Whether they are impeachable or not is a close call. Indeed, they are nowhere near as egregious as the abuses of official power by Richard Nixon, nor are they heinous acts of private conduct that one might expect for eviction from the White House. A matter of trust. In such a close case, it is also right and proper that Congress pay heed to public sentiment. Through the ballot box and polls, Americans have sent abundant signals that they believe Clinton has otherwise been a good steward and should remain in office.
Overwhelming majorities oppose impeachment.
In the elections of 1936, the public sent a similarly clear signal, in that case that it was sick of having the Supreme Court overturn New Deal legislation. What was good for the court then is fine for Congress now. Yet, for the House to turn down impeachment, based on current evidence, does not mean Congress should wash its hands of the matter, as a growing number of Republicans and Democrats are now asserting. At the end of the day, we should recognize that the heart of this case is not about Clinton, nor is it about Starr. His defenders would have us believe that lying under oath, especially about sex, is a trivial violation of the law.