The questions for which no one has the answers yet are piling up. Can the House of Representatives vote on impeachment before Congress rises in early October? If it does impeach the President, will the Senate remain sitting to try him as laid down in the Constitution?
Impeachment by a majority of the House is the equivalent of indicting the President on charges but is not a conviction, which is the job of the Senate where a two-thirds majority would be needed to find the President guilty.
Or will this Congress simply mark time and leave the whole unsavoury business to the newly-elected one when it meets in the New Year? The implications of all this are only sinking in on Capitol Hill, which had been under the impression that the report would come later in the month and without time for the outgoing Congress to deal with it at any length.
Of course the biggest question of all is: "Will a contrite President Clinton survive?" The only President ever to be impeached was Andrew Johnson in 1868 and he escaped conviction in the Senate by one vote - cast by an opponent.
President Nixon resigned in August 1974, a few weeks after the Judiciary Committee of the House voted three articles of impeachment accusing him of obstructing justice. Mr Nixon did not wait to see if the full House would vote for impeachment after senior Republicans came to the White House to tell him he did not have enough support to win that vote.
How does it look for President Clinton, facing a Congress with Republican majorities in both Houses? First, it should be said that leaders of both parties have insisted that the impeachment procedure will not be handled in partisan fashion, simply pitting Republicans against Democrats.
This might seem naive in a parliamentary system such as Ireland's and Britain's, but members of Congress are much less subject to party whips and frequently cross party lines when voting. So in theory they will vote on an impeachment resolution on the basis of the facts, but their political allegiances will undoubtedly be an influence.
There are three possible outcomes. The President is impeached by the House and convicted and dismissed from office by the Senate; he is impeached but not convicted; he is not impeached. The second two outcomes mean political survival, but with scars.
There is also the Nixon scenario, where Mr Clinton resigns in anticipation of impeachment. It is interesting to recall Mr Clinton's own view back in 1974 from his native Arkansas.
"I think it's plain that President Nixon should resign and spare the country the agony of this impeachment and removal proceeding. I think the country could be spared a lot of agony and the government could worry about inflation and a lot of other problems if he'd go on and resign," Mr Clinton said in words which must come back to haunt him today.
From his actions and words since his admission last month of an affair with Monica Lewinsky it is clear that President Clinton is not even thinking of resignation. Confession and contrition and receiving forgiveness from the American people are his blueprint for survival. And it could work.
Without having seen the Starr report, the President's lawyer, Mr David Kendall, has insisted "there is no basis for impeachment".
His fate is in the hands of the members of Congress but they will be influenced by the mood of the country as the impeachment procedure clicks into gear. Mr Starr's impeachment charges are based on events arising from the President's affair with Ms Lewinsky and polls so far have shown that Americans do not want him put out of office for an extra-marital affair. Nor does Congress.
The catch for Mr Clinton is that Mr Starr will be trying to prove he committed perjury when he lied about the affair last January and possibly in his deposition to the grand jury last month. Mr Starr will also try to show there were attempts by the President to obstruct justice in the Paula Jones civil case against him.
The possible let-out for Mr Clinton is that while these may be crimes if proved, a majority of the House of Representatives may not believe they are the kind of "high crimes and misdemeanours" which must be proved before a President can be impeached. They may feel his affair with Ms Lewinsky, while a dreadful lapse of conduct, does not disqualify him from remaining in office.
The House is not a court bound by existing laws but 435 politicians who have the power to rule on what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanours. Here is where the Democrats are vital for the President's survival and this is why he is spending hours meeting and telephoning them to plead for their support.
It is on the content of the Starr report that many Democrats will decide whether to give the President another chance or dump him and allow Vice-President Gore to take over until the 2000 election. If the report with its attached transcripts and tapes disgusts a broad sector of America, many Democrats will join Republicans in disowning their President.
Already many Democrats are very angry with Mr Clinton. They have never had great affection for him and blame him for the Democrats' loss of majorities in the House and Senate in the 1994 mid-term election and for not trying hard enough to help them win back control in the 1996 election as he coasted to a second presidential term. The Democrats' greatest anger with the President is, of course, over the way he lied to them and the country for seven months over his affair with Ms Lewinsky. This was while they geared up for an election in November which they hoped would win back a majority for Democrats in the House as they campaigned on popular issues like health insurance and education.
Now a President who put himself before party and country has the Democrats facing election losses over the scandal in the White House. He has the proverbial mountain to climb to survive and his 1992 reputation as the "Comeback Kid" may not be enough this time.