December 19, 1998 House of Representatives Impeaches President Bill Clinton

On December 19, 1998, you witnessed a historic moment when the U.S. House of Representatives impeached President Bill Clinton — only the second time a sitting president faced impeachment. The House passed two articles: perjury before a grand jury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212). Two other articles failed. The charges stemmed from Clinton's sworn denials about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. There's much more to uncover about what led here and what happened next.

Key Takeaways

• On December 19, 1998, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Bill Clinton on two articles.
• Article I, charging perjury before a federal grand jury, passed 228–206.
• Article III, charging obstruction of justice, passed 221–212.
• Article II (civil deposition perjury) and Article IV (abuse of power) both failed in the full House.
• The impeachment originated from Kenneth Starr's investigation and Clinton's sworn denials about Monica Lewinsky.

What Led to Clinton's Impeachment in 1998?

The Clinton impeachment didn't emerge overnight—it grew out of a web of legal troubles tied to a sexual relationship and the sworn testimony it produced. You can trace the legal fallout directly to the Paula Jones civil case, where Clinton gave sworn testimony that independent counsel Kenneth Starr later scrutinized closely.

Starr's investigation concluded before the House authorized an impeachment inquiry on October 8, 1998, following the release of his detailed report. The scandal shattered public trust, exposed deep political polarization between Democrats and Republicans, and forced uncomfortable questions about media ethics in covering a sitting president's private conduct.

Central allegations included perjury and obstruction of justice—charges rooted entirely in what Clinton said, and did, under oath.

How the Monica Lewinsky Scandal and Paula Jones Case Triggered Impeachment

What began as a civil lawsuit filed by Paula Jones set off a chain of events that would ultimately bring Clinton to the brink of removal from office. Jones accused Clinton of sexual harassment, and during sworn deposition testimony in that civil case, he denied a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. That denial triggered perjury allegations that Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr pursued aggressively.

You can't separate the legal consequences from the surrounding media sensationalism that shaped public perception throughout the scandal. While many Americans debated private morality versus legal accountability, Starr's investigation exposed sworn false statements and possible obstruction. Those findings gave House Republicans the legal foundation they needed to pursue formal impeachment charges against a sitting president.

How Kenneth Starr Built the Case That Forced a Congressional Response

Kenneth Starr's investigation transformed a civil harassment lawsuit into a federal criminal inquiry that Congress couldn't ignore. As independent counsel, Starr expanded his mandate beyond the original Whitewater probe, targeting sworn testimony Clinton gave in Paula Jones's civil case. When evidence of the Lewinsky relationship surfaced, Starr pursued grand jury testimony and documented potential perjury and obstruction of justice.

Starr's media strategy proved equally consequential. His team released the detailed Starr Report directly to the public before Congress could fully digest it, generating enormous political pressure. You can trace the House's October 8, 1998, authorization of a formal impeachment inquiry directly to that report's release. Starr effectively forced lawmakers to respond by making inaction politically untenable in the months leading to the December 19 vote. Decades later, high-profile prosecutions such as the Combs case demonstrated that juries can acquit on the most serious charges while still returning convictions on lesser counts, a reminder that prosecutorial burden of proof shapes verdicts as much as the underlying evidence.

The Four Articles of Impeachment and What Each One Charged

Once Starr's report landed on Capitol Hill, the House Judiciary Committee drafted four distinct articles of impeachment, each targeting a specific category of alleged misconduct.

These charges pushed constitutional interpretation and political norms to their limits.

• Article I: Perjury before a federal grand jury
• Article II: Perjury during the Paula Jones civil deposition
• Article III: Obstruction of justice by influencing witness testimony and concealing the relationship
• Article IV: Abuse of presidential power

Each article reflected a deliberate legal framing, forcing members to decide whether Clinton's actions crossed thresholds warranting removal.

You can see how committee votes fell sharply along party lines, revealing that constitutional interpretation rarely happens in a vacuum, and political norms shape every step of the process.

How the House Judiciary Committee Voted on Impeachment

Four articles of impeachment came before the House Judiciary Committee, and the voting pattern told a story as significant as the charges themselves. When you examine the committee dynamics, you'll notice that members voted almost entirely along party lines, revealing deep partisan divisions embedded in the voting procedure itself.

The committee advanced all four articles to the full House. Republicans supported each article, while Democrats opposed them nearly in unison. One article targeted perjury in Clinton's civil deposition. Another charged perjury before a federal grand jury. A third addressed obstruction of justice, and a fourth alleged abuse of power.

You can see that the committee's split votes signaled what was coming — a bitterly divided full House debate that would ultimately decide Clinton's fate on December 19, 1998.

How the House Vote on December 19, 1998 Broke Down by Article

When the full House voted on December 19, 1998, the results split sharply by article. Partisan dynamics shaped every outcome, and media framing amplified each roll call as a defining political moment. Here's how each article performed:

• Article I (grand jury perjury): Passed 228–206
• Article II (civil case perjury): Failed 205–229
• Article III (obstruction of justice): Passed 221–212
• Article IV (abuse of power): Failed in the House

You can see that only two articles survived the full House vote. The chamber approved perjury before a grand jury and obstruction of justice, while rejecting the civil case perjury and abuse of power charges. Clinton became only the second U.S. president impeached by the House. Just as landmark rulings like the Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick decision reshaped judicial review standards in Canada, the Clinton impeachment vote redefined the political and legal boundaries of presidential accountability in the United States.

Why Two Articles Passed and Two Were Rejected by the Full House

The split outcome came down to how convincingly each charge tied Clinton's conduct to a clear abuse of the judicial process.

Articles I and III centered on grand jury perjury and obstruction of justice — offenses that felt concrete and legally grounded. That clarity influenced the political calculus for enough swing-vote Republicans to push both articles past 218 votes.

Articles II and IV struggled because they appeared weaker on the evidence. The civil deposition perjury charge struck many members as legally ambiguous, and public perception of the abuse-of-power article was that it stretched too far beyond the core scandal. You can see the pattern clearly: the House rewarded specificity and punished overreach, keeping the impeachment narrowly focused on conduct most directly tied to sworn testimony. The stakes of assigning blame too broadly or too narrowly in high-profile proceedings had historical precedent, as seen when a judicial inquiry finding placed sole fault on a single party following the 1917 Halifax Explosion, a conclusion that proved deeply controversial in shaping public and legal debate.

Clinton's Senate Trial and Acquittal on February 12, 1999

With the House having passed two articles of impeachment, the Senate convened Clinton's trial in early 1999 — a proceeding that would decide whether he'd be removed from office. Senate procedures required a two-thirds majority for conviction, a threshold neither article reached.

On February 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted Clinton on both counts:

• Article I (grand jury perjury): Failed to reach the two-thirds threshold
• Article III (obstruction of justice): Also fell short of required votes
• Trial decorum: Chief Justice William Rehnquist presided throughout
• Acquittal implications: Clinton retained the presidency, establishing judicial precedent on impeachment limits

The Clinton acquittal came just years after the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre prompted the United Nations to place international terrorism on the General Assembly agenda, reflecting a broader era of global instability that shaped how democratic institutions responded to crises of legitimacy. You can see how this outcome reinforced the constitutional distinction between impeachment and removal, shaping future standards for presidential accountability.

How Clinton's Impeachment Changed the Standard for Removing a President

Clinton's impeachment didn't just reshape political norms — it redefined what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means in practice. Before 1998, only Andrew Johnson had faced impeachment, making the bar feel almost theoretical. Clinton's case forced you to confront a harder question: does personal misconduct, even under oath, justify removing an elected president?

The Senate's acquittal answered that question clearly. Perjury and obstruction weren't enough to clear impeachment thresholds when the public opposed removal and the underlying conduct lacked a direct abuse of presidential power. You can trace today's debates about impeachment standards directly back to that outcome. Clinton's trial fundamentally established that political will, public opinion, and the nature of the offense all factor into whether impeachment becomes removal. Similar principles of legislative frameworks addressing overrepresentation of marginalized groups have emerged in other policy arenas, such as Canada's 2019 Bill C-92, which tackled the disproportionate presence of Indigenous children in child welfare systems.