You are visiting http://geocities.datacellar.net/SoHo/Workshop/2096

To see an archive of the articles on this site, click here.

Straight down the slippery slope

By Tim Wood

This article first appeared in The Columbia Daily Herald on Sept. 20, 1998

It wasn't that long ago that Congress was pontificating about all of the pornography on the Internet. Our lawmakers were searching for ways to cut down on the availability of porn on the 'net, while still preserving freedom of speech.

Now, the same folks who wanted to outlaw porn on the Internet have posted what some people believe to be one of the most widely-read porn tales of all time - Kenneth Starr's report on the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair.

How in the world can Congress justify putting this trash on the Internet under the seal of the United States government?

How our nation got to this point illustrates just how slippery a slope can be.

Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr was supposed to investigate Clinton's dealings in the Whitewater case in Arkansas. He did manage to put some people in jail, but he never caught the big fish - he never found anything with which to implicate Clinton or his wife, Hillary.

But he came across the Monica Lewinsky and saw a chance to actually prove that Clinton broke the law, so off he went.

Before I got any further, let me make clear that President Clinton's affair with Lewinsky was a reprehensible act. His attempts to cover it up made the problem worse. If any executive of a private company had an affair in his office with a 21-year-old intern, he would be out of work in no time.

Clinton was sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones over an incident that purportedly happened while Clinton was governor of Arkansas and Jones was a state employee. The courts almost didn't let the case proceed, but finally decided that a civil case against a sitting president could go forward.

Then, the case was thrown out because a judge said that even if everything that Jones alleged was true, it still didn't constitute sexual harassment.

During the course of the case, Clinton was asked if he had had sex with Monica Lewinsky. Supposedly, Jones' lawyers wanted to show a pattern of behavior in Clinton that would make it seem more likely that he exposed himself to Jones and propositioned her.

Why would something Bill Clinton did after the Jones incident have anything to do with determining what actually happened? Allowing that question to be asked seems to be a stretch on the part of the judge.

But this is where Clinton got himself into trouble. He said he had not had sex with Lewinsky. Starr thinks Clinton committed perjury. Clinton says what he did with Monica Lewinsky, however "improper," did not fit the definition of sex as set forth in the Jones case.

Because Clinton is using that defense, Starr felt justified in finding out exactly what it was that Clinton and Lewinsky did. This is where we get the lurid details that have been all over the Internet, in newspapers, and coming soon in paperback.

But let's back up a little bit. Clinton lied when he responded to a questionable line of questioning. Even if he had not lied, the case would have been thrown out.

But, perjury is perjury. It's against the law, even if Clinton perjured himself in responding to an irrelevant question in a civil suit that ultimately was thrown out.

I still wish that someone would have investigated Clinton's apparent sale of influence and missile technology to China. But I guess perjury in an irrelevant lawsuit is more important.

Starr finished his investigation, and in the process wiped out executive privilege and forced Secret Service agents to testify. Now, a president can't talk to government lawyers in confidence. Even former president George Bush said the Secret Service agents should not have been forced to testify. Who knows how much this will hamper the agency in protecting presidents in the future? In addition to becoming protectors, the agents now have become Big Brother.

So, Congress received the 36 boxes and decided to release the contents to the world. So what if portions of the contents were pornographic? I read some of the "lurid details" on the Internet. Communities across the country have laws restricting or outlawing the sale of books with similar content. But Congress decided we had a right to know, so they put it out there.

Now there is a call to release the videotape of Clinton's testimony. If this investigation is analogous to a grand jury, then none of that stuff should be available. Newspapers fight courts and law agencies tooth and nail to see investigative reports. We don't get to see everything law officers write down in the course of an investigation, and in some cases, we shouldn't.

Congress' role is to evaluate the evidence and determine whether to impeach President Clinton, which is similar to a prosecutor filing a charge. Frankly, I'd love to see a plea bargain and get this mess over, even if it means that Clinton resigns.

Let's hope we're already at the bottom of the slippery slope. But it could get worse. If Congress proceeds with impeachment, there will be a trial. Will Monica take the stand? Can you imagine her describing the "lurid details" in a nationally-televised hearing? What's next? Info-graphics explaining the differences between types of sex? Will Bill wear the "Monica" tie?

Our nation is in a state of moral decay, and having a president who practices immoral behavior has not helped the problem. But broadcasting the explicit details to the world hasn't helped either.

Perhaps we have bottomed out morally. I hope so. As for our next president, there's got to be somebody out there with a strong moral record who can run this country, whether his name is Al Gore or Jack Kemp or someone else.

Maybe they can help us climb up from the bottom of the slippery slope.

Home page||Send me an e-mail ||Click here for great deals on CDs!

||Tim Wood's Rocketry page ||Tim Wood's Music Page, featuring Chicago (the band)