Letters to the Editor: ‘Meh’? Commenters should stop jumping to conclusions on Trump’s New York trial
To the editor: In saying that former President Trump’s criminal trial in New York hardly warrants a “meh,” UCLA law professor Richard L. Hasen sounds like a sportscaster before any sporting event, touting one team over the other. He opines on how the event will play out and the fan reactions to the perceived outcome.
Everybody has an opinion about Trump’s criminal trial related to his pre-2016 election payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels, but no one can say for sure what will occur and how it will end.
There are too many variables in play and anything could happen. As in all sporting events, let the game play out.
Watching Trump finally being held accountable in court will be a spectacle Americans will surely find enlightening. It will certainly change minds in his campaign for the presidency.
Nelson Sagisi, Santa Maria
..
To the editor: Hasen forgets his history when he says that the New York criminal case against Trump cheapens the term “election interference.”
Trump made arrangements to pay Daniels just after the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape was released in October 2016. This occurred between the second and third presidential debates between Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. His attorney wired the money the day before then-FBI Director James B. Comey reopened the case into Clinton’s emails.
Because of the hush money payment, we’ll never know how the 71.6 million voters who watched the third debate would have reacted if Trump had to answer that night for his alleged affair.
We’ll never know how the final weeks of media coverage would have differed if there had been two major stories — the email investigation, and Trump’s alleged affair.
Whatever else “election interference” means, it must include paying to hide damaging information from voters and the media on the eve of an election, then lying to cover it up.
Tyler Hagenbuch, Venice
..
To the editor: Trump need not win an outright acquittal in the “trial of the century” to proclaim himself a “winner.” All he needs is a sole juror to vote not guilty, whereupon the court must declare a mistrial.
In this circumstance, any retrial almost certainly would not begin until after the election. That will give Trump ample space to crow about how he is the wholly innocent victim of a massive witch hunt, thereby prodding his inflamed loyal base to cast ballots in unprecedented numbers for his reelection.
I would deem the New York proceedings the “trial of the millennium,” as any result short of a conviction will surely seal our democracy’s demise.
Sarah S. Williams, Santa Barbara
..
To the editor: In Monday’s print edition, there was full-page coverage of Trump’s trial in New York plus two-thirds of the Op-Ed page devoted to him. There was less coverage of the real news about President Biden and his security team discussing Iran’s attack on Israel.
One item is a circus; the other is a serious threat to global security.
Please do not devote so much print space to the Trump trial; cover actual news and our current president.
Betsy Patterson, Ojai
