Regarding the trial of Donald Trump and the lack of televised coverage: Trump’s criminal hush money trial could be momentous for American history, but unfortunately, the American people are unable to witness it live since the state of New York is prohibiting televised coverage.
The testimony of Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, is crucial to the case and has been widely reported in the media with a vast array of interpretations shortchanging the American people who are unable to parse the words and nuances of Cohen.
I vividly remember the testimony of John Dean when he spoke before a Senate committee investigating the Watergate affair. It was not a trial, but the televised image and monotonal testimony of Richard Nixon’s White House lawyer was devastating. A Time magazine cover on July 9, 1973, even asked: “Can Nixon Survive Dean?”
Will Trump survive Cohen? Regrettably, we are left with the opinions of reporters, legal experts, pundits and columnists of all political persuasions.
It would be so much better if the trial were televised so Americans could see with their own eyes if Cohen is a credible witness and not depend on the views of others.
— Larry Vigon, Chicago
Why the preferential treatment?
Why is ex-President Donald Trump getting such preferential treatment from the courts? He’s a private citizen and should not be given this treatment because he is the presumptive Republican presidential candidate. Any other private citizen accused of his crimes would have been tried and convicted or acquitted by now.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon is by far the worst, having further delayed his documents trial even after almost a year.
It is incumbent on the Supreme Court to rule that he has no immunity in any criminal trial. We’ll see.
— Charles Wilt, Cary
Not just Republican principles
The Tribune editorial on May 15 (“The courthouse parade of GOP officials courting defendant Trump is a disgrace”) was excellent, important and spot-on accurate — until the very last sentence. The editorial board clearly recognizes how bad things have become in Donald Trump’s party, the disgraceful parade of GOP hangers-on attacking the American justice systems on his behalf and the once-serious party that has gone sour in the Trump era.
Disappointingly, the last sentence refers to “Republican principles of limited government and the rule of law.” The board can argue the case about limited government if it wishes (perhaps it wants to review the record deficits set by recent Republican presidents during their administrations). However, the “rule of law” is a Democratic principle and very much an American principle too. It is certainly not a principle owned by the Republican Party!
And if the editorial board somehow convinced itself it was, then it should reread its own May 15 editorial to disabuse itself of the notion. And perhaps the board could explain to readers how and why it came to believe such. Or was it just an inadvertent last-sentence mistake?
— Anthony Miller, LaGrange Park
More debates are lamentable
The presidential candidates’ agreement to debate is both surprising and depressing. If there were a legal or political mechanism to bar debates between Donald Trump and Joe Biden from taking place this year, it should be triggered as soon as possible.
The sad performances during the last presidential debates should have taught the American people that a reasonable, intelligible, civil dialogue cannot take place between these two candidates. Between Trump’s second grade behavior of interrupting and talking over his opponent and Biden’s staged verbiage, the candidates embarrassed themselves and the nation.
The endless media storms surrounding Biden and Trump have given both candidates excessive exposure that has stated their philosophies and positions well.
Without presidential debates, the 2024 election would take place with at least a modicum of dignity and professionalism.
— Terry Takash, Western Springs
Book explains loss of rights
“Minority Rule: The Right-Wing Attack on the Will of the People — and the Fight to Resist It” by Ari Berman answered the questions I’ve been asking since 2016: How did we get here? And how do we change direction?
Watching the frightening political events taking place in our country, I have remained aghast and began looking for ways to understand what is propelling the actions that are curtailing our rights in states and in the nation.
This book helped answer those questions. I thought I understood the basics of American democracy; however, I learned so much more about the Founding Fathers’ intentionality and gained insights into our institutions including the Electoral College, the Senate and the Supreme Court.
Ongoing issues concerning recent voting events in neighboring Wisconsin and Michigan are explained, offering the “how” and “why” they are happening.
While still concerned, I now understand better how we got here.
— Linda Bosy, Orland Park
Crack down on weapons
Professor Jens Ludwig, director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, is correct in his op-ed (“More spending won’t be enough to reduce Chicago’s gun violence,” May 15): More spending will not be enough to reduce Chicago’s gun violence by itself. Social reform, infrastructure, economic development, police training, etc., are needed, and they are expensive and slow.
In my opinion, only one thing will have immediate impact and give relief to the worst affected neighborhoods and the city this summer. An immediate crackdown on illegal gun possession and removal of weapons and perpetrators from the streets will protect the public. There should be no pretrial release if the weapon is illegally possessed or used in a crime. There should be stiff sentences and fines for illegal possession alone — more time for crimes committed — and maximum sentences for repeat offenders.
We shouldn’t read of people being arrested with a gun while out on bond or under a restraining order or being arrested multiple times with a gun. Possession of a gun without a permit should result in heavy prison time and destruction of the weapon.
The crazy, random shootings that occur daily must be halted. Summer and the Democratic National Convention will highlight whatever progress we make.
— C. Richard Gilmore, Chicago
Mayor needs to be a leader
Regarding the article ”Grappling with being the boss” (May 12): It is evident Mayor Brandon Johnson is floundering due to his lack of leadership and support from the voters who voted him into office.
The economy and violence in Chicago follow him like a shadow.
To right this sinking ship, he has to be a leader and be honest with himself and the voters. “Woke” leadership is not leadership that works. He first has to make the city safe again. It is evident that when more police patrol the city, crime goes down.
We need a budget that includes hiring more police. Put them on every street corner in the city. The officers in blue can’t be the scapegoats for crime in the city. The police superintendent is not the final word on crime. It’s the mayor.
Johnson needs to revitalize the downtown area. Bring back economic engines to move the city forward. A new Bears stadium will not do anything for the city except make the McCaskeys more rich.
Voters are giving Johnson the answer to the test: As a leader, he must listen and change.
Chicago will be on every flat-screen TV in the world with the Democratic National Convention in town. He can’t make a misstep if he is looking forward to another term.
— Roberto l. Garcia, Chicago
How to avoid Chicago tickets
In response to Willie Wilson’s op-ed piece Thursday (“Government reliance on fines and fees hurts everyone”), I have three more suggestions: Don’t run red lights. Don’t park illegally. Don’t speed.
Problem solved!
— Nancy McDaniel, Chicago
Use of red light cameras in city
Willie Wilson’s op-ed concerning red light cameras points out only the impact of fines as a use of cameras. The cameras aren’t deciding who gets tickets and who doesn’t. It’s the drivers of vehicles who do.
Wilson points out the obvious costs associated with being caught by the cameras, but he never addresses why the cameras are there in the first place. They are there because drivers fail to adhere to the rules of the road such as speeding. Anyone who drives on city streets certainly knows that the majority of cars on our streets pay no concern to the speed limit.
Wilson also points out a disparity in fines, as a result of tickets issued by cameras, that severely and disproportionately harm certain communities. Is the use of cameras positioned throughout the city similar from ward to ward? My understanding is the majority have been placed fairly equally since the cameras were placed to enforce speed limits in areas with parks and schools.
Personally, I would like to see more cameras because the complete disregard for speed limits and other rules is a serious problem.
Or people can just obey the law, and the whole issue goes away.
— Bill O’Connor, Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
