Customer Rating:
Summary: This book is not interesting.
Comment: This book is all about the author and the minor position he held in a historic event and little about the historic event. His bias is unmistakable and the book unremarkable and not well written.

He (or his editor) used the incorrect word for a juror challenge on page 211, line 24 (preemptory instead of peremptory), a 1st year law student knows better. If someone will pay shipping I will send the book before I toss it in the trash but it is not worth the time I spent to read it.

---

Customer Rating:
Summary: hoist on his own petard ?
Comment: Those who are decrying the methods & motives of Ken Starr would do well to read this insider's account of the IranContra case by the New Yorker's legal writer.

Among the familiar elements of the story are politically motivated prosecutions (Toobin wanted to join Judge Walsh's staff because he disagreed with Reagan's Central America policy), press leaks (by Toobin himself) & relatively minor charges (lying to Congress, obstruction, etc.)

What distinguishes the story of IranContra from Whitewater is the absence of political attacks on the special prosecutor by the White House. In fact, at one point Reagan makes a special appointment of Walsh when North challenges the constitutionality of a special prosecutor appointed by Congressional statute.

These days, in the pages of the New Yorker, Toobin attacks everything from sexual harassment law itself to degradation of privacy rights in his effort to delegitimize the Starr investigation. One wonders if he's forgotten the personal experiences that he defly portrays here.

GRADE: C+

---