Because that history does not provide specific rules for how to evaluate a case against the President, it is providing ammunition for both Mr. Clinton's critics and his defenders. In their rebuttal to Mr. Starr's report yesterday, the President's lawyers focused on that issue. But because impeachment is a political process, some legal experts said, the definition of what might constitute high crimes and misdemeanors might change over time. Although there are strong opinions on the subject, there is no clear answer as to whether private sexual conduct, or even perjury or obstruction of justice to cover up an embarrassing relationship, could be described as a high crime or misdemeanor within the meaning of the Constitution.
Legal scholars say that that abbreviated explanation has been widely misunderstood.
They say it correctly reflects that the process is intended to be political. Even as they were reading Mr. Starr's report yesterday, members of the House, which acts as the indicting body, were grappling with what legal standard to apply. If the House charged Mr. Clinton, the Senate would be called upon to rule on the charges. A two-thirds vote in the Senate would be required to remove Mr. Clinton. We are constrained by the precedents.