Baseless claims

I read Rich Lowry’s ridiculous column arguing that Jack Smith is orchestrating a one-person symphony of election interference and should consequently be disqualified from prosecuting Donald Trump. (Friday e-edition). Now, while conspiracy theories can be entertaining, let’s bring a touch of reality to the table.

First, accusing Mr. Smith of election interference seems like a plot twist worthy of a blockbuster movie — exciting, but utterly baseless. Let’s not forget that wild claims without any factual basis can be likened to believing in unicorns (or many of Mr. Trump’s twisted claims). They might make for interesting stories, but they don’t hold up in the real world.

Moving on to the saga of Mr. Trump and the legal tightrope he’s walked, it’s crucial to acknowledge that no one, not even a former president, is above the law. If Mr. Trump broke the law multiple times, let the legal system unravel the intricate layers of that mystery. Due process isn’t just a buzzword. It’s the backbone of a fair and just society.

During Mr. Trump’s second impeachment, his lawyers played the “courts are the place to be” card. It’s poetic how they advocated for the very institutions they may have hoped to avoid. Bravo! Let’s honor that sentiment and let the legal stage be the judge and jury.

Now, the idea of Mr. Trump behind bars is a vivid one, isn’t it? If found guilty, it’s only fair that he faces the consequences. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves — courtrooms, not keyboards, are where guilt or innocence is determined. So grab some popcorn, sit back and let the legal drama unfold.

Lastly, on the topic of sanity and voting for Mr. Trump, opinions are like emoji choices — everyone has their favorite. Democracy thrives on diverse perspectives, and while some may question the choices of others, let’s remember that respectful dialogue is the key to understanding, not name-calling.

In conclusion, let’s spice up our discussions with a dash of reality and a pinch of wit. Baseless claims might make for juicy gossip, but they’re hardly the ingredients for a rational debate. Tim Cox

Henderson