Who’s responsible for Trump’s hotels?
Re “Trump’s projects in Asia move ahead” (Page 6A, Jan. 1): The president-elect proudly boasts how his company has an interest in hotel properties around the world. Assume that after Jan. 20, one of these hotels become targets of a terrorist attack. How will President Donald Trump respond?
Will he send U.S. military to protect his property? What if he sends a private military agency like Blackwater founded by Erik Prince, the brother of Betsy DeVos, Trump’s nominee for secretary of education? Would U.S. taxpayers be on the hook for this use of military force?
Would this be a conflict of interest? The U.S. has no historic precedent to define what remedy is available to taxpayers. Maybe we should take a moment to consider if such events occur, how shall we respond?
Trump must be free of conflicts
Re “Trump’s business conflicts flout the Constitution” (Viewpoints, Jan. 3): President-elect Donald Trump should not be sworn in until Congress decides that he can serve as president without any conflict of interest. The president should receive only his salary and should not receive “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, or any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
Trump must sell all his holdings in his corporations in the United States and overseas before assuming the presidency. How else can we be sure he is thinking about the welfare of the American people, rather than thinking about his own financial interests?
Bruce Burdick, Carmichael
What’s bigger than our democracy?
Re “Trump still not sold on Russian link to hacking” (Sacbee, Jan. 1): In an effort to forgo questions as to the legitimacy of his presidency, Donald Trump’s responds to Russian interference into the presidential election by saying, “It’s time for our country to move on to bigger and better things.”
Tell us, President-elect Trump, what’s bigger than protecting the integrity of U.S. elections from a foreign government trying to install its preferred candidate into the White House?
Richard Nano, Roseville
Bill targets fentanyl traffickers
Re “Fentanyl is deadly drug du jour” (Editorials, Jan. 3): The editorial correctly points out that reversing the tragic trend of fentanyl-related deaths “will take work on many fronts.”
Last year, I introduced Senate Bill 1323 with Sen. Bob Huff that would have added fentanyl to the list of drugs such as heroin and cocaine that are subject to criminal penalty enhancements by weight. The bill specifically targeted traffickers and not users, and the Senate approved it on a unanimous vote. Unfortunately, the bill stalled in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
I intend to introduce the bill again this year because the illegal supply of fentanyl continues to put the lives of many Californians at risk. By cracking down on traffickers, boosting access to addiction treatment and educating the public, we can help save lives from a very deadly drug.
State Sen. Patricia Bates, Laguna Niguel
Hall of Fame needs a reality check
Re “Baseball writers rethinking steroid-era players” (Insight, Jan. 3): It’s about time those who hold the keys to baseball’s Hall of Fame actually reconsidered their myopic view that some of those who played in the so-called steroid-era should be forever barred.
It’s no coincidence that the two most notable players – Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens – were not loved by these same sportswriter/moralists. But while they seem to have correctly observed that individuals who also benefited from the era, e.g. Bud Selig, have been allowed in, they still don’t get that neither they, nor we fans, know how many players tried or used steroids are already in the Hall of Fame.
The unofficial ban is unfair and arbitrarily exercised. It’s well past time for baseball to recognize the injustice of overcorrection.
Nancy Luque, Carmichael
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.