The impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, commenced in the U.S. Senate on January 7, 1999, and concluded with his acquittal on February 12 of the same year. This significant event followed an inquiry conducted between October and December 1998, which led to President Clinton's impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives on December 19, 1998. The articles of impeachment brought against him specifically charged
him with perjury and obstruction of justice. This trial marked only the second time in U.S. history that a president faced such proceedings in the Senate, the first being Andrew Johnson.
Constitutional Framework and Historical Precedent
Under the U.S. Constitution, a clear division of power exists regarding impeachment. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 grants the House of Representatives the sole authority to impeach, meaning to bring charges against, a federal official. Following this action, Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 assigns the Senate the exclusive power to conduct the trial for all impeachments. This constitutional design ensures a two-step process, with the House acting as the grand jury and the Senate as the court.
Clinton's trial was a rare occurrence, making him only the second U.S. president to undergo a Senate impeachment trial. The precedent set by Andrew Johnson's trial in 1868 provided a historical backdrop, though each impeachment process is unique in its specifics and political climate. The gravity of such a proceeding underscores the constitutional checks and balances designed to hold the highest office accountable.
The Charges and Senate Proceedings
The House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment against President Clinton: one for perjury and another for obstruction of justice. These charges stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones. The House considered four charges in total, but only these two passed, leading to Clinton's impeachment.
During the Senate trial, the proceedings were presided over by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. House managers, who acted as prosecutors, were seated on one side, while the president's personal counsel occupied the other. The Senate's role was to determine whether the president was guilty of the charges brought by the House. For a conviction, a two-thirds majority vote of the senators present was required for each article of impeachment.
The Acquittal and Its Aftermath
On February 12, 1999, the Senate voted on the two articles of impeachment. For the charge of perjury related to the grand jury, 45 senators voted "guilty" and 55 voted "not guilty." For the charge of obstruction of justice, the vote was evenly split, with 50 senators voting "guilty" and 50 voting "not guilty." In both instances, the number of "guilty" votes fell short of the 67 votes necessary for a conviction, resulting in President Clinton's acquittal on both charges. Consequently, he remained in office.
Despite the acquittal, the events had lasting repercussions. In April 1999, about two months after the Senate trial, federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright cited Clinton for civil contempt of court. This citation was for his "willful failure" to obey her orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to consider potential disciplinary action. Furthermore, on the day before leaving office on January 20, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license and a $25,000 fine as part of an agreement with independent counsel Robert Ray. This agreement aimed to conclude the investigation without criminal charges for perjury or obstruction of justice. As a result of his law license suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, though he resigned during the appeals period.
Political Ramifications and Public Perception
While President Clinton's job approval rating reportedly rose during the scandal and subsequent impeachment process, his poll numbers concerning honesty, integrity, and moral character declined. This shift in public perception had significant political ramifications, particularly for the subsequent presidential election in 2000. According to some analyses, "moral character" and "honesty" became crucial factors for voters.
Post-election polls indicated that a significant reason people voted for George W. Bush in 2000 was his perceived moral character, especially in the wake of the Clinton-era scandals. Some in the Al Gore campaign believed that disapproval of Clinton's personal behavior posed a serious threat to Gore's prospects. The belief that the country was morally "on the wrong track" was a negative element in the public's perception, despite a strong economy. Some theories suggest that Gore's decision to distance himself from Clinton during the campaign, fearing that Clinton's personal negatives would outweigh the positives of his job performance, ultimately contributed to his loss. However, other analyses argued that Gore's failure to receive normal credit for the Clinton administration's performance, due to his peculiar campaign strategy and fear of association with Clinton's behavior, was the major cause of his under-performance. The 2000 U.S. Congressional election also saw Democrats gain seats, leading to a 50-50 split in the Senate, with Democrats eventually gaining control after a Republican senator defected.
