Articles of Impeachment of Bill Clinton

Impact

The impact of President Clinton's impeachment remains debatable and will depend on the judgments of historians and of the American people in generations to come. However the decision to impeach the president is ultimately viewed, it is unquestionable that Clinton's actions damaged the image, if not the substance, of the presidency. Presidents are moral as well as political leaders, and historians (regardless of their political views) recognize that Clinton demeaned his office by engaging in sex with a White House intern and then by making indisputably false and misleading statements. Indeed, two months after his acquittal, Judge Susan Webber Wright (presiding in the Paula Jones lawsuit) held the president in contempt for giving false testimony in his January 17, 1998, deposition when asked about Lewinsky. This was the first time a president had been held in contempt of court. The president had engaged in sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky and had seen her in private, and he had lied about both under oath, the judge affirmed, ordering him to pay $90,000 of Jones's lawyers' legal fees.

Why, then, did the American public not condemn President Clinton? To be sure, a sizable portion of the American people deplored his conduct, and some wanted him removed from office. But this was not the majority mood, and when Clinton left office he had very high approval ratings that have been sustained. It would seem that what Clinton lied about made the difference. He was not misleading the public about affairs of state. He had not interfered with other institutions of government, notwithstanding the language in the Articles of Impeachment claiming that he had injured the legal system. The American public did not feel “manifestly injured.” Indeed, the unrelenting investigation of Kenneth Starr, which provoked considerable criticism of his invasion of the president's privacy, also had the effect of creating sympathy for Clinton. In at least some quarters, his lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky was deemed a natural response to undue prying and an effort to preserve his family life. Even Clinton critics such as Richard Posner found Starr's brutal methods repugnant.

If impeachment was the only remedy for Clinton's misconduct, then the majority of the public simply was not prepared to endorse his removal from office. In all likelihood, Democratic proposals to censure the president would have received significant, perhaps majority support from the public, since no one—not even the president's staunchest defenders—declared him innocent of deceiving the American people. Indeed, the president himself acknowledged as much in a statement on television.

While President Nixon had his staunch defenders during the period he faced impeachment, in the end his resignation was inevitable, given that he could no longer command enough support from his own party, let alone from Democrats or the American people. Thus, whatever else future historians may conclude about the impeachment of President Clinton, the partisan nature of the process will have to be factored into their judgments. At the same time, the irrefutable evidence that a president lied under oath will certainly damage Bill Clinton's reputation, if not, in the end, the office of the presidency itself.