Where does the truth lie?
Re: “Trump’s assault on the truth has endangered our republic,” Nov. 24 commentary and Nov. 24 cartoon
Guilty?
Or innocent?
It was a great cartoon by Christopher Weyant at The Globe.
The Denver Post makes obvious, by letter selection, which coverage it will offer.
Did The Post really receive no reader letters at all, pointing out that every witness who discerned a quid pro quo in Donald Trump’s Ukrainian policy, inferred it without direct word from the president, save for these words?
“I want nothing!
“I want nothing!
“I want no quid pro quo!”
Meanwhile, in lamenting how little trust Americans place in our media, Doug Friednash ironically points to the 13,435 falsehoods attributed to Trump by the partisan “fact-checker” Washington Post.
I will say that the only presidential whopper I recall that had direct negative impact on my life was uttered multiple times without media challenge:
“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”
Colorado hospital prices increased 76% by The Denver Post’s own count since.
Steve Baur, Westminster
Doug Friednash hit the nail on the head regarding Trump and his misrepresentation. More to the point, we have to ask what’s become of the Republican Party.
Today, we have the Republican Party in denial of more far-reaching allegations against President Trump. Far from merely lying to Congress about an extramarital affair as in the Clinton era, Trump has stepped over the line by attempting to withhold nearly $400 million of military aid to a foreign country in exchange for that country fabricating “dirt” on a political rival.
In its effort to protect the president, the Republican Party has inadvertently presented itself as the party of double standards. Comparing the Clinton impeachment charges with those being leveled at Trump, there’s no equivalency whatsoever between engaging in an extramarital affair and using a foreign power to tilt a presidential election.
Since the Bill Clinton days, the Republican Party has increasingly resorted to using false narratives, misinformation and outright lies to advance its political agendas. Trump has persisted in stonewalling any attempt by Congress to gain insight into the inner workings of Trump’s administration. What has been revealed is a presidency surrounded by characters who, themselves, have been suspected of criminal activity or convicted of the same.
What is it that the Republican Party doesn’t get about Donald J. Trump?
Make America Great Again? I don’t think so.
Gary E. Goms, Buena Vista
This is not a bipartisan process
Re: “Impeachment testimony convincing enough,” Nov. 24 letter to the editor
Mary Smith, former chair of the Denver GOP, thinks Congress and Sen. Cory Gardner should “cast aside partisanship and do their sacred duty under the Constitution. Follow the impeachment process, focus on the facts, listen carefully to the actual evidence and consider the sources, and hold the president accountable.”
First of all, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the impeachment process must be bipartisan. The only thing bipartisan about this whole thing is when Democratic House members voted not to proceed. As far as “listening carefully,” it’s obvious that the former chair didn’t, unless it was to that pillar of truth CNN.
Presidents can and do withhold aid to foreign countries all the time. She might want to ask former President Barack Obama why he withheld some of the military aid the Ukrainian people so desperately needed, and while at it, look to the front- runner of the Democratic presidential wannabes for the integrity she is in search of. The man whose son got a high-paying job that he had zero qualifications for, and while that company was under scrutiny, this candidate — the vice president of the United States — had a prosecutor fired.
Larry E. Fries, Parker
Kudos to former Denver Republican chairwoman Mary Smith for her letter calling for GOP congressional leadership to hold President Trump accountable for “undermining one of the most important parts of being an American … free and open elections.” The reference was to Trump’s now-infamous phone call to Ukraine President Zelensky asking him to investigate a political opponent in exchange for a meeting in the White House.
Unfortunately, her message is likely to be ignored, and Trump will be acquitted in the Republican-controlled Senate if he is impeached by the Democratic House. His acquittal, in conjunction with his puppet Attorney General William Barr; the Republican Senate; a Justice Department ruling that a sitting president cannot be indicted; Trump’s denial of Vladimir Putin’s interference in the 2016 election; and favorable 5-4 decisions from the conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court will create a situation involving the two things the founders feared most: a lawless president operating with impunity (a de facto king) and interference from a foreign government, in this case Russia. That scenario will pose a serious danger to our nation’s cherished values and institutions.
Frank Tapy, Denver
Military pardons dangerous for our nation, POWs
I want to decry President Trump’s full pardon of 1st Lt. Clint Lorance and Maj. Mathew Golsteyn. Lorance was convicted for ordering the killing of unarmed men in Afghanistan. In the case of Golsteyn, it prevents his military trial for the alleged murder of a suspected bombmaker.
These pardons demean the reputation of the U.S. military. In history, armies of various countries have been guilty of allowing pillaging, rape and murder. That has not been the case with the U.S.
I recall a personal experience in World War II. I was with the first infantry troops into Osaka, Japan, after the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ending the conflict. I encountered a Japanese farmer working in his field. He feared me, doffing his hat and bowing. I got him to understand that I meant him no harm. The Japanese had been told we would be pillagers, rapists and murderers. With the good conduct of our troops, they soon learned that was not the case.
Our military courts usually get things right. The military in discharging its duty has to be humane. The United States’ reputation for the good conduct of our service personnel also affects how our American POWs are treated. This pardoning by President Trump has damaged our country.
James T. Watson, Highlands Ranch
Withdrawal served whom?
Re: “U.S. and Kurds resume efforts,” Nov. 26 news story
“Kurds resume efforts” two months after Trump’s abrupt withdrawal of troops.
Who did this temporary withdrawal serve? Well announced in advance, it invited Syria and Russia to advance their positions. The troops, who fought with the Kurds, had to leave them unprotected, and are now back under less safe conditions. President Trump destroys foreign policy, costs lives and troop morale, all to benefit our adversaries.
Donna Lucero, Lakewood
RTD needs to treat its employees better
Re: “RTD announces survey results,” Nov. 22 news story
While watching and reading the coverage about the operator shortage at RTD, one thing keeps jumping out at me. Why is the board of directors so bent on a service cut? Is that their real agenda?
If I ran an organization that had hired 177 operators and lost 201, that would be where my attention would focus. I know there are jobs out there that pay less then RTD, and can yet keep employees, so it must be something else.
Mandating! That is what it is. As long as you’re forcing people to work on their days off, in fear of getting fired, most people won’t stay. As an employer, you need to be better than the others, to keep a workforce.
When you tell an employee the bus or train route is more important than you and your family, it shows that you don’t really care about him or her.
If RTD would fundamentally change its policy on forced overtime, invite some of those 201 operators to reapply, send out the buses and trains that can be consistently filled, I bet the head count would start to recover.
It would take a few months of a reduced schedule, but may avoid a significant cut in the future — unless that’s what the board actually wants.
Susan Gierga, Aurora
The right to kneel, and the right to not support it
The controversy around quarterback Colin Kaepernick mostly deals with free speech and his right to kneel during the national anthem as a form of protest.
For me, it isn’t about free speech. For me, everyone absolutely has free speech and that includes the right to kneel.
Instead of the right to free speech, I would frame the topic around something else — namely, the content of that speech. What they say, or, in this case, the symbolism they choose.
When Kaepernick and others choose to kneel, they tell me something important about themselves and something important about their values. They tell me that they don’t share my values at all. So much so that I’m not interested in supporting them or the organization they represent.
David Jones, Aurora
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
