Donald Trump and the Justice System

To the Editor:

Re “Trump’s Attacks on Judge’s Family Lead to Expansion of a Gag Order” (news article, April 2):

If an indicted drug dealer or terrorist made threats against prosecutors, judges, court staff and their families, that person would be locked up and likely held in prison until their trial was completed and a verdict rendered.

In Donald Trump’s case, we have someone with a history of inciting violence who was criminally indicted by separate grand juries in four different jurisdictions. Yet, Mr. Trump routinely makes public threats not only against prosecutors, judges and their families, but also against our current president, Joe Biden (the video of an image of him hog-tied), apparently with few consequences aside from an occasional fine.

When will the judges muster the courage to hold Mr. Trump to the same standard of conduct they would demand of a terrorist or drug dealer? Why do our courts treat Mr. Trump with kid gloves, when he can potentially do more damage to our country and to people’s lives than any terrorist or drug dealer?

Jeff Crider
Palm Desert, Calif.

To the Editor:

Even the expansion of the gag order against Donald Trump is unlikely to mitigate fears of reprisal for participants in the trial against the former president.

Mr. Trump’s penchant for vengeance against anyone he perceives has wronged him (or merely demonstrated insufficient loyalty) is, in all likelihood, adequate to discourage witnesses with the most damaging testimony from appearing in any case against Mr. Trump.

Steven A. Jensen
Palmerton, Pa.

To the Editor:

Re “No One Is Above the Law, Except …,” by Jamelle Bouie (column, March 31):

I agree wholeheartedly with most of the criticisms of Donald Trump set forth in this column. But I must disagree with its conclusion that the appellate court showed unwarranted favoritism toward him by its order reducing the amount of his appeal bond from $454 million to $175 million. Rather I believe that this action is consistent with steps that would have been followed with any similarly situated litigant.