Once the language is toughened to conform with the facts of Presidential misconduct, a few Democratic loyalists will drop off.

It seems designed to disrupt these solemn deliberations into Presidential misconduct of a serious if undeniably sordid kind.

Indeed, even the prosecutors, who surely cannot be accused of being reluctant to find Presidential misconduct, contended not that the President had lied about the nature of his relationship, but only about the details.

What specific acts of Presidential misconduct would a senator deem unworthy of impeachment by voting for a motion to dismiss?

"Not all Presidential misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds for an impeachment," that 1974 report concluded.

Impeachment is the only power in the Constitution granted to Congress to address Presidential misconduct and dereliction in his executive duties.

A host of Clinton advisers have been subpoenaed by Mr. Starr and appeared before grand juries investigating accusations of Presidential misconduct, even conduct that took place before the President was elected.

Not all Presidential misconduct, whether criminal or noncriminal, justifies impeachment.

To the Editor: Dan Quayle's Nov. 16 Op-Ed article about the constitutional limitations upon Congress in dealing with Presidential misconduct misses the mark.

The problem is that House Republicans misused the power of impeachment to deal with Presidential misconduct that deserves formal rebuke but not the ultimate constitutional sanction of overturning an election.