Clinton Impeachment Trial In 1999,for only the second time in United States history,the Senate conducted an impeachment trial of a President.The acquittal of William Jefferson Clinton on February 12 came as no great surprise,given the near party-line vote on impeachment charges in the House of Representatives leading to the trial. Despite its predictable outcome,the impeachment trial of President Clinton is well worth studying,both for what it says about the failure of the judiciary and political institutions to respond adequately to an unprecedented situation,and what it tells us about the failures of Bill Clinton,the all-too-human occupant of the nation's highest office.The trial also raises fascinating questions about the distinction between public morality and private morality. Background:The Paula Jones Sexual Harassment Suit The impeachment saga of President Clinton has its origins in a sexual harassment lawsuit brought in Arkansas in May,1994 by Paula Jones,a former Arkansas state employee.In her suit, Jones alleged that on May 8,1991,while she helped to staff a state-sponsored management conference at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock,a state trooper and member of Governor Clinton's security detail,Danny Ferguson,approached her and told her that the Governor would like to meet her in his hotel suite.Minutes later,Jones,seeing this as an opportunity to advance her career,took the elevator to Clinton's suite.There,according to her disputed account,Clinton made a series of increasingly aggressive moves,culminating in his dropping his pants exposing an erection--and then asking Jones to "kiss it."Jones claimed that she stood and told the Governor,"I'm not that kind of girl."As she left,Clinton stopped her by the door and said,"You're a smart girl,let's keep this between ourselves." Lawyers for Clinton argued that the Jones suit would distract him from the important tasks of his office and should not be allowed to go forward while he occupied the White House.Clinton's immunity claim eventually reached the United States Supreme Court.The Court ruled unanimously in May,1997 against the President,and allowed discovery in the case to proceed.As Federal Appeals Court Judge (and Reagan appointee)Richard A.Posner noted in An Affair of State:The Investigation,Impeachment,and Trial of President Clinton,the Court's "inept," "unpragmatic,"and "backward-looking"decision in Clinton v Jones,and an earlier decision by the Court upholding the constitutionality of the act authorizing the appointment of independent counsels,had major consequences: "Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky,an affair intrinsically devoid of significance to anyone except Lewinsky,would have remained a secret from the public.The public would not have been worse for not knowing about it.There would have been no impeachment inquiry,no impeachment,no concerns about the motives behind the President's military actions against terrorists and rogue states in the summer and fall of 1998,no spectacle of the United States Senate play-acting at adjudication.The Supreme Court's decisions created a situation that led the President and his defenders into the pattern of cornered-rat behavior that engendered aClinton Impeachment Trial In 1999, for only the second time in United States history, the Senate conducted an impeachment trial of a President. The acquittal of William Jefferson Clinton on February 12 came as no great surprise, given the near party-line vote on impeachment charges in the House of Representatives leading to the trial. Despite its predictable outcome, the impeachment trial of President Clinton is well worth studying, both for what it says about the failure of the judiciary and political institutions to respond adequately to an unprecedented situation, and what it tells us about the failures of Bill Clinton, the all-too-human occupant of the nation's highest office. The trial also raises fascinating questions about the distinction between public morality and private morality. Background: The Paula Jones Sexual Harassment Suit The impeachment saga of President Clinton has its origins in a sexual harassment lawsuit brought in Arkansas in May, 1994 by Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee. In her suit, Jones alleged that on May 8, 1991, while she helped to staff a state-sponsored management conference at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, a state trooper and member of Governor Clinton's security detail, Danny Ferguson, approached her and told her that the Governor would like to meet her in his hotel suite. Minutes later, Jones, seeing this as an opportunity to advance her career, took the elevator to Clinton's suite. There, according to her disputed account, Clinton made a series of increasingly aggressive moves, culminating in his dropping his pants exposing an erection——and then asking Jones to "kiss it." Jones claimed that she stood and told the Governor, "I'm not that kind of girl." As she left, Clinton stopped her by the door and said, "You're a smart girl, let's keep this between ourselves." Lawyers for Clinton argued that the Jones suit would distract him from the important tasks of his office and should not be allowed to go forward while he occupied the White House. Clinton's immunity claim eventually reached the United States Supreme Court. The Court ruled unanimously in May, 1997 against the President, and allowed discovery in the case to proceed. As Federal Appeals Court Judge （and Reagan appointee） Richard A. Posner noted in An Affair of State: The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President Clinton, the Court's "inept," "unpragmatic," and "backward-looking" decision in Clinton v Jones, and an earlier decision by the Court upholding the constitutionality of the act authorizing the appointment of independent counsels, had major consequences: "Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, an affair intrinsically devoid of significance to anyone except Lewinsky, would have remained a secret from the public. The public would not have been worse for not knowing about it. There would have been no impeachment inquiry, no impeachment, no concerns about the motives behind the President's military actions against terrorists and rogue states in the summer and fall of 1998, no spectacle of the United States Senate play-acting at adjudication. The Supreme Court's decisions created a situation that led the President and his defenders into the pattern of cornered-rat behavior that engendered a