Please note that these editorial articles do not necessarily reflect the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are the personal opinions of the author and he is alone responsible for them.

by W. John Walsh

02/14/98

Recently, the news media seems mesmerized by a scandal involving U.S. President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski, a former White House intern. The scandal is marked by daily charges and counter-charges between the White House team, Monica Lewinski's lawyer, the Independent Council's Office led by Ken Starr, and a host of other players. In fact, there is so much smoke coming from so many directions that it is difficult to locate the real fire.

Before I give my thoughts regarding this very serious issue, I should give a quick summary of my political leanings so that you will be aware of my personal biases. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not endorse political candidates, platforms, or parties, members are counseled to study the candidates carefully and vote for those individuals they believe will act with integrity and in ways conducive to good communities and good government. (See An Official Statement on Political, Governmental, and Community Affairs)

In keeping with this counsel, I have carefully examined the political ideals of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Based on my analysis, I have always associated myself with the Republican party. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, I have never voted for a Democrat for any office at any level. I supported George Bush and Bob Dole in the last two elections, though I found them both to be a little too liberal for my tastes. I looked upon the election of Bill Clinton as an indication that our society continues to deteriorate. Therefore, my feelings about this scandal may come as a surprise to some.

Now, let's discuss some of the issues.

One question that has been raised is -- what really constitutes adultery? Some people have advocated the position that some extramarital sexual activities constitute adultery, while others do not. The Savior taught us: 'But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (The Holy Bible, Matthew 5:28) To me, this settles the issue of what does and does not constitute adultery [regardless of any narrow legal definitions].

However, I do not believe that President Clinton's sexual activities are worthy of public discussion, much less action by the Independent Council's office. Even if I were to hold Bill Clinton to Latter-day Saint standards, his infidelity would be a private issue between him, his wife Hillary, and his Bishop. It would still be none of my business or anyone else's for that matter. Since Bill Clinton is not a Latter-day Saint, then his infidelity should only be an issue between him and his wife. I agree with Billy Graham, a very respected Protestant minister, who recently commented about this issue: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Like all of us, President Clinton will have to account for his life before God. Therefore, it's not something anyone else needs to worry about. No one should have any fears that he will "get off". None shall escape their just rewards at the final judgment.

But what about the alleged perjury? How many times has someone actually been prosecuted for denying they had an affair in a civil deposition? Even if true, committing perjury in a civil deposition is rarely, if ever, prosecuted. In divorce cases, people lie about adultery all the time and are never prosecuted. Please remember that I am not sponsoring lying or adultery, but simply pointing out that President Clinton is the victim of selective prosecution based upon political issues.

How about encouraging others to lie under oath? Isn't that more serious? Perhaps, but who actually believes that such a charge could be proven? Let's face it -- both President Clinton and Vernon Jordan [Mr. Clinton's personal advisor] are very skillful lawyers who are expert in using language to their advantage. While I do not consider this a desirable character trait myself, it does indicate that is is highly unlikely that either one of them would be stupid enough to do anything that would prove they suborned perjury. Even if one of them wanted someone to lie under oath, they would have gotten the message across without actually saying it. In the United States, you must prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In my opinion, that's a level of proof that will never be reached in this case. While I have my own suspicions about what really occurred, I believe that no criminal activity by President Clinton or Vernon Jordan could ever be proved. Therefore, I believe the continuing investigation of this issue by Ken Starr is politically motivated.

In fact, the actions of Ken Starr and his office concern me far more than anything done by the President. While most people laughed when Hillary Clinton suggested that there was a "right-wing conspiracy" behind this issue, I agree with her. Obviously, the Republicans did not create the scandal, but I believe that certain Republican leaders are trying to take full advantage of it using highly illegal and immoral tactics. It's interesting to note that in the New Testament, the Savior's strongest denunciations came not against adulterers, but against hypocrites who used the misfortunes of others for their own personal gain.

Let's take just a brief look at some of the tactics used by Mr. Starr. He trapped Monica Lewinski, a young woman in her early 20's, in a hotel room surrounded by a team of lawyers and prosecutors and did not allow her to have legal representation. In this very coercive setting, she was threatened and intimidated.

Earlier this week, he hauled Monica Lewinski's mother in front of a grand jury and forced her to listen to very raunchy tape recordings of her daughter discussing her sex life. Obviously, any parent forced to submit to such an ordeal would be caused excruciating pain. In my mind, Ken Starr's actions violated the sacred nature of the relationship between a mother and child. While not presently illegal, this act was certainly one of the most immoral and disgusting acts that I have ever encountered. And the purpose of his sadistic act? Obviously to pressure Monica Lewinski and her family into giving testimony that furthers his own political agenda. The last time I checked, this is the United States and not Nazi Germany.

And then there's all the leaks that have been carefully designed to influence public opinion. I found the suggestion that the White House was behind all the leaked grand jury testimony to be quite ludicrous. It is very clear to me that Ken Starr and his office are responsible for these illegal activities. It's not just the leaking in and of itself that bothers me, but also the reasons behind it. First, they seem designed to intimidate other witnesses. Second, they seem designed to embarrass President Clinton into resigning from office and thus cause a change in government. While the media calls these type of tactics "playing hardball," I see this type of misconduct as a direct assault on the Constitution and far more serious than even the worst allegations against President Clinton.

While I may agree with Mr. Starr that Bill Clinton was a poor choice by the American people, the people have spoken and we must respect the outcome of the election. Ken Starr's abuse of authority is far more dangerous to our nation than the sleeping arrangements of our President.

(See Political, Governmental, and Community Affairs home page; Reflections home page)