Even more welcome is Posner's discussion of how other actors in the process, most notably those from the legal and academic professions, failed in this process. Although his detractors often label him a conservative, no side of the political spectrum is spared Posner's critique here. Law school deans and other leaders of the legal profession remained conspicuously silent about the ethical dimensions of Clinton's conduct even when they were waxing poetic about its relevant legal dimensions. The author in the book's first two chapters details all these errors and foibles ably. Judge Posner is at his best when identifying and analyzing the hypocrisy of others.
Examples abound of partisan-motivated inconsistencies.
For example, contrast Henry Hyde's public defense with his criticism of President Clinton. By contrast, such reversals of position by members of the academic and legal communities are less easily excused. Judge Posner's discussion of the legal proceedings that preceded the submission of the Starr report seems at times to be hopelessly divorced from the political realities that surrounded the litigation in question. Such criticism ignores the reality of the political environment that existed outside the grand jury room. A public that was already sympathetic to the president might have turned further against the prosecutors if they had employed such tactics.