To the editor: I would like to respond to the low-information voter in your article on the Trump verdict possibly shaping a House election who still plans to vote for the former president. (“In a battleground congressional district north of L.A., Trump verdict may be a wildcard in the November election,” May 31)
Trump was not on trial for having sex with a porn star. That is not a crime.
He was not on trial for paying hush money. That is also not a crime.
Trump was on trial for falsifying business records to hide his actions in order to influence the 2016 election. And, by the way, this is the least serious thing for which Trump has been charged across four separate criminal cases. Stealing and hiding classified documents, election tampering in Georgia and inciting an insurrection are more serious charges.
The voter quoted also suspects that Biden is guilty of unspecified crimes. If she is unable to name these crimes, it is unlikely they exist.
Lorraine Knopf, Santa Monica
..
To the editor: Let me get this straight.
The Times’ story quotes a former teacher from Santa Clarita who says: “Hush money has been going on since the beginning of time. So I don’t know why they’re making such a big deal about it.”
I wonder if her lessons included lying to her students on school subjects to fit her agenda; after all, lying has been going on for a long time. Would she say it is OK for someone to practice racism, since that too has been going on since the beginning of time?
The good news is that she’s retired. Thank God for small miracles.
J.J. Guevara, Pico Rivera
..
To the editor: The conviction might not sway swing voters for the same reason it will not sway Trumpers.
The media referring to this as a “hush money” trial instead of a “falsifying business records” trial gives Trump a break. Read the quote in Saturday’s paper: “Hush money has been going on since the beginning of time. So I don’t know why they’re making such a big deal about it.”
That is what most people think. But all 34 counts were for falsifying business records, which is against the law.
If Trump had directed a large sum of money to a charity and falsified business records to cover it up because he didn’t want, say, the National Rifle Assn. to know about it, would the media have called this a “charity donation” trial?
Richard Larsen, La Habra
