For what? Clinton still served two full terms. And most likely had he'd been impeached, we would have been stuck with "President Gore" for two terms.
IIRC, Starr concluded that Vince Foster’s death need not be investigated.
‘nough said.
Clinton was in fact impeached (accused of wrongdoing) in 1998. However, he was acquitted in the ensuing Senate trial, primarily because the GOP majority in the Senate at the time was not going to give Algore the opportunity to run as an incumbent President in 2000. The GOP majority in the Senate pretended that the House Managers did not prove their case, which is a laughable supposition at best, even though the rationale for that action was understandable.
You don’t seem either to remember or to grasp different roles in the prosecution of Clinton. Starr was the independent prosecutor. It was his office that pursued the lying under oath (the actual crime) that led to the impeachment, to Clinton’s having to surrender his law license for 5 years, and having to make significant monetary restitution.
It is the U.S. House of Representatives that conducts the impeachment. Clinton was impeached. A team from the House of Representatives (called the “Managers’) was then responsible for the prosecution in the U.S. Senate (before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court).
It was the Senate, not Starr who had nothing to do with the Senate prosecution, that failed to find Clinton guilty. A bunch of cowardly Senators. Had they found him guilty, he’d not have finished out his 2nd term and, yes, we’d have been stuck with “President Gore.” Not necessarily for two terms. When Ford succeeded Nixon who had to resign in disgrace rather than face impeachment, he was not elected to a full term.
Clinton was NEVER in danger of being removed from office.
There was no way he was going to be convicted for lying. Dem senators voting to remove some one for lying? I am sure there are still folks laughing over that.