Adultery and the Oval Office

August 25, 1998 "The fact that President Clinton admitted adultery is no reason to remove him from office." At least that is what most political commentators are saying. DeWayne Wickham, writing for USA Today, put it this way: "Clinton's adultery has become a highly public matter and has turned us into a nation of voyeurs. . . . But should the public's knowledge of his private misbehavior cost him his job? I don't think so. Adultery is a family issue, not a matter of state. The price that Clinton pays for cheating on his wife should be left for his family to exact--not a congressional vote. He violated his vow of marriage, not his oath of office."

But is that really true? Isn't the president of the United States bound to tell the truth? Isn't the president bound by the laws of the land? Perjury is a serious offense, and the president's statement that his answers "were legally accurate" has been roundly criticized by friend and foe. It is becoming clearer every day that the president did not tell the truth on January 17th or on August 17th. And it is quite possible that Kenneth Starr's report will not only provide ample evidence not only of perjury but subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice.

A president in business would have been asked to leave under similar circumstances or fired based on the moral turpitude clause in his contract. A president of a university would be removed on the same basis. A military leader (and remember President Clinton is considered the Commander in Chief) would be excused or perhaps even court-martialed for such behavior. No, the President's conduct is more than just a private, family matter.

I'm Kerby Anderson of Probe Ministries, and that's my opinion.