Lawsuits Against Sitting President
In response to “Lawsuits Are Cudgels, Presidents Need Armor,” editorial, May 21:
Your editorial has some merit. There are, however, some inherent problems in delaying civil lawsuits until a President leaves office.
How do you propose to protect evidence? How do you propose to protect the memories of the plaintiff, defendant and witnesses for such an extended delay. How do you guarantee that all the persons who are involved will even be alive in eight years, 10 years or even longer, to take part in the legal proceedings?
Before civil actions against a sitting President can be delayed as you and many others suggest, there are many questions including mine, that require answers.
ERNEST SALOMON
Santa Barbara
Kudos for your editorial. This idea needed to be clearly stated. The concept that any other Paula Jones or whoever could appear out of the woodwork and disrupt the governing of our country (needed at this time more than ever with myriad problems surfacing) is appalling. You stated a fair and legal way out of the predicament. These suits should be deferred until the President has left office.
KARIN FINELL
Santa Barbara
“We Elect a President to Work for Us; His Problems Can Wait” (by George S. Mitrovich and Teresa Godwin Phelps, Commentary, May 20) illustrates how the legal profession works. The woman who instituted the lawsuit wants her day in court to clear her name, because she supposedly had been accused by the media of having sexual contact with Clinton. She claims she wants the world to know the truth. If Clinton did nothing wrong, he should be able to go to court and clear his name. There is no reason to get a high-priced lawyer and wait a year to get an answer. It is wrong for Jones to wait a year to clear her name, as well as for Clinton to have the sexual-harassment accusation held over him for a long period of time.
Thanks to the powerful legal profession, we no longer go to court to obtain justice but instead we go to get a decision.
LESLIE W. SACHS
Newport Beach