I am shocked that the Star Tribune would take the whole front page April 19 to side with the liberal left in reporting the story about the Trump saga. All the sordid details about how angry he was and how he “tried to get the investigation aborted,” but do you say why?? He was angry because he was innocent!! Where in the newspaper’s report in 4-inch letters does it say that THERE WAS NO COLLUSION!!!! That is what the whole investigation was about. Color me and many others like me as disgusted with the manner in which this story was reported.
Anna Glynn, Champlin
• • •
Once again my blood pressure escalated when I saw the front page of your paper. It is another example of the biased, Trump-hating fodder your paper shovels.
Delphine Sunderland, Golden Valley
• • •
To my fellow Richfield letter writer (April 19), who wrote: “Trump and his gang … ran the campaign like they have since run the country — ineptly,” if ineptly means winning the presidency and jump-starting the U.S. economy, then Trump is guilty.
It kind of sounds like the letter writer, not to mention the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, other major media outlets and Democrats (including many career, professional Republican politicians) are still angry. Angry that this “not a normal politician” ran for president, ran a better campaign, worked harder, had a better sales pitch and beat Hillary Clinton fair and square.
I am not a doctor, but this constant anger can’t be good for one’s health. If President Donald Trump wins re-election, may I in advance suggest some anger-management therapy?
P.S. And since this is Easter weekend, maybe we can lighten up. Lose the anger and celebrate some positive things. You can always go back to hating President Trump on Monday.
Neil F. Anderson, Richfield
• • •
The report is out, and it is damning. The worst part is not that this country is led by an amoral, self-serving president who lies as easily as he breathes, it is that so many people find nothing abhorrent about this behavior. Living through this administration is like watching a daily rerun of the burning of the Notre Dame Cathedral, except we are watching the destruction not of a building but of our democracy.
Margaret Capra, Rosemount
• • •
Both of my parents were immigrants who arrived (separately) in the U.S. virtually penniless, with no knowledge of English, and with less than a fifth-grade education behind them. When I entered the family as a firstborn, there were three books on my mother’s modest reference shelf: the Bible, the Federal Textbook on Citizenship Training (she finished first in her class) and a book of heroic epic poetry from her homeland. From these three she garnered the unwritten rules of civility that would prepare me for my interactions with God, Caesar and Man as I entered American life through the doors of the Duluth Public Schools.
Voting in seven consecutive presidential elections, my mother and I, obeying the same set of rules, managed to cancel each other’s vote every time. That would not happen today — President Trump has violated far too many of those rules to be considered an eligible candidate. My question to those who continue to support him is this: What additional rule would have to be in your collection, what additional statement would he have to utter, what additional deed would he have to commit, before you would consider him unfit for the highest office in the land?
Clifford W. Erickson, Minnetonka
• • •
One takeaway from all the analyses of the Mueller report that can’t be overlooked is the incredible investigative work the mainstream press has done over the past two years. There is much in the report that we already knew, we just needed Mueller to confirm it. And he did. Trump can rant about “fake news” all he wants, but the news media got it right about all the contacts with Russians; about the lies to cover up the meetings; about Trump’s attempts to obstruct justice only to be stopped by advisers (who have all resigned or been fired); about Trump Tower Moscow — I could go on. The Mueller report validates the fact that we have a colluding and conniving president hellbent on protecting himself and his cronies. This president, the Republican Senate and the attorney general cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the American people. Let us be grateful that the Fourth Estate remains strong and dedicated to maintaining a functioning democracy.
Mary Alice Divine, White Bear Lake
• • •
So Donald Trump was not indicted (yet), but was he confirmed to be a moral man? Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is one of the most influential people in the history of Western philosophy. Kant’s theory says that the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences, but on whether they fulfill our duty.
Did Donald Trump fulfill his duty?
Roger Lilleodden, St. Paul
• • •
Let’s look at the forest instead of the trees, branches and twigs. The Mueller report clearly establishes that Russia attempted to interfere with our election, the core of our nation’s democracy. President Trump swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet instead of defending America, he has denied the Russian attack and has done nothing to prevent another. We may quibble over collusion or obstruction, but it is very clear that Trump has failed us.
Diane Rosenwald, Plymouth
• • •
From the Mueller report: “The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.” In other words, we were attacked by a foreign power, which may have altered the result of the election and changed the course of American history.
Trump not only knew about the attack, he welcomed it, lied about it to cover it up, and fired the FBI director to impede investigation. Along with the Republican Party, he’s done nothing to prevent it from happening again.
So at least in part, Trump and the Republicans hold their grip on the country because of the support of a Russian despot hostile to the United States. Vladimir Putin is a murderous enemy of democracy and a destabilizing force around the world. And he is Trump’s puppet master today.
We cannot wait until 2020. Our country is in grave danger as long as Trump is in power. Americans of good conscience must demand that Congress investigate Trump’s criminality and the sway that Russia holds over him. Impeachment must be a possibility.
Pamela J. Snopl, Minneapolis
• • •
I accept that the Star Tribune relies on national sources for national news, including the selected parts of the Mueller report, published on April 19.
I was surprised, though, that an important part from page 148 was not included:
“Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and Manafort’s plan to win the election. That briefing encompassed the Campaign’s messaging and its internal polling data. According to Gates, it also included discussion of ‘battleground’ states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.”
We should be proud that those tactics did not work that well here.
Hanna Hill, Plymouth
• • •
All Americans should applaud the White House staff members who remained ethical and did not do Trump’s bidding when pressured by him to participate in illegal activities. I thank them for their service, especially those who lost their jobs because they chose to uphold the law.
Colette Moder, Roseville
MOHAMED NOOR TRIAL
Wondering about dispatch protocol
In following the Mohamed Noor trial, as a former police dispatcher I am wondering what protocol was followed in the 911 call. Dispatch has full responsibility in providing the initial information for safety to the 911 caller and to the officers responding. Typically a dispatcher should advise the caller to either remain at their residence or if in a safe area, to remain in place and to not approach the police vehicle. In obtaining all information, the dispatcher then should alert the officers to the residence or location, with a description of the caller. The shooting of Justine Ruszczyk Damond could have not happened had the protocol mentioned been followed. Dispatch is a critical part of every police call, from that phone call to when the officer signs off from the call. Certainly a review of dispatch action would be advisable.
Sandra Schultz, Prior Lake