To the editor: I'd like to respond to the low-information voter in your article about the Trump verdict possibly shaping a House election who still plans to vote for the former president. (“In a battleground precinct north of Los Angeles, Trump's verdict may be a wild card in November's election,” May 31)
Trump was not prosecuted for having sex with a porn star. That's not a crime.
He was not prosecuted for paying money to maintain his silence. That's not a crime either.
Trump was on trial for falsifying business records to conceal his actions to influence the 2016 election. And, by the way, this is the least serious thing Trump has been charged with in four separate criminal cases. Stealing and concealing classified documents, tampering with elections in Georgia and inciting an insurrection are more serious charges.
The cited elector also suspects that Biden is guilty of unspecified crimes. If he can't name these crimes, it's unlikely they exist.
Lorraine Knopf, Santa Monica
..
To the editor: Let me understand it.
The Times story quotes a former Santa Clarita teacher as saying, “The hush money has been around since the beginning of time. So I don't know why they give it so much importance.”
I wonder if his lessons included lying to his students about school subjects to make them fit his schedule; After all, lying has been practiced for a long time. Would you say it's okay for someone to practice racism, since that has also been happening since the beginning of time?
The good news is that she is retired. Thank God for small miracles.
JJ Guevara, Pico Rivera
..
To the editor: The conviction might not sway undecided voters for the same reason it won't sway Trumpists.
The fact that the media is referring to this as a “silent” trial rather than a “falsification of business records” trial gives Trump some breathing room. Read the quote from Saturday's newspaper: “Silence money has been around since the beginning of time. So I don't know why they give it so much importance.”
That's what most people think. But all 34 charges were for falsifying business records, which is against the law.
If Trump had committed a large sum of money to a charity and falsified business records to cover it up because he didn't want, say, the N.R.A. If they knew, would the media have called it a “charitable donation” essay?
Richard Larsen, La Habra
