Clinton’s Grand Jury Testimony

As Republicans fall over themselves to brand President Clinton with the scarlet A, should we not also affix a V to Kenneth Starr? What drives must a man answer to who turns down an opportunity to work in Malibu as dean of the Pepperdine law school to spend months delving into another man’s sex life? One must think there are to be compensations “down the road.” How interesting that, their lackey’s work done, Republicans are now clamoring to violate the principle of grand jury secrecy (Sept. 16). As many of us have always known, those who want to suspend citizens’ rights and put government in our most intimate enclaves are on the right, not the left.

JACE BAKER

Moreno Valley

*

Has the American public forgotten there are other people involved in the Clinton/Lewinsky matter? I’m specifically referring to Hillary and Chelsea Clinton as well as the Lewinsky family. Releasing the video of Clinton’s testimony before the grand jury will only serve to humiliate these innocent people all the more. Furthermore, it will continue to make our country the laughingstock of the world.

I would love to go before Congress with a bag of stones, place them on the floor and see how many of them could cast the first stone!

NANCY E. DARLING

Redlands

*

Supporters of the president have claimed that it was unfair to release the Starr report without prior review by his legal staff, and now they’re claiming that release of his videotaped grand jury testimony would be “unfair.”

Let’s do this; let’s let the ex-employees of the White House travel office and the 900 or so individuals whose FBI files made it to the White House vote on the fairness of releasing the video. I’d be happy to accept their decision.

STEVE SWITZER

Redondo Beach

*

In the 1640s they used a scarlet letter. Now we have the Internet and videotapes.

MEGAN SHALLANBERGER

Rolling Hills Estates

*

Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) is demanding the president reimburse taxpayers for the past eight months of the Starr investigation (Sept. 16). Will the Republicans reimburse us for the $40-million, 3 1/2-year investigation that came up with zilch? Shouldn’t they reimburse all Clinton associates’ legal fees?

Actually the Republicans should reimburse the taxpayers for their salaries and expenses of this current session on the basis that they have not done what they were elected to do, pass any meaningful legislation. Rather than enact any campaign funding reforms, they demand more expensive investigations.

SUSAN BLACO

Hermosa Beach

*

A question for all the Clinton supporters who complain about Starr spending $40 million on the Lewinsky investigation--I understand that a more accurate figure is $4.4 million. How much tax money was spent by Clinton, his government lawyers, Cabinet and staff while they were covering up his lies?

TERRY ELLIS

Santa Clarita

*

It is nauseating that our Oval Office was used by that man Clinton for such despicable behavior. Censure and a $4-million fine would only generate Hollywood fund-raisers for more immoral behavior and would aggrandize this filthy spectacle, just like impeachment would. If this depraved synthetic president won’t resign, civil disobedience is our only recourse.

RAY HOLM

Arroyo Grande

*

So many apologies and rebuttals. Just one resignation, please!

RAY ACKERMAN

Los Angeles

*

Clinton is a godsend to the Republicans. As long as they can divert voters with sordid details of Clinton’s affair provided by the pious pornographer, they can get away with selling out to big tobacco, selling out to the HMOs, killing campaign reform and trying to divert the budget surplus to the pockets of the rich.

JERRY BUCK

Sherman Oaks

*

Clinton is immoral and a proven liar. Starr is a partisan zealot who wants to destroy him. Monica Lewinsky is a troubled young woman whose scheming friend Linda Tripp sells out in search of a large book advance. Congress wants to impeach in order to hide its own immorality. And the media smile all the way to the bank. We the people are getting screwed and it’s such a helpless feeling.

STEVE CRAKER

Echo Park

*

Instead of putting a gold star next to Starr’s name as “A Man for All Seasons” for courageously and competently doing his job despite months of having his character and competence waylaid by Clinton’s cutthroats, Ron Brownstein inexplicably finds both Clinton (a man for all stories) and Starr disgraceful (Sept. 14).

Huh? Oh, well, at least he got it half right.

JOHN CARL BROGDON

Culver City

*

We were told, by The Times among others, to withhold criticism of the special prosecutor until all could see what he had uncovered. The Starr report reveals itself to be a bad, expensive joke played upon the nation. The sanctimonious support of Starr, by The Times among others, in the face of overwhelming public indifference is the mewing and whining of frustrated witch hunters.

REXFORD STYZENS

Long Beach

*

As your subscribers, thank you so much for publishing Starr’s report (Sept. 12). As I also buy the National Enquirer every week (for the recipes), you have saved me $1.25 this week. That report contained all the gossip I care to read for awhile. Now I know why Starr had that silly grin on his face every time I accidentally saw him on TV or his picture in your paper. I could never figure it out. Here he was, heading a serious investigation of our president (who my husband and I voted for) and he always had this smirk on his face. Now I know why.

DIANA BURGESS

Torrance

*

The fact that Clinton’s poll numbers remain high indicate that this sax-playing pied piper is leading his supporters and the country inexorably down a path of moral turpitude. For anyone to not call for his resignation or impeachment is thereby condoning and endorsing immorality for the highest office of the land. Clinton should resign, but he won’t! For it would take a man of honor and integrity and this man has neither.

J.E. CLARKE

Costa Mesa

*

Well, if they’re going to impeach a president, I’m glad it’s not for something frivolous like murdering people in Nicaragua or training death squads in El Salvador or selling arms to Iran and drugs in the ‘hood.

Anyone else get the feeling that the U.S. is an irony-free zone?

NORM FRAHM

Corona Del Mar

*

Let’s face it: If Bill Clinton were forced into new elections with George Bush and Robert Dole today, he would still be president tomorrow. Republican time might be better spent finding a viable candidate for the next election rather than punishing voters for the last two.

WILLIAM H. BANKS

Anaheim

*

Reasonable people, recognizing the complexities of legalese, will generally sympathize with an accused person whose defense is that he broke the letter of the law but not the spirit. Clinton’s defense is that he broke the spirit of the law but not the letter.

ROYAL DAVIS CROWELL

Orange

*

There is nothing more frightening than a self-righteous zealot with unlimited power. Starr must be held accountable for the persecution of our excellent--and yes, human--president.

JENNIFER DEMING MORGAN

Agoura

*

Out of all the letters printed Sept. 16, not one of them mentions those in the armed forces who were given dishonorable discharges for adultery and lying about same. Clinton, as commander in chief of the armed forces, should be held to the same accountability.

INGRID RALSTON

Los Angeles

*

Arianna Huffington got one thing right (Column Right, Sept. 15): that “prolonging this national nightmare is the worst possible thing for the nation.” What she got wrong was who she was blaming. This matter with Clinton and Lewinsky should never have been made public. These matters are usually solved with family counseling between family members. Starr’s sick obsession with trying to oust the president is what is to blame for the current fervor over Clinton’s extramarital affair.

From the same people who cry over the pornography found on the Internet we get the lurid--and graphic--details of Clinton’s affair splashed over the same medium. Nothing like a little hypocrisy to brighten one’s day, eh? I would ask Huffington to step down off her high horse, but, she would probably break her legs coming down from such a height.

TODD GROVES

Santa Monica

*

I didn’t think it was possible, but someone has disgusted me more than Clinton. I usually agree with much of what Robert Scheer has to say, but I am outraged by his Sept. 15 Column Left. Scheer has written I don’t know how many hundred words trying to convince his readers that Starr’s report is about nothing more than the president’s sexual antics with Lewinsky.

Did Scheer read the full report? It makes a convincing case that our president lied under oath in two separate legal proceedings, lied to the American people, tried to get his secretary to lie for him and engaged in other conduct to obstruct justice. I now rate Scheer’s credibility at the same level as Clinton’s.

DONALD B. WALLACE

Hermosa Beach

*

I am tired of people putting Starr down. This isn’t the only case he is working on against Clinton. Give the man his space and let him do his job exposing more things about Clinton (Whitewater, foreign funds, etc.). As for Clinton’s lawyers, they should be disbarred for lying. The president should be impeached.

SHARLENE CARTIER

Arcadia