Reactions vary to Trump verdict

NOTE FROM OPINION EDITOR RITA CIOLLI: In his letter below, reader Bruce Poulos questions why more letters published Sunday weren’t critical of the criminal conviction of former President Donald Trump. Here is our answer. When Newsday Opinion receives more letters than it can print on a topic of intense interest, the ones we do publish are representative of the ratio of sentiments expressed.

By Friday evening’s deadline, more than 80% of the letters received in the first wave of reaction supported the conviction, and of those submissions we ran eight letters as well as the only two critical of the verdict.

Afterward, the ratio of incoming letters changed somewhat; 70% lauded the trial’s outcome with the rest either critical of the prosecution or the balance of views expressed. Several of those letters are published below.

We welcome letters with myriad viewpoints. If yours is not expressed on our pages, please share your opinion with us.

How does Newsday’s editorial board decide which letters to publish? With Long Island traditionally voting mostly Republican, how is it that the letters supporting the hush money trial verdict were overwhelmingly against former President Donald Trump?

Judging by the attendance at Trump’s rallies compared to those of President Joe Biden, I think the selection of letters published is slanted to fit the editorial board’s narrative [“Hush money trial verdict triggers strong reactions,” Opinion, June 2]. Newsday’s TV commercials say it is fair in its reporting, but from my eyes, Newsday is anything but that.

— Bruce Poulos, Massapequa

The selection of the first set of readers’ letters on “The Verdict” seems about as balanced as Judge Juan M. Merchan’s jury instructions.

— Glenn Tyranski, Huntington

State Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg both ran on platforms of getting Donald Trump.

They now claim that neither of their cases was politically motivated. Surely, Trump isn’t the only politician to pay hush money and then cover it up. Is he the only real estate mogul to do what he supposedly did? So, who’s next?

— Tim Marinace, Massapequa

I believe that justice prevailed in the trial of Donald Trump’s falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal that threatened to derail his presidential campaign. Judge Juan M. Merchan was exceedingly fair, and the trial was not politically motivated. It was based on violating federal election laws. Previously, all the witnesses had worked for Trump or acted in his best interests. They simply refused to perjure themselves for him.

— Vincent Fiordalisi, East Norwich

Donald Trump was found guilty of all counts by a jury of 12 peers. The former president claims it was “rigged.” To believe that it was rigged, I would need evidence. It is hard for me to believe that Trump and his attorneys could not convince the jury that he wasn’t guilty of 34 charges.

Then, they claim that the reason was that it was rigged and insult my intelligence by expecting me to believe that.

— Fred Harber, Lake Success

Donald Trump has experienced one of the attributes of our great American democracy, an independent judiciary. It was a political prosecution? It was a politically biased judge? Please explain how, as Trump contends, 12 jurors were politically against him after being empaneled with his lawyers’ consent. Remember, all 12 were needed to convict. Sorry, the system worked — as designed.

— Richard M. Frauenglass, Huntington

I take exception to Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman’s comments regarding Donald Trump’s guilty verdict “What LI and NYC politicians had to say, in their own words,” News, May 31]. Blakeman said, “I think this is the biggest miscarriage of justice that I’ve seen in my life.” However, the evidence was clearly overwhelming. I think we would be better served if he focused more on the problems of Nassau County and less on Trump’s legal woes.

— Mark Herzog, Rockville Centre

I am appalled by Bruce Blakeman’s comments about the verdict. His absurd comments not only questioned the integrity of the jury system but of the jury, as well, which, for several weeks proved to be attentive and thorough during the trial and deliberations.

He also questioned the evidence presented by the district attorney, who he claimed was “biased” when Blakeman stated, “As a lawyer, I can’t see any basis for a conviction.” The 12 jurors, though, obviously could, and they decided accordingly.

— Marcie Kaplan, Rockville Centre

As our 45th president is found guilty of falsifying business records, the party that has touted itself as the party of law and order is undermining our judicial system and democracy. This happened with false claims of a rigged election, an attack on our Capitol, and now the same for a supposedly rigged trial.

Republicans are undermining the backbone of our judicial system to the detriment of all who believe in a fair trial. Government leaders should be reaffirming their commitment to our system by siding with important verdicts such as this rather than striking out for politically expedient reasons.

No one is above the law.

— Gerry Hirschstein, Old Bethpage