Facts don’t follow Clinton’s storyline
Re “Documents give new Clinton email details” (Page 1A, Sept. 2): The released FBI documents say Hillary Clinton’s statements to the FBI “were generally consistent with her previous public statements.” That means consistent with Clinton’s public statements that include a) I didn’t send or receive classified emails, b) I turned over everything I was supposed to turn over, and c) My lawyers checked every email.
FBI Director James Comey said in his statement on the emails, and/or in testimony before Congress, a) Clinton sent emails that contained classified information, b) We found emails that should have been turned over, and c) Clinton’s lawyers used search terms rather than checking every email.
If Clinton’s statements to the FBI were “generally consistent” with public statements that Comey has said were lies, it cannot follow that Clinton did not lie to the FBI, as Comey has stated. Politicians in general, the Clintons specifically, serve themselves first, the public second.
John Paul, Carmichael
Would excuses work in court?
You’ve got to be kidding me. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. And how many times can you say: “I don’t recall” or “I don’t know”?
Compare Hillary Clinton’s scenario with the poor Navy guy who got prosecuted for taking a picture and sending it to his girlfriend not knowing he inadvertently photographed a secret piece of equipment.
By the way, I used the Clinton line on a police officer the other day when I unknowingly ran a red light. I protested that I didn’t know the light was there. Did she care? No. Am I going to pay the ticket? Maybe I’ll try the Clinton line with the judge.
John Eldred, Elk Grove
Clinton can’t have it both ways
Over and over again we hear the Hillary Clinton email excuses as lack of knowledge, lack of judgment, lack of memory – “I can’t remember.”
It’s all about giving her a pass, giving her the benefit of the doubt. Why? If she wants to lead the nation, weak excuses and avoiding anyone who asks the hard questions shouldn’t be her default defense.
If she can’t face the media now, what would her presidency be like?
Third-party vote is a vote for Trump
Re “Third-party candidates target those unhappy with Clinton, Trump” (Insight, Sept. 5): There are only two choices for president, due to the Electoral College. Voting for a third party is a vote for Donald Trump. Imagine a third party winning one or more states. Such a scenario could throw the election into the House of Representatives if no candidate receives 270 electoral votes.
The House votes by state: i.e. Wyoming equals California; Idaho equals New York. Trump wins.
It’s a binary choice. Realize what your vote would do. You’re not “sending a message,” you’re electing the president.
Tom Funk, Elk Grove
Debates should have all candidates
Out of 324-plus million people in the U.S., at least 40 percent are over 30 years of age. It is, therefore, absurd that out of such a population we have only two pathetic candidates before the American people to vote into the Oval Office.
But wait, that isn’t true. There are candidates from other parties: Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party, and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. We have the right to hear these candidates in the presidential debates.
The two-party system does not represent the people, and Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are two of the most disliked people here and abroad, and give the people no choice. We insist on hearing what the other candidates have to say.
Climate change and future flooding
Re “Coastal areas try to cope with rising sea’s tides” (Page 1A, Sept. 4): There is a growing popular recognition that up and down the East Coast towns and cities are increasingly vulnerable to the rising sea levels and catastrophic flooding caused by climate change. Meanwhile, inland towns and cities across America are experiencing historic flooding as rivers and creeks swell and overflow from increasingly heavier rainstorms.
At least 40,000 homes have been damaged by recent flooding in Louisiana. Yet, today’s floods are only a mild preview of what the future holds if we do not accept the national security, economic and ecological risks of climate change. What has been required for quite some time is a warlike mobilization of our population and all our resources. We are still not there yet.
Harold Ferber, Elk Grove
Double standard for Mother Teresa
Re “Honoring a ‘tireless worker for mercy,’ pope makes Mother Teresa a saint” (Page 1A, Sept. 5): As a non-Catholic, would someone please explain to me how a woman such as Mother Teresa can become a saint, but she wouldn’t be allowed to become a priest? There seems to be a disconnect. Why would gays and women want to be part of an organization where they are treated like second-class members?
Gary Miller, Roseville
EXTRA LETTERS ONLINE
Find them at:
HOW TO SUBMIT
Online form (preferred):
Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779,
Sacramento, CA 95852
150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.