To the editor: Contributing writer Wayne Unger tries his utmost to present the pending James Comey case as a two-sided issue (“James Comey’s case will play out in a murky area of the law,” June 4). I offer him praise; he reminds me of my former law professors. But, there’s a layman’s saying that also applies here. He can’t see the forest for the trees.
He drifts into the realm of the unintentionally hilarious by using the phrase “more than plausible” to describe extremely far-fetched rationales that might explain this debacle. What is extremely plausible is convicted felon President Trump’s abuse of the office, with vendetta after vendetta against any opponents who might have truthfully noted his lawlessness. Must we mention again that Comey removed the infamous post swiftly? He stated his ignorance of the possible double meaning, and avowed his opposition to violence. “86” far more commonly means “throw him out,” right?
Unger timidly closes by noting the sincerity and awareness in markedly more strident threats in previous cases. He meekly notes, in his estimation, these factors are absent. Do ya think? Way to take a stand, professor!
Sometimes it’s clearly black and white, not legal gray. There’s a big old forest out there called the currently misnamed Justice Department bullying innocents.
Mark J. Diniakos, Thousand Oaks
..
To the editor: In 40-plus years working in bars and restaurants in California, I never heard “86” used to mean anything other than ejecting a too-rowdy customer (“86’d”) or a cook or server saying a particular menu item was “86’d” — not available, temporarily.
It would be interesting amid the Comey “86” news to see some reporting about just where or how frequently “86” is used with the meaning “to kill.”
Comey’s otherwise ludicrous rock-photo posting charges would have some validity if, in addition to the posted photo, he had added the word “permanently.” And even that I would take as meaning “86 him permanently from politics,” not his mortal life.
Please do a survey. I suspect some adults wouldn’t know what “86” meant at all, and I doubt few would think the shell photo meant anything other than “remove Trump from the presidency.”
Mark Davidson, Santa Ana
..
To the editor: The op-ed by Unger is right on. But what I have not seen regularly is a discussion on the burden of proof in a criminal case; beyond a reasonable doubt. The term “86” has more than one common meaning, the most common being to throw someone out, as I understand it, and not to kill. See the definition in a dictionary.
That being so, how can a jury conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Comey’s intent was to promote killing rather than impeachment of the president or use of the 25th Amendment to throw him out of office, both legal means? I can’t believe any self-respecting prosecutor would file the charge.
Gary Hastings, Redondo Beach
