What was the outcome of the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton in 1999?

1. What the House charged and why

The House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment on December 19, 1998, charging President Clinton with perjury before a grand jury and obstruction of justice tied to his efforts to conceal a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky and his testimony in the Paula Jones civil suit; those articles were based in large part on the independent counsel Ken Starr’s investigation and report ^{[1] [5] [2]}. The underlying drama began with Paula Jones’s 1994 lawsuit and escalated after Lewinsky’s involvement surfaced, culminating in Starr’s detailed report that the House used to justify impeachment ^{[3] [5]}.

2. How the Senate trial unfolded

The Senate trial opened on January 7, 1999, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding and senators acting as jurors; managers from the House presented the case while Clinton’s lawyers mounted a defense that emphasized the private nature of the conduct and contested whether it met the constitutional standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors” ^{[6] [5]}. Procedural fights over witnesses and depositions consumed much of the early weeks, and by mid‑trial it was clear that a two‑thirds vote to convict was unlikely, given the Senate’s composition and many senators’ stated reluctance to remove a sitting president for conduct some described as personal misconduct rather than an attack on the state ^{[5] [4]}.

3. The vote and immediate legal aftermath

On February 12, 1999, the Senate voted to acquit President Clinton on both counts: the perjury article failed by the margin typically reported as 45–55, and the obstruction article resulted in a 50–50 split—both short of the two‑thirds threshold needed for removal ^{[7] [2]}. Clinton remained in office, but the cascade of legal consequences continued: he later entered an out‑of‑court settlement with Paula Jones for $850,000, and a federal judge cited him for civil contempt in April 1999 for testimony issues connected to the Jones litigation ^{[6] [2]}.

4. Political and public reaction

Public polling at the time showed that the impeachment process was unpopular with large segments of the electorate, and many Americans later said the episode harmed the country even as some polls briefly registered support for impeachment once ouster was seen as unlikely ^[8]. The episode reshaped congressional politics: prominent advocates of impeachment suffered political fallout, and the case became a lasting reference point for debates over partisanship, presidential accountability, and the scope of impeachment ^{[6] [3]}.

5. Competing interpretations and scholarly debate

Scholars and legal commentators remain divided: some argue the Senate’s acquittal affirmed a constitutional judgment that Clinton’s conduct did not rise to removal‑level offenses, while others contend the articles were politically motivated and lacked sufficient legal merit, a debate reflected in law reviews and congressional analysis pointing to a “substantiality” requirement for impeachment ^[4]. Observers also note an implicit agenda on both sides—Republicans seeking to hold the president accountable and Democrats (and some Republicans) resisting what they regarded as an overreach into private behavior—making the trial as much a political contest as a legal one ^{[4] [6]}.

6. Why the outcome matters historically

Clinton’s acquittal on February 12, 1999, left intact the constitutional framework that requires a supermajority for removal and reinforced the high political bar for ousting a president, while also sparking enduring questions about the appropriate boundaries of impeachment, the role of independent counsels, and the effect of partisan media coverage on constitutional processes ^{[1] [5] [4]}. The case remains a touchstone for subsequent impeachment fights and for debates over whether misconduct by presidents should be judged primarily in legalistic terms or through the lens of political accountability ^{[5] [9]}.