Back to previous page

When you see a line of coloured and underlined hypertext, this means that you can click on that text to go to another information page.


Does the conduct of United States president, Bill Clinton, justify his impeachment?




Echo Issue Outline 1998 / 35 - 36: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney

What they said ...
` ... this is personal and not impeachable'
David Kendall, President Clinton's personal lawyer, commenting on the Starr Report

`When such acts are committed by a president ... we believe [they] may constitute grounds for an impeachment'
Independent counsel, Kenneth Starr

On September 9, 1998, Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr, released a report alleging President Clinton had lied under oath, had encouraged others to lie under oath, had attempted to interfere with the evidence of witnesses and in various other ways had obstructed justice and abused the power of his office.
The report is the first step in a process which could see the president impeached (charged with offences unworthy of his position) and then removed from office.

Background
Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was elected president in November, 1992.
In May, 1994, Paula Jones began a civil action against President Clinton, filing sexual harassment charges against him. Ms Jones claimed the alleged offence had occurred while she was a state employee and Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas.
Paula Jones' counsel gained approval from the presiding judge, Judge Wright, to investigate Clinton's relationships with other female employees. It was in this context that the name of Monica Lewinsky was first mentioned. The judge later ruled that such evidence would be immaterial.
Ms Lewinsky had begun work at the White House as an intern (an unpaid trainee) in July, 1995.
In 1996 she gained a paid position at the White House and in April 1996 was transferred to the Pentagon.
There Ms Lewinsky met Linda Tripp, another ex-White House employee, now at the Pentagon whom she told she was having an affair with President Clinton
In November, 1996, President Clinton was re-elected for a second term.
In December, 1997, Ms Lewinsky's was named as a witness in the Paula Jones' case and served with a subpoena.
On January 7, 1998, Ms Lewinsky signed an affidavit claiming not to have had sexual relations with the president.
On January 12, 1998, Linda Tripp, contacted Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr, claiming that Ms Lewinsky had lied in her affidavit in return for a job at Revlon secured for her by the President's friend, Vernon Jordan. Ms Tripp had been taping Ms Lewinsky's telephone conversations with her and offered these tapes to Kenneth Starr as evidence.
Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr, had been conducting an investigation over a number of years into a business dealing, referred to as Whitewater, that the Clintons had been involved in in Arkansas.
Kenneth Starr got approval from the Attorney General, Janet Reno, to extend his investigation into the Lewinsky allegations.
On January 17, 1998, President Clinton gave evidence in the Paula Jones' case that he had not had `sexual relations', a `sexual relationship' or a `sexual affair' with Ms Lewinsky.
In April, 1998, Judge Wright dismissed the Jones case, ruling that even if Paula Jones' accusations against President Clinton were true technically he had not sexually harassed her.
On July 28, 1998, Ms Lewinsky reached an agreement with the Independent Counsel granting her immunity from prosecution for perjury in the Jones' case in return for her testimony before the grand jury. Ms Lewinsky also agreed to supply the Independent Counsel with a dress she believed was stained with President Clinton's semen.
On August 6, Ms Lewinsky began her grand jury testimony, admitting having had an affair with the president and supplying details of their encounters.
On August 17, 1998, President Clinton gave video-taped testimony for the grand jury in which he admitted having an `inappropriate intimate relationship' with Ms Lewinsky.
On September 9, 1998, Starr submitted his report to Congress.
On September 11, 1998, the Starr report was published on the Internet.
On September 22, 1998, President Clinton's video-taped evidence for the grand jury was transmitted on American television and other evidence, including Monica Lewinsky's, was released, virtually in full.

Definition of impeachment
Any public official can be impeached. This means that they have charges brought against them. The object of impeachment is to determine if the official should remain in office.

How impeachment works
In the case of a United States president the process potentially involves both houses of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The process begins in the House of Representatives, where the Judiciary Committee has to decide whether the impeachment should go ahead. The Chairperson has the Judiciary Committee conduct an inquiry into the president's conduct. If the Committee decides that impeachment is warranted the full House of Representatives will then debate each of the charges that could be brought against the president and vote on them. These possible charges are called the Articles of Impeachment.
If a majority of the House of Representatives approves any one of the Articles the president is `impeached', that is, he is formally charged.
The president then has to be tried for the charges by the Senate. The President is represented by his lawyers and a group of House of Representative `managers' are selected as `prosecutors'. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acts as judge and all 100 Senators act as jury.
The Senate meets in private to debate a verdict and then meets openly to vote on that verdict. A two thirds majority is required for conviction, that is, more than 66 senators need to vote to find the president guilty. The Senate then votes again to remove the president from office. A two-third majority is also needed to remove the president.

Impeachable offences
The Constitution of the United States reads, `The president ... shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'
What `high crimes and misdemeanors' are remains open to definition.
In 1970, Gerald Ford, then a member of the House of Representatives, stated that impeachable offences were `whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.'
The three general categories under which impeachment articles have previously been issued are:
1) exceeding the powers of the office as defined by the Constitution
2) behaviour grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office
3) using the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

The history of impeachment, including Watergate
Only one United States president, Andrew Johnson, has ever been impeached. His impeachment is generally regarded as having been politically motivated. The impeachment occurred in 1868, shortly after the American Civil War, and centred around a conflict between the president and the House of Representatives over the power to remove Senate-approved officials.
When these charges were heard in the Senate they did not gain the necessary two-third majority and the president was not removed from office.
The other United States president in serious danger of impeachment was Richard Nixon.
Nixon was a Republican president . He was first elected president in 1968 and then elected for a second term in 1972.
Nixon was implicated in an attempt to conceal a break-in at the offices of the Democratic National Committee, the head quarters of the opposing party, the Democrats.
The scandal began with political burglary and expanded to include bribery, phone-tapping, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, illegal use of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and illegal use of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI).
The affair came to be known as Watergate (the name of the hotel and office complex in Washington DC where the offices of the Democratic National Committee were burgled).
Richard Nixon was never impeached. Congress was debating his impeachment when the president decided to resign.

The Office of the Independent Counsel
Kenneth Starr, whose recent report to the Senate lists possible grounds for impeaching President Clinton, is an Independent Counsel. This is a relatively new office, which did not exist during the Nixon controversy.
The Independent Counsel Statute which established the Office of the Independent Counsel was passed in 1978. It calls for an independent body to investigate alleged wrongdoing by the president and members of his administration.
The office was established in direct response to the Watergate scandal. It has large resources, in terms of both funding and personnel, at its disposal. The current investigation into President Clinton is said to have cost some $A68.8 million.
The Independent Counsel can be assisted by a federal grand jury. A grand jury is a group of twelve citizens called together to hear evidence and determine whether charges should be brought against a particular person. Investigations into the conduct of public officials sometimes involve grand juries.
President Clinton gave video-taped evidence for a federal grand jury on August 17, 1998, as part of Kenneth Starr's investigation.


There are a large number of Internet sites that supply information on this issue, including many that give access to the report Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr, presented to Congress.
The Excite News site supplies the Starr Report and the two White House rebuttals, one issued on September 11, 1998, and the other on September 12.
The Starr Report can be found at
http://starrreport.excite.com/toc.html
This is a lengthy document, over 400 pages long. It details the case made against President Clinton for perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of his office. These are presented in eleven detailed allegations which Starr believes may form the basis for impeachment. The report includes a narrative section, based largely on the testimony of Monica Lewinsky, which details the supposed sexual encounters between Ms Lewinsky and President Clinton.
The first White House rebuttal can be found at http://starrreport.excite.com/rebuttal.html
The second White House rebuttal can be found at http://starrreport.excite.com/rebuttal2.html
Together these two documents question many of the assumptions of the Starr Report, the manner in which it presents its findings and a number of the procedures that were used in the gathering of evidence. They also supply a defence of President Clinton against each of the eleven allegations made in the Starr Report.

The Washington Post, an influential American newspaper whose reporters played a major role in revealing President Nixon's misconduct, has a special sub-site titled Clinton Accused
This is a huge site supplying an enormous amount of information. The whole site is searchable.
One interesting place to start is with its Opinions section which gives a range of views, including letters to the editor, on whether President Clinton should be impeached.
The Washington Post's Clinton Accused special can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/clinton.htm

The American Broadcasting Corporation has a news analysis by Heather Maher giving a range of legal opinions on President Clinton's actions and whether they are impeachable offences. The article is titled To Impeach or Not to Impeach? It can be found at http://www.abcnews.com:80/sections/us/dailynews/starr_legalview.html

There are a number of sites which give useful information on the impeachment process.
A good place to start is with a special feature prepared by The Mining Co. (The Mining Co is an American web-search group supplying a network of websites giving specialist information on more than 500 topics. Their home page is http://www.miningco.com
One of the Mining Co's explanatory pieces on impeachment was published on September 18, 1998. It is titled Impeachment: Unthinkable Process and gives detailed information on the steps involved in removing a president and on what generally constitute impeachable offences. It can be found at http://usgovinfo.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa091898.htm

An Australian site which gives clear and comprehensive information on the Watergate scandal (the only other occasion this century an American president seriously faced impeachment) is Malcolm Farnsworth's VCE politics site. The site can be found at http://vcepolitics.com
Its Watergate sub-site can be found at http://vcepolitics.com/wgate/intro.htm

The role of the Office of Independent Counsel has received some attention on the Internet.
On January 25, 1998, The Charlotte Observer published an analysis by David Rosenbaum presenting legal authorities' arguments for and against the independent counsel (here sometimes referred to as `special prosecutor'). The piece is titled, Legal experts argue over role of special prosecutor and can be found at http://www.charlotte.com/clinton/docs/26legal.htm
The New Republic, on March 30, 1998, published an editorial strongly critical of the Office of the Independent Counsel and the law which gave rise to it. The editorial is titled Indefensible counsel. It can be found at http://magazines.enews.com/magazines/tnr/archive/0398/033098/editors033098.html
The Champion, a publication of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, has also published a criticism of the current operation of grand juries. The piece was published in April, 1998, and written by Gerald Lefcourt. It is titled High time for a Bill of Rights for the Grand Jury and can be found at http://www.criminaljustice.org/CHAMPION/PRESPAGE/98apr.htm

Arguments favouring the impeachment of President Clinton
Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, has defended his investigation against suggestions that it is a violation of the president's privacy in matters that are purely personal and that it is excessively concerned with the president's sex life.
Kenneth Starr maintains that the object of his investigation was to demonstrate that the president had committed a number of crimes.
The report maintains that the details given about President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky were necessary because they demonstrate that the president lied under oath in statements he has made about that relationship.
According to Kenneth Starr, the report focuses on details of President Clinton's sexual behaviour to show that the president committed perjury, particularly when he denied having an affair with Ms Lewinsky.
The report states, `Unfortunately, the nature of the President's denials requires that the contrary evidence be set forth in detail.'
On the question of privacy, the report notes that sexual matters cease to be a purely private concern when someone is the subject of a sexual harassment case, such as was brought against President Clinton by Paula Jones.
The report also notes that the judge in the Paula Jones case, Judge Wright, authorised Ms Jones' counsel to seek information about the president's possible sexual relations with other women with whom he worked, this included Ms Lewinsky.
Finally, the report claims that the obligations imposed on a president to uphold the law and to represent the people of the United States make matters which might otherwise appear private legitimately of public concern.
The Starr Report gives 11 possible grounds on which President Clinton might be impeached.
These grounds centre on allegations of perjury ; encouraging others to commit perjury; obstruction of justice and abuse by the president of his constitutional authority.
The Starr Report accuses President Clinton of committing perjury five times. The report claims President Clinton lied under oath when he denied having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. This denial was contained in a deposition or sworn statement made by the president during the civil case brought against him by Paula Jones.
The Starr Report also claims that President Clinton lied under oath about the nature and extent of his relationship with Ms Lewinsky when giving video-taped evidence to be presented to the grand jury.
In addition, the Starr Report claims that President Clinton lied under oath when he claimed he and Ms Lewinsky had not been alone together and when he supposedly under-estimated the number of gifts they had exchanged.
The report further alleges that President Clinton perjured himself when he denied having discussions with Ms Lewinsky about how she might conduct herself as a witness in the Jones case.
The president is also accused of perjury when he denied, before the grand jury, having had discussions with friend and adviser, Vernon Jordan, concerning Ms Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones' case.
The major supporting evidence the Starr Report offers to support these accusations of perjury is the testimony of Ms Lewinsky, who gave the Office of the Independent Prosecutor detailed accounts of her relationship with President Clinton.
The report stresses Ms Lewinsky's evidence because she describes sexual acts which would fit the definition given in the Jones' case.
The president specifically denied having `sexual relations' as defined by Ms Jones' lawyers, therefore, if Ms Lewinsky's testimony is accepted, President Clinton would appear to have committed perjury.
The Starr Report maintains that Ms Lewinsky's account is corroborated by White House records of her visits; by the statements she made to eleven other people (friends, relatives and counsellors) about her affair with President Clinton ; and by the physical evidence of Ms Lewinsky's semen-stained dress. (DNA testing apparently established that the semen was President Clinton's.) The report also notes that Ms lewinsky knew she would lose her immunity against prosecution for perjury in the Jones' case if she were found to have lied to the grand jury.
Obstructing justice is any attempt to impede an investigation or trial. The Starr Report accuses President Clinton of four attempts to obstruct justice.
It is maintained that President Clinton obstructed justice in the Paula Jones case by encouraging Monica Lewinsky to give false testimony and, together with Ms Lewinsky, by concealing the many gifts they appear to have exchanged.
President Clinton is also accused of obstructing justice in his apparent attempts, through his friend Vernon Jordan, to find Ms Lewinsky a job. The Starr Report appears to suggest that these efforts on Ms Lewinsky's behalf were made to ensure her continued willingness to lie about her relationship with President Clinton.
President Clinton's refusal, over a seven month period, to co-operate with Kenneth Starr's investigation and testify before the grand jury is also claimed to be an obstruction of justice.
Similarly, President Clinton is accused of having lied to a number of his aides whom he knew were to give evidence before the grand jury.
In addition, the Starr Report accuses President Clinton of tampering with a witness by attempting to influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie.
The report claims that President Clinton made a series of statements to Ms Currie, including that he and Ms Lewinsky were never alone together, that Ms Currie was always present and that Ms Lewinsky had made advances toward him. These are interpreted by the independent prosecutor as attempts to coach Ms Currie in what she should say if called as a witness.
Finally, the Starr Report accuses President Clinton of having abused his constitutional authority.
All the previous supposed offences - perjury, obstruction of justice and tampering with a witness - could have been committed by any United States citizen.
However, the Starr Report argues that a United States president has a unique position before the law and a unique responsibility to United States citizens
The Starr Report claims, `The Presidency is more than an executive responsibility. It is the inspiring symbol of all that is highest in American purpose and ideals.'
The report suggests that the behaviour of which President Clinton is accused has undermined the symbolism of the presidency.
The report also suggests that President Clinton violated his Oath of Office, under which he pledged to `take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'
The report claims that the crimes of which President Clinton is accused are uniquely serious in his case.
`...the President has a manifest duty to ensure his conduct at all times complies with the law of the land. Perjury and acts that obstruct justice by any citizen are profoundly serious matters.
When such acts are committed by the President ... we believe those acts may constitute grounds for an impeachment.'
The report claims that President Clinton abused the power of his office when he attempted to claim executive privilege to avoid giving evidence and to prevent his security staff giving evidence.
The report also suggests that the President failed in his duty to the citizens of the United States by lying to them.
The Herald Sun in its editorial of September 14, 1998 makes a similar point.
The editorial claimed, `Irrespective of the serious criminal offences he is now accused of by independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr, the biggest sin committed by the President is to lie openly in trying to get himself off the hook.
The man elected to the highest political office in the world broke a fundamental trust with voters by failing to confess his adulterous affair with a younger woman ...
Bill Clinton has not been a man of his word: he is an admitted liar who misled America about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.'
There are also those who have claimed that President Clinton's sexual conduct should be an issue even if it were not related to charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
One of the reasons offered for this is that Mr Clinton's sexual behaviour is said to be a misuse of his position. This is similar to the case that was put by Paula Jones' counsel.
According to this line of argument, there is always something either exploitative or improper about someone in a position of power (usually a man) having or asking for sexual relations with an employee.
Those who object to this conduct claim there is the possibility that the employee (usually female) will be coerced or bribed into sexual relations. They also claim there is the further possibility that if a woman refuses, she will be penalised.
The essential argument appears to be that sexual relations in the workplace, especially when there is a marked difference in the status or power of the two people involved, can make it difficult for the person with less power to make a completely free decision.
Patricia Ireland, the president of the National Organisation for Woman, has claimed, `This was a workplace setting. This was an intern and then a staff member. It cannot be ignored.
There is no question that this behaviour is not acceptable.
No CEO, no president of the United States, no chairman of the local mosquito board can use what Henry Kissinger called the aphrodisiac of power to have sex with staff or interns.'
It has also been claimed that President Clinton's conduct was sexually irresponsible, has promoted infidelity and undermined the family.
Even some prominent Democrats, while not seeking the president's impeachment, have been highly critical of his conduct. Californian senator, Barbara Boxer, apparently described the president's affair with Ms Lewinsky as `indefensible'.

Arguments opposing the impeachment of President Clinton
There are a number of grounds on which the impeachment of President Clinton has been opposed.
Firstly, President Clinton and his defence counsel have claimed that the president has not committed the crimes of which he is accused.
President Clinton claims that the evidence he gave in the civil case brought by Paula Jones was not perjured.
President Clinton claims that the definition of `sexual relations' supplied by Ms Jones' lawyers did not cover the acts he performed with Ms Lewinsky.
Specifically, President Clinton's lawyers have noted that the definition of `sexual relations' supplied by Ms Jones' lawyers makes no reference to oral sex.
Further, the president has disputed some of Ms Lewinsky's testimony, claiming that he did not, for example, kiss or touch her breasts.
The president has also claimed that a `sexual affair', `sexual relations' or a `sexual relationship' would normally be understood to involve sexual intercourse and as he had not had sexual intercourse with Ms Lewinsky he believed he had answered truthfully when he claimed not to have had such relations with her.
President Clinton's lawyers have noted that the definition of `sexual relations' given in Websters dictionary (a standard American reference) equates the term with intercourse. President Clinton's counsel suggest that this supports the president's understanding of the term.
President Clinton also maintains he did not ask either Ms Lewinsky, nor his secretary, Ms Currie, to lie either in the Jones case or before the grand jury.
With regard to Ms Currie, the president notes that Ms Currie was never called as a witness in the Jones case and so he cannot be accused of trying to corrupt her evidence. The president also claims that any discussion he had with her was was intended to clarify his own recollections and to determine how much Ms Currie knew about his relationship with Ms Lewinsky.
Supporters of President Clinton also note that in her grand jury testimony Ms Lewinsky specifically denied that the president had asked her to lie under oath. The president's supporters have further pointed out that this denial was ignored in the summary of evidence presented in the Starr Report.
The president has also claimed that his efforts to help Ms Lewinsky secure a job were not intended to buy her silence.
Again the president's supporters note that Ms Lewinsky claims that the help she received with finding a job was not conditional on her lying about her affair with the president.
The President has also maintained that he had no involvement in any attempt to hide the gifts he had given Ms Lewinsky.
The president has also claimed that any misleading statements he made to his aides in relation to Ms Lewinsky were not intended to contaminate any testimony they might give before the grand jury and were no more than the public denials he had already made.
On the question of abusing his constitutional authority, the president's counsel argue that lying to the people of the United States cannot automatically be regarded as grounds for impeachment.
They also note that the move to prevent presidential security staff from testifying was both a legitimate action and one that was not initiated by the president.
The second major argument offered in support of President Clinton, is that irrespective of whether he committed the offences of which he is accused they do not amount to `high crimes and misdemeanours'.
According to this line of argument, if the president lied, even under oath, he did so about matters that are not significant enough to justify his impeachment.
The defence offered by the White House claims, `"High Crimes and Misdemeanors" denoted political offenses, the critical element of which was injury to the state.
Impeachment was intended to redress public offenses committed by public officials in violation of their public trust and duties.
Because presidential impeachment invalidates the will of the American people, it was designed to be justified for the gravest wrongs - offenses against the Constitution itself.
In short, only "serious assaults on the integrity of the processes of government," and "such crimes as would so stain a president as to make his continuance in office dangerous to the public order," constitute impeachable offenses.
The eleven supposed "grounds for impeachment" set forth in the [Starr Report] fall far short of that high standard ...'
Those who hold this view argue that only offences that put government at risk and endanger the Constitution of the United States are serious enough to justify removing an elected president from office.
The offences named in the Constitution, apart from `high crimes and misdemeanours', that can lead to impeachment are treason and bribery. Clinton's supporters claim that nothing of which he is accused is of similar seriousness.
Defenders of President Clinton claim that his `offence' was to have an affair with a much younger woman and then to lie about it.
It is admitted that the president lied to family, friends, aides, advisers and political colleagues and the American people.
It is even conceded by some of President Clinton's supporters that he may have lied under oath, however, they do not regard attempting to keep a personal matter secret as grounds for impeachment.
Australian author and feminist, Anne Summers, has made a similar point. Ms Summers claims, `Starr ... has caught Clinton in an adulterer's lie ... but lying about an affair is hardly what the framers of the US Constitution had in mind when they wrote in the provisions for impeachment.'
The third point made in President Clinton's defence is that much of the investigation and the publication of the Starr Report, including on the Internet, has been an unnecessary intrusion into the president's personal life.
According to this line of argument, there are matters, such as extra-marital affairs, that are of private, not public concern. It is claimed that while such behaviour may be immoral, it is not illegal, and should not be relevant to anyone other than the individuals involved.
This point has been made by Gerard Henderson, columnist for The Age and executive director of the Sydney Institute.
Gerard Henderson has condemned both the nature of Kenneth Starr investigation and the publication of his report on the Internet as `reckless'. Henderson has also claimed, `In recent years, the United States has witnessed an almost total breakdown of the proper division between accountability and privacy.'
Those who hold this view maintain that those in official positions should not be held publicly responsible for their private behaviour. This argument also suggests that a person's private conduct should not be subjected to exhaustive investigation.
This point has been made by Anne Summers, who has claimed, `[The Starr Report] is a prurient and invasive document that goes way beyond the bounds of any previous official inquiry.'
The fourth point argued in President Clinton's defence is that the investigation into his conduct has been excessive. Relatedly, there are those who consider that the Office of Independent Counsel gives too much power to one man to single-mindedly pursue another.
According to this line of argument, almost any public figure who is investigated long enough will be found to have done something improper. Critics maintain that such an investigation may become a form of persecution, rather than a search for the truth.
There is also the suggestion that independent counsel may feel the necessity to justify the length and expense of their investigations by arriving at a set of charges, even if these do not relate closely to the original matter under investigation.
Those who hold this view have noted that Kenneth Starr, who was originally engaged to investigate the conduct of the president and his wife in a business dealing now referred to as the `Whitewater affair', continued to pursue him through other matters when the original investigation failed.
This point has been made by Anne Summers, who has claimed, `In four years [Starr} has failed to find a skerrick of evidence that there was any misconduct in this deal [Whitewater]...
But rather than throw in the towel, Starr has taken it upon himself to destroy Clinton by hook or by crook.'
It has also been suggested that the investigation has not been impartial and may be motivated by the desire to undermine the president.
Defenders of President Clinton maintain that much of the Starr Report is not a set of legitimate charges but an attempt to discredit him by supplying unnecessary and offensive sexual detail.
Summers has claimed, `Starr has crammed his report full of immaterial sexual minutiae that is meant to shock - and to smear.'
The same point was made by President Clinton's White House counsel. This defence maintains, `[The Starr Report] is so loaded with irrelevant and unnecessary graphic and salacious allegations that only one conclusion is possible: its principal purpose is to damage the President ... [These details] are simply part of a hit-and-run smear campaign ...'
The fifth point that is made against President Clinton's possible impeachment is that a majority of Americans do not want it to occur.
The president still enjoys a more than 60 per cent approval rating when Americans are questioned about how well they believe he is performing his job. Thus, though many apparently believe he has lied and do not approve of his sexual conduct, most do not want him removed from office.
It has been claimed that there is a split in the public mind between the way Americans view President Clinton as a person and how well they believe he has administered the country.
Finally, it is claimed, the decision to impeach President Clinton should be bi-partisan, that is, a decision agreed to by both Democrats and Republicans.
Currently, it is claimed that the pressure to impeach is coming from the Republicans. Critics claim that in seeking to have Democrat President Clinton removed Republicans are seeking political advantage rather than the objective good of the country.

Further implications
The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee will vote in early October on whether it should conduct an impeachment inquiry. The Committee, which has a Republican majority, is expected to vote yes.
At the moment there are attempts being made to negotiate some sort of compromise (perhaps the president could be formally censored and fined) however, these negotiations may not have the full support of the president and do not have the backing of the Republican majority in either the Senate or the House.
If the Judiciary Committee investigates and endorses Starr's allegations these will then become Articles of Impeachment to be voted on by the House.
If the House votes to impeach President Clinton he will then be tried before the Senate, a two-third majority of which must vote against him if he is to be removed from office.
It remains to be seen if the Republicans have the political nerve to push the case for removing the president through to the end. They certainly have the numbers in the House and on the Judiciary Committee to begin the process.
Much depends on what happens in the elections scheduled for both the House and the Senate on November 3, 1998.
Currently a majority of Americans do not want to see President Clinton impeached. There is the possibility that much of the electorate will see in the present scandal an attempt by the Republicans to gain a political advantage. If this is the case there could be a backlash against the Republicans at the polls.
However, the Democrats also face the possibility of enormous political damage. President Clinton's personal standing is so diminished that many Democrats fear he will be an electoral liability to their party as a whole and to them personally.
If the Republicans get back with a confirmed or increased majority they may decide to go ahead and remove Clinton from office. If they are not as electorally successful as expected Clinton may escape with a censor or less.
It seems that Clinton will only resign if impeachment appears inevitable. At the moment he and his advisers clearly do not believe his position is that hopeless.
If he were removed from office he would be replaced by the current Vice-president, Al Gore.
Replacing Clinton after his resignation or impeachment may be the best electoral chance Gore has. This would give Gore an opportunity to establish himself in his own right before the next presidential elections.
There are, however, broader questions to be considered than the political fate of the Republicans, the Democrats, Bill Clinton and Al Gore.
The entire issue appears to have done significant damage to the institution of the presidency. Never before has a president had to testify before a grand jury investigating possible criminal charges against him. Never before have his security staff been called to give evidence. Never before has the sexual behaviour of a president been presented to the public in such an on-going and highly detailed manner. Boundaries have been crossed in this case that have not been crossed before.
Questions also have to be asked about the impact of this investigation and its findings on the internal administrative of the United States and its international standing.
Critics both in America and overseas are asking how much attention either the president, his administration or the United States Congress can have left over to devote to other issues. At a time of world-wide economic crisis there are many who maintain that other things need to be focused on.
So far as political life in the United States is concerned it is unlikely ever to be quite the same again.
It is possible that as part of the aftermath of this debacle there may be efforts to re-draw the line between the public and the private sphere. A little like the reaction to the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, there appears to be growing popular distaste for intimate revelations about public figures. (The decision to place highly sensitive material on the Internet, to be read literally by anyone in the world with a computer and a modem, has dramatically increased the stakes in the privacy debate.)
However, it is all but certain that no political party will again endorse a presidential candidate with a sexually suspect past. The price Clinton and his party are paying for his indiscretions is likely to mean that only those with the purest of personal histories will attempt to stand.
Finally, the Office of the Independent Counsel and the use of grand juries are likely to be reviewed as a result of this issue. The Independent Counsel Statute comes up for re-authorisation in Congress next year. It seems unlikely that the office will be left with the powers it currently has.
The use of grand juries is also likely to be examined. Throughout the Clinton case there has been criticism that evidence damaging to the president was comprehensively leaked. There have been complaints about witnesses incriminating themselves. There has been concern expressed that witnesses typically appear before a grand jury without a lawyer. These and other concerns may result in reforms.

Sources
The Age
15/9/98 page 12 editorial, `Shabby, but not a high misdemeanor'
15/9/98 page 13 comment by Jennifer Hewett, `Resign now, and save the nation'
15/9/98 page 13 comment by Shaun Carney, `Why such a farce can't happen here'
15/9/98 page 13 comment by Gerard Henderson, `Accountability and privacy out of sync in the US'
15//9/98 page 13 comment by Anne Waldron Neumann, `A saga that says much about modern America'
18/9/98 page 15 comment by Jennifer Hewett, `The President and the sisterhood'
19/9/98 page 8 comment by Virginia Trioli, `Bill fiddles while we burn'
19/9/98 page 9 editorial, `The president faces his moment of truth'
19/9/98 page 10 comment by Kerry Flattery, `Looking behind the presidential facade'
26/9/98 page 26 news item by Jennifer Hewett, `Inquiry to look at impeachment'

The Australian
15/9/98 page 1 news item by Cameron Forbes, `Push to impeach ignores the people'
18/9/98 page 15 comment by James Hall, `A fallen man can't hope to walk tall'
23/9/98 page 14 news item by Cameron Forbes, `Cringe court in full session'
28/9/98 page 30 comment and analysis by Cameron Forbes, `Past imperfect'

The Herald Sun
13/9/98 page 9 analysis by Tom Skotnicki, `Sinner fights to stay in power'
14/9/98 page 4 news item by Geoff Stead, `White House hits at sex smears'
14/9/98 page 5 analysis, `What the two sides say'
14/9/98 page 18 editorial, `Too slick to be president'
14/9/98 page 19 comment by Andrew Butcher, `This Willy may go free as well'
20/9/98 page 39 comment by Magnus Clarke, `Dull roar of US rage'
20/9/98 page 75 comment by Peter Ruehl, `Laying on the smut'
23/9/98 page 15 analysis by Geoff Stead, `Bill beats TV tape'
23/9/98 page 17 comment by Bruce Wilson, `Sledging nicely, by the book'
23/9/98 page 18 comments by Matthew Ricketson & Professor Stan Van Hooft, `Should politicians' sexual exploits be publicised?'

The Sydney Morning Herald
14/9/98 page 1 news item by Jennifer Hewett, `With America's blessing, Clinton will fight on'
14/9/98 page 10 timeline, `High crimes & high times: a chronology of the Clinton scandal'
14/9/98 page 10 analysis, `Clinton all the president's sins' (Includes the eleven grounds for impeachment listed in the Starr Report'
14/9/98 page 10 news item by Jennifer Hewett, `All you never wanted to know, and more'
14/9/98 page 13 comment drawn from the Starr Report, `Limits on President's right to privacy'
15/9/98 page 12 editorial, `Private shame, public virtue'
15/9/98 page 13 comment by Catherine Lumby, `Grubby details are important'
15/9/98 page 13 comment by Anne Summers, `Larry Flynt of the legal world'
15/9/98 page 13 comment by Bettina Arndt, `Many ordinary Americans would rather just not know'

Time
21/9/98 page 47 analysis, `Enough to impeach?'