Good Morning
Good Morning

Newsday letters to the editor for Sunday, Jan. 20, 2019

Special counsel Robert Mueller and President Donald Trump.

Special counsel Robert Mueller and President Donald Trump.

Columnist Dan Janison writes that President Donald Trump asking for a chance to correct special counsel Robert Mueller’s report before it is made public (if it ever comes out) is like “demanding video review before the play is even called” [“Jeering Mueller to fearing Mueller,” The 1600, Jan. 14].

Is Janison trying to say that due process is gone? Aren’t all Americans entitled to the presumption of innocence? Don’t we get a chance to face our accusers?

Janison goes on to imply that Trump obstructed justice — “He openly sought to fix things” — when he fired FBI Director James Comey, the same Comey many Democrats wanted fired when he probed Hillary Clinton’s email troubles late in the 2016 campaign.

Janison reports that ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen will testify before Congress. Recall that Cohen is going to jail. I believe he is compromised by Mueller to say whatever Mueller wants him to say.

Janison must hope that the Mueller report has something in it, even if it is just that Trump won’t eat apple pie. He’ll then have to spin it so he can keep what I see as his bias intact.

James Laurita, Commack

I believe the president [“I never worked for Russia,” News, Jan. 15].

I believe he worked with Russia. As with everything he says, watch out for how he says it.

Michael C. Lefkowitz, East Meadow

According to federal court filings in Manhattan regarding the violation of the campaign finance laws, there’s probable cause to believe that President Donald Trump committed a crime in relation to his pursuit of the presidency in 2016 [“Cohen pleads guilty to lying to Congress,” News, Nov. 30].

That’s why it was so troubling to hear Trump’s nominee for attorney general, William Barr, tell the Senate Judiciary Committee that “I see no reason to change” the Justice Department’s guidelines that a president cannot be indicted while still in office [“Barr defends memo on probe, News, Jan. 16].

How could Barr explain why a person who committed a crime as part of his or her effort to become president shouldn’t be indicted while he or she is still benefiting from that crime? Any other policy is merely a get-out-of-jail-free card for a successful, yet criminal presidential candidate.

No one is above the law or should benefit from his own wrongdoing. Barr’s hands-off view as to whether a sitting president can be indicted under these circumstances could make him complicit in our nation continuing to be led by someone about whom the irrefutable evidence may eventually scream out, “Lock him up!”

Chuck Cutolo, Westbury