Carlos Vignali’s Presidential Pardon

* Re Carlos Vignali’s pardon, Feb. 11-13: I defended one of Carlos Vignali’s co-defendants during his trial in federal court in Minnesota on drug charges, and I recall the case quite well. Essentially, the government alleged that Vignali introduced some small-time drug dealers to a large-scale cocaine supplier. For such conduct, and with no prior record, Vignali served six years in prison out of a 15-year sentence.

Six years in prison constitutes enough punishment for what Vignali did. President Clinton and the people who came to his assistance should be applauded for at least providing some justice in his situation, regardless of how it came about. What we should really be concerned about are all the other millions of drug offenders who are languishing in prison so that a vast army of lawyers, judges, law enforcement officials and other assorted civil servants can continue to profit from the fruitless and never-ending war on drugs. Unfortunately, the bit of sanity President Clinton brought to bear in the last few days of his presidency will undoubtedly be again submerged in bitter attacks by the usual representatives of the status quo, and many more wasted lives will follow.

ALAN FENSTER

Beverly Hills

*

It is difficult for most of us, especially Latinos, to have faith in the actions of most politicians. Why would Rep. Xavier Becerra, Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa and others write letters to President Clinton on behalf of a convicted drug dealer without doing their homework? What makes this felon different from all the others doing time for getting our kids hooked on dope? We all know it has nothing to do with Horacio Vignali (the felon’s father) contributing money to our elected officials. And, it will not surprise us to someday see a plaque on the wall of our new cathedral, once it is built, bearing the name of Horacio Vignali as a major contributor.

RAUL ACOSTA

Chino Hills

*

What is the difference between a campaign contribution and a bribe? It certainly seems much cheaper to contribute than to bribe; it is truly remarkable how little a presidential pardon costs and yet how much it cheapens our presidency. If we ever have campaign reform, it must include some provision that separates these legal bribes from subsequent favors. The politicians say these legal bribes earn access, not influence. Do they really believe people are that stupid?

ROBERT F. ROBERTSON

Northridge