By: Ronald D. Struck                                                               January 15, 1999

CLINTON IS NO KING DAVID

Like other Clinton defenders, the analogy made by Rabbi Heir between the sins of King David and President Clinton, and the fact that God permitted King David to continue to rule, misses the point.  To make the King David – President Clinton analogy comparable one must make a few adjustments.

First, assume God had chosen not to rule through King David but only through the bible.  Then the bible would have been to King David what the constitution is to President Clinton.  Then, assume that King David was not the sole ruler but ruled equally with two other bodies of equal power under the bible, a group of tribal elders, and a rabbi tribunal.  Assume the bible gave a designated group of tribal elders the power to pass acts for the benefit of the people (our Congress), and a rabbi tribunal the power to interrupt the acts of King David and the tribal elders to insure they were consistent with the rules of the bible, and fairly enforced for all (our judical system).  Finally, assume God did not intend that King David or any other person get any special treatment from the laws of the bible and acts passed consistent with it.

Now, an apple-to-apple comparison between King David and President Clinton can be made?  What if Uriah (like Paula Jones) had obtained permission from a rabbi tribunal to bring an alienation of affection suit against King David?  During the trail King David testifies, under an oath before God to "tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth," that he did not have a sexual “relationship” with Bathsheba and the rabbi tribunal acquits him.  Then, an investigative office appointed by the tribal elders (like Ken Starr’s) is presented with information that Bathsheba has evidence that King David did in fact commit adultery with her.  The investigative office presents this situation to the member of the King's court to whom he had delegated the authority to oversee the entire rabbi tribunal system (like Reno) and the office is appointed to investigate the matter.

Through the efforts of the investigative office, King David is brought before a second rabbi tribunal and questioned about the truthfulness of his testimony during the trail that Uriah had brought against him.  Again, in an oath sworn before God, King David lies.  Then the King learns that irrefutable evidence is about to be presented to prove he had had sex with Bathsheba.  Therefore, the King publicly admits that his testimony had been misleading, but not untruthful.  It was truthful because King David defined a "relationship" as one involving mutual love and respect and the adultery he had committed with Bathsheba had been for sex only.

Assume that, pursuant to the bible, the tribal elders are responsible for investigating government officials from any of the three branches for "high crimes and misdemeanors" and, if convicted to remove them from office.  The tribal elders take up the matter insofar as King David’s inappropriate actions in the legal system.  But the tribal elders almost instantly divide into two groups - one that likes King David’s overall performance and programs and did not want the rules of the bible to apply to him this time, and another that wanted the rule of the bible to prevail, regardless of their feelings about the Kings overall performance.

Now the tribal elders must decide King David’s fate.  Do they go with King David’s overall performance and popularity, or with the rules of the bible?  These positions are so diametrically opposed it would be completely unrealistic to assume that either side could change the views of the other.  Absent divine intervention, all God could hope for is that both groups take their positions based upon their fundamental understanding of the bible’s rules and their own principals, and stand by them.

Therefore, Rabbi Hier, if you follow the scenario above, it could be that God is not waiting for us to throw our support behind President Clinton.  As a libertarian, in large part I have no complaints about his official acts.  But, I am enraged at him for the damage he is doing to our legal system and the basic tenants of our country – “One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.”  If President Clinton is not convicted, it will join the annals along with the O.J. Simpson trail reflecting the direction our legal system is taking - truth in our courts is situational, especially if you are a famous or powerful person, and there is an elite group among us who is above the law.  The rest of us are just rabble.

Top