Impeachment Proceedings Research Articles

Did Clinton Lie?: Defining 'Sexual Relations'

With the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton now well behind us, we can step back and consider the matter somewhat more dispassionately. The focus of the impeachment hearings was that Clinton perjured himself and engaged in obstruction of justice. I limit my observations to the question of whether he committed perjury, and in particular whether he lied when he denied having a sexual relationship with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. When Clinton was first asked during a deposition whether he had ever had an affair or sexual relationship with Lewinsky, he quite explicitly denied it. He was asked about his denials during a second legal proceeding - his testimony before a grand jury - when he was again placed under oath. Clinton insisted that his denials were true based on the ordinary understanding of these terms. In other words, he appealed to usage of that phrase in the speech community. His lawyers during the impeachment made similar arguments on the basis of dictionary definitions. Because there seems to be a great deal of variation in how people use this phrase, I will argue that Clinton's defenders were largely correct on this point. The lawyers examining the president were obviously aware of the dangers of using such a slippery term, so they introduced a definition of sexual relations into evidence during the deposition and then asked Clinton whether, under that rather convoluted definition, he had engaged in sexual relations with Lewinsky. Clinton again denied having done so, but was later forced to admit to at least some sexual activity with the former intern. During the subsequent grand jury proceedings he was also interrogated on his denials of having sexual relations, as defined. His defense consisted of an extremely literalistic dissection of the words of the definition. I will suggest that a large part of the problem is that the definition had largely been textualized. A result of textualization is that the resulting text invites a very literal and sometimes even hypertechnical interpretation, and Clinton was only to happy to comply.

In the interests of justice: reforming the legal profession

Two thousand years ago, Seneca described advocates not as seekers of truth but as accessories to injustice, smothered by their prosperity. This unflattering assessment has only worsened over time. The vast majority of Americans now perceive lawyers as arrogant, unaffordable hired guns whose ethical practices rank just slightly above those of used car salesmen. In this penetrating new book, Deborah L. Rhode goes beyond the commonplace attacks on lawyers to provide the first systematic study of the structural problems confronting the legal profession. A past president of the Association of American Law Schools and senior counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during Clinton's impeachment proceedings, Rhode brings an insider's knowledge to the labyrinthine complexities of how the law works, or fails to work, for most Americans and often for lawyers themselves. She sheds much light on problems with the adversary system, the commercialization of practice, bar disciplinary processes, race and gender bias, and legal education. She argues convincingly that the bar's current self-regulation must be replaced by oversight structures that would put the public's interests above those of the profession. She insists that legal education become more flexible, by offering less expensive degree programs that would prepare paralegals to provide much needed low cost assistance. Most important, she calls for a return to ethical standards that put public service above economic self-interest. Elegantly written and touching on such high profile cases as the O.J. Simpson trial and the Starr investigation, In the Interests of Justice uncovers fundamental flaws in our legal system and proposes sweeping reforms.

Sex, Lies, and Presidential Leadership: Interpretations of the Office

The plethora of arguments surrounding the events of the Monica Lewinsky affair and Clinton's resulting impeachment trial provide us with valuable material through which we can begin to understand the varying definitions of what the presidency is and how it should operate. Arguments from the trial transcripts and reports in various media outlets provide perspective on the competing definitions of presidential power and the president's role in the national polity. In other words, the arguments about the immediate fate of President Clinton reveal more than political predilections. They also reveal deeply embedded definitions of presidential power, its limitations, and the proper function of the presidency in the contemporary political system.

The Polls: Public Attitudes toward the First Lady

The institutionalization of the presidency suggests that we need to view the presidency as a collective enterprise and not only from the perspective of the person in office. Among the many consequences of institutionalization of the office has been the expansion of public expectations of the president and the office (Wayne 1982). Coupling the institutional development of the executive office with public expectations suggests the need to look at public evaluations of those associated with the office, like the First Lady, the vice president, and high-level presidential staff and executive officers, to determine what linkage, if any, exists between these other executive personnel and the president in the public mind. The logic of institutionalization suggests that presidents have allowed and fostered the institutional development of these offices because they provide some political, popular, and/or policy-making benefit to the president. Since our interest here is with the public aspect of that question, we ask whether popular First Ladies (or vice presidents) reflect well on the president to the public. That is, does a popular First Lady lift a president's popularity, and perhaps more critically, does an unpopular First Lady (or vice president) harm a president's standing with the public? If not, perhaps we need to rethink our theories about why presidents have allowed and pushed for the institutional development of these attached executive offices. In this regard, the appearance of an activist First Lady like Hillary Clinton is not merely an expression of her own personal and feminist orientations but also may relate to the ongoing development of the office of the presidency. Hillary Clinton has been a controversial First Lady not only because some people object to her policy activism and politically charged manner but also because at times she may have been a political liability and at other times a political asset to her husband. It is easy to illustrate her controversial image to the public. An October 1999 poll conducted by Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) News found that 34 percent of respondents thought that she had too much influence on the decisions Bill Clinton makes, compared with only 10 percent who suggested that she had too little influence (47 percent thought she had the right amount of influence). One can suggest, for instance, that the failure of the health care reform effort in 1995, of which she was singled out for much of the blame, may be one example of her being a liability to the president. Bill Clinton's polls declined during that period. Similarly, the Vince Foster suicide and the Whitewater dealings seemed to point an accusing finger at the First Lady, enough so that she was brought before a grand jury for questioning in January 1996. We can ask, Did the way that the public viewed Hillary Clinton and her participation during these events and periods contribute independently to the president's poll declines? In contrast, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and impeachment proceedings of 1998 and early 1999, Hillary Clinton's public stock seemed to have risen because of her decision to stand by her husband and the view that she was harmed by his behavior. During that time period, Bill Clinton's job approval polls did not fall, as one might expect, but even seemed to have risen. Did the public view of Mrs. Clinton during this year of turmoil help boost or undergird the president's polls? The logic of the institutional development of the First Lady's offices suggests just such possibilities. However, it is also possible that public attitudes toward Bill Clinton drove public orientations toward Mrs. Clinton or that public views of both of these personalities were not linked other than by the coincidence of circumstance. Because of her high visibility and activism on both the policy and political fronts, Mrs. Clinton stands as a good case to test these notions of the institutional development of the presidency and its associated executive offices. …

The Impeachment Trial: Reflections on Group Process

ABSTRACT The recent Impeachment Trial of President Clinton was of interest to social workers because the outcome might have some bearing on future social welfare policy initiatives and also due to the nature of the process itself. There was a striking difference between the partisan, rancorous debate in the House and the more collegial, dignified trial in the Senate. This essay applies 10 principles of large-group theory, particularly when there is social conflict, to the impeachment proceedings in an effort to understand the marked differences in the process between the two legislative chambers.

The Polls: The Components of Presidential Favorability

This article uses a February 1997 Gallup Poll to address at the individual level the connections between presidential job approval and favorability as well as to look at the sources of favorable attitudes toward the president. The analysis found that an overwhelming number of people hold consistent and favorable job performance assessments of the president. However, sources of inconsistency, in which a person might view the president favorably but disapprove of his job (or visa versa), are not randomly distributed. The analysis also looked at factors that may structure people's favorability toward the president, focusing on presidential traits. While one can conceptually organize the traits into two sets that one can distinguish as character and competence, the public seems not to make such a distinction, lumping all into one set.

Conflicts of Commitment: Legal Ethics in the Impeachment Context

In this article, Professor Rhode explores the issues of professional responsibility that emerged in connection with impeachment proceedings against President William Jefferson Clinton. Those proceedings offer an illuminating case study of crucial questions concerning lawyers' obligations to clients, to the system of justice, and to society generally. Analysis begins by reviewing conflicts of interest for the Independent Counsel and for attorneys representing Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. A second set of issues involves the conflicts of roles and responsibilities confronting the Presidents' lawyers: conflicts between their clients' political and legal needs and conflicts between their obligations to their clients' defense and the justice system. Discussion then turns to ethical conflicts in the exercise of prosecutorial power, such as the scope and confidentiality of the Independent Counsel's investigation, the treatment of witnesses, the referral of charges to Congress, and the management of the Senate trial. To address these concerns, the article proposes changes in bar ethical rules, legal doctrine, legislative frameworks, adversarial ideologies, and professional education.

Presidential removal: unzipping the constitutional provisions

Impeachment proceedings are a rarity in the African context. This is not surprising given the history of executive dictatorships, all-powerful one-party states and a subservient media. With the dramatic change in the constitutional landscape of the 1990s, attention should be focused on the adequacy of the presidential removal provisions in African constitutions. This article therefore undertakes a critical review of the relevant provisions in anglophonic African states. It argues that they are unsatisfactory in several respects and calls for them to be thoroughly revised.

Black Student Leaders Survive Impeachment Proceedings at Harvard University

Black Student Leaders Survive Impeachment Proceedings at Harvard University

The Democrats' Decline in the House during the Clinton Presidency: An Analysis of Partisan Swings

This research note analyzes changes in the congressional district vote during the three sets of House elections held during the Clinton presidency. An in‐depth picture of how House members interpreted these elections is drawn by examining the percentage vote swing in each election by incumbency type. In particular, such a perspective sheds light on why Republican House members overestimated their mandate after 1994 and were not discouraged from pursuing impeachment by the 1998 election results.

Midterm 1998 Election, Speaker Resignation, and Impeachment Proceedings—A Heady Atmosphere for 1998–99 Congressional Fellows' Job Search

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Guest Editorial: Impeachment vs. Harassment

In all the current drumbeat of publicity about the president's alleged crimes no commentator or scholar whom I've heard or read in the mass media takes into account the constitutional constraints under which this scandal has evolved. Yet these constraints have far-reaching implications for public administration and for the general welfare of the American people and our democracy. The basic point is easily understood. In all the industrialized democracies where parliamentary government prevails, a legislative majority can oust the chief executive by a vote of no confidence based on any controversial public policy issue. By contrast, in the American constitutional system, presidents are elected for a fixed term and can only be ousted by a legislative majority through the painful and prolonged process of impeachment, a process that is clearly impractical, costly, explosive, and unsuccessful. Is impeachment, therefore, the real goal of the current congressional majority? I think not. Instead, they seek to harass the president so long as he remains in office, thereby hoping to disconcert him enough to cause such serious blunders that his reputation and that of his party will be irreparably damaged. Perhaps the opposition's prospects for electoral victory will thereby be enhanced, but at what cost? No doubt some politicians hate the president so much they just wish to punish him. However, I believe the majority seek electoral success for themselves and their political party but find themselves blocked by the rules of a constitution based on the separation of powers. We need to understand what is going on, therefore, as a political game. Although many of the president's political opponents talk a lot about impeaching him, or compelling him to resign, I believe that this is not their actual intention because, as everyone knows, it could only empower the vice president, someone belonging to the president's own political party. In fact, therefore, actual impeachment would probably hamper the congressional majority-a new and vigorous president would surely become a candidate to defeat. Shrewd members of the congressional majority in a politically divided government might better enhance the prospects for bringing a member of their own party to the presidency if they focused on undermining the vice president. If they could seriously handicap him as a presidential candidate, they might provoke a bitter intraparty primary struggle that could jeopardize his prospects for electoral success even if he were to be nominated. But if he were to serve for a while as interim president, his prospects for becoming the next nominee without an intraparty conflict would be increased. This would not only conserve his energy and resources, but help to unify his party in the next presidential campaign. The current attacks on the vice president, however, appear to be half-heartedperhaps because they generate no popular enthusiasm and could easily become a political boomerang. Actually, impeachment can also boomerang against the opposition majority as demonstrated in the November election which reduced its numbers in the House of Representatives. This caused intraparty questions that led to the decision by Newt Gingrich to abandon the Speakership and even to withdraw from Congress. The reason seems clear enough. Its preoccupation with the impeachment struggle hampered the normal congressional processes of law making to such a degree that urgent policy issues were neglected. This appears to have concerned voters more than the continuing focus on the president's personal wrongdoing. Further evidence of the Congressional impact can be found in a statement by Senator Alan Specter that appeared in the New York Times on November 11. He wrote that it is now difficult to decide how to deal with the pending issue of impeaching the president. Starting with the constitutional interpretation of 'other high crimes and misdemeanors,' respectable arguments can be made on both sides of whether perjury and/or obstruction of justice, if proved, are impeachable offenses. Later that day, on CNN's Burden of Proof program, Specter asserted that the Senate would no doubt be unable to secure the two-thirds majority needed for actual impeachment. This point underlines the constitutional futility of the House proceedings, but it is significant that a key senator should acknowledge this fact because it underlies the point that the preoccupation of the House with impeachment proceedings and its open partisanship were

Congressional Oversight of the Presidency

Congressional oversight of the executive, including the presidency itself, has evidently increased over the past two decades. It relies upon a wide variety of techniques and occurs in a number of settings, not just select committee investigations or specialized subcommittee hearings labeled oversight. Other means range from hearings on authorizations and regular bills to informal meetings between legislators and executive officials; and from House impeachment proceedings to the use of offices outside Congress, such as inspectors general and independent counsels. Oversight does not exist in a political vacuum; the impetus behind it is often a conflict between the two branches over public policy or over competing institutional interests and powers. In addition, the apparent growth in the amount of oversight and the wide use of different means are the results of changes in Congress, including improved resources and incentives for members; changes in the presidency, especially the expanded operational role of its personnel; and changes in the polity, such as the rise of investigative journalism and electoral developments that have helped to divide party control of government.

Arizona “High Noon”: The Recall and Impeachment of Evan Mecham

April 4, 1988 marked the end of the most divisive and tumultuous period in the history of Arizona politics. For the first time in its seventy-six years as a state, Arizona, and the nation, witnessed the removal of a sitting governor, Evan Mecham, by conviction on impeachment charges by the Arizona Senate. Evan Mecham was the first governor in United States history to be confronted with a recall, impeachment and criminal indictment simultaneously. Although removed from office, the impact of Mecham's fifteen-month administration will permeate the social and political fabric of Arizona, as well as cloud its national image, for many years to come. This essay will briefly examine the concept of recall as an exercise in direct democracy, and the factors and context surrounding the recall drive and impeachment proceedings of Governor Evan Mecham.The Recall and Arizona's ProvisionThe recall is one of three aspects of the concept of “direct democracy,” the others being referendum and initiative. According to Wilcox (1912, p. 169) the initiative and referendum are instruments in the exercise of “pure democracy” which supplement representative government—the initiative is direct participation on the part of citizens in legislative action, while the referendum is an exercise in veto action. Conceptually, however, the recall is different. It does not involve direct citizen participation in the legislative activities of government, but is concerned with their ability to remove officials, principally elected but in some rare instances appointed, from office before the end of their term. As Wilcox stated, recall “… is simply the guaranteed right of the people to discharge their public servants when the public servants cease to be satisfactory to them” (Wilcox, 1912, p. 169).

Choosing the Vice President

How—and how well—does the modern process of vice presidential selection work? What can be learned by considering the nominations of Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen by the Democrats and Sen. Dan Quayle of Indiana by the Republicans in 1988?Most students and practitioners of American politics agree as a matter of principle that vice presidents should be chosen with their constitutional role as presidential successor uppermost in mind. Nine vice presidents, more than a fifth of those who have held the office, have succeeded to the presidency. (They served as president for forty-two years, twenty-nine of them in this century). During one recent period from 1945 to 1977, vice presidents who became president by succession occupied the Oval Office fully half the time. Illnesses, impeachment proceedings, and assassination attempts have made succession an active possibility during twenty of the nation's forty presidencies (Goldstein 1982, 207-08). Every postwar vice president except Walter F. Mondale has become the subject of unusual public concern because of some event or condition that raised the possibility that he would succeed to the presidency.To the extent that the concern for presidential succession is taken seriously, it implies two governance criteria for evaluating the vice presidential selection process. The most important governance criterion is the competence of nominees for vice president to be president. Historically, six of the nine successions have occurred during the vice president's first year in office, suggesting that even the best on-the-job training is no substitute for a wise initial choice.

Arizona “High Noon”: The Recall and Impeachment of Evan Mecham

April 4, 1988 marked the end of the most divisive and tumultuous period in the history of Arizona politics. For the first time in its seventy-six years as a state, Arizona, and the nation, witnessed the removal of a sitting governor, Evan Mecham, by conviction on impeachment charges by the Arizona Senate. Evan Mecham was the first governor in United States history to be confronted with a recall, impeachment and criminal indictment simultaneously. Although removed from office, the impact of Mecham's fifteen-month administration will permeate the social and political fabric of Arizona, as well as cloud its national image, for many years to come. This essay will briefly examine the concept of recall as an exercise in direct democracy, and the factors and context surrounding the recall drive and impeachment proceedings of Governor Evan Mecham.The Recall and Arizona's ProvisionThe recall is one of three aspects of the concept of “direct democracy,” the others being referendum and initiative. According to Wilcox (1912, p. 169) the initiative and referendum are instruments in the exercise of “pure democracy” which supplement representative government—the initiative is direct participation on the part of citizens in legislative action, while the referendum is an exercise in veto action. Conceptually, however, the recall is different. It does not involve direct citizen participation in the legislative activities of government, but is concerned with their ability to remove officials, principally elected but in some rare instances appointed, from office before the end of their term. As Wilcox stated, recall “… is simply the guaranteed right of the people to discharge their public servants when the public servants cease to be satisfactory to them” (Wilcox, 1912, p. 169).

It Could Happen Here: The Rise of the Political Scenario Novel

LATE IN 1974, CONVINCED THAT GORDON LIDDY WAS ABOUT TO TURN STATE'S evidence to Judge John Sirica, Richard M. Nixon opted to prevent his removal from office-by taking over the government. Short-circuiting the Pentagon chain of command, he ordered an obscure Green Beret unit from Fort Bragg to conduct a test assault on Washington, D.C. Pursuant to these instructions, combat groups descended from helicopters during a Friday rush hour and proceeded to round up and detain pro-Nixon senators and congressmen on Capitol Hill. Fragmentary reports of the arrests in the media elicited genuine bafflement from the Pentagon and disingenuous astonishment from the White House. Meanwhile, Nixon had gathered members of the Wartime Information Security Program together on the pretext of another exercise and prepared to deliver an proclamation on nationwide television. Citing the attempted coup by his enemies, the President invoked emergency powers to announce the curtailment of travel, imposition of censorship, and concentration of military and civil authority in his personal hands. The only member of the White House staff to resist the take-over was Press Secretary Ron Ziegler, who desperately and melodramatically tried to halt it by assassinating his chief during the live teleaddress. Ironically, by bungling the attempt, he only lent credence to Nixon's ploy and cemented the success of his subversion of the United States government. That is not what the history books say, of course. It was actually said a few days before the resignation of the real Richard M. Nixon, when the country still wondered what would become of the impeachment proceedings

Daylesford: S. P. Cockerell's Residence for Warren Hastings

THE CAREER of Warren Hastings is one of the most dramatic of those connected with building the 'Empire' in the eighteenth century. Ne'er-do-well parentage, incomplete schooling, two marriages, pistol dueling, amassing of an enormous fortune, thirty-five years in primitive India, impeachment proceedings, are all a part of this complicated, fascinating life. Numerous biographies tell the private details while many other books cover the various aspects of Hastings' public life and impeachment.1 The only thing left almost unmentioned is that which in later years meant the most to him-his home in the Cotswolds.

Proficiency Tests in Modern Foreign Languages

Not too many years ago if I had been told that I would be addressing this scholarly assembly on the subject of proficiency testing, I would have denied the thought as being synonymous with impeachment proceedings. I would have asserted with calculated dignity that such a subject was too pedestrian for my interests, I would have stated with just the right touch of scorn that such work was the business of social scientists, psychologists, or educationists, in short, to steal a leaf from Bill Parker's book, I would have been willing to “let George do it” or indeed would likely not have cared if it were not done at all. On the offchance that there are some among you who may still feel that same way, I ask you to let me state the case for a project which I have come to regard not only as having a claim to academic status, but one which I believe is worthy of the interest of all who would hold that testing is a proper function of teaching, and that determination of standards of performance within a subject matter field is a primary business of those who have the skills and teach the subjects which are to be evaluated.

"Clamors and False Stories" the Reputation of Captain Kidd

C APTAIN KIDD was one of earliest legendary characters in North America. Widely known as a reputable and dependable sea captain who served Crown faithfully, he suddenly became symbol of all that we romantically attach to name pirate. Yet his piracies were never clearly proved in his day and cannot be today. His story involves political warfare both in London and New York, in vortex of which he was sucked down. His backers in great exploit of his life were greatest Whig lords of England, who were ferociously attacked by Tories, making much use of the Kidd affair. Many a campaign of deliberate vilification, however, has been lived down or forgotten in passing of time. The impeachment proceedings against great Whig lords fizzled out. Yet Kidd lives on as pirate laureate, of whom everything evil has been believed. Why was he not forgotten, despite very complete blackwashing which he underwent? The answer lies chiefly, I believe, in his persistent colonial reputation-in gossip and tales, clamors and false stories that ran up and down American coast from