Letters
Why I’m voting for Harris
Donald Trump is unfit for our presidency for multiple reasons, one of which is his civil and criminal convictions. His father was twice arrested, once at 21 for participation in a Ku Klux klan rally in Queens, and again, at age 70, for failing to fix violations in his apartment buildings. The family has a sordid history.
Donald Trump’s mentor once served as Senator Joe McCarthy’s chief legal counsel, who trained Trump to never concede.
The United States is pledged to Israel. It’s not simply one flawed, vicious, small man. I deeply support Israel, but my country is America and my support goes Harris in this election because we need sane , safe leadership for our sake —and for Israel’s sake too.
Bernie Weinstein
Fair Lawn
What about the other side?
I certainly enjoyed Rosanne Skopp’s 9/13 blog, Growing up Trumpish. What she said was important and she said it in a humorous way which made it even more enjoyable to read. The problem is there is never impartiality when it comes to analyzing politicians or candidates. Ms. Skopp is correct about Trump, and he will not get my vote. How about commenting on the remarks on the other side of our political divide? Sometimes these people are soft spoken and easy to listen to but their remarks still deserve criticism and should not be ignored.
Let’s start with a former president, who is not eligible to run again. What he has said still has repercussions. What about when Obama was running for president and invited Louis Farrakhan to his office for a discussion? He asked the press not to report that situation and said “Doesn’t a Black person have the right to speak with whoever he wants to?” Well of course they have that right; this was not in any way a racial issue, but why shouldn’t the press report whatever they believe is appropriate? Isn’t that a conflict of our freedom of the press laws?
Then at about the end of his presidency he reinstated the JCPOA, allowing Iran to have sanction relief. Referring to that he said, “Just because the Ayatollah is antisemitic is not a reason for him to be able to access money that will enable him to purchase the items he might very well use for a nuclear war.” “Just because” and “antisemitic” — those two terms should never be used in the same sentence. Just because and antisemitic? What educated person does not know of the horrors that Jews have endured when their adversaries were or are antisemitic, and how many people may be killed if Iran does obtain nuclear weapons.
Then there is Kamala Harris. On a speaking event with college students, one student complained about Israel’s ethnic cleansing the Palestinians. Her response to that comment? “Thank you for telling us your truth.” Your truth” Really? There is no truth whatsoever in that statement, but Ms. Harris wants her cake and to eat it also. I don’t believe she believes that comment but she surely wants that person to campaign for her no matter what her ideas might be. However, the people who might be the recipient of that line of reasoning, or who learn about it, must speak up when these remarks are unacceptable regardless of whether the speakers speak softly and calmly or whether they shout it into your ear.
Ellen Rubin
Somerset
Response to a letter
I am a criminal defense lawyer who practices in New York City, in my case the Bronx. I have selected juries in New York many times. The process is fair as each side, prosecution and defense, can eliminate jurors for any number of reasons, including for cause, such as bias against the defendant. Potential jurors obey the law when they say they cannot be fair, which happens many times in the jury selection process. No shame is involved in saying you cannot be fair. Donald Trump was tried by a jury of his peers. His attorneys had every opportunity to object to anyone serving on the jury. That jury heard the evidence. Every criminal trial requires that for a guilty verdict all the 12 jurors must concur in the in the verdict of guilt. The standard for guilt is proof of the facts beyond a reasonable doubt. For Donald Trump’s trial all 12 jurors concurred in 34 verdicts of guilty. He is now a convicted criminal, a felon.
When you think about it convincing 12 people who are randomly chosen from the list of people living in that county that the prosecutor has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has committed a crime is a great burden. The jury was convinced 34 times.
Donald Trump’s defense was confusing. It was confusing because he had no defense to the charges.
Donald Trump was also found guilty by a civil jury twice for defaming E. Jean Carroll by denying he had raped her in the dressing room of a store. Again his attorneys had every opportunity to object to anyone serving on that jury. And any juror that said he/she could not be fair to Donald Trump would be dismissed. He now owes E. Jean Carroll $50 million.
A civil jury has a lesser standard to award damages, which is proof by a preponderance of the evidence. It also has less jurors. Truth is a defense to the charge of defamation. Donald Trump could not prove that he did not rape E. Jean Carroll even by a preponderance of the evidence. He was found guilty twice. In this case and in his criminal case Donald Trump chose not to testify. That was his choice, not his attorneys’ choice. He had plenty of time to think about it.
I cannot vote for a man for president who is a convicted criminal, a felon. Nor can I vote for a man who has been convicted of raping a woman. In each case the process was fair. It is the same process by which all of us are judged should anyone of us be charged with a crime, or defamation.
Mitchell E. Ignatoff, Esq.
Englewood Cliffs
comments