more television for serious readers. ... ... who has

graciously come back to the festival this year to talk about his latest book, a memoir of time leading the 1990s investigation into whitewater and the matter during the 10 years of bill clinton. when you have been in the white-hot center of the public eye has he has judges * probably needs no introduction but i will give you a quick snapshot of some of his distinguished career in law and public service. is a graduate of george washington university, brown university law school.

he was the us solicitor general. he was dean of the pepperdine law school. he was chancellor and president of baylor university. he's been a very distinguished private attorney with firms in california, texas and washington dc. he also is something called-- [inaudible] even though we have a very bright crowd and this is the annapolis area, i bet if i asked you or if i said the three names -- you are not allowed answer, can i bet no one know soon they are, but if i said the names archibald cox, ken starr and bob mueller you know i'm talking about a very select group of social prosecutors, independent counsel, special

counsel who were appointed, have been appointed to look into high-level high visibility cases involving the executive branch. there are some differences between each of those titles and we will get into that a bit later with ken, but first i want to take us, start off back to 1994. you had been in private practice with the chicago firm kirkland ellis and joined in the washington dc area teaching lot nyu and you get a call from judge sentelle who was calling to ask if you would be willing to stand you out about replacing bob is this correct that time was heading up the whitewater investigation and why did you want to leave this great job and

time in the dc area and go back into the arena and did you have any idea what you're about to to get into? >> fools rush in and i had no idea whatsoever, but when i arrived in little rock, on the day of that my appointment and i thought it was a failed land deal in arkansas. it will take maybe six months to investigate, wrap up, there wasn't that much money involved, but when i arrived in little rock and i had taken the oath of office quietly. we didn't have family present. it was an assignment, go get it done. i arrived in bob this office and this will foreshadow bob mueller and was appointed by the attorney general as it special counsel. had a different title. titles have switched, but he was an appointee of the attorney

general janet reno and so i'm sitting in his office and i knew bob, good lawyer. i had actually worked with him and talked about even practicing together. bob said, i described this in the book that we will talk about candy, move your family to little rock. you are going to be a long time. [laughter] he had found more than a failed land deal in arkansas. >> could you take us into your operational and it? how big is your team? who was working there, lawyers, fbi agents, who were some of the key actors on your team? >> that team expanded or contracted depending on the circumstances. we assigned lawyers to specific matters, the death of vincent foster junior for instance, the

fraudulent billing of hubbell, a game from the past but who is associate attorney general of the united states and his law partner at the rose law firm. they entered a guilty plea for defrauding clients, law firm in the clients included the united states. it's really bad but if one of the victims of fraud is united states government will be into that person, so there were different matters under investigation, but one of the most significant things that happened early on was i went to overnight from law person, had been a judge in the dc circuit is your kind enough to mention, had been in the justice department, two tours of duty in the justice department and the "new york times" is sweet and while no one was saying bob fiske needs to go we need a replacement, the special division that did the appointment of the special

counsel independent counsel as i was called determined no, we needed someone who is truly independence of the process and bob had been appointed by the attorney general so it was a logic there and in any event "new york times" praised my appointment for two weeks later, the "new york times" called on me to resign. now, in those two weeks i had not done much. in fact, i hadn't done anything at all, but the political view changed, the fact of what howard fritz called the spin cycle inside the clinton propaganda machine and i am not being political here. it's just a reality in history. i then was visited, so this goes back to the team, i see some people here who might be as old as i am and he remembers. one of the heroes, a real truth

seeker of watergate was sam--. he had been a very successful assistant da in philadelphia and was also an academic at georgetown and i knew sam while. sam comes to my office and says ken, you are being pilloried because of your republican credentials and i said yeah, i then noticed that, sam. he said i am not a republican, very well known prominent democrat and he said you should consider retaining the azure ethics counsel sort of as a attack and balance so that was something i had not expected to do, had to do, but as we geared up one thing i will say is the trial as it turned out there was serious fraud there in little rock and as we geared up for the trial against sitting governor, james and susan mcdougal of

these are names from the past that some of you may recall, james and susan mcdougal were the sole owners of the majesty guarantee savings and loan that had collapsed, fraud, and madison guarantee was hillary's clients in the law form that raised a series of questions, but it also was an institution whose funding was in fact used to inappropriately for the financing of the whitewater land deal. real estate is pretty complex area. when you unravel it all there was fraud at four of the entire transactions of the financing of the whitewater land deal and the so as we looked ahead to that trial knowing that we were going to trial and we get a guilty plea along the way altered-- i mean, some people you see what's

unfolding now in the scandal involving a college admissions, a pretty ugly situation p people are entering guilty pleas, i didn't and that's what we were experiencing in the upshot was we expanded the trial team and of the trial team by the way included bob rosenstein, the now deputy attorney general of the united states. >> you mention it's really a very complex web. there were also some very prominent offshoots of the investigation. one of which was that at that time a very controversial but of, not an former law partner of hillary clinton vince foster who at the time was a white house counsel and there were some questions surrounding the circumstances of his death. you want to really to conclude it was in fact a suicide.

can you talk a bit about that case connect yes. bob had undertaken-- bob fiske had undertaken an examination of the circumstances of the death of vincent foster, very successful lawyer, law partner of the rose law firm. about three of them were very very close. i'm pleased it to say there was no suggestion that vince foster was somehow involved in the fraudulent transactions involving madison guarantee. but, within seven months of coming to washington dc this very successful, prominent lawyer who from all appearance was happily married with the family took his own life in marcy park, so bob has concluded it was a suicide.

there was conspiracy theories, so i decided we needed to take a second to look and make sure that we have done absolutely everything to examine the questions being raised because there were suggestions that were ill-founded, they're worse of justice that foster in fact was the victim of a homicide and that his body had been moved from mars-- to marcy park so let's call it conspiracy theories. we took a very elaborate look at that. we did hire experts, leading experts in the country and forensic examination and i think we proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, not just got a reasonable doubt that he in fact did commit suicide. what's i raised in the book is why did he commit suicide. why was he depressed? though why is something that i do speculate about in the book

because i think he was a person of conscience and there were some aspects of the former partner's relationship with the rose law firm including the so-called missing rose law firm billing records that showed he had a fact that she had a back perform surgery-- services participated in various legal advice aspects to majesty guarantee savings and loan including transactions that were clearly fraudulent. proved that she was aware. that is the key distinction, but now back-- why would the rose law firm records pre-electronic days go missing? the rose law firm said they were stolen. this is not proper. you don't take billing records out of a law firm.

they were eventually found in the residence of the white house >> contrary to some opinions, investigations like the one you ran and the one robert mueller has just run have been referred to at times as fishing expeditions, hoaxes, witchhunts and by character, by definition, by the fact the professionals from the justice department that carry these investigations out, they are anything but and really anything under your purview which is in your case when the monica lewinsky matter came under your purview you initially had-- first i would like to know kind of how that came to your attention and then you ultimately had to get permission from attorney general at the time, janet reno, to move

forward. talk a little bit about that seem like i think-- figure mention it, that last fact at the time was underappreciated at best by the american people that the investigation of the president's such as perjury and obstruction of justice was expressly authorized by the attorney general of the united states, janet reno. this came to be because of a connection with vince foster junior. about last person that saw vince foster junior live in the white house linda tripp. linda tripp calls our office in january, 1998, i thought i was on my way to pepperdine law school. not so fast. linda says a young woman, that was monica lewinsky, working alongside me here at the pentagon in the public affairs

public information office has made me aware that there is a relationship with the president, but most relevantly she's asking me to commit perjury. she has committed perjury herself and at the end of that phone call on that sunday nights i was actually a way an american bar association meeting in colorado and she said you know me, i'm linda tripp a witness in the vince foster junior investigation. so, that's how it came to be. we took steps, some of which have been criticized and criticism goes with the territory, but we verified what linda had told us. with the surreptitious tape recording come she had recorded a number of telephone conversations with monica and so

we were reviewing those. of the fbi was-- well, we then had the famous episode at the ritz carlton which again has been severely criticized. conduct was vindicated in litigation reconfirmed in real time that this was exactly what was underway, namely monaco was encouraging linda to file a curious affidavit in a civil rights case. we take sexual harassment pretty seriously. there's a lot of talk about that, a lot of concerns, societal concern and rightly so. this was essentially civil rights case that had been brought by holly jones at the time an employee of the arkansas government and she alleged that there had been very horrible kind of event that was unsettling to her and so she

brought a federal court action under the civil rights laws against bill clinton for his conduct, you know these are allegations, alleged conduct in a hotel in little rock. it was in connection with that, that all of this perfidy was underway in terms of false perjurious affidavits, false statements encourang others to lie and so forth. >> obviously intense public scrutiny and a lot of battling back and forth, politically at this time. i think one thing the book brings out quite poignantly is you have to have fixed skin to go into these kind of jobs and i don't want to say they are thankless, but they are difficult and it's difficult to end well and you will make at least have people pretty upset before you come out. i wonder about the toll this

takes on you personally were bob moore personally and your families. your wife alice said at one point during whitewater this is a nightmare which isn't going to end and then the one example of the really-- when it really hit me as people think it's off to college, your daughter a year later after chelsea: quick to delhi to stanford and she gets there and she is receiving what marshal service considered to be credible death threats and she has twice for protection. how do you deal with something like that? >> what a great freshman year. happily, the deputy which i can't say enough and praise to the united states marshals service completely professional just absolutely superb, but they had to do the job because it was

appointed by the court. they say why are you protected by the fbi, secret service or what have you because i was appointed by the court under the statute that existed, i was treated as if i were a judge, not paid as well as judges were paid, but protection as-- from the us marshals and they did a wonderful job took it was a toll. we had around-the-clock security at the house, so a command post outside our house, what we called our brady bunch house, which the press already knew and so we had the press outside our house most days. they would go away once i left for the office and the press was fine in terms of-- in fact, a quizzical story, at the funeral in that antonin scalia a couple of years ago coming out of the

church, the cathedral and i'm commenting on the record justice scalia whom i had served in the dc circuit and perform whom i had argued when i served as solicitor general and so i made my quick peace and i'm leaving and one of the-- they said hey by the way i camped outside your house. you may not recognize me. i said i'm so sorry and i said no, no, i said lots of money. we made a down payment on our house things to you. so some good comes out of it. i recount some of the pressure on the family. family was strong work we were so surrounded by faith and friends, the support, our home church, our neighborhood. we have a great episode involving michael moore. it's a very entertaining episode about michael moore, the film

maker who was-- don't have time to tell the whole story, but across the street neighbor donna hogan a wonderful woman had a young kid, several children, but the youngest was a future stanford quarterback, nfl quarterback named kevin hogan. small world. she comes out-- this is all captured by the way on cnn. way to go, donna. get out of this neighborhood we had children hair. you are scaring everyone and so forth and michael had some pre-colorful things to say to donna hogan. anyway, those are whimsical, not so whimsical moments, but looking back it just a suggested controversy. here's the very good news, we came through it as a country and we will come through these as we

did during the administration of ulysses s grant as time permits. how do we in a free society that believes in rule of law and accountability keep the president and those around him or her honest? if there is serious allegation of wrongdoing, are we simply going to say, which is the case in some countries, excuse me, our chief executive whoever he or she might be is about the law. not in the united states and that's part of i think the glory it's unpleasant as all get out and especially not fun for those wrapped up and of course for president clinton and hillary and chelsea this was a horrible episode to go through, so at a personal level guests, lots of cost but in terms of who we are as a free people, constitutional democracy, isn't it reassuring to know that truly no one is

above the law? i mean, that is the goal. no one is above the law. >> that is a statement you have made publicly and also in the book very frequently. it's clear it's the bedrock principle for you. of the other thing that is really interesting in the book is somethings come out that maybe people are familiar with. did you know ken started as a democrat? he was a big admirer of john kennedy. >> and still am. still admirer of john kennedy, not still a democrat. we have a song, i saw the light -- in any event. this is a polite audience. there was no booing or hissing, so thank you for restraining yourself. i tell that story in that i was a great admirer of kennedy. i was a young democrats and then

my epiphany for me was sort of sitting at the feet of a republican congressman from texas, six generation texan and just hearing his philosophy and learning about the vision of the freedom, the baseline of the united states of america is freedom etc., so it's not the time to get into it, but you are correct guilty as charged. also the oldest saying attributed to bernard shaw, he will make initial, he who is not liberal when young has a heart, he who is not conservative when old has no head. >> you also make the points, which i think is also personally revealing that even though you agreed with some of the other political leanings that he had at the time, senator fulbright

is anti- civil rights record and protein actions in all of that were not from a-- after more. on going to try to bring some of these things together. your reverence to the law, the fact that you rightfully believe no person is above the law. some of your principle of social justice and it went to really get your thoughts as a judge, defense attorney, prosecutor and a law professor on our legal system, which is the envy of the world in many respects, but look at things like african americans are incarcerated double the rate , their share of the us population. still have no prosecution that i'm familiar senior officials involved in the 2008 financial crisis, continue to see headlines about wealthy individuals who if they don't

escape prosecution at least they are not getting punishment to sincerely commence her and with the scale of the crime. getting your perspective saying all these things how can we fix the system? how can we make it more fair? >> i would say quite sensitive to and skeptical about proposed reforms. i remember all too vividly the move towards federal level in the states have seen this as well of a minimum sons. i think a number of grave injustice has been done. i think that has fallen disproportionately heavily on the african-american community, the nature of some of these offenses. i have long been and i sat with that wonderful man, warren burger chief justice of the united states whom i clerked with for two years and one of his lamentations was we throw people in prison and forget

about them and he loved it to quote churchill about one of the times of a civilized society that cares about those who are incarcerated and wants to give them opportunities for what we call revegetation. finally, i think we need and it's such a rich subject but another thing i would say is we have to and you hear it from this person who wear prosecutorial power. we need to be skeptical about prosecutorial power. we have been involved in heavily, but supportive way and the innocence project if you go on their website you will see case after case of serious convictions for the most heinous kinds of crimes and guess what, the defendant was factually innocent. something happens to you when which happened to me at pepperdine.

i was attending the program at ucla on criminal justice issues at the ucla law school, i'm chatting with a woman who was on death row, death row in california for the homicide of a family member. she was factually innocent, exonerated by dna and one of the things that i'm deeply concerned about is what i hear about informally as self-assurance of prosecutors. we know we have got the right person. we will use every tool to bring that person down and i realize g, kid you should know that criticism. almost any prosecutor who's been in the business for a while, so we have to be skeptical about the exercise of power in particular that which to me is functional equivalent of the unforgivable sin which is what

we call a brady violation that's when a prosecutor knowingly sits exculpatory evidence that prosecutor is duty bound at a constitutional ride for the defendant to turn over potentially evidence. .. there are is some clear similarities between your work and that of bob mueller's which recently concluded but there are

also some start differences in terms of the mandate, reporting responsibilities. you wrote a piece in the atlantic last month about this. what are some of the key differences between your work and that of of mueller's? >> let me mention two. one is the method of appointment. after the 21 year experiment and the independent counsel arena congress sought not to reauthorize the independent counsel of law. i applauded that. we in the reagan administration when i charred -- started as chief of staff objected to the special prosecutor provisions as raising serious policy questions but it was also an unconstitutional invasion of the powers of the president. i said well wait a second. it was okay to fire archibald cox who was appointed by the attorney general?

no, it wasn't okay. was an obstruction of justice but look at what happened. the acting attorney general bob bork within 11 days of leon jaworski of good baylor man i might say leon jaworski carried on the investigation and the rest of course is all history. the old system worked in a little bit more study of history, history is a great teacher. i'm airing because it's a great teacher. would tell us that ulysses s. grant fired special counsel of his time at the investigation went on. harry truman fired the attorney general who fired the special prosecutor in the early 1950s but the investigation went on. the investigation like the proverbial show will go on. they didn't need to do what it did in 1978.

to restore the authority within the constitutional structure of article ii now under the regulations of which bob mueller was appointed the attorney general makes the appointment and in this instance the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein made this appointment as the acting attorney general when jeff sessions recused himself. the other thing that i would say that is so huge right now at this very moment is the reporting requirement. i was obligated under the statute to send my findings to the congress of the united states. in effect i was an arm or a tool of the congress of the united states no longer. the regulations which have been in effect for 20 years and which bob mueller was reported and appointed in under which he has operated completely scaled back their reporting obligation and i have been saying in public

arenas look at the law. the attorney general of the united states is under criticism and i think much of it misguided , to follow the regulations and the regulations call for bob mueller to do exactly what he has done. bob mueller is an honorable person who is now providing to the attorney general with a keyword, confidential report. under the same regulations and this has the effect of law, the attorney general's obligation is to notify congress and he did on march 22nd and to set forth the principle conclusions. that's what the regulations call for. not to release the report. that is the law. now, that having been said both confirmation hearings and then the letters of march 22 of march 24th yes. rated that in the more recent letter a week ago the attorney

general said i want to err on the side of transparency. so there will be by mid-whenever a pro a release of the report that it will have we thank redaction's. why would you leave anything out? you leave those things out which and i will use two examples, actually need to use three because of the nature of the s.t.a.r.t. report. information is a matter of law, that must come out. barring a court order we can get into that and what that looks like. secondly national security information, most all people of goodwill would say yes you have to protect national security methods and sources. the third category is that of privacy. the report may very well have information that is not going to serve a public information function but could be embarrassing to one or more individuals.

that was exactly the concern with the starr report and it's one of the reasons we are seeing these episodes from now long ago with now chairman nadler at the time calling for the careful treatment of the starr report. it used to be if there was going to be sensitive information in their you would send it out so he voted along with many other members of the house of representatives not to release the starr report. we encourage this kind of careful look because especially the nature of that report with very intimate details. it show the president in our view had committed perjury and obstruction of justice but the major con text was such that it was very, what shall i say, private in nature. i think what bill barr is doing now is that which the regulations call on him to do

and the regulations essentially set her face against the openness, the transparency of the old regime under the independent counsel statute. >> you were quoted saying recently that you think bob mueller probably should have made the hard call on the obstruction of justice claim. >> i don't have a good theory. i have heard various theories but i think it was his responsibility to do so. from what i have seen, and i'm not one of the president's lawyers but i have said this frequently publicly. i will use example of the firing of james comey. it may have been wiser at me then unwise but i do not see how is a matter of law it constitutes obstruction of justice. there are other things that have been the public domain. i just don't see it as a law and they think i have managed to convince on this particular

point to members of the media and it's not my persuasive powers. if any of the rulings of the supreme court of united states which is a narrowly construed obstruction of justice. he can go into data maybe we will in the question and answer. that why did he not do it? alan dershowitz has it very interesting theory and i'm happy to pass that along. i hope that in very high regard. he's a great civil libertarian and his theory and it's simply a theory, is that bob did not want to overrule his staff. up ahead the less capacious view of the obstruction of justice. one person's theory, we shall see. >> we have about 10 minutes left and i know there are probably a lot of people itching to ask your opinions and thoughts on things so i want to leave time now for audience questions.

if you have a question that you would like to ask please come to the microphones. >> i have a question about the privacy criteria for redaction so what are the parameters for that? what kinds of checks and balances exist on regulating that? >> those are fundamentally judgment calls for hill barr to say i think it would simply not serve the public interest for the following three sentences to be included because of embarrassment factors, unjustified notoriety.

and checks and balances i think we will see that play out. we have the beginning of a pretty lively conversation between the house of representatives and the justice department. i envision a time will come when there will be as we call it in the law and in camera review. let's have a chairman and the senior staff people look at the full set of information no matter how embarrassing it i'd be. that is done not infrequently and we shall see what the protocol is but i think the protocol will emerge from that. there will not be a judicial review of that. >> with that a consideration in your report in terms of relevance, whether a private matter was essential to include it? >> we had a very and i describe this in the look, lively and

continuing conversation about the detail which we set forth the nature of the relationship deeply private relationship. and we determined these are professional prosecutors guiding me but i made the decision. we have to prove that the president committed perjury and obstruction of justice beyond any shadow of a doubt and the facts were really not disputed. i so wish that we looked back could this have been avoided? yes. as it was famously said when i make a mistakeecognition, admission apology settling the civil action in january of 1998 or actually before the supreme court of united states ruled unanimously 9-0 so not one of those 5-4 ideological divides that president clinton did not

enjoy from facing the sexual harassment civil rights action. that would have been very good for the nation, for the first family and for the lawsuit. well over 95% of civil cases in the united states settle. this has turned out to be -- it was eventually settled but only after the country had been through this unfortunate process >> i came here today to get a reevaluation of things that i remember that went on during the investigation of the president and i have say the president's behavior, i looked at that in spite of the #me too movement and some of the assumptions we were making and the prejudices or the lack of knowledge or whatever were not present.

so in coming here today i have heard you speaking and you are not quite the monster we were portraying you as. >> sorry about that. i used to be a sunday schoolteacher and a little league coach. but thank you. thank you, i think. >> i was wondering if you could tell us which of the criticisms about you that were going on at that time you think might have been justified or things we could look at differently. >> there were so many criticisms that were justified. let me begin. go ahead, i'm sorry. this is one of those multipart questions. >> it's a long question. one of the things and now i've lost my train of thought. >> oh, i'm sorry. i intervened and i shouldn't have. it fair criticism that i would

level on myself is that i took on the monica lewinsky investigation to begin with. not that it didn't have to be investigated. that's the key. sometimes i say that and it's misinterpreted. you don't think he should be investigated. of course i do. the president denies this is committing perjury and obstruction of justice, it's not russia. he can investigated. you say that context is such, please it's sexual harassment civil rights action. everyone has his or her right to be in court. it's as simple as that. it really is. some things in life are very complicated but in a rule of law system, that is not. i think i would except criticism for taking on the add-ons such as the travel office firings that hillary and jamir. i think i can be fairly faulted for taking on the file scandal.

the fbi files of republicans miraculously mysteriously i should say finding their way into the white house utterly inappropriate but the good news is we determined that there was not sufficient evidence of either of those matters to bring choices so call it an exoneration. and we were able to do it efficiently but i think what happened is as the investigation went on and took longer we did not get cooperation. this is huge and i don't know anything i could have done to stop this. once we have the convictions in little rock, this was a breakthrough. the sitting governor has been convicted of serious fraud in so have jim and susan google. jim dougal began cooperating instead, and i describe this in

the book, the president of the united states committed perjury during the trial. now you can accept that or reject it but this is serious stuff. we could not get at times the information that we needed from jim. jim would say you have to ask susan mcdougal. susan mcdougal declined to cooperating famously a went to civil contempt in which writer for criminal contempt for it she was acquitted of some charges and we had a hung jury on the other charges. i wish to this day and this is a regret. it's not so much criticism, it's a regret that once we have the whitewater convictions let's get this darn thing over with. everyone cooperated and let's let the chips fall where they may including findings that might be very unflattering about the president of united states and the first lady.

during the lewinsky phase of the investigation we were met with claims of executive privilege that were completely unmeritorious. we were met with other efforts to obstruct. that sounds familiar, to obstruct their investigations such as the creation of a privilege with no warning whatsoever in the lock called the protect the function privilege which is to create a praetorian guard that would not be able to provide evidence so imagine the president of an estate is in league with the foreign power. imagine. it might very well be that the secret service agents might have been around when a meeting or conversation was had. do you think that would be relevant? yes it would be but week after week, month after month so some

self-criticism is always in order. everything we did we tried to do consistent with the rule of law and as efficiently as we could and one of the reasons i wrote this book is that i felt so much of the story have never really been told and had never seen the light of day. if you don't mind if i hold it up there. thank you. this is a very distinguished foreign service officer here holding up this book. criticisms and regrets. a great question. >> my question, as a man who has devoted his life to the law and the rule of law what is your opinion of the vast amount of money that has evolved in politics now and also citizens united. >> i applaud citizens united so

i will probably be a minority in this distinguished group. i'm a fervent lever in freedom of speech and just as "the news york times" requires money to produce "the news york times" and "cnn" and so forth so to we make our voices heard. i was very impressed with the fact that so many candidates are depending on small contributions. i think it is simply not the case as a matter of empirical reality that the most heavily financed candidates always win. that just does not happen or the corporate contributions are going to control it. simply i don't think it's demonstrable and empirically i know it seems to be the case but i think the facts rebut that. that having been said i think an enormous amount of money in politics is wasted such as on high paid consultants.

i'm losing about half of my audience here. this is the washington d.c. area. i know a lot of the consultants. they are extremely bright people but it's an extremely pricey part and guides the candidates frequently and into dark holes of wasting money. president obama as a candidate obama definitely not the -- small contributions carried the day. i just worry about regulation. so much regulation ends up backfiring for not working and that coupled with the fervent belief in the first amendment. also i would just say just another example if you have got the burn you've been giving money to senator sanders for these many years and he's not getting a lot of corporate

support, is the? at least that i know of in so there is example after example where we have a very appealing process but that goes against the grain of thinking of a lot of thoughtful people who do worry about money in politics. i say go after corruption. there it is, corruption. quid pro quo. look at the nixon administration and the sale of ambassadorships. that was quid pro quo corruption >> i'm afraid that's all we have time for today. i want to thank everyone in the audience and i want to thank especially ken starr for coming back to the keystone andapolis book festival. the book is "contempt." thank you all very much. have a good afternoon. the book is contempt good afternoon. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> booktv recently visited capitol hill and asked, call of oklahoma what are you reading? >> i'm reading a book by an english author, chamberlain, hitler, churchill, the road to war and just finished up rick jackson's's great book,