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

Here.

Please, please, please let Hillary Clinton run for president again in 2020.

Your editorial “Trump's steely approach to a treacherous world” predicts Trump’s national security “game plan” will cause allies and adversaries to perceive his statements differently. In that analysis, what’s new? Given his track record, they’ll also shrug, laugh and figure he’ll change in 24 hours. Maybe you should add a disclaimer for your Trump editorials: “Stay tuned for the precise reversal of this.”

— Sandra Petroshius, Lake Forest

Together, we are MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! pic.twitter.com/47k9i4p3J2

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 20, 2017

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

Who’s Next (1971).

Here.

Here.

From a moral point of view it is, of course, a duty for one of the friends to point out the other's faults to him; this is in the other's best interests and is therefore a duty of love. But the latter sees in this a lack of the respect he expected from his friend and thinks that he has either already lost or is in constant danger of losing something of his friend's respect, since he is observed and secretly criticized by him; and even the fact that his friend observes him and finds fault with him will seem in itself offensive.

(Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. and ed. Mary Gregor, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy, ed. Karl Ameriks and Desmond M. Clarke [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996 (first published in 1797)], 215-6)

Note from KBJ: With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Megan McArdle has some sensible thoughts about the current hysteria.

To the editor:

In October, Trump sent out a tweet demanding that Republicans “do something” regarding the Mueller investigation. Sure enough, Trump’s “hoax” narrative (with the help of Fox News) has picked up steam among Republicans in efforts to discredit Mueller, his team and the FBI. Do not be surprised if any or all of the following happens soon:

Trump fires Mueller; Republicans call for an end to ongoing House and Senate investigations, parroting Trump’s denigration of the special counsel and the FBI; or members of Congress shrug at any “biased” conclusion by Mueller and the FBI of wrongdoing and do nothing.

A few questions: Since when does a key figure connected to the investigation get to set the scope of what the investigators can look at? Can only Republicans investigate Republicans, and wouldn’t that be “biased” (both Mueller and Comey are—or at least were—Republicans)? How many “hoaxes” are there that result in the indictments of four people connected to a presidential campaign?

Chris Fite, Spring Valley, Calif.