Letters

Ed Surgan continues to try to rely on refuted witnesses as a link to wrongdoing against President Joe Biden [“A Boomerang,” Letters, August 10]. These witnesses have been an embarrassment to the right-wing attack dogs who have promised earth-shattering testimony while providing dud after dud in actual results.

Additionally, Mr. Surgan again lauds Justice Clarence Thomas while ignoring the fact that Thomas hasn’t recused himself when his benefactors have cases of interest before the court. Mr. Surgan tries to prop up Thomas by saying he “has not the slightest hint of larceny in his character.”

The defense is that Thomas didn’t steal from anyone? Is that the ethical bar we want for SCOTUS?

Thomas refused to disclose (as required) the luxury vacations, real estate, free tuition, etc., and he didn’t recuse himself from cases involving the interests of his benefactors (and his wife) when they appeared on the docket.

Even if it were true that Thomas’s gifts were a just reward “being feted by admiring members of the public,” is that ethical? Can I “gift” dozens of vacations, tickets, tuition, property, etc., to a judge or politician who then votes/rules in favor of a project that enriches me? I would hope that you would agree that the answer is a resounding no.

Now, on to President Biden. You are making (as you did in your initial letter) the leap from unfounded allegations to what “ultimately will expose the corruption” in your continued attacks. “The weight of more and more testimony” is of no value if that “weight” is unmoored by facts. Let us not harken back to the days of the Salem witch trials.

It is ironic that you have defended Justice Thomas, whose ethical lapses are there for the world to see, yet in the same letters you try to fool the reader by painting President Biden as an outright crook by writing “and their testimony … will expose the corruption” [“Contrast in Coverage,” Letters, July 27]. For Thomas, we have irrefutable facts that you dismiss. For Biden, you present a case based on future maybes. You use words like “will expose” and “evident” that try to lead the reader down a path to a conclusion unsupported by facts.

The “evidence” presented reminds me of SCTV’s “Monster Chiller Horror Theater” (if you’re too young, look it up). Count Floyd (Joe Flaherty) would promise a “really scary movie” — but we would only see John Candy waving a plate of pancakes toward the camera, or some such unscary fodder. The “witnesses” and “evidence” presented are about as scary as a small stack of pancakes.

Bottom line, look at facts, not at empty rhetoric and the Kabuki theater performances we are seeing from the far-right politicians and their supporters.

Harry Mainzer

East Quogue