DOJ, FBI are broken
James Comey was right. Kash Patel and Pam Bondi are acting more like Mafia consiglieres to a mob boss than public servants. Bondi knew better and was not enthusiastic about bringing charges against Comey, but unlike one of her predecessors as attorney general, Jeff Sessions, her loyalty to President Donald Trump outweighed her integrity.
Tom Homan was caught on video accepting a bribe of $50,000 in cash, which he apparently kept. Patel shut down the investigation because there was not enough evidence to convict Homan, according to him.
In the case of Comey, there must have been a team of Trump lawyers poring over everything he said and did to find something to prosecute him for. Apparently, mortgage fraud wasn’t an option. So they came up with him lying to Congress.
Trump just made the case against Comey harder to prosecute by claiming he lied, he lied a lot, and he is a dirty cop, and calling Judge Michael Nachmanoff a “Crooked Biden Appointee” in an attempt to work the ref in the case.
The U.S. Department of Justice is broken because the rule of law, one’s public service, and evidence no longer matter. This reflects a larger problem in that Trump is turning our nation into a banana republic — or, maybe more appropriately in this instance, a crime family — as he floats one scam after another while in office, and tries to take out anyone he thinks has wronged him.
George Magakis Jr.,Norristown
Separation of church and state
It goes without saying that political violence is always unacceptable, and that the assassinations of political figures on both the right and left are tragic. However, conflating the issues of religion and politics is not only unacceptable but dangerous to our democracy. The policies of the right and its Christian nationalism were espoused by Charlie Kirk and others, who suggested that our country should be a Christian nation. Jesus gets lost in this arena of political martyrs and saviors, and non-Christian Americans lose their rights and place in our society. The MAGA movement would have us think true Christians are faithful to their movement, and that those who oppose their policies of division and injustice are nonbelievers. We Christians who identify as liberals believe Jesus would see the absence of truth, compassion, and justice in the policies of a vindictive and corrupt president who was supported by the religious right. Kirk believed in his truth, but his truth was not everyone’s truth.
Sandra Detweiler,West Chester
Ratings vs. free speech
Jimmy Kimmel’s ratings have been on a consistent downward slide while his show is a financial drag on the network (much like Stephen Colbert’s was). There is nothing sadder than a comedian who is no longer funny and resorts to inflammatory political commentary to try to be relevant. It is likely ABC was looking for a reason to get out from under his burden. He provided it to them.
In the days after Kimmel’s suspension was announced, The Inquirer Opinion section was dominated by pieces from the Editorial Board, Will Bunch, and Trudy Rubin, all bemoaning the attack on the First Amendment with the removal of Kimmel from the airwaves.
The Biden administration was guilty of threatening the First Amendment when it pressured Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other social media outlets to censor content and alter algorithms based on what it said was misinformation. Where were the outcry or opinion pieces when those attacks on the First Amendment were occurring?
Mark Fenstemaker,Warminster
High road
In Richard Iaconelli’s recent letter on the need for Democrats to identify a Charlie Kirk-type figure in their party, I wonder which version of Mr. Kirk was being referenced? The one who blamed Jews for financing “anti-white” organizations? The one who accused Black Americans of prowling around targeting white people? The one who told Taylor Swift she needed to submit to her future husband? The one who called for speedy, televised executions? The one who accused large Islamic areas of threatening our country? The one who said gun deaths every year were worth having for the sake of preserving the Second Amendment? And, worst of all, the one who shilled for that morally and intellectually destitute creature who currently inhabits the White House? If all that represents moral values, then I can’t understand this world.
If Mr. Iaconelli is so distressed about the moral direction of the Democratic Party that, after 52 years, he sought the leadership of Donald Trump, I’m sure he will understand why Trump’s depredations caused me to switch to the Democratic Party after 72 years as a Republican.
Incidentally, I wonder if “deeply saddened” is how Mr. Iaconelli would describe his reaction to the “senseless murder” of Melissa Hortman, speaker of the Minnesota state House of Representatives and a real servant of the people.
J. Alexander Adams Jr.,Marlton
Unanswered questions
I continue to find myself bothered by the resolution of the shooting death of Ronald Jones, an unarmed Black man who was gunned down last October, not far from my home in Northeast Philly, by Christopher Sweeney, a white, off-duty, 10-year homicide detective. I almost missed in the news in July that the district attorney’s office declined to press charges in the case without giving a formal reason.
According to the police, Detective Sweeney’s car was stopped in the turning lane on a street, and Jones’ car was parked behind Sweeney’s, with Jones (a roadside assistance operator who was dressed in reflector clothing) shot dead through Sweeney’s closed driver’s side window.
Why did the police initially claim it was an attempted carjacking? Why were the sewer covers pulled and searched? Was a Breathalyzer test performed on the detective who was inexplicably stopped in the middle of the street? Was it a case of road rage? If the detective felt threatened, why didn’t he just drive away? So many questions, with so few answers.
Kenneth Michaels, Philadelphia
Free speech
Being a senior citizen on a fixed income, paying for an Inquirer subscription every year is very difficult. But I do it, and I want to continue doing it, because The Inquirer seems like one of the last strongholds of free speech. We need to applaud The Inquirer’s owner, the Editorial Board, and the many incredible Opinion journalists who provide a continuous and courageous voice for the voiceless: the needs of people of color, the Palestinians as well as the Jewish people, the migrants, the LGBTQ community, our Mother Earth and environmental concerns, gun safety advocates, the academic environment, and so on. This presidential administration doesn’t honor or adhere to the Constitution (except the almighty Second Amendment). And it certainly doesn’t seem to support the First Amendment’s right to free speech (that is, except for people who follow the administration). We are in the “dark days” of fascism, and it is getting bleaker. But we need to support institutions that stand for — and support — free speech, such as The Inquirer.
William “Bill” Mattia,Pennsauken