Whitewater Controversy

Clearly Congress needs to pass a law exempting presidents, while in office, from the governmental investigation or prosecution of any matter other than malfeasance in current office. A federal law could extend the statute of limitations on other actions until the end of the final presidential term.

The executive branch is being seriously damaged by politically motivated investigations. Soon only a living saint will be able to function in office and I am not convinced that such a holy man would be in the country’s best interests.

BARRY J. WALSHE

Newport Beach

Investigating the Whitewater affair at this point is a clear case of sandbagging after the flood. However, now that Congress is in such a virtuous mood, it might be a good time to suggest a way to prevent future indiscretions of this nature.

Quite simply, a law should be passed that all elected officials get their taxes audited every year. Not only would it help to keep politicians in line, it may raise a good deal of revenue. How about it, Sen. Dole?

WILLIE WATSON

Lawndale

In your editorial of March 28 you ask, “Is it reasonable to establish a set of ethical expectations for our politicians that rises along with their prominence, thus setting up a situation in which the bombshell explodes only at the point at which it is most damaging to the country?” My answer as a citizen voter uncommitted politically is a resounding yes! It is not only reasonable but essential to have leaders of moral fiber. Not considering here the issue of having to trust them nor the effect of leadership role models on the rest of us, to tolerate and accept less from national leaders is a sure route to the disruption caused by certain exposure of their wrongdoing. I, as a citizen of our beloved country, will continue to expect honesty for my vote.

ARTHUR WONG

Topanga

The Times reported on Republican Rep. Jim Leach’s charges on the House floor against President and Mrs. Clinton’s dealing with their Whitewater investment (March 25). Leach’s extensive charges came after a months-long investigation and then he admitted that the evidence does not directly tie Clinton to any wrongdoing. He then acknowledged that “on the landscape of political scandals” Whitewater may end up being only “a bump.”

Then why do the Republicans keep insisting that there is any need for congressional hearings? The Republicans are trying their best to turn this bump in the political road into a Watergate/Iran-Contra mountain. This is ample indication that the President’s opponents have little else to offer than tabloid-style politics at a time when we need serious plans to direct the country on the path to prosperity and justice.

GARY ZEMBOW

Hollywood

Regarding the March 24 “press conference,” which was centered on the Whitewater scandal, it’s quite insightful to me that I never once heard the name Vince Foster. Neither did I hear the words “shred” or “cover-up.” I suppose this scenario should be preserved in some form for the next clinic on “our hard-hitting press at work.” What a marshmallow toss!

BARRY COOK

Newhall

Robert McFarlane (Commentary, March 23) suggested that President Clinton and Sen. Bob Dole get together and agree to discontinue Whitewater hearings if Clinton will publicly come clean. He cites the example of President Eisenhower, Sen. Lyndon Johnson and Speaker Sam Rayburn. The problem with this is that Eisenhower, unlike Clinton, was elected by an overwhelming majority, never told a lie and was a war hero rather than an embarrassment to the military.

We have elected a President based on promises (turn the economy around, reform health care, etc.) instead of character, stature and honor. If Clinton went “ . . . before the people and (laid) everything out,” who would believe him after a history of constant dissembling?

ARTHUR EVANS

Redondo Beach

Can Clinton pardon everyone associated with Whitewater for any possible crimes now, saving investigators years of work, or must he wait for Christmas like George Bush did? Of course we would miss the spectacle of Congress embarrassing itself in hearings and destroying any possibility of criminal indictments.

STEVEN SITTIG

San Dimas

Congratulations to Hillary Clinton for her astute business sense and ability to profit in the late ‘70s bull commodities market . . . and shame on the media and The Times for implying that this was somehow indecent or improper (March 30). Do I detect a hint of envy? Look up investment in the dictionary and learn not only that profitability is a goal, investing is a key element of our free-market economy.

Had Hillary significant losses, her detractors would be quick to imply she was squandering hard-earned family “milk money.” This Republican is liking Ms. Clinton better every day.

BILL RYAN

Dana Point