Whitewater and the Clintons

Re “Lying Is All That Matters,” Opinion, Jan. 14: Hillary Clinton’s apologists would urge that we look beyond whether or not she was telling the truth, to the significance of the underlying matter about which she made questioned statements. If that standard had been applied to Richard Nixon, he would never have been forced to resign.

The ultimate issue presented in the burglary of the Democratic headquarters in the Watergate building was whether or not the outcome of the 1972 presidential election could have been affected by the Republicans learning George McGovern’s campaign secrets from documents obtained from the break-in. No one could seriously contend that any illicit knowledge obtained by the break-in could have changed the outcome of the 1972 landslide in which the Democratic candidate carried only a single state. The focus from beginning to end was on the cover-up, and the standard insisted upon by the Democratic leaders in the congressional investigation was: “What did you know?” When did you know it?” “How does that compare with your previous statements?”

Hillary’s supporters should be little surprised that she today is held to a similar standard.

WILLIAM CRADER

Northridge

I watched Richard Massey’s testimony (Mrs. Clinton’s former law associate); yes, he testified that he had “next to nothing to do with landing the case.” However, after further questioning, Massey stated that he did, indeed, solicit Madison’s business (as Mrs. Clinton has stated), but needed a more senior partner to facilitate the arrangement with a more senior bank official. Further testimony revealed that even though there were quite a few more experienced associates and partners in his department and that he was at the bottom of the firm “food chain” at the time, Madison specifically asked this unknown, junior attorney to handle its business.

Regarding Mrs. Clinton’s 60 billing hours over a 15-month period (averaging an hour a week): No one of right mind who works 50-60 hours a week as a partner in a law firm would ever think that an hour a week spent on a client was substantial.

ILONA SAARI

Studio City

It’s about time the public is made aware of how these people operate--they have shaded the truth so long they really don’t understand the basic difference between truth and lies. Answers to questions are constructed based solely on what message they wish to get across. Suzanne Garment and The Times are to be highly commended. Also Bertram Fields (Opinion, Jan. 14) on “How Much Is ‘Minimal’?”

MYRON D. OAKES

San Marino

Hillary Clinton making headlines again makes me feel like I’m in the twilight zone. It’s an election year. The Republicans are desperate to take control. A way to get votes is to discredit the candidate’s wife.

Oh no. It’s 1992 all over again.

ALAN MATIS

Woodland Hills

After reading the commentary of Edwin M. Yoder Jr. on Jan. 12, I think I may launch my own investigation. I’d like for Yoder to further explain what advocating for social causes or being the breadwinner of the family has to do with being honest and upfront when confronted with events that one may or may not have been directly involved, i.e., Whitewater and Travelgate. Perhaps William Safire should have chosen a more reader-friendly phrase than “congenital liar” in describing Mrs. Clinton, like Yoder’s wonderful Beltway spin, “terminological inexactitudes.”

MARK CORLEW

Palmdale

“Clinton’s Top Patron Found on Wall Street” (Jan. 13) took 10 paragraphs to let us know that officers of Goldman, Sachs & Co. have given more than $107,000 to Clinton campaigns. We are not told how many individuals this group constitutes, nor how many campaigns. The hint of scandal in this article led me to search carefully for a quid pro quo. Aha! Robert Rubin became Treasury secretary (likely at a fraction of his Goldman, Sachs income), and encouraged Clinton to “tame the federal budget deficit,” thereby benefiting Goldman, Sachs’ bond trading. What a scurrilous thing to do!

Now we come to the 11th and last paragraph, in which we are told that Bob Dole’s third-largest (not first or second) contributions totaled nearly $500,000 and came not from a group of individuals at a large firm, but from the Koch family, owners of an oil and gas concern, who benefited to the tune of $54 million by a bill easing provisions of the Clean Water Act, a bill written and sponsored by Dole. I will now mentally file this article with your daily dose of rumor and innuendo about the nonevent called Whitewater.

JIM CARROLL

Burbank

Re “Clinton Acknowledges That His Family Is Close to Bankruptcy,” Jan. 12: I remember in the old days it was “any citizen can become president of the U.S.” Today it should be “any citizen can bankrupt the president of the U.S.”

JOSEPH VICTOR CAETI

Los Angeles