Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

To the editor:

Jonah Goldberg states that one of the reasons Republicans are sticking by President Trump is because of the “increasing partisanship of the media.”

The mainstream media are not biased against Trump; they are simply reacting to the constant barrage of material that he provides. This is a president who has made more than 3,000 documented untrue or misleading statements since he has been in office. Because he does this on nearly a daily basis, the press reacts, as it should, on a daily basis.

To a staunch Trump supporter, the constant reporting of negative information comes across as an attack on Trump—when it is really just good journalism.

Shari O’Connell, Santa Monica

Note from KBJ: If Shari O'Connell thinks "The mainstream media are not biased against Trump," then she lives in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

My cycling goal for 2018 is 7,300 miles, which will shatter my personal record of 6,288. I chose this goal because it's an average of 20 miles per day. Today's 41.1-mile ride gives me 657.2 miles for July (in 16 rides) and 4,289.7 for the year. I'm 49.7 miles ahead of pace. Five months to go.

The globalist Koch Brothers, who have become a total joke in real Republican circles, are against Strong Borders and Powerful Trade. I never sought their support because I don’t need their money or bad ideas. They love my Tax & Regulation Cuts, Judicial picks & more. I made…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

….them richer. Their network is highly overrated, I have beaten them at every turn. They want to protect their companies outside the U.S. from being taxed, I’m for America First & the American Worker – a puppet for no one. Two nice guys with bad ideas. Make America Great Again!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Here.

Here.

Donald Trump's approval rating is 47%. Barack Obama's approval rating at the same point of his presidency (30 July 2010) was 47%.

Congratulations, Jack. Long overdue. Click to enlarge.

Here is Kurt Schlichter's latest column.

We now learn that President Trump reportedly was briefed on Jan. 6, 2017, by national intelligence professionals about Russian hacking efforts into the 2016 election that likely contributed to his win (“Confusion lingers on Trump, Russia,” Page A1, July 19). His public response has been to continually and vociferously contend that his win was completely legitimate. As time has gone on, more evidence is emerging about Russian interference, and the president continues to insist that he had nothing to do with it. The phrase “protesting too much” comes to mind.

This also raises an interesting thought experiment: If there was no collusion, but the Russians interfered on Trump’s behalf solely to further what they perceived were their own interests, what would a truly ethical and patriotic president have done upon learning of that profound threat to our democracy?

Here is one scenario: He would have (1) made that threat publicly known during his inaugural address, (2) acknowledged that there might be a question about the legitimacy of the election results and therefore his presidency, (3) and therefore, vowed to serve just one term, (4) while making the cybersecurity of the United States the primary focus of that term.

Susan LaMar

Uxbridge