This is a trial that never should have happened.Clinton should have reached an early settlement (or defaulted)in his suit with Jones,which would have happened if he'd been honest with his own lawyers about his sexual history.The Supreme Court should have struck down the independent counsel law as a violation of separation of powers when it had a chance to do so in 1988.The Supreme Court missed a second chance to prevent impeachment when it failed to recognize,in Clinton v Jones,that civil suits against a sitting president had the serious potential to be a major distraction from the president's duties.Clinton should not have trusted Lewinsky to be discreet.Kenneth Starr should not have engaged in a sting operation against the President of the United States,and the Administration should not have engaged in an operation to trash the OIC. Finally,of course,the President should not have lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Yet,the trial did happen--and what can be learned from the experience?Several things,it turns out. We learned that politics are very likely to determine how one views evidence in impeachment case--not a surprising lesson to be sure,but the final votes in both the House and Senate turned out to be surprisingly partisan.Moreover,the analysis of academics-people trained to look objectively at evidence-who threw themselves into the impeachment fray was,if anything, even more partisan than that of the politicians. We learned that the Administration's decision to go on "a war footing"when allegations of the President's affair with Lewinsky first surfaced proved costly.Relentless attacks by Clinton and his aides on the Office of Independent Counsel and Linda Tripp angered Republicans,polarized debate,and made impeachment by the House inevitable.At the same time,the aggressive approach might have made acquittal in the Senate inevitiable.) We learned also that an impeachment trial is not necessarily a national calamity and might even have some benefits.George W.Bush has shown that the presidency was not seriously weakened by the ordeal.The public might be better off today for having had to think seriously about issues of both private and public morality during the impeachment process.The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal also contributed to a franker national discussion about sex and,by demonstrating how many skeletons exist in the closets of politicians,might-it is hoped-cause future elections to turn more on matters of substance than what one of the candidates did in bed sometime in the past. Finally,as Richard Posner astutely observes in An Affair of State,the impeachment of William Clinton has "by the dint of its riviting detail"made it "difficult to take presidents seriously."The destruction of the mystique of the presidency is for "those who think that authority depends upon mystery"a consequence to be lamented.But Posner disagrees:"My guess is that they are wrong,that Americans haves reached a level of political sophistication at which they can take in stride the knowledge that the nation's political and intellectual leaders are their peers,and not their paragons.The nation does not depend upon the superior virtue of one man.This is a trial that never should have happened. Clinton should have reached an early settlement （or defaulted） in his suit with Jones, which would have happened if he'd been honest with his own lawyers about his sexual history. The Supreme Court should have struck down the independent counsel law as a violation of separation of powers when it had a chance to do so in 1988. The Supreme Court missed a second chance to prevent impeachment when it failed to recognize, in Clinton v Jones, that civil suits against a sitting president had the serious potential to be a major distraction from the president's duties. Clinton should not have trusted Lewinsky to be discreet. Kenneth Starr should not have engaged in a sting operation against the President of the United States, and the Administration should not have engaged in an operation to trash the OIC. Finally, of course, the President should not have lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Yet, the trial did happen——and what can be learned from the experience? Several things, it turns out. We learned that politics are very likely to determine how one views evidence in impeachment case——not a surprising lesson to be sure, but the final votes in both the House and Senate turned out to be surprisingly partisan. Moreover, the analysis of academics——people trained to look objectively at evidence——who threw themselves into the impeachment fray was, if anything, even more partisan than that of the politicians. We learned that the Administration's decision to go on "a war footing" when allegations of the President's affair with Lewinsky first surfaced proved costly. Relentless attacks by Clinton and his aides on the Office of Independent Counsel and Linda Tripp angered Republicans, polarized debate, and made impeachment by the House inevitable. （ At the same time, the aggressive approach might have made acquittal in the Senate inevitiable.） We learned also that an impeachment trial is not necessarily a national calamity and might even have some benefits. George W. Bush has shown that the presidency was not seriously weakened by the ordeal. The public might be better off today for having had to think seriously about issues of both private and public morality during the impeachment process. The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal also contributed to a franker national discussion about sex and, by demonstrating how many skeletons exist in the closets of politicians, might——it is hoped-cause future elections to turn more on matters of substance than what one of the candidates did in bed sometime in the past. Finally, as Richard Posner astutely observes in An Affair of State, the impeachment of William Clinton has "by the dint of its riviting detail" made it "difficult to take presidents seriously." The destruction of the mystique of the presidency is for "those who think that authority depends upon mystery" a consequence to be lamented. But Posner disagrees: "My guess is that they are wrong, that Americans haves reached a level of political sophistication at which they can take in stride the knowledge that the nation's political and intellectual leaders are their peers, and not their paragons. The nation does not depend upon the superior virtue of one man