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>.