I have to disagree with your editorial of Sept. 15.

Whether or not the Starr report should have been published in the manner it was is another question.

Simply the fact that we have a sitting president who was caught in a crime is enough.

Any argument that “other presidents have done the same thing” is irrelevant to this case.

Other presidents were not caught in a crime, and there has never been any substantial proof.

Perjury before a federal grand jury is a felony. All legal hairsplitting aside, there has been, in all likelihood, a crime committed by Clinton.

This is fairly clear cut if you have read the legalese of the Starr report. It is not a matter of “her word against his.”

You subvert our entire legal system by demanding that we not prosecute a criminal when the criminal is caught in the crime.

To not proceed because the person is the president of the United States is a travesty.

It does not matter whether that person is a Democrat or Republican, whether the economy is good or bad or whether you like the police officer who caught him.

By not prosecuting a known criminal act, you announce to any would-be criminals that the criminal act is not significant, and you provide them with a means of defense if they are caught in a similar act.

In this case, the crime is perjury. Perjury is a crime because of the significance it holds to our legal system.

It does not take a genius to figure out what it means to our legal system if we overlook crimes of perjury. This country is much bigger than any one individual.

As an editor of a daily news publication, you should have the courage to drop your personal viewpoints when you cover the news.

Although it is changing, we have a legal system that for the most part looks solely at the word of law in determination of guilt or innocence.

Janet Reno herself said that she would not have authorized the investigation if there were not credible and substantial facts to warrant an investigation.

---

Kevin Siepel

President

Premier Internet, Inc.