Judiciary staff legal conclusions
on Starr accusations
Our nation's recent experience with impeachments under the United States Constitution provides a number of clear guiding principles for those who must conduct future impeachment inquiries, draft future articles of impeachment, and vote on those articles:
- First, in most instances of impeachment since 1974, making false and misleading statements under oath has been the most common compelling basis for impeachment -- whether it is before a jury, a grand jury, or on a tax return.
- Second, the constitutional standard for impeachable offenses is the same for federal judges as it is for presidents and all other civil officers.
- Third, impeachable offenses can involve both personal and professional misconduct. Fourth, impeachable offenses do not have to be federal or state crimes.
The research conducted by the staff in 1974, and this update, are meant to provide guidance and background to members as they prepare to undertake this constitutional responsibility of determining whether or not any acts allegedly committed by the president rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
Impeachment is a unique and distinct procedure established by the Constitution. Each member must decide for himself or herself, after the conclusion of the fact-finding process and in the light of historical precedents, based on his or her own judgment and conscience, whether the proven acts constitute a high crime or misdemeanor. |
Answers Clinton "does not recall..."
White House invented privilege