Letters to the Editor: Why timely Trump tell-alls wouldn’t have saved us

Then-President Trump arrives at John Wayne Airport in Santa Ana for a fundraiser on Oct. 18, 2020.
(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

To the editor: With the recent release of their separate books on former President Trump, reporter Maggie Haberman (New York Times) and the spousal team of Peter Baker and Susan Glasser (New York Times and New Yorker, respectively) are being savaged on social media, especially in the anti-Trump Twitterverse, for allegedly sitting on information that they should have reported while he was still in office and running for reelection. (“Tell-all Trumpists — you should have come clean long ago,” Opinion, Sept. 13)

Well, what if they had reported it sooner? What if they hadn’t sat on the information against the former guy? What if?

If they had reported truthfully and accurately everything they knew in real time, the pro-Trump Twitterverse would have been rife with accusations of “leakers” and “traitors” and on and on. A slippery slope indeed.


Before this, there was the “Access Hollywood” scandal, the Mueller report, two impeachments, and now the Jan. 6 hearings. And guess what? The ex-president’s minions are still rallying to his clarion call.

In the end, would telling all when it happened have made any difference?

John Goodman, Oak Park


To the editor: Columnist Jackie Calmes makes a good point, and I agree to some degree. Coming clean could have improved the chances of a successful impeachment.

However, I have heard that if John Kelly had spoken up while serving as chief of staff, or if Mark Esper had done the same as secretary of defense, they would have gotten fired.

Even though working for Trump was a nightmare, they felt that being an adult in the room allowed them to rein in the former president from some of his worst impulses. They did what was best for the country.


Matthew D. Kerster, Gardena