To the Editor:
Re “Trump’s Attacks on Judge’s Family Lead to Expansion of a Gag Order” (news article, April 2):
If an indicted drug dealer or terrorist made threats against prosecutors, judges, court staff and their families, that person would be locked up and likely held in prison until their trial was completed and a verdict rendered.
In Donald Trump’s case, we have someone with a history of inciting violence who was criminally indicted by separate grand juries in four different jurisdictions. Yet, Mr. Trump routinely makes public threats not only against prosecutors, judges and their families, but also against our current president, Joe Biden (the video of an image of him hog-tied), apparently with few consequences aside from an occasional fine.
When will the judges muster the courage to hold Mr. Trump to the same standard of conduct they would demand of a terrorist or drug dealer? Why do our courts treat Mr. Trump with kid gloves, when he can potentially do more damage to our country and to people’s lives than any terrorist or drug dealer?
Jeff Crider
Palm Desert, Calif.
To the Editor:
Even the expansion of the gag order against Donald Trump is unlikely to mitigate fears of reprisal for participants in the trial against the former president.
Mr. Trump’s penchant for vengeance against anyone he perceives has wronged him (or merely demonstrated insufficient loyalty) is, in all likelihood, adequate to discourage witnesses with the most damaging testimony from appearing in any case against Mr. Trump.
Steven A. Jensen
Palmerton, Pa.
To the Editor:
Re “No One Is Above the Law, Except …,” by Jamelle Bouie (column, March 31):
I agree wholeheartedly with most of the criticisms of Donald Trump set forth in this column. But I must disagree with its conclusion that the appellate court showed unwarranted favoritism toward him by its order reducing the amount of his appeal bond from $454 million to $175 million. Rather I believe that this action is consistent with steps that would have been followed with any similarly situated litigant.
A court has wide latitude to act to stay enforcement of a judgment pending appeal, including requiring the posting of a bond to secure collection, and must consider such factors as the likelihood that assets might be dissipated, the chances of success on the merits of the appeal or the damage to the appealing party that could occur if his or her assets were seized before the appeal was completed.
In this case it is likely that after weighing these factors, the appeals court had serious concerns about the amount of the penalty, which does appear excessive, and acted accordingly and well within its discretion.
Harold J. Smith
White Plains, N.Y.
The writer is a lawyer.
To the Editor:
The indictments of Donald Trump have exposed the fault lines in our justice system. We are not all equal in the eyes of the law.
First of all, if you are wealthy or can raise funds from donations, like Mr. Trump, you can hire many expensive lawyers, who will go to court with preposterous requests. When a judge’s ruling goes against Mr. Trump, his lawyers appeal the decision to an appellate court, and then maybe the Supreme Court, to delay, delay, delay.
Justice depends on unbiased judges making decisions based solely on the law. In the documents case in Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, has granted his lawyers just about everything they have requested. Her politics are so clearly on display that it is hard to imagine that she will hold the trial before the election, if at all.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers have claimed that he has complete immunity from any crime that he committed as president. A federal appeals court rejected that claim in a definitive ruling. So the lawyers brought it to the Supreme Court. There was no need for the court to take it up, but the justices decided to anyway, but to wait until the end of April to hear oral arguments.
The chances that they will rule in favor of Mr. Trump are slim, but the court is pretty much making sure that the voters going to the polls in November won’t have the chance to see if Mr. Trump is convicted or exonerated on charges of attempting to overturn a free and fair election.
Politics? You decide. But this is definitely a gift to Donald Trump.
I am thinking that justice will not prevail. I hope I am wrong.
To the Editor:
Re “Strikes by Israel Kill Aid Workers and Draw Outcry” (front page, April 3):
When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel acknowledges the violent death of seven aid workers to be a “tragic case of our forces unintentionally hitting innocent people in the Gaza Strip,” it prompts the question: By what measure have the deaths of thousands of Gazan children failed to meet this definition of “tragic”?
Were those children not innocent? Were their deaths not unintended?
Jane Harsha
Katonah, N.Y.
To the Editor:
It is all very well for President Biden and other world leaders to express horror at the senseless killing of the seven World Central Kitchen workers in Gaza. There is no dollar value for human life, but the Israeli government should be compelled to pay compensation to the families of the seven courageous workers who were killed.
It is disheartening to read that the president is planning to sell F-15 fighter jets to the Israelis to bolster their war effort. It would be a more sensible approach to contribute to their Iron Dome air defense system, but to refuse to send any more offensive weapons to the Israeli government.
Clearly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to continue the war, along with his leadership position, without restrictions.
To the Editor:
Re “Do Screens Actually Help Kids Learn?,” by Jessica Grose (Opinion, March 31):
Technology has its uses in the classroom, but Ms. Grose is right that implementation “matters a great deal.”
From my observations of elementary classrooms, digital devices are often used as part of small-group rotations, which make up most of the school day. The teacher works with one small group on reading or math while the rest of the class rotates through “centers,” which often include time with a device and without adult supervision. Kids often zone out or become confused.
In a first-grade classroom, I observed one child who was stumped by a number line on a screen because he didn’t know the meaning of “before,” and another who didn’t understand the word “combine.”
If I hadn’t been there to explain, I don’t know how long those kids would have sat blankly in front of a screen. Even after I explained “combine,” one boy decided he preferred to draw lines on his device with his finger.
Another issue is the content of these programs. Many of the programs commonly used for reading are intended to teach reading comprehension in isolation from any particular content, as a set of generally applicable skills, something that cognitive scientists agree is impossible.
Natalie Wexler
Washington
The writer is the author of “The Knowledge Gap: The Hidden Cause of America’s Broken Education System — and How to Fix It.”