The Trump-Biden Imbroglio Over Ukraine

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/opinion/letters/trump-biden-ukraine.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

Re “Under Attack, Biden Wrestles With Response” (front page, Oct. 6):

Your article states that Joe Biden has been uncertain about how to respond to President Trump’s repeated accusations of corruption. Mr. Trump himself has famously responded to accusations by forcefully repeating slogans such as “no collusion, no obstruction” over and over again, regardless of their veracity.

Mr. Biden’s response to Mr. Trump’s baseless accusations could be equally succinct and forceful, with the additional merit of being correct: “He’s lying.” In fact, this simple, clear response could prove useful to Democrats in connection with any number of issues related to Mr. Trump. With repetition, it might sink in with the voting public.

For that matter, perhaps some energetic writer at The Times could draw on the paper’s extensive coverage and analysis to put a book together with these same two words as the title: “He’s Lying.”

James CulnanLa Crescenta, Calif.

To the Editor:

There is no substantive proof of corrupt acts by Joe Biden or his son Hunter in their dealings with Ukraine. At the same time, the optics are ugly and disturbing. At the very least this is a prime example of influence peddling.

A Ukrainian oil and gas company put Hunter Biden on its board at a seemingly highly inflated level of compensation (reported to be $50,000 per month). Hunter seems to have had no skills or wisdom worth near that sum, just his familial ties. It is clear that Joe Biden did not counsel his son well about the wisdom of accepting such a post.

Still, President Trump is wrong to be calling out the Bidens for corruption, particularly when his own corrupt behavior is out there for all to see.

Ken DerowSwarthmore, Pa.

To the Editor:

It appears that some of President Trump’s most ardent supporters (for example, Tucker Carlson) are now suggesting that Republicans stop their fruitless efforts to label Mr. Trump’s conversation with the Ukrainian president as appropriate but instead urge that such conduct does not merit impeachment and that his fate should be determined by the 2020 election. And, of course, Democrats agonized for months over impeachment versus a fair and free election by the people in 2020.

How can we wait for and rely upon an election when it is now absolutely established that Mr. Trump has done, is doing and without question will continue to do everything he can to make sure the 2020 election is neither fair nor free? There is no choice but to impeach.

Lawrence B. LameRego Park, Queens

To the Editor:

In your coverage of the “do us a favor” conversation between President Trump and the Ukrainian president, there’s one word that is consistently overlooked: “though.” In the president’s statement “I would like you to do us a favor though,” “though” is qualifying (in a grammatical sense) the previous sentence, in which President Volodymyr Zelensky states his desire for more American military aid.

By using the word “though,” the president establishes a conditional relationship between the military aid for Ukraine and the president’s request for an investigation of Joe Biden and his son. If that isn’t a quid pro quo, I don’t know what is.

Elyse GunterDavis, Calif.

To the Editor:

Re “Mr. Trump, Self-Impeaching President” (editorial, Oct. 4):

You’ve nailed it. The president’s strategy is not to conceal his wrongdoing, but to repeat it, more and more blatantly, in order to make us think, “Well, if he is so open about it, I guess it can’t be a big deal.” A term for this clever and destructive tactic comes to mind: “Trumpwashing.”

Susan GellmanColumbus, Ohio