Starr’s Probe of Clinton

The headline, “Sexual Allegations Damage Clinton’s Popularity Rating” (Jan. 25), suggests a number of rather serious questions. What does anything on these tapes have to do with Whitewater? Since the only two parties who have access to the tapes are Kenneth Starr’s office of independent counsel and his chief witness, who is the source of the leaks? Since the leaks have generated enough publicity to endanger a fair trial of anyone accused on them, what is the purpose of such leaks?

Does anyone in the press remember the name Richard Jewell?

KIMIT A. MUSTON

North Hollywood

*

After reading of the huge legal expense some White House staffers have been forced to privately incur in connection with “Starr Chamber” proceedings (“Clinton Advisors Are Left Out of Loop,” Jan. 26), isn’t it time to amend the independent counsel law--retro-actively--to require that office to pay the legal expenses of bystander government employees it interrogates? At least in cases where no indictment is brought and no conviction obtained.

Starr, who has spent $30 million of the taxpayers’ money so far and who seems to have no worries about money or illegal wiretaps, should pick up, at minimum, part of the bill for his extensive fishing expeditions.

MICHAEL S. BANK

Sherman Oaks

*

Eight years ago I was a high school music teacher of Monica Lewinsky. Because of that, this past week I have been called at home or at work by NBC, CBS, People Magazine, KCAL-9, Extra and The Times and visited by U.S. News and World Report and by a crew from “Hard Copy” who showed up on my doorstep unannounced. And I have been bothered far less than some of my colleagues.

The media are out of control. Nothing they asked me had anything to do with balancing the budget or lowering unemployment, which is what we elected a president to do.

To me the issue is not whether a man lied about having an affair, or even if he had one. Most of the people I have asked said that they would perjure themselves rather than admit an affair in public. The issue is personal privacy. Clinton’s, his wife’s, Monica’s, and that of all the people who are being hounded by reporters to give some juicy tidbit for the circus.

JOEL PRESSMAN

Los Angeles

*

Has it really come down to this, where we no longer care how much of a sleazebag the president has been, as long as the economy is in good shape?

I remember the days when the office of the presidency held great respect and we looked to the president to set a high moral standard for others to follow. Now we say, “As long as he hasn’t committed any felonies, who cares?” I’ll tell you who cares: the whole rest of the world. Never before has respect for the office and, by extension, the nation fallen as far as during the Clinton administration.

DENNIS HANRAHAN

La Habra

*

Will the American people ever tire of the procession of Clinton loyalists who parade before the TV cameras giving testimony to their altar boy president’s moral rectitude? Sadly, the might of the Clinton political machinery will now be set into motion to discredit and trash his latest victim(s).

DON MOERY

San Clemente

*

Re Lewinsky’s lengthy phone conversations with Linda Tripp: Where does naive leave off, and stupid begin?

JACK and MARY DE CAMP

Los Angeles

*

Clinton’s current scandal only serves to show the total impotence of the Republican Party: the fact that they failed to defeat this clown back in ’96.

CHARLOTTE POE

Somis

*

However inadvertently, Starr has paid a compliment to Clinton. Having spent four years and $30 million on a microscopic scrutiny of the president without being able to charge (much less convict) him with anything illegal, Starr is reduced to voyeuristic snooping into the most intimate personal activities.

Since very few of even our most respectable people can get through such scrutiny without revealing some degree of culpability, the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from the Starr investigation is that President Clinton is an ethical person. I must admit it has convinced me that Clinton is more honest than I thought he was.

EUGENE KUSMIAK

Fallbrook

*

As a citizen I am disgusted. As a spouse I am offended. As a parent I am heartsick.

CATHY ANDRESEN

Camarillo

*

Private, legal, consensual sexual behavior is nobody’s damn business. Some questions should just be off limits for people to ask, whether it’s the president or my sister. But since we live in a society where people line up and take a number to cast the first stone, I think lying about one’s legal sexual behavior is perfectly fine. In fact, if Vernon Jordan or President Clinton advised Lewinsky to “say it didn’t happen,” I not only condone their action, I applaud it.

GERALD JONES

Los Angeles

*

Maybe it’s time for Clinton to pull a Reagan and invade someplace. Can you say Grenada, Beirut, Panama? Well, Mommy, there you go again.

TARIK TRAD

Glendale

*

Shame on the American public for allowing our president to be dragged through the mud of malicious gossip and allegations. Clinton is being unnecessarily distracted from working on issues concerning the good of our country and the world. Indeed, if Clinton was not such a successful president, Starr wouldn’t have to work so hard to try to pull him down. Security issues? I think not. Presumed innocence until proven guilty? Think again.

MARCY BREGMAN

Valencia

*

Here’s my family’s view on the Clinton scandal. Dad: Wonder how much they paid her to say that? Mom: Why don’t they talk about the pope going to Cuba and Castro turning to Christ? Sis: I like old Bill. As long as Hillary doesn’t care, I don’t. Bro-in-law: Turn to the Sports Channel! Teen Nephew: Cool! Late-teens Niece: Boring. What kind of geek would look at an old man like that? Twenties Niece: I think he’s kind of cute. I wouldn’t have blabbed.

Me: All I care about is that home real estate prices keep improving, and whether he can stand up to Saddam Hussein.

LARRY CARROLL

Los Angeles

*

How can Starr be considered an “independent” counsel when he is pursuing a right-wing vendetta under a carte blanche to get anything he can on the president? And since when has entrapment by surreptitious taping been a legitimate government operation?

ROBERT E. MORSBERGER

Claremont

*

Starr threatens to prosecute Lewinsky unless she confesses to having sex with the president. He holds Susan McDougal in jail for over a year because she will not tell him what he wants to hear. Just who is suborning perjury here?

LISA BERGER

Pasadena

*

If the president really pursued the alleged dalliances, he’s not only stupid but arrogant. The only other contemporary public figure who could possibly exceed that level of arrogance is Starr.

CHAZ HURSTON

Los Angeles