oath if a question is improper, I am not aware of it, and in any event it is not likely to be of much help to an ordinary citizen being prosecuted for perjury by the Justice Department.) Posner makes short shrift of this entire line of argument.First, he shows that the questions put to Clinton were "material," which necessarily means that they were proper deposition questions. This conclusion is buttressed by the fact that it is commonplace for defendants in sexual harassment cases to be asked questions about other sexual relationships in the workplace. Moreover, as Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor and strong opponent of impeachment, pointed out in a September 28, 1998 New Yorker article, President Clinton enthusiastically signed amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1994 that made it especially difficult for a defendant in a harassment case to avoid answering these kinds of questions. But even if it could be plausibly argued that the President's prior workplace sexual encounters were not a proper subject of inquiry in his deposition, a federal judge who was present at the deposition -- and who had been presented with lengthy briefs regarding this issue -- decided otherwise. As Posner indicates, if the President disagreed with her ruling, that surely did not give him license to lie under oath in response to the questions. Instead, under our legal system, the proper response would have been to appeal the Judge's ruling, or to refuse to answer the questions and accept the legal consequences of that refusal. The latter course of action, incidentally, is one that another staunch opponent of impeachment, Alan Dershowitz, maintains the President should have undertaken. President Clinton also had at least one other option. He and his lawyers had to know well in advance that the Jones lawyers would want to ask questions about his other workplace sexual encounters, and that the Judge would almost surely allow those questions. As such, the President might hav