Janet Reno

All we hear about Janet Reno is that she’s a woman of integrity. But the reality is that all we see from her is delay, stonewall and an utter disdain for the recommendations of Louis Freeh and her top campaign finance abuse investigator, Charles LaBella. What if she really is a pawn of the Clinton White House and is covering up for their misdeeds? What then? Do we simply throw up our hands and accept her bizarre conclusions (as essentially suggested by your Aug. 6 editorial, “Buck Stops With Reno”)? Or do we push Congress to place her in contempt until she can explain why she’s the only one who refuses to accept the obvious?

STEVEN ZELMAN

Manhattan Beach

*

Apparently your editorial board has somehow overlooked the oversight function of the legislative branch under our form of government. Reno is not an empress. She is a political appointee and, as such, subject to oversight. That’s the bottom line.

R.L. CLOUTIER

Redondo Beach

*

Apparently Michael Ramirez (Aug. 6) has spent little, if any, time to acquaint himself with the character of Janet Reno. It is she who appointed an independent counsel to investigate the president, and in numerous public statements and interviews it has become quite clear that she is a tough cookie who does not do anybody’s bidding, including that of her boss.

One should not deliberately distort the facts, not even in cartoons or in the name of politics.

PAUL VICTOR

San Diego

*

Do I have this straight? Congress wants to find Reno in contempt because she will not release information about an investigation into campaign funding still unfolding. Kenneth Starr is trying to back Bill Clinton into a corner to tell everything, warts and all, the presidency be damned. Seven inmates in Corcoran State Prison end up dead, shot in the back by guards, and no one has to testify? Are Clinton and Reno eligible to join the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn.?

PAUL L. DU NARD JR.

Buena Park

*

Monica Lewinsky now knows the true meaning of playing with fire. It’s too bad that her mother didn’t teach her that lesson earlier. We all know much more about Monica, her mother and the rest of the cast of characters than needed. But more importantly we, as a society, have learned about ourselves and our true interests. And it’s such a shame, such a waste of our time and all the media’s efforts, when there are so many more socially redeeming endeavors to focus on--from ending violence to teaching literacy to helping make the world a better place to live in.

Yet all the media’s efforts are focused on Monica and the president--and we watch, and watch again, while giving short shrift to significantly more important things in life.

And now that’s off my chest, if you’ll excuse me, it’s back to the television and the Monica show.

BIXXO BISHOP

Los Angeles

*

I was under the impression that grand jury hearings are confidential. How come that the scores of reporters quoting “reliable sources” tell us about Monica’s testimony in detail? Is there anyone who is leaking confidential information to the media?

DAVID SHICHOR

Fullerton