To the Editor:
Re “Trump Indictment, Part IV: A Spectacle That Has Become Surreally Routine,” by Peter Baker (news analysis, nytimes.com, Aug. 15):
The grand jury’s RICO indictment is historic because it rightly accuses the former president and his co-conspirators of a gang-like assault on democracy. It is significant too because it recognizes the courageous refusal of state officeholders, mostly Republican, to violate the law.
Just as important, though, is that this is all happening in Georgia — a state with a storied history of defending the right to vote, where Donald Trump and Rudolph Giuliani falsely accused honest, patriotic Black women poll workers of manipulating ballots, and where a brave, smart Black female district attorney is standing up for the rule of law.
This is not the first or only time that Americans owe a huge debt of gratitude to our Black women compatriots.
Jan H. Kalicki
Alexandria, Va.
The writer is a public policy fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
To the Editor:
Like many who are concerned about the rule of law and equal treatment under the law, I was delighted to see former President Donald Trump and 18 others indicted by a Georgia grand jury. This is a sweeping indictment, accusing Mr. Trump of being the head of a “criminal enterprise” to overturn the election.
However, there are several matters about which we should be concerned.
First, I wish that the Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis, would not put Mr. Trump on trial at the same time as the 18 others. Doing that will not only be logistically difficult and complicated but will also create delays, making the legal process drag out and possibly extend beyond the 2024 election.
Second, the huge issue of timing must be resolved. It is unclear whether the federal or Georgia case will come first and how that might affect the timeline for completing a trial.
Third, it is possible that Mr. Trump’s attorneys will succeed in moving the case to a federal court. The effect would be that, unlike if the trial were held in Georgia, Mr. Trump could try to pardon himself if elected.
Finally, I continue to worry that Mr. Trump will use this new indictment, as he has done with the others, to raise money and rally his base.
Richard Cherwitz
Austin, Tex.
To the Editor:
Re “Indictments Became a Political Asset for Trump” (front page, Aug. 14):
Ironically, Donald Trump’s best political assets have been federal law enforcement officials at the highest levels.
James Comey handed Mr. Trump his first election with his ill-timed, last-minute declaration that Hillary Clinton had been “extremely careless” with her emails. Robert Mueller couldn’t bring himself to stand by the simple truth that Mr. Trump would have been indicted on a charge of obstruction of justice were he not a sitting president. And Merrick Garland timidly dawdled for more than a year until he finally appointed a special counsel to investigate Mr. Trump’s blatantly criminal conduct — a delay that gave Mr. Trump the ability to announce his candidacy before he was indicted and handed him the fodder to claim that it’s all designed to prevent his re-election.
At least as special counsel, Jack Smith has done his job swiftly and efficiently. The other three were more intent on demonstrating the purity of their integrity and their “nonpartisanship” than in pursuing justice.
Mr. Smith has now been joined by Fani Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, in the most sweeping election fraud indictment yet. Unfortunately, because of its complexity and the inclusion of 18 other co-conspirators, it is likely to drag on long past the 2024 election.
Because of all these circumstances, we can now only hope that the adage “justice delayed is justice denied” doesn’t result in Mr. Trump’s escaping responsibility and justice being denied to the entire country.
Jay Adolf
New York
To the Editor:
The articles about election interference have been misleading in that they imply that former President Donald Trump tried to get Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, to “find” an additional 11,780 votes to put into the Trump column.
If one listens to the recording of the telephone call Mr. Trump made to Mr. Raffensperger, actually Mr. Trump was talking about alleged fraudulent votes for Joe Biden. Mr. Raffensperger tried to explain that while there may have been some fraudulent votes, they had not found enough to make a difference in the outcome.
Mr. Trump responded (repeatedly) that if they would just look, they would find many thousands of fraudulent Biden votes, and even if they found just 11,780 of them, that would be enough to warrant a full investigation.
Mr. Raffensperger exhibited remarkable dignity and grace as he remained firm in the face of unworthy hectoring from the then president of the United States.
Charles W. Snyder
Savannah, Ga.
The writer is an attorney.
To the Editor:
These are the times that try men’s souls. Donald Trump, just indicted in Georgia, is expected to be the Republican nominee. If someone else is selected, it is reasonable to assume that the hard-core supporters of Mr. Trump will decide not to vote in the general election. That would be a gift for the Democrats.
Republicans are caught between a rock and a hard place. I pity them. I pity my country should Mr. Trump be elected.
Paul Schoenbaum
Richmond, Va.
Profiled at the Airport
To the Editor:
Re “Mother, Accused of Trafficking While Flying With Daughter, Sues Southwest Airlines” (nytimes.com, Aug. 7):
This absolutely resonated with me, a white Anglo-Saxon American with dark olive skin. I traveled with my 11-year-old grandson to Germany to visit friends in 2017, and upon trying to reach our gate at the Stuttgart airport en route home we were pulled aside multiple times. Connor is light-skinned and blond, the son of my own adopted son.
Initially, we each got a full body search. Then we were pulled aside again into a small, isolated room and scanned for explosives. Our carry-ons were dumped on a table and scattered across the floor, breaking Connor’s camera with all of his travel photos. We passed muster again.
At a final checkpoint I was asked to show written permission to travel with this child. Our last names and our appearances were different. I had no such document, my lapse. At that moment, Connor broke down and asked, “What is wrong, Nana?” Which is when the agent let us proceed.
Trafficking is a real issue, but sometimes adults and children who do not share the same genes travel together, or try to, and are singled out for their differences. There must be a better way.
Susan Wunder
Therwil, Switzerland
Should Women Use ‘Weak Language’?
To the Editor:
Re “Women’s ‘Weak Language’ Is a Source of Strength,” by Adam Grant (Opinion guest essay, Aug. 6):
Mr. Grant explains that women use “weak language” because they know that men don’t like it when they are assertive and that they talk “tentatively” as a strategy to avoid being called a “self-centered shrew” or “aggressive.”
He professes to understand the “outrageous” plight of women having to use “weak language,” yet presents a stunning solution to this plight: “Normalize ‘weak language,’” he writes. “If we do that, we won’t have to keep encouraging women to communicate more forcefully.”
“Weak language” is the language of women discounting their worth and questioning their right to request and opine. It’s enduring self-effacement to get a raise or be accepted by men.
His “solution” perpetuates the culture of women’s self-doubt, ensuring that men don’t have to confront their fear of confident women. In other words, it’s encouraging their self-abnegation.
Keitheley Wilkinson
Laguna Woods, Calif.