Sounding off: Trump's charges, Supreme Court ethics, DEP name change, climate fight, next president among week's topics

Trump violated law

The writer of the letter “Trump deserves 4th Amendment protection” (June 22, TribLIVE) bases his argument on the Presidential Records Act. Before writing his letter, perhaps he should have actually read the act, which states in part that the official records of the president and his staff are owned by the United States, not by the president. The archivist is required to take custody of these records when the president leaves office, and to maintain them in a federal depository. This straightforward law makes it quite clear that Donald Trump was and still is in violation of the law.

Letters to the editor appear on the “Opinion” page of this newspaper, so he is entitled to his opinion, but the facts and reality of all the charges against Trump will soon win out over anyone’s misguided opinion.

Paul Nichols

Harrison

***

Why doesn’t Supreme Court have code of ethics?

Recent revelations of very expensive vacation trips enjoyed by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are shocking. None of these trips were disclosed on either of their financial report forms, despite having been paid for by wealthy Republican individuals having multiple cases brought before the Supreme Court. Neither justice ever recused himself from these cases. The U.S. Supreme Court has no code of ethics.

By comparison, the judiciary of Pennsylvania does have a Code of Judicial Conduct. The code is quite long, but here is a quote from its Canon 2: “Note: Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. Judges must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. They must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. They must therefore accept restrictions on their conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.”

Why does our U. S. Supreme Court avoid adopting such a sensible ethical code? It is little wonder that only 40%, a new low, according to a recent Gallup Poll, approve of the job this court is doing.

Charles Henry

Greensburg

***

On DEP, what’s in a name (change)?

Thanks to the writer of the letter “Ramifications of DEP name change” (June 16, TribLIVE) for pointing out that, on June 10, the Pennsylvania Senate passed a bill changing the name of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to the Department of Environmental Services. One question: What sort of environmental services does the DEP provide that do not involve the protection of the environment on behalf of the citizens of the commonwealth? Can’t think of any? Nor could I. So then its name — Department of Environmental Protection — is already a pretty good one, huh?

The claim that the change is only one of inconsequential words is bull crap. When the DEP was created, its sole purpose, stated clearly to this day in its official description, is the protection of the environment. And it is not, as Sen. Kim Ward would have you believe, mainly an environmental resource and partner to the citizens of Pennsylvania. To someone who might be looking to make a fast buck, that sounds more like a name that wouldn’t be as off-putting as one that warned of “protection” of the environment, right there in its name!

If this proposed name change is so “innocuous,” that’s probably why its costs, including changing stationery and signage, were not even mentioned. Nor was the cost of the Senate’s consideration and passage of the bill.

So, if you are as sick as I am of political games involving name changing, it sounds like you should call your state representative and tell her or him simply, “Kill Senate Bill 691.”

Ed Collins

West Newton

***

Is DEP name change threat to Democrats?

In response to the letter “Ramifications of DEP name change” (June 16, TribLIVE): This is a case of classic leftism. Accuse the other side of what you’re actually doing.

In my opinion, Democrats have run the state Department of Environmental Protection and feel a name change is somehow a threat to the puppet masters and environmental special interest groups that control our DEP.

Take, for example, PennFuture, which I consider to be a far-left environmental propagandist group whose mission is to end fossil fuels through strangulation by DEP regulation. The former DEP secretary, Patrick McDonnell, after serving Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, left and took an executive position with PennFuture. ThenFormer vice president of government affairs for PennFuture last year, Ezra Thrush, is now policy director for the current DEP. That is the very definition of a revolving door with special interests. The DEP seems to have been hijacked by environmental special interests with extremist political agendas.

Instead of working in partnership with businesses, I believe the DEP believes its mission is to prevent, harass and select which industries get to exist in Pennsylvania; among others, they discriminate against the coal and natural gas industry, which still supplies over 90% of our electricity and thousands of middle class jobs.

The Department of Environmental Services is more appropriate, because our government is there to serve the people, and it’s a title the current DEP should try and live up to.

Juliana Morich

Murrysville

***

Let’s wish Kerry, other leaders success on environment

Regarding the letter “John Kerry’s climate hypocrisy” (June 17, TribLIVE): I, too, want our leaders, such as Kerry, President Biden and Donald Trump, to be responsible and create a green economy; words are not enough. No one is above the law, even the laws of common sense.

But, to be fair, Kerry takes jets because he cannot walk or swim to meetings to discuss energy with the world’s leaders. Sure, his jet releases carbon, which is bad. But we don’t complain about fire trucks burning gas on the way to a fire, even though the fires are more intense and frequent because of the very products of burning gas, namely CO2, which acts like a blanket warming our Earth.

Let’s wish him great success because we are seeing natural systems unravel, and it’s not pretty. The time for “talk” is over.

But it shouldn’t be only a few leaders, like Kerry. It should be all of us, as caretakers of our children’s future. It takes honesty and engagement at the voting booth, so we find leaders who care most about the science and about your child’s future.

Jan Freed

Los Angeles

***

We need a nationalist, not a globalist, as president

For years I thought that rich people ran our country. They would pick the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate, so they didn’t care which one won. They were all for the rich. The Clintons were no different than the Bushes and Mitt Romney no different than President Obama.

Then Donald Trump came along and threw a monkey wrench into their plan. They can’t control him because he doesn’t need their money. They needed to stop him at all costs. Isn’t the documents case the ninth investigation of Trump? Unbelievable. I’ve never seen anyone investigated more.

The most important thing when choosing a candidate is to pick one who is a nationalist and not a globalist. We don’t want to lose our nation’s sovereignty to a world organization. Trump is a nationalist, and to me, President Biden is obviously a globalist, with his open border stance. I don’t know what the other candidates are.

Susan Stiles

North Huntingdon

***

Our kids are in peril

The Allegheny County detention facility at Shuman Center has been closed for some time, and now it’s Westmoreland County’s juvenile detention center (“Westmoreland closes juvenile detention center amid state investigation, staffing shortages,” June 24, TribLIVE). Given that, there is no mystery in the spike of delinquent crime.

I am well aware that practitioners in the juvenile justice system have an insurmountable challenge. I worked in that system for 40 years while during that time taught senior high Sunday school at my church for 25 years. It was a real study in contrasts. No wonder our youth are in such peril. We have a culture more concerned with the sexualization of kids in middle school than giving them a strong moral foundation.

Go ahead, conduct a survey of that same cohort regarding church attendance. Therein lies your answer!

Giles H. Guisbert

North Huntingdon