Du­bi­ous record

The Washington Times Weekly - - Letters To The Editor -

Re: the ar­ti­cle in the Nov. 5 edi­tion ti­tled “Hil­lary backed lab of donor,” (page 11), re­gard­ing an ap­par­ent con­nec­tion be­tween a $3,000 con­tri­bu­tion to her cam­paign by a con­tro­ver­sial and per­haps racist DNA re­searcher and the sub­se­quent in­volve­ment of Sen. Hil­lary Rod­ham Clin­ton in ear­mark­ing a $900,000 grant for his re­search lab, we are told by Mrs. Clin­ton's spokesman, “One thing had noth­ing to do with the other.”

Sim­i­larly, we were once as­sured that there was no quid pro quo re­la­tion­ship be­tween the or­ches­tra­tion by an ex­ec­u­tive of a chick­en­pro­cess­ing com­pany, aided by a shady se­cu­ri­ties dealer, of a profit of $100,000 on Hil­lary's $1,000 in­vest­ment in the volatile cat­tle fu­tures mar­ket and the re­lax­ation, let us say, of en­vi­ron­men­tal laws by then Arkansas Gov. Bill Clin­ton while that same com­pany dumped mas­sive quan­ti­ties of its waste into once pris­tine rivers.

Also, Mrs. Clin­ton has adamantly de­nied that pay­ments to her brothers by peo­ple seek­ing pres­i­den­tial par­dons from her hus­band had any­thing what­so­ever to do with his grant­ing par­dons to those same peo­ple.

There may be times when in­fer­ences of wrong­do­ing from such cir­cum­stances would be ap­pro­pri­ate. But given Mrs. Clin­ton's un­blem­ished record over many years of can­dor, pro­bity and ve­rac­ity, she must be ac­corded the full ben­e­fit of the doubt with re­spect to th­ese oc­ca­sions, the many com­pa­ra­ble ones that have oc­curred in the past, the ones that are oc­cur­ring as I write and the host of those that no doubt will oc­cur in the fu­ture. Barry C. Steel Phoenix, Mary­land

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.