Should Clinton Face Indictment?

* You say in your Dec. 6 editorial (“Spite Is Not Justice”) that Bill Clinton has suffered the unique punishment of impeachment [and trial in the Senate] and that “not even Richard M. Nixon went through that.” What you omitted was that Nixon did not go through that because, in a display of class and statesmanship that Clinton could never dream of achieving, Nixon resigned from office rather than drag the country through the pain and ignominy of a trial. In an earlier display of statesmanship and patriotism, Nixon set a standard that our current vice president is falling far short of. He conceded a presidential election that almost all historians agree he was cheated out of.

STEVE SWITZER

Redondo Beach

* Your editorial clearly exposes the motive of independent counsel Robert Ray in seeking to interview former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. I just want to add a simple measure of ourselves: Let anyone among you who has no sin be the first to throw a stone. The Lord said: Hypocrite, take first the plank out of your own eye, then you will see clearly enough to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

VIRGILIO C. REYES

Encino

* If you allow Clinton to “skate” on his admitted criminal offenses because he has mentally suffered enough, as your editorial states, then you must let all criminals “skate” who have suffered mental anguish because they were caught red-handed. The law should be applied to all in a fair and impartial manner.

BOB LEES

Garden Grove

* The only good that might come out of an indictment of Clinton by Ray would be the opportunity to expose the unethical and illegal tactics of Ray’s predecessor, Kenneth Starr. He should be questioned under oath by the president’s lawyers about his leaks of grand jury information and his harassment of witnesses in his efforts to force them to lie in order to incriminate Clinton. Susan McDougal, Julie Hiatt Steele and Lewinsky could be called upon to testify about Starr’s abusive behavior.

MORTON WACHSPRESS

Woodmere, N.Y.