Legal Defense Fund for Clinton

* In response to “Being Fair With a Beset Bill Clinton,” editorial, May 13: Who is being fair with the American public?

We have been involved in an accounting malpractice suit and were left with astronomical legal fees by lawyers who charged us like we were a Fortune 500 company, whereas we are just a family-owned building contracting firm in Santa Monica.

Why do you feel Bill Clinton is entitled to accept donations for his legal fees so as not to be driven to financial ruin? What happens to the average citizen if he is driven to financial ruin? Who do they have to donate to their cause? Our legal fees were in excess of $600,000 with $135,000 more still owing.

I disagree very much. If we are forced to pay our exorbitant fees, unfair as they are, I think Clinton should certainly pay his.

JUNE RICARD

Santa Monica

* In response to “Plans Readied for Clinton Legal Defense Fund” (May 10) several observations are in order:

* The term wealth is not synonymous with income . Although the Clintons report earning $255,000 per year, their wealth has been reported between $750,000 to $1 million, and maybe more.

* If the Clintons need money, why not simply give Hillary another $1,000 to invest in cattle futures?

* Why the need for a legal defense fund for a person who is earning $250,000 per year?

* It is patently obvious that this is simply another way for liberal special interest groups to make payoffs for all that the President is doing for them.

* If Clinton is just a humble common man as he attempts to portray, why does he have to hire the most expensive lawyer in the country?

STEPHEN B. AUSTIN

Bakersfield

* As an American and as a Christian I am appalled by the unsupported charges that the right-wing of the Republican Party continues to throw at President Clinton.

When I read your article (May 14) stating that evangelist Jerry Falwell is marketing a 2 1/2-hour videotape of unproven allegations involving President Clinton, ranging from sexual misconduct to murder, I was disgusted. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson say they are men of God--I say they are men of the devil. They are evil and are trying to tear our country apart with their hatred.

CAROL CHITRIN

Dana Point

* In response to “When the Motive Appears to Be Money,” by William Schneider, Opinion, May 15:

I had many reasons to vote for Bush. I had many reasons not to vote for Clinton. I couldn’t stand Clinton. I had bad vibes and foresaw many problems. I never envisioned the weekly menu of catastrophes.

I reject being categorized as a “Clinton hater . . . rubbing my hands with glee.” Yes, I am a Clinton hater, but I am an American first and I resent the office of President demeaned and ridiculed in the world’s eyes. I am rubbing my eyes to wipe away tears.

DOLORES LAZAR

Los Angeles

* Too bad Robert Scheer didn’t read William Schneider before he wrote his Column Left of the same day. If he had he would have realized that the differences between Anita Hill and Paula Jones are many, and they are spelled P-o-l-i-t-i-c-s and M-o-n-e-y. I think he’s really smart enough to have figured it out for himself, but chose instead to use this as an opportunity to bash the so-called “ultra-feminists,” an increasingly popular sport these days.

JOY PICUS

Woodland Hills

* I agree with George Mitrovich and Teresa Godwin Phelps (Commentary, May 20) that the President should be immune from civil lawsuits during his term in office. Being President of the United States is probably the most demanding and stressful job there is. The President needs to give all of his time and energy to the job at hand.

I didn’t vote for President Clinton, but he’s got the job now. We’re paying for a full-time President to run this country, and we’re not getting our money’s worth if his attention is on matters such as the Paula Jones case or the Whitewater matter.

The President should be responsible for his actions, and Paula Jones should have her day in court, but it should wait until he’s done being President. Bill Clinton may be guilty of sexual harassment. He’s a human being, not a perfect man. Apparently, the lady is not saying she was physically harmed, only mentally damaged, say $700,000 worth. RUDOLPH F. SILVA

Brea

* Re Paula Jones (“Clinton Accuser Shuns Spotlight,” May 20): How can she afford an oceanfront apartment? Her husband’s job must really pay well, or could it be someone else is picking up the tab?

I wish the reporters who are so great at digging up dirt on Clinton would follow the Paula Jones’ money trail. I live on the same beach as Jones, and the rent is not cheap.

WILLODEAN STREETT

Long Beach