Impeaching the President

Clinton’s magnetism, his ability to capture the middle ground, and the nation’s economic resurgence enabled him to survive scandals and impeachment. Early in his presidency, charges related to firings of White House staff, political use of FBI records, and the Clintons’ real estate investments in Arkansas led to an official investigation by an independent prosecutor.

In January 1998, the independent prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, began to investigate a charge that Clinton had had sexual relations with a twenty-one-year-old White House intern and then lied about it to a federal grand jury. Starr prepared a case for the House of Representatives, which in December 1998 voted to impeach the president for perjury and obstruction of justice. Clinton became the second president (after Andrew Johnson, in 1868) to be impeached by the House and tried by the Senate.

> CONSIDER CAUSE
AND EFFECT

Why was President Clinton the focus of several investigations by independent prosecutors, and what made it possible for him to withstand them?

Most Americans condemned the president’s behavior but approved of the job he was doing and opposed his removal from office. One man said, “Let him get a divorce. . . . Don’t take him out of office and disrupt the country.” Some saw Starr as a fanatic invading individuals’ privacy. Those favoring removal insisted that the president must set a high moral standard and that lying to a grand jury, even over a private matter, was a serious offense. The Senate votes fell far short of the two-thirds majority needed for conviction on either count. A majority, including some Republicans, seemed to agree with a Clinton supporter that the president’s behavior, though “indefensible, outrageous, unforgivable, shameless,” did not warrant his removal from office.