Reno’s Decision on Special Counsel

I read with astonishment The Times’ Dec. 3 editorial about Janet Reno’s decision not to appoint an independent counsel in the case of possible fund-raising solicitations from the White House. The Times indicates that it was more difficult for Reno to chose “not to appoint” vs. “to appoint.” On what planet? Do you think she would be seen in a good light by her employers (Bill Clinton and Al Gore) if she appointed an independent counsel? As far as being courageous with respect to her other appointments, she had a job to do. She took a lot of pointed criticism from the White House hacks, including a bout where the press thought she was a goner. Do you think that this would have been any different?

The Times also misses the point when it talks about a “rarely enforced, 114-year-old law.” Does the age of a law make it good? If a law is rarely enforced, is it because it’s a bad law or is it such that people don’t violate it? The law is the law. If it is a bad law then it should be repealed, not enforced selectively.

FRANK C. ALVIDREZ

Lancaster

* So the people who gave us Watergate, Iran-Contra and Ed “Not Enough Evidence to Prosecute” Meese for attorney general are now attacking Reno. Perhaps when the fund-raising activities of the Republicans have been as thoroughly examined as those of the Democrats, they should ask again. I’m sure there will be much more to investigate by then.

MICHAEL MAHER

Apple Valley

* After an exhaustive, fiercely independent investigation, I have concluded that there is no specific evidence of credibility anywhere in the Clinton administration.

PAUL O’BRIEN

West Covina