The Post-Impeachment Trial of President Clinton

Should President Clinton have been removed from office?

In January of 1999, the House of Representatives began impeachment hearings on President William Jefferson Clinton. Impeachment proceedings began with House “prosecutors” explaining the Articles of Impeachment – the reasons for the accusations – and then continued with a brief against impeachment. Essentially, the House prosecutors brought charges against Clinton of perjury and obstruction of justice in two legal proceedings in which he was involved. Neither outside legal case involved his conduct as President of the United States – the way in which he fulfilled the basic duties of his office. Rather, they concerned his conduct while President – how he behaved during his term.

            The case against Clinton consisted of accusations that he lied to a Grand Jury and to investigators looking into his alleged sexual harassment of Paula Jones and his sexual contact with Monica Lewinsky. The impeachment did not address the sexual activity or the harassment themselves.

            In this exercise, you will argue the question of whether the initiation of impeachment was a proper act under the Constitution. Should Congress try to remove a president for conduct such as that Clinton admitted?

            In this trial, the witnesses will be two people intimately involved in the case: President Clinton, and Judge Kenneth Starr, who led a commission to investigate anything possibly improper in the Clinton White House.

It is expected that attorneys and witnesses will supplement these basic facts with research on typical conditions and circumstances of the impeachment and the politics surrounding it. All outside research must be properly cited, using footnote format. AT LEAST ONE SOURCE CITED HERE MUST BE A BOOK. Attorneys’ and witnesses’ papers missing this research will not be accepted.

Due on the day of the trial

For attorneys: A two-page essay arguing your case. You must argue for or against the constitutionality of the law. This paper may serve as the basis for your opening statements in class. Some outside research on the circumstances of the case will be necessary

For witnesses: A two-page essay in the form of an “affidavit,” explaining your position. You need not argue over the constitutionality of the law, just describe and explain your behavior.

Due the class meeting after the trial

For Justices: A one- to two-page essay declaring your opinion in the matter. Present your decision and explain how you came to it.

Procedures:

9:05 – 9:20    Meet with your group to review the case

9:20 – 9:30      Opening arguments. Attorneys must present a three-minute minimum argument before the court.

9:30 – 9:45 (maximum)  questioning of Starr 

9:45 – 10:00 (maximum)  questioning of Clinton 

10:00 – 10:15              closing arguments

10:15 – 10:35 Justices deliberate

Each student will earn an essay (for the written work) and an oral presentation grade (for in-class work).

Assignments

Clinton: 

Starr:

Attorneys for Clinton:

Attorneys for prosecution:

Judges: