Readers Write: Trump's indictment, guns, invasive carp
Drop the deference for ex-presidents.
•••
I take issue with Ankush Khardori's commentary ("The knock-on effects of Trump's prosecution," Opinion Exchange, April 4). It's about time we get over treating ex-presidents as some sort of royalty. (Do they really need a convoy of six or more large black SUVs blocking traffic in all directions when traveling?) Once out of office, they are citizens just like everyone else. If the rest of us can be investigated and prosecuted for a crime, then so can ex-presidents. There is a simple solution here: If one doesn't want to be charged with a crime, then don't commit a crime. If future district attorneys or prosecutors become overzealous in hunting for offenses, let them suffer the consequences with their bosses and voters. The system will heal itself.
One more thing. Suggesting that President Joe Biden "instruct his attorney general to engage and coordinate with [Manhattan DA Alvin] Bragg and Fani Willis, the district attorney investigating [former President Donald] Trump in Fulton County, Ga.," is the exact reason that many no longer have faith in this country's Justice Department. Let's be clear, Merrick Garland is not Joe Biden's attorney general; he is the attorney general of the United States. Because past presidents (including Trump) have injected themselves into the Justice Department, Biden stated, explicitly, that he wants the Justice Department under his administration to be independent. Can you imagine the uproar from the opposition party if it became known that Biden instructed "his" attorney general to do anything?
If there is sufficient evidence to indict anyone, no matter who they are, then I hope those indictments are forthcoming (including the Bidens). It would also help the country heal if the circus the media is making of Trump's indictment stops and is not repeated going forward for him or anyone else.
Ken Thielman, Woodbury
•••
It will be a cold day in hell when I ever vote for another Democrat. I just sent my first of many contributions to the Donald Trump campaign. I plan on sending all I can over the next year. I'd hate to be the New York DA after Trump gets elected president.
Richard Burton, Ramsey
•••
I'm no legal expert, and I certainly cannot claim to be an ethical expert, but I'd like to put forth a theory for the Republicans both in Minnesota and throughout the country to counter the grave injustice they see as having been placed upon their dear leader with his indictment regarding paying an adult film star who isn't his wife to keep quiet about their having slept together so it wouldn't hurt his campaign.
Maybe, just maybe, all of his stress, his legal problems and his troubles both politically and otherwise related to this affair could have been avoided if he had taken the outrageous step of not sleeping with an adult film star who isn't his wife in the first place?
I know that will sound like a crazy idea to conservatives, who like nothing more than to legislate and cast shame upon the sexual preferences and perceived moral failings of everyone who isn't in their tribe, but perhaps it's so crazy it just might be on to something.
Adam Skoglund, Eden Prairie
•••
The statement of facts that support the indictment of Trump alleges that Trump instructed his attorney Michael Cohen to delay making the payment to Stormy Daniels for "as long as possible." Based on what the document says, Trump believed that if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying altogether, and at that point it would not matter if the story of his affair became public.
If this is accurate, then the idea that this was just a "personal payment" to spare the embarrassment to himself and his family, and not a campaign donation, will be proven false. If it is determined that the payments — recorded inaccurately as legal fees — were actually a donation to his campaign, then District Attorney Alvin Bragg's charges should stick.
In the legal world, intent matters. Trump, allegedly, showed that his intent was to keep this from the public to benefit his chances in the 2016 presidential election. Now it comes down to proof. If documentation and corroborating witness testimony bear this out, Trump should be found guilty. If the facts do not support this intent, then he should be held accountable only for any other violations found. Either way, the rule of law — for everyone — will be upheld.
David McCuskey, Orono
GUNS
Military use differs dramatically
The author of a letter to the editor on April 4 justified gun ownership by 18-year-olds by citing the use of weapons by soldiers of that age. Use of military weapons is under direct supervision by officers and noncommissioned officers. Outside of combat zones, those weapons are locked away when not in use for training and assigned duty. Whether or not 18-year-olds are sufficiently responsible for gun ownership in civilian life should be considered as a separate issue ("State age limit in gun law struck down," April 3).
Les Everett, Falcon Heights
INVASIVE CARP
Stop them before it's too late
Dennis Anderson's column "It's 2035, with much to carp about" (April 2) uses a time machine to weave a cautionary tale about how the decisions we make today will be perceived in the future.
And today, some of his predictions about the future of Minnesota seem like they could come true. Our state leaders are failing to take action against invasive carp, which are continuing their march upstream in the Mississippi River. Today we have time to stop them from taking over Minnesota waterways if we take decisive action. Today we have the tools to stop 99% of invasive carp at Lock and Dam 5 if we fund and install a well-researched deterrent system.
However, today our leaders at the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources do not have a plan in place to stop invasive carp and are actively lobbying our state lawmakers against funding the one solution we do have. The National Parks Conservation Association and our partners in the Stop Carp Coalition asked the DNR back in October 2020 to update its action plan to fight invasive carp.
More than two years have gone by, and DNR has failed to do so. What will that failure to act mean for the rivers, lakes and national parks in Minnesota? We don't need a time machine to know invasive carp will end recreational boating and fishing if our leaders allow it to take over our waterways. We need our state leaders to invest in a solution today that protects our state's greatest resources for tomorrow.
Christine Goepfert, Minneapolis
The writer is Midwest campaign director for the National Parks Conservation Association.
•••
Minnesotans are right to be concerned about a lack of decisive action to stop invasive carp from overtaking the Mississippi, St. Croix and Minnesota rivers. This year, our legislators and agency leaders have a rare opportunity to make forward-thinking investments that will protect our state's most treasured resources. The recent silver carp catch in the Mississippi River makes it clearer than ever: We can't afford another year of inaction. If decisionmakers allow the invasive carp population to explode, there will be no cure. Prevention is the only option, and it needs to start right now before this small window of opportunity closes.
Colleen O'Connor Toberman, St. Paul
The writer is land use and planning director at Friends of the Mississippi River.
