There are several good reasons why President Bill Clinton should not resign.
This is despite his impeachment on two articles by the House of Representatives at the weekend. Two further articles of impeachment were not approved.
Impeachment is a process provided for in the US Constitution for high office holders, including the President. Impeachment, of itself is not a finding of guilt, rather it is a statement that the President has a case to answer. The case is answered in the Senate, which tries the President. It can only convict on a two-thirds majority vote and the trial is presided over by the Chief Justice.
The Senate trial is likely to be much longer than the process in the House of Representatives. It will involve lawyers, the taking of evidence and cross-examination. The fact that a trial would take weeks, probably months, is one element of a case in favour of a resignation. It would be better that the government of the most powerful country in the world be in the hands of someone undistracted by a trial and the fear of losing office. But that is not a very strong argument. And it would set a dangerous precedent that mere impeachment by a simple majority in the House would give rise to an expectation of resignation. The Constitution, however, provides for a two-part process.
The factors against resignation are many. First, the House voted largely along party lines. It is a move by Republicans to remove and discredit a popular, though flawed, president. The US system is not like the British or Australian system where the head of government stays only for as long as he or she has majority in the Parliament. In Britain and Australia the head of government does get thrown out for political reasons. In the US the President is elected for a fixed term and under the Constitution cannot be removed except upon impeachment and trial and conviction in the Senate for “”treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours”.
The vote in the House of Representatives seemed more like a party political vote than an arraignment for trial. It seemed the Republicans wanted political revenge on the man who prevented them using their big gains in the 1992 congressional election to pursue a hard-right policy change and down-sizing of government. They also seemed determined to weaken politically a man who has remained so popular with electorate that he has eroded the capacity of the Republicans to extract the most from their congressional majority. The Lewinsky affair gave them the ideal opportunity.
True Mr Clinton was silly to give them that opportunity and he has behaved in a tawdry and deceitful way, but his transgressions have not gone to the heart of government to warrant his removal from office. They have not corrupted government itself. Indeed, the abuse of power article was defeated in the House.
The two articles that were sustained were that he committed perjury in his testimony in August before independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s grand jury and that he obstructed justice in covering up the Lewinsky affair.
Perjury is notoriously difficult to prove in cases like this where words have shades of meaning. The cover-up and obstruction of justice involved a civil claim of sexual harassment. There was no cover-up of breaches of the criminal law. This is a case of a man who cannot control his sexual desires, not a corrupt abuser of power, unlike Richard Nixon. They certainly do not constitute treason or bribery, and it must be doubted whether they constitute “”high” crimes and misdemeanours.
And unlike the Nixon case, this one is persuading very few in Mr Clinton’s own party. The vote in the House was on party lines (with rare exception) and was very close. If the Democrats had had a majority on the floor the impeachment would have lost.
That situation is unlikely to change and a party-line vote in the Senate will result in an acquittal. The almost certainty of an acquittal is a reason Mr Clinton should not resign. If the Republicans cannot get broad enough support to persuade enough Democrats to get a two-thirds majority, then the case will be seen for what it is: a hunt for any wrong-doing whatever to hound the president from office. The danger is that the standard for personal conduct will be set too high and that virtually any President (for all humans are flawed) will be liable to lose office if he or she loses majority support in the House.
Of course, Mr Clinton remains liable in the ordinary courts for his actions, whatever the fate of the Senate trial. Though if he is not convicted by a two-thirds majority in the Senate, it seems unlikely that he would be convicted unanimously by a jury.
Mr Clinton is entitled to run the full process of the Constitution. His chances of survival are quite good. He is not in the position of Richard Nixon who had clearly lost the support of most of his own party because of the seriousness of his wrong-doing and who faced inevitable eviction from office. Mr Clinton is also in a better position than President Andrew Johnson, the only other president to be impeached. Johnson won his trial, 130 years ago, by one vote.
It would be better for the Republicans to recognise that Mr Clinton is very likely to be acquitted and aim lower than seeking his removal from office. At present the danger is that Mr Clinton will escape any punishment or reprimand. It is important that the Congress register its disapproval in a bipartisan way. It seems very likely that the Democrats, while rejecting that his wrongs constitute high enough crimes for removal from office, would agree to some form of formal reprimand. Moreover, Mr Clinton himself has indicated that he would accept some form of compromise. He said after the impeachment that he hoped to find a constitutional and fair means to resolve the crisis. The Republicans should pursue that. The present all-or-nothing approach will end in an unsatisfactory result either way.