Ethics Hearings and Cranston

Cranston himself states that he did in fact provide Charles Keating something that he did not provide to most of his constituents, i.e., easy access for advocacy of his views. If the fact that he provided such preferential treatment in return for cash can be substantiated in court, then he belongs in jail for bribery. The same would apply to his statements that he solicited such donations under the threat of losing such access; that sounds like extortion. Where is The Times’ call for the appropriate prosecutorial investigations?

NEIL SIEGEL, Redondo Beach