Did Clinton lie under oath

1. The core factual finding: an admission and a judicial sanction

Clinton admitted to having misled investigators about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky when prosecutors and congressional investigators pressed the issue, an admission recorded in grand jury testimony and cited repeatedly in congressional materials summarizing the investigation ^{[1] [4]}. Separate from that admission, a federal judge later imposed monetary sanctions against Clinton for statements under oath denying sexual relations with Lewinsky during proceedings related to the Paula Jones civil case, a penalty reported at the time and recorded in court reporting ^[2].

2. What the House and the independent counsel concluded

Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s report argued that Clinton committed perjury and obstructed justice, laying out grounds that led the House Judiciary Committee to recommend articles of impeachment; the full House voted to impeach on two counts tied to perjury and obstruction ^{[5] [1]}. The House managers framed the case as a willful corruption of the justice system by perjury and obstruction, and the House adopted two articles—perjury to the grand jury and obstruction of justice—while rejecting other proposed counts ^{[5] [4]}.

3. Why the Senate acquitted: legal thresholds and partisan reality

When the matter reached the Senate, senators concluded the constitutional threshold for removal was not met: the trial opened in January 1999 and after deliberation the Senate voted to acquit on both articles, falling short of the two‑thirds majority required for conviction and removal ^{[3] [6]}. The acquittal reflected a mix of legal judgment about whether the conduct rose to “high crimes and misdemeanors” and partisan calculation, a division that commentators and scholars later highlighted as leaving some legal questions unsettled ^{[7] [8]}.

4. Competing interpretations: lying under oath versus impeachable offense

Legal authorities and commentators split on whether perjury in this context amounted to an impeachable offense: some argued that false testimony to a grand jury is criminal perjury and thus impeachable, while others argued that the sexual nature of the misconduct made it a private failing insufficient to remove a president unless it also amounted to an abuse of office ^{[7] [8]}. Educational and historical summaries note that prosecutors and House managers insisted perjury and obstruction justified conviction, while many senators and legal analysts saw the matter as falling short of the constitutional standard for removal ^{[9] [3]}.

5. Political context, leaks, and the pathology of the probe

The Starr Report and the impeachment proceedings were entangled with intense partisan combat and public leaks—controversies about the report’s detail and media handling colored perceptions and contributed to accusations that prosecutorial zeal and political motives influenced the case against Clinton ^{[10] [5]}. Histories of the process emphasize that the investigation began in part with the Paula Jones litigation and expanded as Lewinsky’s involvement emerged, creating a political maelstrom that shaped both the legal approach and the congressional votes ^{[4] [10]}.

6. Bottom line

Factually: yes—Clinton gave false testimony under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and was later sanctioned by a federal judge for misleading statements in a related deposition ^{[1] [2]}. Institutionally and politically: the House found those falsehoods sufficient to impeach for perjury and obstruction, but the Senate acquitted him, leaving the ultimate constitutional question—what kinds of falsehoods by a president justify removal—politically contested and legally unresolved in practice ^{[1] [3] [8]}.