To the Editor:
Re “In a Brash Public Move, Trump Asks the Chinese to Examine the Bidens” (front page, Oct. 4):
Even if the Trumped-up allegations about the Bidens turned out to be accurate — and there hasn’t been the least bit of evidence to support the claim — the fact remains that, as president, Donald Trump violated the law by asking a foreign power (Ukraine) to dig up dirt on a political rival for his own personal gain, while he held back vital military aid to Ukraine, which had been appropriated by Congress.
And now he’s compounding his lawlessness by publicly making a similar request of China.
Something new and ugly every day.
Joel H. Cohen
Staten Island
To the Editor:
Donald Trump once proclaimed that he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” He is now testing this with his open admission of influence-peddling in Ukraine.
This might be the final test of what democracy means to the American people if the president of the United States can do whatever he pleases despite the Constitution.
Kenneth Satir
Longboat Key, Fla.
To the Editor:
Many articles cite President Trump’s description of his phone call with Ukraine’s leader as being “perfect.” Does anyone even know what that means?
I know what a “perfect” math exam paper looks like. A gymnastics judge can tell me the elements a routine must have to rate a “perfect” 10. Phone calls are different and are typically classified as pleasant, usual, productive, depressing and so on.
What must be accomplished for one of the people on the phone call to deem it “perfect”? It would take more than simply not committing treason.
For example, I might call a conversation “perfect” if I could persuade my children to behave in a way I would like without their realizing that it was my idea. Perhaps Mr. Trump felt that he was able to convey something nefarious without using specific words that would incriminate him.
If he had actually been able to accomplish that feat, we might agree that an argument for “perfection” could be made.
Harold Sackrowitz
Highland Park, N.J.
To the Editor:
Re “Facts vs. Baseless Claims About a Biden and China” (news article, Oct. 4):
What we do know about Hunter Biden’s business in China is that without the name Biden he would be “a beggar at the door” in international financial circles, and so would various Trump family members who profit from the Trump presidency.
That “everybody does it” does not excuse such political profiteering or make it less unseemly. To avoid the appearance of quid pro quo, there should be strict laws enforcing the emoluments clause against politicians and their relatives while they hold office.
Tom Miller
Oakland, Calif.
Source: Read Full Article
Home » Analysis & Comment » Opinion | The Trump Era: ‘Something New and Ugly Every Day’
Opinion | The Trump Era: ‘Something New and Ugly Every Day’
To the Editor:
Re “In a Brash Public Move, Trump Asks the Chinese to Examine the Bidens” (front page, Oct. 4):
Even if the Trumped-up allegations about the Bidens turned out to be accurate — and there hasn’t been the least bit of evidence to support the claim — the fact remains that, as president, Donald Trump violated the law by asking a foreign power (Ukraine) to dig up dirt on a political rival for his own personal gain, while he held back vital military aid to Ukraine, which had been appropriated by Congress.
And now he’s compounding his lawlessness by publicly making a similar request of China.
Something new and ugly every day.
Joel H. Cohen
Staten Island
To the Editor:
Donald Trump once proclaimed that he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” He is now testing this with his open admission of influence-peddling in Ukraine.
This might be the final test of what democracy means to the American people if the president of the United States can do whatever he pleases despite the Constitution.
Kenneth Satir
Longboat Key, Fla.
To the Editor:
Many articles cite President Trump’s description of his phone call with Ukraine’s leader as being “perfect.” Does anyone even know what that means?
I know what a “perfect” math exam paper looks like. A gymnastics judge can tell me the elements a routine must have to rate a “perfect” 10. Phone calls are different and are typically classified as pleasant, usual, productive, depressing and so on.
What must be accomplished for one of the people on the phone call to deem it “perfect”? It would take more than simply not committing treason.
For example, I might call a conversation “perfect” if I could persuade my children to behave in a way I would like without their realizing that it was my idea. Perhaps Mr. Trump felt that he was able to convey something nefarious without using specific words that would incriminate him.
If he had actually been able to accomplish that feat, we might agree that an argument for “perfection” could be made.
Harold Sackrowitz
Highland Park, N.J.
To the Editor:
Re “Facts vs. Baseless Claims About a Biden and China” (news article, Oct. 4):
What we do know about Hunter Biden’s business in China is that without the name Biden he would be “a beggar at the door” in international financial circles, and so would various Trump family members who profit from the Trump presidency.
That “everybody does it” does not excuse such political profiteering or make it less unseemly. To avoid the appearance of quid pro quo, there should be strict laws enforcing the emoluments clause against politicians and their relatives while they hold office.
Tom Miller
Oakland, Calif.
Source: Read Full Article