Bill Clinton, the 42nd U.S. president, was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice by the U.S. House of Representatives in 1998, leading to impeachment but not removal from office. These charges stemmed from his sworn statements and conduct related to the Monica Lewinsky relationship and the Paula Jones lawsuit. This guide explains the specific articles, the Senate trial outcome, and the constitutional and political context in a fact-first, enduring format. Below, you’ll find verified details, timelines, and lasting effects that clarify what ‘Clinton charged with’ means in historical and legal terms.
Key Charges Against Bill Clinton
In December 1998, the House approved two articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton: one for perjury and one for obstruction of justice. Both charges arose from investigations into his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky and from the Paula Jones civil rights lawsuit. The articles did not allege new criminal conduct beyond the underlying behavior, but framed that behavior as lying to investigators and interfering with justice. This section outlines what each charge involved and how it connected to the broader investigations.
Perjury and Obstruction: Definitions
Perjury means knowingly making false statements under oath. Obstruction of justice covers conduct that impends, prevents, or delays the due administration of justice. In Clinton’s case, the charges focused on sworn testimony in a civil deposition and actions—such as encouraging witnesses to limit testimony or concealing evidence—that the House managers argued distorted the truth and hindered inquiries.
The Independent Counsel Investigation and Legal Context
The charges originated from the work of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, who was initially investigating the Whitewater real estate developments but later broadened the scope to include Clinton’s personal conduct and related cover-up allegations. Starr’s office pursued a three-year inquiry that produced the Starr Report, which outlined detailed findings. The House Judiciary Committee then used selected portions of that report to draft the impeachment articles, arguing that Clinton’s sworn statements and actions undermined the integrity of federal proceedings.
Timeline of Key Legal Events
The following table outlines verified milestones from the Clinton investigations and impeachment. Each entry reflects a documented event with recognized legal or political significance.
| Date or Period | Event | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| 1994–1999 | Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr investigates Whitewater and related matters | Established the factual basis for later impeachment articles |
| May 1998 | Paula Jones trial proceedings; Clinton deposes under oath | Lying under oath in a civil case became a basis for perjury charges |
| September 1998 | Starr Report released to Congress and public | |
| December 1998 | House passes articles of impeachment (perjury and obstruction) | |
| January–February 1999 | U.S. Senate holds impeachment trial; Clinton acquitted on both articles |
House Impeachment and Senate Trial Outcomes
The House impeached Clinton on two counts, but the Senate trial resulted in acquittal on both perjury and obstruction of justice. Senators did not reach the two-thirds majority required for conviction and removal, largely along party lines. This outcome underscored that impeachment by the House is a political process, while removal requires a supermajority and a distinct legal threshold. The trial established important norms for how Congress handles allegations against a sitting president.
Aftermath and Lasting Impacts
The Clinton impeachment influenced later debates about presidential conduct, perjury standards, and the scope of independent counsels. It shaped media and public expectations around fact-based governance and transparency. Though Clinton completed his term, the case remains a reference point for discussions about impeachment, partisanship, and legal accountability at the highest levels of government.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What exactly was Clinton charged with? He was charged with perjury (lying under oath) and obstruction of justice in the context of a civil deposition and related actions.
- Were any criminal convictions part of the outcome? No; impeachment and Senate acquittal did not result in criminal charges or penalties.
- How did the public and media interpret the charges at the time? Coverage was sharply divided, often reflecting political affiliations, and focused heavily on the personal conduct elements and institutional implications.
- Did the Starr investigation find evidence of other wrongdoing? The investigation examined multiple matters; the impeachment centered on perjury and obstruction related to the Lewinsky inquiry and Jones case.
- What changed as a result of these events? The process clarified practical boundaries between impeachment, criminal law, and removal, while leaving significant questions about presidential accountability in office.
Key Takeaways
- Bill Clinton was impeached by the House for perjury and obstruction of justice in December 1998.
- The Senate acquitted him in February 1999, so he remained in office.
- Charges were tied to sworn testimony in civil litigation and interactions with investigators.
- No criminal penalties resulted; the process set precedents for high-office accountability.
- The episode remains a durable reference for understanding impeachment and institutional norms.
Conclusion
Clinton was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, grounded in sworn testimony and related conduct tied to investigations by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. The House impeached, the Senate acquitted, and the presidency continued, making this a pivotal case for understanding legal and political accountability. This evergreen explanation captures the verified essentials and outlines why the episode still matters for governance, media, and public trust.