Lawyer-Client Privilege

I continue to be amazed at the lengths that Kenneth Starr will go to in his politically motivated vendetta against President Clinton. Sinking to a new low, Starr is asking that the lawyer-client privilege be waived for former White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster (June 9).

When will this country come to its senses and demand of Starr what Army counsel Joseph Welch asked Sen. Joseph McCarthy in 1954 during the Senate-Army hearings? Welch asked, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” Where are we as a nation and where is Starr’s Welch?

RALPH M. CASILLAS

Los Angeles

*

As Stephen Gillers points out (Opinion, June 7), the Starr-Clinton contest is not about guilt or innocence, but about legal principles at the foundation of our constitutional democracy. It is at least possible that Clinton is motivated not by a desire to keep Starr from getting information but simply by those very principles, when he argues for attorney-client privilege regarding his conversations with Bruce Lindsey.

It is presumptuous of Gillers to base his case on the nature of testimony about which he knows nothing. If Lindsey has no information to impart, then there’s no reason for Clinton to fear damaging revelations and thus no reason for him to delay. As to the advantages that might accrue to Clinton from delay, these in themselves do not constitute evidence of stalling. The same holds true in the case of the Secret Service’s claims. We simply don’t know what the agents might tell the grand jury. But they seem to feel quite strongly that forcing them to testify would jeopardize their ability to protect this and future presidents. Such would also appear to be a principle worth fighting for.

ROBERT L. SACHS

Newport Beach

*

Critics who quibble about the time and tax dollars being spent on Starr’s investigation are probably the same ones who can’t understand the popularity of the “Jerry Springer Show.”

PAUL M. THIELE

Los Angeles