It is one thing to write that Hunter Biden's trial and conviction shows that “no one is above the law, not even the president's son,” as the editorial board stated in its June 12 editorial, “Not even the president's son is above the law.”
It's quite another for the committee to say, without mentioning another public figure who was recently convicted, “It is past time for Biden to finally take full personal responsibility for the consequences of his destructive actions. He is clearly guilty of the three crimes for which a jury of his peers found him guilty. He should put his father's reelection hopes, and what is best for the country, above his own self-interest.”
Hunter Biden is a private citizen with no authority over anyone outside his family, although Republican conspiratorial fantasies paint him as a puppet master profiting from exploiting his father. Why would The Washington Post judge Biden, who has followed the justice system, by such standards, yet not call on Donald Trump and his vast horde of supporters, many of whom are in elected office, to “think less”? [their] Shouldn't we place more importance on “what is best for the country” rather than on our own interests?
Perhaps the Post knows that such appeals are futile, but it is simply unacceptable that Republicans are seeking to nominate a felon who shows contempt and scorn for the rule of law and those who seek to uphold it. And we cannot say loudly and repeatedly enough that anyone involved in re-electing Trump is choosing to jeopardize our nearly 250-year experiment in representative democracy.
Maurice Warner, Washington
The editorial on Hunter Biden was disingenuous. The committee argued that his conviction undermines Donald Trump's claims that the justice system was rigged against him. But this argument ignores that the Department of Justice was willing to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax evasion as part of a plea deal. In return, the case on which Biden was just convicted would have been dropped.
The only reason the plea deal was scrapped was because a responsible and careful District Judge, Mary Ellen Noreika, expressed concerns about its legality and the scope of the immunity Biden received. Noreika essentially told the Department of Justice, “No, Hunter Biden cannot escape the law.”
In the same editorial praising the justice system, The Washington Post mentioned the failed plea deal, and given that, they should have written, “Hunter Biden was convicted even as the justice system tried to avoid prosecution.”
Patrick Walsh, Linthicum, Maryland
It's easy to be a father in the good times, when your children are healthy and thriving. But that's not when fatherhood is most important. It's in those times, when your children struggle, when they stumble, when they suffer, that they need someone to give them steadfastness and unwavering love.
The country saw what that looks like last week when President Biden changed plans to travel to Delaware to support his son Hunter just hours after he was convicted of federal firearms charges.
President Biden did not complain about the verdict, he did not complain about the justice system or the jury or the judge, he did not shy away from how to present himself on the campaign trail in an election year, but he did have a firm sense of fatherly duty to stand by his son in a moment of deep crisis.
It's not the first time Biden has been called upon to do so. Biden took his oath of office at Hunter and his brother, Beau's, hospital bedside as they recovered from a car accident that killed his wife and infant daughter. He tucked his sons into bed each night after a long commute to Wilmington from his job as a senator. He was there when Hunter struggled with drug and alcohol addiction and when Hunter's problems multiplied after Beau died of cancer. And he often speaks proudly of Hunter's long road to recovery from substance abuse.
“I'm a president, but I'm also a father,” Biden said Tuesday.
Not every day is a happy day, for a president or a father, and this Father's Day, Biden's example reminded us all that for fathers around the world, leadership begins at home.
What should we call Trump now?
I don't understand why Carol Bogart, in her Friday, June 7th opinion piece, requested that we “not call Trump a 'felon.'”
Why don't we use the word “felon” to describe Donald Trump or anyone else who has been convicted of a felony? What about using the word “inmate” to describe someone in prison? Because it keeps them on the “margins of society”? Because it denies them a chance at rehabilitation? Because it hurts their feelings?
Felons and prisoners are already on the fringes of society, but the majority of society is neither, and rehabilitation is hard. It can't be easy.
Maybe reporters are held to a different standard. I don't think so. I believe we should report what we see. Trump is a felon. And he could be a prisoner.
James East, Springfield, Virginia
Thanks to Carol Bogart for pointing out this important point. Person-centered language makes a big difference and should be applied more widely. Use race-descriptive words as adjectives, not as nouns. (Incidentally, The Washington Post and other publications should stop capitalizing these adjectives and giving them undue importance compared to a person's other qualities.) Don't say, “He's a diabetic.” No, he is a diabetic. And so on. When you use adjectives to describe people, teach yourself to add the noun “people.” People have many characteristics and are not defined by one. Labeling them is unwise.
We call Donald Trump a liar, a cheat, a sociopath, and a mental and physical abuser, but, as Carol Bogart writes, we shouldn't call him a felon. So what do we call someone who openly despises our justice system, who has been accused or prosecuted of serious but nonviolent crimes, and who, when convicted, delays or evades consequences through lengthy legal maneuvering?
I suggest calling him “Don Trump,” a term that would describe not only him, but also the election deniers, insurrectionists, and fake electors who support him. It would also appeal to moderate Republicans who, unlike red-tie Republicans, don't want to be associated with the tarnished MAGA brand.
Let’s call them all Don’t Trump, update your style book and go for it!
Bill Hoffman, Springfield
A fun moment with Trump and Biden
I'm a big fan of Eugene Robinson, but I think his June 11 op-ed, “Trump's Shark Rants Are Suspicious,” misses the point. He, like many other commentators, evaluates Trump's speeches in the wrong terms. They're not speeches. They're conversations with his supporters. The speeches tend to be preachy. What Donald Trump does is more like a Johnny Carson monologue. And President Biden should try to emulate this kind of conversational style, as Franklin D. Roosevelt did so well with his fireside chats.
Trump, like Carson, communicates with his supporters as if they were sitting across the table over coffee or beer. His comments about sharks reflected the headline news of the day about a series of unusual shark attacks in Florida. Electric cars have also been a popular topic lately, and Trump's question, “What if one of those ships sank?”, was seen by some as a legitimate one — the kind of topic that might come up in conversations between friends.
Of course, sometimes this approach backfires, as when Trump suggested that ingesting bleach could kill the virus that causes COVID-19.This approach works best when Trump frames his points as questions to his audience, who feel included and consulted without actually being able to answer them.
Roosevelt was a good conversationalist and a serious speaker. Trump cannot deliver a serious, coherent speech, so he relies on a conversational style. Biden, on the other hand, can deliver a serious, thoughtful speech, but he needs to add his own fireside chats to his speeches. (It would be wise to prepare or at least rehearse your monologue beforehand to avoid making any famous gaffes.)
Biden is very charming when he is laid back, approachable, and grandfatherly. Why not start, as Carson often did, with a funny story in the news: “By the way, did you see how Red Lobster nearly went bankrupt after they offered an all-you-can-eat shrimp buffet? What were they thinking? Everybody loves shrimp. Well, that's capitalism.” Then start talking about the economy.
Robert Jenner, Riverdale, Maryland
I read Attorney General Merrick Garland's June 12 op-ed, “Justice Under Threat,” with gratitude and admiration. Here was a man of power who continued to defend our democracy despite “baseless, personal and dangerous” attacks.
While I am grateful that he is Attorney General of the United States, I cannot help but wonder how different things would have been if he had been appointed to the Supreme Court. Our country needs judges who believe in and embody integrity, courage, and an “unwavering commitment to the fair and impartial application of our laws.”
Ann Sand, Garrett Park, Maryland
