Let me begin with some concessions and qualifications:
     
It’s true that there is something grotesque about wheeling out the awesome machinery of impeachment to determine whether the stuff of a bad porn flick can give rise to "high crimes and misdemeanors." There is something seriously disturbing about the Congress weighing the question of whether the president or the intern is lying about whether he touched her breasts and genitals "with an intent to arouse or gratify." It’s also true that Kenneth Starr’s report may wallow in such stuff more than necessary to prove the perjuries. Yuck, to borrow a Monica word.

It’s further true that what President Clinton has done to the institutions of democracy is not as bad as what President Nixon did in Watergate. Although the evidence that Clinton has committed crimes is at least as strong as the evidence that Nixon did, a criminal cover-up of a sexual affair is not as bad as a criminal cover-up of a burglary aimed at bugging political rivals. And Clinton’s perjuries and obstructions are not as bad as the payment of hush money to burglars.

It’s finally true that if a majority of the American people demand Clinton’s continuance in office — even in the face of Starr’s evidence, and even after any congressional hearings or Senate trial — then Clinton should not be removed (and won’t be).

But for the time being, as the people and their representatives absorb the detailed evidence and ponder its simultaneously grave and bizarre meaning, there are five key questions to answer:

Is there strong evidence that Clinton repeatedly violated criminal laws? Do his actions amount to "high crimes and misdemeanors" within the meaning of the Constitution? Should he be excused as a victim of political persecution, prosecutorial abuse, and invasion of privacy? Has he earned forgiveness and thus continuance in office? And what outcome would be best for the nation?

The Evidence Of Clinton’s Crimes
This scandal really is fundamentally about lying — especially criminal lying — not sex. The proof is this: If Clinton had testified truthfully when asked on Jan. 17 whether he had had sexual relations with Lewinsky — or even if he had refused on privacy grounds to answer the question — nobody could plausibly have called for impeachment. And there would have been nothing for prosecutors to investigate.

Even if Clinton had lied in that deposition — but then had not sought to influence other witnesses and had come clean after a few days’ reflection — I (for one) would have argued against impeachment.

But that’s not what happened. What happened is that, advised by his soulmate Dick Morris to stonewall, the president then proceeded to lie to his Cabinet; encouraged Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and others to vouch for his lie; set in motion his scorched-earth, smear-Starr, trash-Tripp, hide-the- evidence defense; and (on Jan. 26) uttered his famous, definitive and inexcusable lie to the American people: "I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never. These allegations are false." But it turns out they were true, except in the exceedingly limited sense that Clinton may have stopped short of explicitly having "told" anybody to lie. Clinton lied under oath in the Jan. 17 deposition in the Paula Jones case, he lied in his Aug. 17 grand jury testimony, and he is lying still. This is what Starr’s report shows, through a mass of detailed evidence, which Clinton’s lawyers have barely attempted to refute on factual grounds, and which they cannot refute.

On Sunday, three of the president’s lawyers — David Kendall, Charles F.C. Ruff and Lanny Breuer — hit the talk shows. They all sang from the same page: The president never perjured himself; this is just about sex. The result was not promising for Clinton. His lawyers were hammered, over and over, with specific, detailed and extremely aggressive questions challenging the veracity of Clinton’s sworn testimony in many instances. They could do nothing but duck and weave and hide behind legalisms.

On ABC News’ This Week, Kendall was sent reeling by questions from George Will like this one: "Is it your position that the president can remember being alone with Miss Lewinsky when she was delivering pizza, but not when she was delivering oral sex?"

At the outset of his deposition in the Jones case, the president took an oath administered by Judge Susan Webber Wright: "Do you swear or affirm… that the testimony you are about to give in the matter before the court is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" The president answered: "I do."

Instead he lied, over a dozen times. And he lied explicitly enough to fit even a narrow reading of the Supreme Court’s definition of perjury as an unambiguously false statement made with intent to deceive.

Let us count some of the ways. Following are excerpts from the deposition transcript, with analysis interspersed:

Q: At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky together alone in the Oval Office?

A: I don’t recall, but as I said, when she worked at the legislative affairs office,… it seems to me she brought things to me once or twice on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop it off, exchange a few words and go, she was there….

Q:… [I]t was possible, then, that you were alone with her, but you have no specific recollection of that ever happening?

A: Yes, that’s correct….

Q: At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone in the hallway between the Oval Office and this kitchen area?

A: I don’t believe so….

Q: At any time have you and Monica Lewinsky ever been alone together in any room in the White House?

A:… I have no specific recollection,…

These are clear, calculated lies — unless you believe that Clinton could have forgotten more than 10 sexual encounters, mostly in that hallway, and many other solo meetings described by Lewinsky, in the Oval Office, the president’s private study, the private bathroom across from the study, and elsewhere, the last one just 20 days before the deposition.

Q: Did she tell you she had been served with a subpoena in this case?

A: No. I don’t know if she had been….

Vernon Jordan testified that he had told Clinton about her subpoena on Dec. 19.

Q: Have you ever talked to Monica Lewinsky about the possibility that she might be asked to testify in this lawsuit?

A: I’m not sure, and let me tell you why I’m not sure.

[Then he mentioned one time when he might have joked to her in passing that she might be called.]

Lewinsky testified that she spoke three times with Clinton about the prospect of testifying: in a 2 a.m. phone call on Dec. 17, when he told her that she was on the Jones lawyers’ witness list, that she might be able to sign an affidavit to avoid testifying, and that "you can always say you were coming to see Betty or you were bringing me letters"; in a Dec. 28 meeting, in which they discussed what she might do with subpoenaed gifts; and in a Jan. 5 phone call, in which Clinton suggested a misleading explanation that she could give for her involuntary transfer from the White House to the Pentagon.

Q: Well, have you ever given any gifts to Monica Lewinsky?

A: I don’t recall. Do you know what they were?…

They had exchanged many gifts of various kinds over many months, as recently as the Dec. 28 meeting, when Clinton gave her at least seven gifts.

Q: Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?

A: No.

Q: If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie?

A: It’s certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth.

Q: I think I used the term "sexual affair." And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the court?…

[The modified definition states: "For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in ‘sexual relations’ when the person knowingly engages in or causes… contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person."] A: I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I’ve never had an affair with her. In addition, Clinton sat silent while his lawyer Robert Bennett tried to block questions about Lewinsky by misleading (perhaps unwittingly) Judge Wright. Bennett said that Lewinsky "has filed an affidavit, which [the Jones lawyers] are in possession of, saying that there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton." He noted that Clinton was "fully aware" of the affidavit, in which Lewinsky denied ever having "sexual relations" with him.

Later in the deposition, Clinton was questioned by Bennett:

Q: In [Lewinsky’s] affidavit, she says this: "I have never had a sexual relationship with the President…. ." Is that a true and accurate statement as far as you know it?

A: That is absolutely true.

Clinton has claimed — in his Aug. 17 grand jury testimony, his speech to the nation that night and his current legal defense — that this testimony was "legally accurate." His rationale, spelled out in his grand jury testimony, is that his repeated receipt of oral sex from Lewinsky amounted neither to a "sexual affair," nor to a "sexual relationship" — both of which Clinton said necessarily include sexual intercourse — nor to "sexual relations" as defined in the Jan. 17 deposition.

This rationale is both preposterous and dishonest. It is preposterous because it boils down to saying that while Lewinsky had "sexual relations" with Clinton (by giving him oral sex), he had no "sexual relations" with her. This tortured notion is based on an unreasonable reading of the definition of "sexual relations" approved by Judge Wright, in the context of a lawsuit accusing Clinton of (let us remember) soliciting oral sex from Paula Jones. No wonder the judge has raised the possibility of holding Clinton in contempt of court.

More important, Clinton’s claim is dishonest because it depends on a factual premise that is explicitly and credibly contradicted by Lewinsky: that while passively receiving oral sex over many months from her, Clinton never once touched her breasts or genitals.

During the president’s Aug. 17 grand jury testimony, prosecutors pinned him down on this point:

Q: The question is, if Monica Lewinsky says that while you were in the Oval Office you touched her breasts would she be lying?

A: That is not my recollection. My recollection is that I did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky,… as I understood this term to be defined.

Q: Including touching her breast, kissing her breast, touching her genitalia?

A: That’s correct.

And that, folks, is perjury before a criminal grand jury, unless you believe that Lewinsky lied to the grand jury when she said that Clinton did those things on 10 different occasions, with identified dates, times and locations.

True, Lewinsky is a (self-described) lifelong liar. But no more so than Clinton. And she is far more believable than he is in this context. Starr’s report explains why: Lewinsky’s testimony about her sexual encounters with Clinton is very detailed and specific; she is corroborated by a draft letter she once wrote to Clinton, and by the testimony of seven friends, family members and counselors that she told them explicitly in 1996 and 1997 of how Clinton had fondled her on various occasions; she was an extremely reluctant witness.

Clinton, on the other hand, has a clear motive to contradict Lewinsky’s accounts of him fondling her: to preserve some shred of a rationale for insisting that his perjurious denials of "sexual relations" with Lewinsky were truthful.

Clinton can still raise a technical legal defense against charges of perjury in the Jan. 17 deposition — although not in his grand jury testimony — by arguing that his lies were not "material" (or important) enough in the context of the Paula Jones lawsuit to be prosecutable. The argument rests on the subsequent decisions by Judge Wright to exclude the Lewinsky evidence and to dismiss the Jones lawsuit. But the threshold for materiality is "extremely low," in the words of Attorney General Janet Reno.

The evidence that Clinton obstructed justice — mainly through witness-tampering and concealment of subpoenaed gifts — is more subtle but nonetheless substantial. It involves both Lewinsky and Betty Currie, who, Starr’s evidence shows, acted as a kind of see-no-evil facilitator of the Clinton-Lewinsky relationship.

It is undisputed that Clinton and Lewinsky had an agreement that they would do what they could to conceal their affair. Starr alleges persuasively that this evolved during the Paula Jones lawsuit into "an understanding [that they would] jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme" that included lying under oath and the filing of a false affidavit by Lewinsky, at Clinton’s suggestion, which the president then used at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about her; when that failed, he lied under oath about their relationship.

Starr’s evidence that Clinton also sought to encourage Betty Currie to lie at a time when she was a possible witness in the Jones case is also substantial.

According to the testimony of reluctant witness Currie, Clinton called his secretary at home on the night of Jan. 17, just after his deposition, and made an unusual request that she come to the office the next day, a Sunday. He wanted to discuss Monica Lewinsky.

After Currie had arrived at her desk on Jan. 18, she later testified, a "concerned" Clinton said a series of things in quick succession — "more like statements than questions" — while indicating by his demeanor that he wanted her to agree with him:

"You were always there when she was there, right? We were never really alone."

"You could see and hear everything."

"Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?" When asked about this Jan. 18 meeting in his grand jury testimony, Clinton said he had been trying not to influence Currie to lie but "to quickly refresh my memory."

Kendall argues that this could not have been witness- tampering, because Currie has never been called as a witness in the Jones case. That’s a plausible, if debatable, legal point, but in the context of Clinton’s cover-up campaign, it’s less than compelling.

Similarly, Clinton’s lawyer can argue that his conversations with Lewinsky and Currie were too elliptical to amount to obstruction of justice. But a president may be held to a high standard of accountability for seeking even subtly to shape the potential testimony of subordinates. That, at least, is suggested by the articles of impeachment against President Nixon, who was charged not with anything as hard to prove as instructing subordinates to lie, but with "approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements."

Grounds For Impeachment
Are Clinton’s alleged perjuries and obstructions "high crimes"? Do they qualify as grounds for impeachment? Or is this all "personal and not impeachable," in the words of Clinton counsel Kendall?

The answer to that question will be informed by politics and the public’s will, but also by the Constitution and the precedents. These suggest that a President should not be impeached in the absence of grave misconduct, but leave unclear how grave it must be. Criminality in the strict legal sense appears to be neither necessary nor sufficient. The seven officials (all judges) who have been removed from office by the Senate since 1803 faced charges as diverse as drunkenness on the bench and "loose morals" (John Pickering in 1803), income tax evasion (Harry E. Claiborne in 1986), and perjury (Alcee L. Hastings, also charged with bribery, and Walter L. Nixon, both in 1989).

Kendall premises his case against impeachment on the idea that only "wrongs committed against our system of government" are impeachable. He cites Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 65, which describes impeachment as the Constitution’s remedy for "the abuse or violation of some public trust," and constitutional scholar Charles L. Black Jr.’s 1974 book, Impeachment: A Handbook, which says impeachment is warranted only by "serious assaults on the integrity of the processes of government" or "such crimes as would so stain a president as to make his continuance in office dangerous to public order."

But Kendall loses this argument even on his own terms. To the extent that his point is that Clinton should not be impeached for having a tawdry affair with a 22-year-old intern in the Oval Office, he’ll get no argument from me. But it is a grave "abuse or violation of some public trust" for the president — whom the Constitution mandates "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed" — to violate those laws and to use government personnel and resources in an effort to make sure that the laws are not faithfully executed.

Clinton’s lesser abuses are also of some relevance as aggravating factors. They include using his government-paid subordinate Lewinsky as "special assistant to the president for [oral sex]" (in her words), using his government-paid secretary as a kind of Oval Office sex facilitator, and using his U.N. ambassador as a girlfriend-outplacement service.

Clinton’s defenders gloss over one strain in the Framers’ discussions of the presidency: the emphasis by James Madison and others on the need for people of "virtue" in high office. Madison saw impeachment as an indispensable remedy for, among other things, "the negligence or perfidy of a president." Perfidy, anyone?

Clinton As Victim?
President Clinton and his defenders have suggested that the issue should not be his own conduct but that of his adversaries. But Starr’s report is persuasive in addressing Clinton’s invasion-of-privacy complaint: "All Americans, including the President, are entitled to enjoy a private family life, free from public or governmental scrutiny. But the privacy concerns raised in this case are subject to limits,…

"The first limit was imposed when the President was sued in federal court for alleged sexual harassment. The evidence in such litigation is often personal…. Nevertheless, Congress and the Supreme Court have concluded that embarrassment-related concerns must give way to the greater interest in allowing aggrieved parties to pursue their claims….

"The second limit was imposed when Judge Wright… specifically ordered the President, on more than one occasion, to provide the requested information about relationships with other women, including Monica Lewinsky…. Perjury and attempts to obstruct justice can never be an acceptable response to a court order,…

"The third limit is unique to the President…. In view of the enormous trust and responsibility attendant to his high Office, the President has a manifest duty to ensure that his conduct at all times complies with the law of the land." Starr has also been criticized, with a bit more reason, for having laid out so many sordid details of Lewinsky’s testimony as to suggest an agenda of humiliating the president. But Starr’s report plausibly argues that considerable detail was necessitated by Clinton’s persistence during his grand jury testimony that he had been "legally accurate" in his Jan. 17 deposition. Given that, "the detail is critical" to proving Clinton’s perjuries, Starr argues, because it "provides credibility and corroboration" for the Lewinsky testimony contradicted by Clinton.

Has He Earned Forgiveness?
President Clinton has admitted an "inappropriate" relationship and has sought forgiveness from just about everybody in the country except Starr and Linda Tripp. But his admissions and apologies have been extracted from him, bit by bit, first by the accumulation of evidence, such as Lewinsky’s famous DNA- stained dress, and since then by Clinton’s growing realization that his defiant Aug. 17 speech was a disaster.

Clinton will not earn forgiveness from the public unless and until he has, at the very least, stopped lying. He hasn’t done that — and it appears he won’t. His current defense rests heavily on asserting that his former girlfriend is lying about the nature of their sex acts, not he. Believe that one?

Where Lies The National Interest?
Impeachment is largely a backward-looking exercise. But it has a built-in forward-looking aspect, which should carry some weight with those who are not fully convinced that the president is guilty of "high crimes."

The forward-looking question is whether President Clinton can ever recover his ability to be a credible and effective leader, in either foreign or domestic policy. More and more people seem to think the answer is no. A crippled presidency is danger-ous in many ways. It is bad for the country. For all these reasons, President Clinton should go.