The House Republicans have made their case to the Senate for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. The charges—the president perjured himself and obstructed justice in an effort to hide the facts of his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky—were numbingly familiar. No new revelations emerged about the extent of Clinton’s duplicity or his alleged "conspiracy" to influence the sworn testimony of Monica Lewinsky and his secretary Betty Currie. Also numbingly familiar appears to be the strictly party-line reaction to the House’s presentation and what looks to be the likely conclusion of this whole sad and bitter conflict—a party-line vote to acquit.

As we go to press, Clinton’s lawyers will begin presenting the president’s version of the facts to the Senate. This will be the first time the president’s legal representatives have a roughly equal opportunity to subject the House’s impeachment case and the Starr report to extended legal and public scrutiny. In doing so, the lawyers will undoubtedly attempt to show that Clinton did not violate the technical legal definition of perjury. Much of this argument will also be familiar—and unpersuasive. Clinton’s lawyers will also endeavor to show that the president’s leading conversations with Currie and the efforts to find Lewinsky a job outside of government fall short of any reasonable definition of "obstruction." Clinton’s legal team may have more luck refuting the obstruction charge. But most important, the president’s lawyers will make the constitutional case that even if the president is guilty as charged by the House, his offenses do not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors," and therefore do not warrant removal from office.

It should be clear, even to those who have been appalled by the excesses of the Starr investigation and the rank hypocrisy of some of Clinton’s Republican adversaries, that this president has little affinity for the truth. Yes, he was the victim of an out-of-control prosecutor and a transparently political sexual harassment law suit brought by Paula Jones. Those facts should mitigate his punishment, but they cannot excuse his actions. Fair-minded people disagree about what sanctions should be imposed against Clinton. A small but significant number of Americans think his lying and effort to manipulate the system disqualify him from office. The majority of Americans, however, continue to think that the president’s crimes do not justify eviction from the White House. That prudent conclusion has much to recommend it.

Republicans in the House insist that failure to remove Clinton for lying effectively places him "above the law." It is the "rule of law," not the exposure of private sexual sin, that is at stake, proclaimed Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) in his florid summing up of the House’s case to the Senate. But law must be rooted—and be seen to be rooted—in our most basic sense of justice and fairness. Whatever Clinton’s moral failings, most Americans worry that the case against him looks too much like entrapment. That Starr’s lengthy and free-wheeling investigations into Whitewater and related matters led to little more than charges of perjury about an essentially private matter is deeply troubling. Nor is the "rule of law" upheld by the prosecution of every crime or by the imposition of the maximum sentence against every offender. In fact, the unchecked prosecutorial power wielded by the office of independent counsel, not Clinton’s adolescent prevarications, has come to symbolize the abuse of the rule of law for many Americans.

President Clinton is not above the law. He should be prosecuted for perjury and any other credible charges. How and when he should be held accountable is the question. A good case can be made for prosecuting him after he leaves office. As former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell has said, legally the circumstances surrounding perjury determine the punishment. Our sense of justice requires that punishment fit the crime. Clinton’s pathetic offenses hardly rise to the level of treason or in any way constitute an assault on the constitutional order. It seems wildly disproportionate to remove him from office for his lies about Monica Lewinsky. For the duty of the Senate—where senators are both jurors and judges—is not only to evaluate the facts but also to determine how the law should be applied. As such, senators have an obligation to keep the bigger picture in mind-including the dangerous precedent set by partisan impeachment and its threat to the balance of power among the branches of government.

In his refusal to tell the truth or to place his nation’s interest before his own survival, Clinton has revealed himself to be a sorry excuse for a political, let alone a moral, leader. But Clinton’s example need not be followed by the senators now sitting in judgment on him. They should be able to place the greater good of the nation and the integrity of the Constitution above narrow partisan interests. They should rise above the standard set by the man in the dock as well as the excesses of the president’s political opponents.