Article 2, Section 4 — President Bill Clinton And Impeachable Offenses

prev | next

Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The impeachment of President Bill Clinton stemmed from an investigation that originally centered on financial transactions occurring many years prior to President Clinton taking federal office.[1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn1art2 " See Ken Gormley, Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr 33–114 (2010). ") Attorney General Janet Reno appointed Robert Fiske, Jr. as a special prosecutor in January 1994 to investigate the dealings of President Clinton and his wife with the “Whitewater” real estate development during the President’s tenure as attorney general and then governor of Arkansas.[2](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn2art2 " Emily F.V. Tassel & Paul Finkelman, Impeachable Offenses: A Documentary History from 1787 to the Present 267 (1999); see generally Whitewater: Timeline, Wash. Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline.htm (1998) (last visited Jan. 24, 2018). ")

Following the reauthorization of the Independent Counsel Act in June, the Special Division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit replaced Fiske in August with Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr, a former Solicitor General in the George H.W. Bush Administration and federal appellate judge.[3](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn3art2 " Gormley, supra note 1, at 143–69. A previous version of the statute under which the independent counsel was appointed was challenged as unconstitutional in Morrison v. Olson. 487 U.S. 654 (1998). The Supreme Court upheld the statute as constitutional. Id. at 685–96. ")

During the Whitewater investigation, Paula Jones, an Arkansas state employee, filed a civil suit against President Clinton in May 1994 alleging that he sexually harassed her in 1991 while governor of Arkansas.[4](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn4art2 " In Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 684 (1997), the Supreme Court held that the President was subject to civil suits in his individual capacity while in office. Id. at 684. ") Lawyers for Jones took depositions of President Clinton at the White House and asked questions about the President’s relationship with staffers, including an intern named Monica Lewinsky.[5](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn5art2 " Tassel & Finkelman, supra note 2, at 268. ") Independent Counsel Starr received information alleging that Lewinsky had attempted to influence the testimony of a witness in the Jones litigation,[6](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn6art2 " The Starr Report: Introduction, Wash. Post (1998), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/5intro.htm. ") along with tapes of recordings between Monica Lewinsky and former White House employee Linda Tripp.[7](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn7art2 " See Gormley, supra note 1, at 304–06. ") Tripp had recorded conversations between herself and Lewinsky concerning Lewinsky’s relationship with the President and hope of obtaining a job outside the White House. Starr presented this information to Attorney General Reno. Reno petitioned the Special Division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to expand the independent counsel’s jurisdiction, and the Special Division issued an order on January 16, 1998, permitting the expansion of Starr’s investigation into President Clinton’s response to the Paula Jones case.[8](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn8art2 " Id. ") Over the course of the spring and summer a grand jury investigated whether President Clinton committed perjury in his response to the Jones suit and whether he obstructed justice by encouraging others to lie about his relationship with Lewinsky.[9](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn9art2 " Tassel & Finkelman, supra note 2, at 269. ") President Clinton appeared by video before the grand jury and testified concerning the Lewinsky relationship.[10](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn10art2 " H.R. Rep. No.

, at 28 (1998); The Starr Report: Grounds For Impeachment, No. II, Wash. Post (1998), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/7groundsii.htm. ")

105-830

, at 28 (1998); The Starr Report: Grounds For Impeachment, No. II, Wash. Post (1998), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/7groundsii.htm .

Independent Counsel Starr referred his report to the House of Representatives on September 9, 1998, noting that under the independent counsel statute, his office was required to do so because President Clinton engaged in behavior that might constitute grounds for impeachment.[11](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn11art2 " The Starr Report: Introduction, Wash. Post (1998), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/5intro.htm; see 28 U.S.C. § 595(c). ") The House then voted to open an impeachment investigation into President Clinton’s behavior, released the Starr report publicly, and the House Judiciary Committee voted to release the tape of the President’s grand jury testimony.[12](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn12art2 " Tassel & Finkelman, supra note 2, at 271. ")

Although the House Judiciary Committee already had conducted several hearings regarding the possibility of impeachment,[13](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn13art2 " Background and History of Impeachment, Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Const. of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. (1998); Impeachment Inquiry: William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. (1998). ") the Committee did not engage in an independent fact-finding investigation or call any live witnesses to testify about the President’s conduct.[14](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn14art2 " Michael J. Gerhardt, The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis 176–77 (2000). ") Instead, the Judiciary Committee largely relied on the Starr report to inform the Committee’s own report recommending impeachment, which was released December 16, 1998.[15](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn15art2 " See H.R. Rep. No.

, at 200–02 (1998) (minority views). ")

105-830

, at 200–02 (1998) (minority views). The Committee report recommended impeachment of President Clinton on four counts.[16](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn16art2 " H.R. Rep. No.

, at 28. ") The first article alleged that President Clinton perjured himself when testifying to a criminal grand jury regarding his response to the Jones lawsuit and relationship with Lewinsky.[17](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn17art2 " Id. at 2. ") The second alleged that the President committed perjury during a deposition in the civil suit brought against him by Paula Jones.[18](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn18art2 " Id. at 2–3. ") The third alleged that President Clinton obstructed justice in the suit brought against him by Jones and in the investigation by Independent Counsel Starr.[19](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn19art2 " Id. at 3–4. ") The fourth alleged that the President abused his office by refusing to respond to certain requests for admission from Congress and making untruthful responses to Congress during the investigation into his behavior.[20](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn20art2 " Id. at 4–5. ")

On December 19, 1998, in a lame-duck session, the House voted to approve the first and third articles.[21](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn21art2 " 144 Cong. Rec. 28,035–113 (1998). ") After trial in the Senate, the President was acquitted on February 12, 1999.[22](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn22art2 " 145 Cong. Rec. 2375–78 (1999); Alison Mitchell, Clinton is Acquitted Decisively by Senate on Both Charges, N.Y. Times (Feb. 13, 1999), http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/featured_articles/990216tuesday.html. ") Statements of the Senators entered into the record regarding the impeachment indicate disagreement about what constitutes an impeachable offense for the President and whether Clinton’s behavior rose to this level.[23](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn23art2 " See Published Closed Door Statements, 145 Cong. Rec. S1471–1637 (daily ed. Feb. 12, 1999); Gerhardt, supra note 14, at 175. ") For instance, Republican Senator Richard G. Luger voted to convict on both articles, noting in his statement the gravity of the “presidential misconduct at issue” and arguing that the case was “not about adultery.” [24](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn24art2 " Proceedings of the United States Senate in the Impeachment Trial of President William Jefferson Clinton, Volume IV: Statements of Senators Regarding the Impeachment Trial, S. Doc. No. 106-4, 106th Cong. 2571–72 (1999). ") Instead, it centered on the obstruction of justice that occurred when the President “lied to a federal grand jury and worked to induce others to give false testimony.” [25](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeachable-offenses#fn25art2 " Id. ") For Senator Lugar, the President ultimately “betrayed [the] trust” of the nation through his actions and should be removed from office.[26](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/president-bill-clinton-and-impeacha