I am appalled by the latest fixation on the financing arrangements made by the president and first lady when they purchased a house in New York [front page, Sept. 4; editorial, Sept. 5]. The so-called experts have questioned the wisdom of having the loan guaranteed by a private citizen. My question is: Why?

The president and first lady have spent most of their adult lives in public office, and they have not acquired a lot of money. They have no rich relatives from whom they can receive an inheritance. They have spent the past few years defending themselves against a misguided prosecutor with unlimited funds, which has left them impoverished. And The Post questions why someone is lending them money?

This is not a commercial lender extending to them more favorable terms than the general population. Terry McAuliffe is within his rights to spend his money any way he chooses, and the first family is at liberty, as Americans, to accept the collateral. What are the "experts" scared of? That in return, the president revealed national secrets to Mr. McAuliffe?

Would it be better to have a commercial bank publicly deny their loan request, making the Clintons laughingstocks or for them to be homeless when Mr. Clinton leaves office?

LAWAL MOMODU

Germantown