Consider the length and breadth of Starr’s probe
The column “Due Process — Even for Those We Dislike” (April 22 Perspectives) has many valid arguments. The articulate author, Post-Gazette editor Keith C. Burris, and the eminent Alan Dershowitz almost have me convinced that due process is being jeopardized simply because many of us think Donald Trump is “so bad.”
Indeed Mr. Trump is horrible in countless ways: his expressed racism and sexism, his wild and inconsistent tweeting and flip- flopping on foreign and domestic matters, and his blatant profiting from the presidency while he double-dog dares us to do anything about it. Most important, consider his often exhibited ignorance of our constitutional system of government (since that’s the subject of the column), his unwillingness or inability to educate himself about it and his own disdain for due process and the judicial system.
The statement that “a legal colonoscopy would never happen to a liberal Democratic president” is outrageous. Ken Starr was independent counsel for more than four years. He was appointed to investigate the suicide of Vince Foster and the Whitewater investments of Bill Clinton. This inquiry later expanded into numerous areas including suspected perjury about sexual activity between two consenting adults.
After several years of investigation, Mr. Starr alleged that Mr. Clinton lied about the affair during a sworn deposition. This allegation led to the impeachment proceedings. This “legal colonoscopy” lasted years longer than Mr. Mueller’s, went far afield and delved deeply into personal matters. In fact, the only alleged crime uncovered was one created by the longrunning investigation itself. RICHARD RESTIVO
North Fayette
We welcome your opinion
The outcry for gun control legislation, due to the recent tragedies in Florida and Las Vegas, has caused me to think back to 50 years ago. The infamous 1968 Gun Control Act was pushed through Congress due to the emotionalism of the Kennedy-King assassinations.
The enforcement of the 1968 Gun Control Act by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, as well as some of its provisions, immediately came under scrutiny and question.
One controversial incident was the Kenyon Ballew case in 1971. The ATF raided a residence looking for supposed hand grenades. The agents knocked on the door; a young female yelled, “Let me get dressed.” The two long-haired, bearded ATF agents, who were wearing jeans, T-shirts and tennis shoes, immediately broke in the door. A young female, who was clad only in bikini underpants, was handcuffed behind her back and pushed out on the front porch. Her husband, Kenyon Ballew, who was in the shower, heard her scream. He came out into the living room with a pistol and was shot by the ATF agents. Kenyon Ballew was left paralyzed. The only grenades found were legal dummy grenades.
There were many other incidents where ATF actions have been in question. Waco and Ruby Ridge are prime examples. “Operation Fast and Furious,” where the ATF allowed several thousand illegal guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, is another example of government bungling.
The public, as well as our lawmakers, must realize that laws passed due to emotionalism don’t turn out to be good laws. JIM McGURK
Pleasant Hills