The report of Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr has been completed and delivered to Congress. Appropriate sanctioning of Mr. Clinton is now in the hands of our elected representatives. To the surprise of many, however, the grand jury is still deliberating. It has been reported that the grand jury is deliberating on the question of whether indictments should be returned against "lesser figures." If this is true, and Mr. Starr is not seeking the indictment of Mr. Clinton, Mr. Starr will be demonstrating a concern for the will of the people and the good of the nation that overrides any personal animosity that he may have towards Mr. Clinton.

The detractors of Mr. Starr have accused him of being many things: a political partisan, a Republican hatchet-man, an inept criminal investigator, and a personal enemy of Mr. Clinton who is out to get him at any cost. If there were any truth in these characterizations, and Mr. Starr were out to bring down Mr. Clinton, he would not forgo the ultimate weapon that could compel Mr. Clinton to do the unthinkable--resign.

By his own admission Mr. Clinton lied in his testimony in the private Paula Jones case when he denied a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky and said that he could not remember having been alone with her in the White House. He also was less than candid with the grand jury about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and his efforts to encourage her to lie and suppress evidence of gifts he had given to her. These acts may constitute criminal offenses. Therefore, even if Mr. Clinton is not the "the resigning type," through an indictment Mr. Starr could make Mr. Clinton an offer that he couldn't refuse--dismissal in exchange for resignation. Even if resignation could not be coerced, an indictment could serve many of the other sinister goals allegedly harbored by Mr. Starr.

An indictment would add substance to his report to Congress. It would emphasize to both Congress and the public the gravity of what the President has done. It also would demonstrate the compelling nature of the evidence against him--adding even more of an urgency to the impeachment process.

Mr. Clinton's indictment would place another negative footnote in the historical record of Mr. Clinton's presidency. Even if the charges are eventually dismissed by the Supreme Court (if they concluded that a sitting president could not be prosecuted), he will forever be known as the first president to have been indicted while in office. For the sinister at heart, this alone would be irresistible.

Indicting Mr. Clinton would also put the President on the defensive. He would have to challenge the constitutionality of indicting a sitting president. He also would have to challenge whether his acknowledged act of lying while under oath in the deposition constitutes a sufficient basis for charging him with perjury because the matter about which he lied was not "material"--an element of the criminal charge. These challenges would keep before the public the many lies that he has told and his efforts to avoid responsibility for them. It also would divert some of his legal resources from the impeachment process. A delicious strategy for one seeking only victory.

If the Supreme Court were to uphold Mr. Starr's right to indict a sitting president, Mr. Starr would hold the key to an irresistible bargain. Too many prior government officials (including many executive office employees) have gone to prison for comparable acts for Mr. Clinton to risk the same penalty in order to hang on to a crippled presidency for another year or so.

By not indicting Mr. Clinton, Mr. Starr is showing admirable restraint in his use of prosecutorial power. Despite the personal attacks on him, particularly by Mr. Clinton in his less-than-contrite acknowledgment of wrongdoing, Mr. Starr is demonstrating that he is bigger than the power that he wields. He is disproving the characterizations of his detractors. They should give him credit.

1. Mr. Rice is a professor of law at the American University Washington College of Law where he has taught evidence and criminal procedure. www.wcl.american.edu/pub/faculty/rice/acprivilege