To the Editor:
In his essay “Donald Trump’s Way of Speaking Defies All Logic,” Michael Wolff presents a compelling argument that Donald Trump’s statements are often illogical and therefore legally insignificant. However, this analysis only holds true when we evaluate Trump’s statements individually. When we view them as a whole, they reveal a calculated and subversive agenda.
Trump’s post-election statements all push towards the same goal: to overturn the election through any means necessary, whether legal or illegal. Therefore, the key to dismantling his defense of “my words are meaningless” lies in assembling them into a coherent and sinister whole.
Richard Sclove
Amherst, Mass.
To the Editor:
Michael Wolff accurately captures the disordered nature of Donald Trump’s language and thinking, which we have witnessed for years. However, his argument that Trump’s actions regarding the 2020 election were unintentional and should mitigate his guilt overlooks the fact that chaotic thinking does not excuse or negate intention.
There is ample evidence of Trump’s caution and calculation. He famously avoids email, issues questionable orders using oblique language, and even destroys documents. His speech on January 6th contains examples of indirect language.
Even if Trump’s actions on January 6th were based on an irrational belief, it does not serve as a viable defense. Many criminals who truly believed they could get away with a crime have faced conviction. Chaotic thinking should not absolve responsibility.
Madeleine Crummer
Santa Fe, N.M.
To the Editor:
It is misguided to believe that a liar’s sincere belief in his own lies should excuse him from committing a crime. The distinction lies in whether the accused was able to distinguish right actions from wrong ones.
Donald Trump pursued legitimate challenges to the outcome of the 2020 election through legal means such as ballot challenges and recounts. However, despite expert advice and repeated losses in court, he went beyond those avenues and sought to reverse the election through illegal means.
If he genuinely could not distinguish right from wrong after November 2020, he should explore an insanity defense. But claiming ignorance as a defense does not change the fact that his actions crossed into illegal territory.
John Mark Hansen
Chicago
To the Editor:
John F. Lauro, Donald Trump’s attorney, argues that Trump’s requests to Mike Pence and Brad Raffensperger were not illegal because they were merely “aspirational.” According to Lauro, Trump asked Pence in an aspirational way and did not direct him to do anything.
But if I were to ask someone to collaborate with me in robbing a bank, would that not be considered part of a criminal conspiracy? Merely labeling a request as “aspirational” does not absolve it of criminal intent.
David P. Barash
Goleta, Calif.
To the Editor:
President Biden’s weak approval ratings, despite his administration’s accomplishments, can be attributed to a combination of factors: his age, his inability to effectively promote his achievements, public distrust of politicians, and the successful campaign by his opponents to portray him as weak.
If Donald Trump were to win the presidency again, it would confirm the belief that we get the governments we deserve. We would be responsible for any calamities that a second Trump administration would bring.
Daniel R. Martin
Hartsdale, N.Y.
To the Editor:
In her essay “Dog Parks Are Great for People. Too Bad They’re Terrible for Dogs,” Julie V. Iovine makes the mistake of assuming that because dog parks may not be suitable for some dogs, all owners should avoid them altogether.
For breeds like labradors, dog parks provide a safe and legal space for them to engage in instinctive behaviors like pursuit and fetching in urban environments. We should not eliminate dog parks just because some dogs do not enjoy them, just as we should not eliminate symphony performances because some people do not enjoy Mahler.
Brian Erly
Denver
To the Editor:
People should be aware of the risks associated with dog parks and make decisions accordingly. Like with any activity, some of us are more risk-averse than others.
Consider factors such as pet insurance, the temperament of your dogs, your knowledge of signs of anxiety and aggression in dogs, and your willingness to supervise and ensure their safety. If your dog is a bully, it’s important to admit it as well.
One of our dogs was attacked at a park, and the other dog’s owner refused to pay for the vet bills. Despite this, we still go to the park but with increased vigilance and additional safety measures.
Katie Arth
Ventura, Calif.
To the Editor:
Farah Stockman’s article “This Is the Music America Needs” reminded me of my childhood as a refugee from Nazi Germany in 1938. My father, an amateur violinist, discovered a publication that connected amateur musicians, allowing them to play chamber music together.
This brought together a diverse group of musicians, regardless of age, background, or race, who shared the joy of making music together. Playing Mozart and Haydn quartets, they fostered conversations and connections, breaking down barriers through their shared love of music.
These small groups exemplified the kind of music America needs, where diversity and unity coexist.
Rudi Wolff
New York
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
