Clinton Admits False Testimony

* Re “Clinton Strikes Indictment Deal,” Jan. 20: I’m a Democrat and I voted for Bill Clinton, but I’m disgusted with his deal to avoid prosecution. Never again do I want to hear the word “accountability” from the lips of any politician. Anyone who claims that the carefully tortured wording of Clinton’s agreement is the equivalent of admitting that he lied is wrong. It is not.

Parents who approve of Clinton’s deal should be tickled pink the next time their children give “evasive and misleading” answers in “an effort to conceal” guilt and avoid punishment. After all, the kids will be following Clinton’s example, and who wouldn’t want their kid to grow up to be president?

JESS MONEY

Redondo Beach

* “Lack of Indictment Shows Power of the Presidency” (Jan. 20) couldn’t be more wrong. In my 15 years practicing law, I have seen many instances of blatant perjury, where people under oath lied about material facts. I have never seen anyone charged with perjury or even sanctioned. The failure of our system to enforce laws against perjury is one of the most frustrating parts of practicing law. Clinton, an admitted perjurer, agreed to a $25,000 fine and gave up his license to practice law for five years. That is the harshest sanction for perjury I have ever seen. If he had not been the president, nothing would have happened.

MICHAEL LUBIC

Pasadena

* I awoke Friday morning with a touch of melancholy as I realized it was President Clinton’s last full day in office and read the opinion pieces speculating on his future place in history. I then read of George W. Bush’s blaming our environmental protection laws for California’s energy crisis, which assured me that, if based solely upon comparisons with his successor, Clinton’s reputation would attain Mt. Rushmore-like proportions.

HOWARD W. HAYS

Sierra Madre