• Like
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.



Published in Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Del Busto 1 The Personal is Political Affairs in politics matter some, but they should matter more because the personal life cannot be separated from the political life. The values, beliefs, and character of a political leader will be the same both socially and politically. The two are one. Thomas Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemings and the buying of the Louisiana Purchase prove this true. A modern parallel of the personal being political is Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky and his tax cut plans. Scandals in politics influence voters' opinions, impact politicians’ reputations, and their standings; both qualitative and quantitative research confirms this. But to show the affairs' political effects, evidence must first verify the affairs' legitimacy. Why must one verify Jefferson's affair so carefully? This is because Jefferson's affair completely contradicted his spoken word and beliefs. "...he declared forthrightly that the blacks are inferior, not only to the whites, but also to the American Indians...yet, despite his contrary practice and that of many of his friends, he professed to hold miscegenation in horror."1 Jefferson stated that blacks were not only lesser beings than whites, but also miscegenation, the interbreeding between blacks and whites, was disgusting. Despite this, Jefferson acted in a contradictory manner. He had an affair with his slave. This clashed with every facet of Jefferson's character proved him to be a hypocrite and that he felt differently about blacks than he said, particularly Sally Hemings. Thomas Jefferson not only had an affair with his slave Sally Hemings but also had a romantic relationship with her. DNA testing proved that Jefferson had relations with Sally, and Jefferson's actions proved his love for her. This affair showed Jefferson's character to be hypocritical and inconsistent. Three pieces of evidence support and prove the relationship
  • 2. Del Busto 2 between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: the lack of letters, children's birthdays, and DNA test results. Jefferson had a letter-index volume of all his incoming and outgoing mail for forty-three years of his life, except for the year 1788.2 1788 is important because it is the year Jefferson and Hemings started their affair. One year missing out of forty-three years of meticulously kept letters is not accidental. It is not a coincidence. Jefferson purposefully took great care to hide his relationship with Sally and never wrote about her. And even if he did, he destroyed the evidence. But what Jefferson cannot destroy is his children's birthdays. Jefferson always seems to be around Sally nine months before each of her children are born. This is displayed in the following examples. Jefferson stayed at his estate, Monticello, between July 11 and December 4 of 1797. Soon after, Beverly was born on April 1, 1798. The second Harriet (the first Harriet died shortly after birth) was born in May 1801. And Eston was born in May 1805. Both were both born in May. Jefferson frequently vacationed at Monticello in August. 3 This is another nine-month gap. Do the math. But to put all doubt aside, DNA tests proved that Jefferson's impeccable timing was not a coincidence. “…DNA evidence was released in 1998 that effectively proved the last of Sally Hemings’ children, Eston Hemings, was fathered by Thomas Jefferson…”4 Thomas Jefferson had a relationship with Sally Hemings. Eston's birth after Jefferson's visit to Monticello was not accidental. Modern science proved the controversial Jefferson affair to be true, but it does not prove how Jefferson felt for Hemings. Jefferson and Hemings Loved Each Other Jefferson took great care and showed affection for Sally. He did not merely view Hemings as a slave or an object, but rather, as a lover. The couple's love was born in France
  • 3. Del Busto 3 around late 1787.5 Sally traveled to France because she was taking care of Jefferson's daughter on the journey over to France to see her Father. It was in France Jefferson first met young Sally. The two met and quickly advanced their relationship. Jefferson treated Sally well and exceeded the expectations of the regular slave requirements such as health and clothing. "On November 6, 1787, he paid 240 francs to a Dr. Sutton for Sally’s smallpox inoculation, a very great sum”.6 240 francs is roughly $246.7 A new slave at its peak sold for $400-$600 in 1800.8 Jefferson could have simply scrounged up a few more dollars and replaced Sally if she got sick and died. But he spent the extra money on her health because he cared for her. To put Jefferson's act of kindness in perspective, $246 in 1787 is approximately $5,850 in 2009.9 This was quite an investment to make in one slave. At the very least, Sally must have been a good slave to get this kind of special treatment. But the pampering continues. Sally cannot be physically healthy and not look it, so Jefferson buys her the latest and greatest clothes.10 "There is an item for 96 francs for 'clothes for Sally' on April 6, 72 francs on April 16, and an itemized 23 francs on April 23 for 'making clothes for servts.' May 25 has another item, 'pd making clothes for Sally 25# 2.'...the expenditure of 216 francs for Sally in seven weeks plus her monthly salary of 24 francs would seem to be considerable, especially when compared with the total lack of specific expenditures on her behalf in the earlier months."11 All these purchases are clothes for Sally, and they add up to 240 francs. Between the small pox inoculation and the clothes, Jefferson has spent almost $500 on Hemings. This is almost $12000 in modern dollars that Jefferson spent on Sally in less than one year. Jefferson wanted his lover to be well cared for and look beautiful. Furthermore, Jefferson not only cared about Sally's health and appearance, he also cared about her education. Jefferson hired a French tutor for Sally. As if health care, clothes, and education were not enough, Jefferson paid Sally wages of 24 francs monthly.12 Jefferson paid his slave wages. He paid a
  • 4. Del Busto 4 slave? Was he insane? No, Jefferson was simply crazy in love with Sally Hemings. He provided for her, clothed her, educated her, and funded her in a husband like manner. But this loving relationship was not a one-way street because Sally loved Jefferson just as much as he loved her. "...and Jefferson knew from his earliest months in Paris that even his diplomatic status did not give him the right to hold slaves against their will."13 France did not have slavery. Sally could have become free while in Paris, but she chose to decline.14 The impossible was made possible, and she turned down the opportunity. Was she insane? No, Sally loved Jefferson and wanted to be with him for the rest of her life. Both people in this relationship made sacrifices that seem odd to the viewer. But in reality, sacrifices are the foundation to building a strong relationship, which Jefferson and Sally had. These sacrifices confirmed that love existed between Jefferson and Sally because Jefferson was paying a slave, and a slave was refusing freedom. But the evidence for the couple's love continues. Sally loved Jefferson enough to name her children after his family. Beverley Hemings was named after the many Beverleys on the Randolph side of Jefferson’s Family.15 Eston Hemings was named after Thomas Eston Randolph, Jefferson’s favorite cousin.16 Sally was determined to have one of her children named Herriet because there were Harriets in the Randolph's family, Jefferson's in-laws. Sally's first Herriet died shortly after birth, so she named a second child Herriet. Sally was bound and determined to name her children after Jefferson's family. Sally named her children after Jefferson and turned down freedom, the-once-in-a- lifetime opportunity, for Jefferson, her lover. The strong evidence points toward this affair even without the ground breaking DNA test. Gordon-Reed wrote her book, Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy, supporting and confirming the couple's relationship
  • 5. Del Busto 5 even before the DNA tests. Peter Nicolaisen recognizes and acknowledges Gordon-Reed's accomplishment and states, "When news broke about DNA tests in November 1998, Gordon- Reed could note with legitimate pride that 'historians need not have ceded the question to scientific investigators. A more disciplined, rigorous, and less prejudiced application of historical method could have yielded the same answer.'"17 This statement strengthens the evidence other than the DNA results because the historical evidence was strong enough to prove the affair. Gordon-Reed's book justified this. James Callender Breaks the News Despite all of the hard evidence in the world, the affair would not have been brought to light without the help of a reporter, James Callender. Callender’s character was vile. People describe Callender as being “the most spiteful, malignant, and poisonous of all Jefferson’s enemies.”18 He was a drunk and a sodomite.19 Oddly enough, Callender first heard about Jefferson by getting a job from him. In 1798, Jefferson hired James Callender to break the story about Hamilton’s affair with Maria Reynolds and to write libelous attacks on Adams.20 While working for Jefferson, Callender went to jail and was fined for violating the Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson believed these acts violated the Constitution and “promised to pardon all those who had been convicted under it once he took office.”21 Jefferson would have freed Callender from prison, but Callender had already served his sentence by the time Jefferson was elected president. Jefferson felt badly about the situation and ordered the federal marshal, David Randolph, to reimburse Callender $200 for his fine. Randolph refused to reimburse Callender. Jefferson instead paid Callender fifty dollars, but Callender was not satisfied.22 Callender demanded to be a postmaster because he wanted to impress a lady friend. Jefferson did not wish to give Callender a job as postmaster. So
  • 6. Del Busto 6 instead, Jefferson paid Callender an additional fifty dollars. Again, this did not satisfy Callender. Callender was upset by the job denial and jail time and turned against Jefferson. Callender then wrote about the Jefferson-Hemings relationship and exposed the scandal. It is ironic that Callender who once worked to slander Jefferson’s opponents is now slandering Jefferson instead. If Jefferson had considered Callender's nature, he could have foreseen such an occurrence. But Jefferson did not, and Callender ripped open an affair wound that would bleed controversy for centuries. In Richmond, Virginia, where Callender was located, many "black dance[s]" took place. These dances were an excuse to mingle between white males and black females. Callender hated them.23 Callender's hate of miscegenation and blacks was channeled at Jefferson."Callender brought the full force of his hate for black people to bear in his descriptions of the Jefferson- Hemings Relationship".24 In the report, Callender described that Jefferson felt negatively towards blacks and believed them to be subhuman. Because of Jefferson's belief of blacks' subhumanness to whites, Callender was accusing Jefferson of doing something comparable to bestiality.25 The accusations of the scandal packed a punch. However, Jefferson's reputation went unaffected both politically and socially. Why? Jefferson dodged the punch of controversy and consequence by following the culture of his time. "According to Joshua Rotheman, the 'cultural code of public silence' about interracial sex explains why Callender's charges against Jefferson had so little effect in Virginia."26 Callender incorrectly assumed the news of a scandal about miscegenation would have caused public disapproval and outrage. It was common knowledge at the time that such relations between white male masters and black female slaves regularly occurred. Jefferson never talked
  • 7. Del Busto 7 or wrote about his relationship. Jefferson abided by the code of silence by keeping his relationship with Sally a secret. Additionally, the people of Virginia knew about Callender's despicable character and alcoholism. Callender's credibility was in question; Jefferson's credibility was not. The readers of this scandal dismissed this scandal for one of three reasons. First, the readers did not believe Callender's word over Jefferson's character. Secondly, Jefferson believed blacks were subhuman and beneath him. "...he continually suspected that the black man was inherently inferior to the white in both body and mind"27 He said miscegenation was a horror. Why then would he have a relationship with a black? He would not. Lastly, even if the readers did believe Jefferson had a relationship with Sally, so what? Miscegenation was common practice in the south. Jefferson was just treating his slave as any normal southern master would. He was not inflicting any cruel or unusual punishment upon his slave. Jefferson played the affair in perfect harmony with the culture at the time. Regardless of his reputation being unaffected, his hypocritical, personal character revealed itself and spilled over to politics. Jefferson's Political Hypocrisy Jefferson claimed he "...undoubtedly hated slavery..." "In the 1780's he worked hard to have slavery abolished in the new western territories."28 But Jefferson created so many stipulations on the emancipation of slaves that "...the antislavery movement could scarcely get off the ground."29 Jefferson's vision of slaves being freed was the blacks moving back to Africa or segregating them in their own western territory in the US. This was not the idea of freedom and liberation of slaves that most pro-freedom advocates would agree. "It will be seen that for a man theoretically intent upon emancipation of all slaves, Jefferson was extremely possessive about
  • 8. Del Busto 8 his own."30 Again, Jefferson's actions do not match his words. Jefferson's character was hypocritical. Jefferson's hypocritical nature shines through again in the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson wanted to limit the federal government and held a strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution.31 Regardless, Jefferson made an executive decision to go forward with the Louisiana Purchase even though he was uncertain he could do such a thing. "According to his strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, the President could not buy Louisiana because no part of the supreme law, the Constitution, granted this power to the government."32 But Jefferson did it anyway, and the Senate ratified his decision. Jefferson wanted a weaker, smaller government, yet he just expanded the federal government powers further than ever before. He missed an opportunity to set a precedent to limit the federal powers and have a small government. In fact, Jefferson did the reverse. He set a precedent to expand federal powers and a big government. Jefferson contradicts his values and beliefs through his actions. Fast forward to the Missouri crisis of 1819-1820, and Jefferson was worried "...that the federal government's proposed restriction on the right of the people of Missouri to own slaves violated the Constitution and menaced self-government."33 He did not like the idea of the federal government becoming more powerful and reducing states rights. A second opportunity arrived that would allow Jefferson to protect state's rights and limit federal government. Jefferson wrote a few letters to friends whining about the problem, but he took no action. Even though Jefferson was not president during the Missouri crisis, he still held considerable political clout and could make a difference. Jefferson let a second chance to limit federal government pass by him. Jefferson did not take action against the Missouri crisis for small government, and acted in a manner favoring big federal government in the Louisiana Purchase. Twice he denied his
  • 9. Del Busto 9 beliefs. Jefferson is a spineless coward, afraid to stand up for any set of beliefs or principles, socially or politically. The United States of America cannot have government officials whose actions do not match their words. When the American people elect governmental officials with set values, beliefs, and goals, those politicians should stick to them and not betray the American people and what they voted for. The American public deserves better. Modern Parallel: Bill Clinton Unfortunately, the politicians in the modern world have not improved in character or in action. The modern Clinton affair with Monica Lewinsky parallels the past Jefferson affair with Sally Hemings. The Clinton affair began in November of 1995 when Monica Lewinsky began working in the West Wing. Lewinsky was often alone with Clinton, and by April of 1996 Lewinsky and Clinton had shared eight sexual encounters.34 But at the end of 1997, the affair leaked to the public because of Kenneth Starr and the Whitewater investigation.35 To understand how the Clinton affair started, one must first understand both the Whitewater case and the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit. The Whitewater case claimed that Clinton was making illegal land deals.36 The Whitewater investigation dragged on through the years and was costing millions of dollars. The Office of Independent Counsel was conducting the investigation for the Whitewater case, and its case was about to close due to lack of funds and evidence. But then a change happened. The OIC replaced Robert Fisk with Kenneth Starr. Kenneth Starr is the modern day James Callender only without being a drunken sodomite. He is a ruthless reporter. In 1998, the Whitewater case allowed Starr to investigate Clinton's relations with Monica Lewinsky. Like Callender, Starr was quite knowledgeable on the affair he was exposing. Starr created the "Starr Report", and it was in this report that Monica Lewinsky's name first became known.37 In this 453-page report, Starr stated that Lewinsky was influencing a
  • 10. Del Busto 10 witness in the Jones investigation.38 Lewinsky was also ready to provide false information under oath for the Jones case.39 These accusations in the Starr Report drew the attention of lawyers in the Jones sexual harassment case. The Jones lawsuit involved Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, being sexually harassed by Clinton.40 The lawyers from this case where then entitled to question Clinton about any sexual relations he had with any federal employees. The lawyers were trying to prove that Clinton had a history of sexually harassing young women. When the lawyers investigated Clinton in January 1998, he stated he had rarely been alone with Lewinsky. But then later that year in August, Clinton admitted to having an improper relationship with Lewinsky. Clinton lied under oath and committed perjury. To summarize, the Whitewater case hired Kenneth Starr who wrote the Starr Report. The Starr Report brought up Monica Lewinsky's name.41 This triggered the lawyers from the Jones case to investigate Clinton and his sexual relations. Thus the scandal was born. Although Clinton did not dodge his scandal's consequences like Jefferson, he did not receive full punishment for his actions either. Clinton was impeached because of his affair with Lewinsky. Why could not Clinton make a clean escape as Jefferson had? He could not for two reasons. First, Clinton did not keep to the code of his culture at the present time. In the modern America, adultery is disgraceful and shameful. Additionally, the huge age gap between Clinton and Lewinsky also made the matter perverted because Clinton had a daughter Lewinsky's age at the time. These ideas do not agree with the culture and morals of the modern era. Clinton did not have the favor of the culture in this matter as Jefferson did. The second reason Clinton could not avoid impeachment was the media and the evidence. Starr wrote over 400 pages about Clinton and Lewinsky. Callender wrote an article. Evidence
  • 11. Del Busto 11 brought against Clinton was irrefutable and from multiple cases. Evidence against Jefferson was merely a drunken man's newspaper article. The evidence and the modern culture both worked against Clinton; however, the Senate did not convict him. Why not? Clinton was well-liked by Democrats in office, especially those in the Senate. They all voted against his conviction. Also, some argued the affair was a civil matter. The personal life should be separate from the political life. I vehemently disagree. Even his democratic friends admitted Clinton messed up."'Clearly, the president did wrong. He did things that were very wrong,' said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D. 'But I do not think it met the constitutional required standard for removal of a president'".42 Regardless, the Senate did not find the evidence strong enough to remove the president from office. Apparently "...perjury in his Jones and grand jury depositions, obstruction of justice, and one count asserting abuse of office" does not yield a conviction by the Senate.43 Even though Clinton dodged the bullet of conviction for his actions, his personal actions still proved that he lied and acted hypocritically. This translated to his political actions. Because the personal is political, affairs matter in politics but should matter more. It is foolish to think that the personal can be separate from the political, as both the Senate and Clinton believed. Clinton's affair proves this false and ironic, when he literally combined the personal and political by having an affair at work with a government employee. Clinton went back and forth between his wife and his mistress similar to his tax cut. Clinton proposed a tax cut in 1992. He reneged. Then he proposed it again before vetoing it, and proposed it once more in 1996.44 Also, Clinton was not limited to lying in federal court. He lied with his plan for Medicare reform. "Medicare reform lie: In the very same State of the Union address in which Clinton
  • 12. Del Busto 12 promised to save Medicare from its current race into insolvency he also promised a hugely expensive new prescription drug benefit (it polls well) that would accelerate the program's financial slide. As with Social Security, his main "reform" will merely be to temporarily paper over financial imbalances by transferring budget surpluses into the previously self-financing program."45 Clinton had contradicting plans for Medicare. Clinton merely made the illusion that he was solving the problem of insolvency, but he really was not. He lied. The House Bank Scandal If two prominent presidential affairs are not enough proof that the personal is political, additional research has proved it. The studies have stated that "...voters in districts whose legislators have engaged in scandals have a higher awareness of the scandal and a lower regard for politicians and legislative institutions than voters in districts whose representatives have not been caught by scandal..."46 Researchers conducted this test in the United States proving this. The House Bank Scandal broke in 1992 when members of the House of Representatives
  • 13. Del Busto 13 were overdrawing their House checking accounts without being penalized by the House bank. From this case, voter attitudes are directly linked to the behavior of the individual members of the House of Representatives. "The more bad checks written by a representative, the more likely voters are to have heard about the scandal and disapprove of the representative, which both in turn, should lower regard for Congress".47 Figure 1 illustrates this point. When the amount of checks increases from zero to 697, the likelihood of strongly approving one's representative decreases from .32 to .14. The probability of strongly disapproving a representative increased from .04 to .12.48 The power affairs have on influencing voters can be seen in the numbers. The approval rating fluctuated by eighteen percent, while the disapproval rating fluctuated by eight percent. The United States population is about 310 million.49 Eight percent of 310 million is about 25 million people, while on the higher end of the spectrum politicians are influencing about 56 million people. This is a lot of people. Leaders' personal actions influence people and their political opinions. Thus, the personal is political. The Bottom Line Both Clinton's and Jefferson's personal character carried over from personal life to political life. It is impossible to separate them. Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemings illustrated his hypocritical nature. Jefferson said he hated blacks and believed them to be inferior. He said miscegenation is a horror. Despite this, Jefferson had an intimate relationship with a black woman for many years. His hypocritical nature in politics is illustrated through the Louisiana Purchase. This is not a surprise or a coincidence. Clinton was no better. Clinton was unfaithful and lied to his wife about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. First, he said he did not have relations Lewinsky, then he said he did. Clinton
  • 14. Del Busto 14 contradicted himself in politics as well. He proposed tax cuts, and then vetoed his own plans. He was unfaithful. He proposed to cut spending in Medicare while expanding an expensive new drug benefit. Which is it Clinton? He wanted both women, and he wanted both spending reduction and increased benefits. The character of both Presidents in their personal lives carried over to their political lives through sex scandal and political inconsistencies. Although, only Clinton received partial punishment for actions, Jefferson would have been punished too if his scandal could have been legitimately proven. Through both of these men's actions in and out of the White House, the conclusion can be made that personal life directly relates to political life. Furthermore, a politician's character and morality in his personal life can be and should be used to judge a politician as a viable candidate for office. Obviously, nobody is perfect, but the public cannot continue to push affairs and scandals under the rug as if nothing happened. To what degree a politician's personal life and morals should play is a case- by-case basis. But the bottom line is this: if a politician cannot be trusted with his or her personal life, which is small and consists of only one person, how can they be trusted with the arduous political responsibilities to many people? They cannot. Both Jefferson's and Clinton's actions prove this as does the American case study on the Bank Scandal. The Bank Scandal showed that the worse scandals got the bigger impact they had on politics. Scandals belong in politics and in the decision making process for politicians. The personal is political. Affairs in politics matter. 1 P. Graham,Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings (Association for the Study of African-American Life and History, Inc. 1961) at 102. 2 F. Brodie, Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History (W.W. Norton & Company Inc. New York1974) at 233. 3 P. Graham,Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings (Association for the Study of African-American Life and History, Inc. 1961) at 95. 4 E. Honey, Taking the Wolf by the Ears (Blackwell Publishing, Inc. 200) at 71. 5 F. Brodie, An Intimate History (W.W. Norton & Company Inc. New York 1974) at 229.
  • 15. Del Busto 15 6 Ibid. 233. 7 S. Ostermiller, Coinmill.com 2003. 16 November 2010 < http://coinmill.com/CHF_USD.html#CHF=240>. 8 J. Wahl, Eh.net 1 February 2010. 16 November 2010 < http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/wahl.slavery.us>. 9 Measuringworth.com 2010. Economic History Association. 16 November 2010 <http://www.measuringworth.com>. 10 F. Brodie, Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History (W.W. Norton & Company Inc. New York1974) at 234. 11 Ibid. 234. 12 Ibid. 233. 13 Ibid. 234. 14 Ibid. 234. 15 A. Gordon-Reed. Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy. (The University Press of Virginia 1997) at 195. 16 Ibid. 199. 17 P. Nicolaisen, Thomas Jefferson, Sally Hemings, and the Question of Race: An Ongoing Debate. (Cambridge University Press 2003) at 103. 18 . Brodie, Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History (W.W. Norton & Company Inc. New York1974) at 315. 19 Ibid. 315. 20 J. Ellis, Founding Brothers (Knopf New York 2000) at 198. 21 A. Gordon-Reed. Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy. (The University Press of Virginia 1997) at 60. 22 Ibid. 59-61. 23 Ibid. 62. 24 Ibid. 63. 25 Ibid. 62. 26 P. Nicolaisen, Thomas Jefferson, Sally Hemings, and the Question of Race: An Ongoing Debate. (Cambridge University Press 2003) at 113. 27 G.. Wood, Revolutionary Cahracters: What made the Founders Different. ( Penguin Group New York, New York 2006) at 96. 28 Ibid. 95. 29 Ibid. 96. 30 F. Brodie, Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History (W.W. Norton & Company Inc. New York1974) at 234-235. 31 J. Patrick, ericdigest.org August 2010. ERIC Digest. 16 November 2010. <http://www.ericdigests.org/2004- 1/purchase.htm>. 32 Ibid. 33 G.. Wood, Revolutionary Cahracters: What made the Founders Different. ( Penguin Group New York, New York 2006) at 113. 34 D. Linder, www.law.umkc.edu 2005. Missouri-Kansas City Law School. 16 November 2010. < http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/clintontrialaccount.html>. 35 Ibid. 36 encyclopedia.farlex.com. 2009. Research Machines. 16 November 2010. <http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Whitewater+(controversy)>. 37 D. Linder, www.law.umkc.edu 2005. Missouri-Kansas City Law School. 16 November 2010. < http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/clintontrialaccount.html>. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 41 thefreelibrary.com 30 July 1999. New York Times. 16 Nov. 2010 <http://www.thefreelibrary.com/CLINTON+MUST+PAY+$90,000+TO+PAULA+JONES'+LAWYERS.(News)- a083618563>. 42 D. Hess, R. Mishra, and S. Thomma, Senate overwhelmingly acquits Clinton. (Knight Ridder Tribune Washington Bureau (DC) 12 Feb. 1999). 43 D. Linder, www.law.umkc.edu 2005. Missouri-Kansas City Law School. 16 November 2010. < http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/clintontrialaccount.html>. 44 C. Hitchens and B. Brown, Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire. (American Enterprise 1999) at 33. 45 Ibid. 33.
  • 16. Del Busto 16 46 S. Bowler and J. Karp, Politicians, Scandals, and Trust in Government. (Springer September 2004) at 275-276. 47 Ibid. 276. 48 Ibid. 278. 49 U.S. Census Bureau. 25 Aug. 2010. U.S. Census Bureau. 28 Nov. 2010 <http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html>.