To the Editor:
Re “Special Counsel Defends Claims on Biden Lapses” (front page, March 13):
After watching hours of testimony by Robert Hur, the special counsel in the investigation of President Biden’s handling of classified documents, I am impressed by his professionalism and impartiality. Why the Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee thought a televised hearing would undermine Mr. Biden and help Donald Trump eludes me.
Mr. Hur’s decision not to prosecute Mr. Biden involved an analysis of the totality of the circumstances and was the correct outcome. Prosecutors have the duty to bring charges only in situations in which they truly believe that they can prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. Mr. Hur determined he could not meet that high standard.
The repeated comparisons with Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents were damning for the former president.
Robert S. Carroll
Staten Island
To the Editor:
Robert Hur testified at a congressional committee hearing that although President Biden’s retention of classified documents since his Senate days decades ago violated the law, he declined to bring charges because, as he wrote in his report, Mr. Biden “would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” Yet he testified that a reasonable juror could find the president guilty.
Even if the president were to testify at his trial that he now doesn’t remember keeping classified documents, Mr. Biden’s recorded interviews with his ghostwriter after he left office in 2017 admitting he did have classified documents and other incriminating evidence would contradict that defense.
If a defendant’s memory lapse about his past crimes is a get-out-of-jail-free card, can we expect to see this novel precedent raised by more elderly suspects?
Paul Kamenar
Chevy Chase, Md.
The writer is counsel to the National Legal and Policy Center.
To the Editor:
President Biden had to be reminded of the year his son Beau died. I am a retired professor, but I still have to be prodded to remember the year my dear husband died. The memory is just too painful.
I write books about what separates humans from robots, and surely one of our great human qualities is that we can actually feel pain. Today’s A.I.-enhanced robots are capable of instantly retrieving data and seem to have astute, perfect memories, but we humans have the capacity for loving, caring and feeling genuine sadness. If our memories are sometimes imperfect, that’s what makes us human.
To the Editor:
Re “Marking 4 Years Since Covid Shutdowns Began,” by David Leonhardt (The Morning, March 12):
One reason for skepticism about the Covid vaccine might be the “nocebo effect,” which refers to having negative symptoms due to the expectation of becoming sick.
In clinical trials, more than half the adverse events experienced by people who received the Covid shot were also experienced by those receiving the placebo vaccine. In other words, the active ingredients in the Covid vaccine are not usually the reason people get sick after their jab.
Unfortunately, media outlets may have played a role in this. One story after another described vaccine side effects. This may have enhanced our expectation of becoming sick, resulting in more people feeling ill than would have been the case without so much media attention.
Some people will respond to hearing about unwanted side effects from friends and family by deciding, rightly or wrongly, not to get vaccinated. The polarization of our news surely does not help, as right-leaning outlets seemed more inclined to cover this story (though there was no shortage elsewhere).
This framework is important in understanding why many Americans, especially those living in Republican communities, are vaccine hesitant.
Michael H. Bernstein
Warwick, R.I.
The writer is an assistant professor of diagnostic imaging at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University and a co-editor of the forthcoming “The Nocebo Effect: When Words Make You Sick.”
Move Up New York’s Primary
To the Editor:
On April 2, New York voters will be eligible to cast their ballots for the Republican and Democratic candidates for president. By the time we get to vote, the contests are already over and New Yorkers will have had no say in the presidential selection process.
Four years from now — the next time there is a presidential election — I hope that the State Legislature will schedule the New York primary date earlier in the campaign season so New Yorkers will have more influence in selecting the presidential nominees.
I also hope that the Legislature will schedule only one primary date for president, Congress, State Legislature and local offices. This year there are two separate primary dates: one for president and the other for Congress and the State Legislature, on June 25. If the primaries were on the same day for all positions, there would be greater voter participation. Taxpayers would also save a ton of money!
Paul Feiner
Greenburgh, N.Y.
The writer is the Greenburgh town supervisor.
Is It Appropriation, or Cultural Synthesis?
To the Editor:
Kudos to John McWhorter (“Black English Isn’t Just for Black People,” Opinion, March 5) for calling attention to an important truth seemingly lost in the emotionally charged atmosphere of controversy and polarization in our public debate: The use of Black English styles and expressions by white people — indeed, the adoption by anyone of features of a different culture — is not necessarily a form of “appropriation” or “negation.” Rather, it is more often their direct opposite: acceptance, as part of the American mosaic.
Has jazz lost its treasured place in the world of Black culture because it is now seen as a fundamental element of American musical art? The fact that kosher, chutzpah, salsa, pasta, sushi and karaoke have become part of the American language has not erased them from their original sources.
Of course there are those who will mockingly misuse Black English as linguistic blackface, or ridicule the look and sound of others in hateful and stereotypical ways. But I think Mr. McWhorter is saying that decent, intelligent people can tell the difference, and when imitation is genuinely a form of flattery, perhaps we needn’t make such a big megillah out of it.
Alan M. Schwartz
Teaneck, N.J.
The Art of Journaling
To the Editor:
Re “A Library of the Lives I’ve Lived,” by Josephine Sittenfeld (Opinion guest essay, March 3):
This essay delighted me, a journal writer for 70 years, from age 12 to today at 82. Over 300 journals grace my bookshelves. Life memories stay fresh in my journals; daily guidelines and creative projects arise there following my habit of writing morning pages.
I believe there’s a difference between handwriting journals and typing them into a computer. With a fountain pen on paper, we see the pages fill with ink, the handwriting changing with mood and age. We get a visual and kinesthetic pleasure missing from the online journaling experience.
Thank you for publishing Ms. Sittenfeld’s piece. It draws into the public dialogue perhaps hundreds of thousands of people, especially women, for whom the private written journey is a blessing and at times a lifesaver.
Jenny Tallman
Tacoma, Wash.