Whitewater Hearings

I find it interesting that the testimony of Jean Lewis is worthy of front-page coverage (Aug. 9), whereas Bernard Nussbaum’s rates space inside (Aug. 10). As one who views the Whitewater hearings as purely political theater, I think it only fair to give each act and scene equal due.

I also find it interesting to read your accounts of the day’s events. I watch the hearings on C-Span, and I’m invariably confused. I experience what one Whitewater witness has described as the surreal experience of hearing an account from someone so different, that I wonder if either of us were actually there.

Your characterization of Nussbaum as “unyielding, haughty, condescending, combative” presents a very different portrait from the man I watched. I saw a man reasonably defending himself from factless innuendo and hostile charges of lying, criminal negligence and obstruction of justice, all of which carry the penalty of disbarment, none of which I believe Nussbaum was guilty of.

ZEKE RICHARDSON

Los Angeles

* According to your article (“Clintons Say They Funded Half of Venture,” Aug. 5), the Clintons say they were only “passive investors.” As is their usual practice, they are, at the least, shading the truth.

In a partnership, only limited partners can be considered passive investors, liable only for the amount of their investment. The Clintons were general partners along with the McDougals. As general partners they were fully liable for any expenses or debts of the partnership and would share in any profits. To the extent they failed to contribute their share of costs, they received unwarranted benefits which may have involved an unknown quid pro quo.

The Clintons should stop trying to “snow” the American people.

EDWIN H. MONTGOMERY

San Maria