Secret Service

Your May 27 editorial criticizing Judge Norma Holloway Johnson’s latest ruling on the testimony of Secret Service agents seems predictably pro-President Clinton. Ken Starr is something like nine for nine in rulings handed down from Judge Johnson. The Clinton administration is batting .000, which leads one to the conclusion that its tactics are not about legal and constitutional merit but instead are all about delaying and stonewalling.

This latest ruling on the testimony of Secret Service agents has zero chance of being overturned upon appeal. Secret Service agents are supposed to protect the lives of presidents and other related parties. They’re not supposed to serve as bar bouncers in the White House.

STEVEN ZELMAN

Manhattan Beach

*

I agree with your position that the confidentiality of the Secret Service should not be compromised. As visions of “cover-up” and “obstruction” buzz around Starr’s brain, he should consider the distasteful, yet trivial, original matter at issue and heed a phrase of the Bard’s: “Much ado about nothing.”

SUNNY KREIS

Santa Monica

*

I don’t understand why the president and his Secret Service agents are so upset about being forced to testify. If nobody did anything wrong, what’s the big deal? If the president is as innocent as he says he is, then he should want them to testify. They would help to corroborate his story. Right?

As for future presidents being assassinated because they push the Secret Service agents away, consider this: Only a president who has something to hide would worry about being testified against. Any president who is honest and full of integrity should want the Secret Service to testify. They would preserve not only his life but also his reputation and honor.

Secret Service agents should not only protect the president from dangerous people; they should also protect the American people from dangerous presidents.

K.D. ANDERHOLM

Tustin