How did the Starr Report conclude about Bill Clinton's testimony under oath?

1. Starr’s core finding: Clinton lied under oath and committed perjury

Kenneth Starr opened his Referral by asserting that President Clinton “had lied under oath” during a sworn deposition and before a grand jury about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, and he explicitly concluded that those contradictory statements amounted to perjury warranting referral to Congress ^{[1] [3]}. Multiple mainstream reports summarized Starr’s conclusion the same way: that Clinton “lied under oath” and “engaged in obstruction of justice,” language Starr used in both his referral and public summaries of the report ^{[2] [3]}.

2. Evidence cited to support the perjury charge

Starr anchored his allegations in a detailed factual record that included grand jury testimony, contemporaneous recordings and memos, witness statements, and physical evidence—most notably DNA test results tying a semen stain on a dress to Clinton—which the report presented as corroboration of Lewinsky’s account and inconsistent presidential statements ^{[1] [3]}. The report also highlighted instances it described as witness coaching—such as alleged instructions to Betty Currie and other aides—to explain away Lewinsky’s White House visits, which Starr characterized as part of obstruction and witness tampering ^{[5] [3]}.

3. Legal framing: 11 impeachment “grounds” and the referral process

Starr organized his findings into 11 possible grounds for impeachment across categories like perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering and abuse of power, and he transmitted the 445‑page Referral to the House under the statutory obligation to report “substantial and credible information” of impeachable conduct ^{[1] [3]}. The Referral functioned as a roadmap for the House Judiciary Committee, providing evidentiary exhibits and legal argumentation intended to justify congressional action ^[3].

4. Criticisms of Starr’s conclusion and competing legal views

From the outset, Starr’s legal construction met resistance: critics argued the report stretched the legal definition of perjury, treated questions about consensual sexual conduct as improperly relevant, and overstated the criminality of some statements, while Clinton’s legal team maintained that his testimony was technically truthful in context ^{[1] [4]}. Commentators and legal analysts also debated whether the Lewinsky-related questioning was material to the underlying civil suit and whether Starr’s approach satisfied the strict elements required for criminal perjury convictions—debates the report acknowledged only by implication but that fueled broader skeptical coverage ^{[1] [4]}.

5. Political consequences and the mixed institutional judgment

The House of Representatives pursued the Referral, authorizing an impeachment inquiry and ultimately impeaching Clinton on two articles—perjury before a grand jury and obstruction of justice—largely along partisan lines based on Starr’s findings ^{[3] [6]}. The Senate, however, did not convict: Clinton was acquitted of both charges, reflecting an institutional split between Starr’s prosecutorial judgment and the political thresholds required for removal ^[6].

6. How to read Starr’s conclusion in context

Starr’s central assertion—that Clinton lied under oath—was the product of an exhaustive investigative compilation that combined testimonial and physical evidence and a prosecutorial judgment that those contradictions met the legal and constitutional standard for impeachment referral ^{[3] [1]}. At the same time, prominent contemporaneous and later critiques argued Starr’s reasoning expanded contested legal definitions and that rival legal readings, including Clinton’s lawyers’ claim of technical truthfulness, undercut the inevitability of Starr’s criminal labels—an important caveat for evaluating the report’s ultimate force ^{[4] [1]}.