Trending
This letter is a rebuttal to a letter published on Aug. 10, 2026.
The letter titled “Pointed questions posed” contains a laundry list of allegations, assumptions, and political rhetoric that Mr. Rich Clark presented as though every accusation were established fact. It isn’t. Some examples are highlighted below:
The most obvious problem is the repeated leap from "this happened" to "therefore Trump did it for corrupt or murderous reasons." Those are entirely different propositions.
The Iran accusation is a perfect example. You can oppose the military action, but calling it a "war of choice" and asserting that Trump attacked Iran without congressional oversight does not settle the constitutional or factual questions. If you believe Congress’s war powers were violated, identify the specific statute or constitutional provision and the congressional action required, not merely an accusation.
"Continue killing unarmed crews in boats while drug traffic continues unabated" is similarly loaded. Enforcement actions against suspected drug traffickers do not become "killing unarmed crews" simply because the writer declares the people aboard the boats unarmed. And claiming drug traffic continues does not demonstrate that enforcement is pointless.
"Deport and kill innocent people in ICE raids" is even more egregious. Deaths in immigration custody or during enforcement operations are serious matters deserving investigation, but converting that into the categorical claim that the administration is deporting and killing innocent people is a far more serious accusation requiring evidence of deliberate wrongdoing.
The White House renovations and reflecting-pool controversy are legitimate subjects for scrutiny. There were no-bid contracts, and there has been controversy over the reflecting pool’s condition. But calling a contracting controversy proof of personal corruption is another unsupported leap.
The Gordie Howe Bridge allegation is the same. Yes, the Ambassador Bridge owner donated $1 million to a pro-Trump PAC shortly before Trump’s comments about the bridge. That is worth asking questions about. But a temporal connection is not proof that Trump changed U.S. policy in exchange for a political contribution.
And the Forbes claim is badly distorted. Forbes did report that Trump’s estimated net worth increased by $1.4 billion. It did not say Middle Eastern governments simply gave Trump $1.4 billion. Forbes attributed the increase to multiple sources, including cryptocurrency, licensing, litigation-related changes, and foreign business activity.
Finally, comparing current U.S. policy toward Iran to Japan’s actions immediately preceding Pearl Harbor is historical hyperbole, not serious analysis.
You are certainly entitled to oppose President Trump, his immigration policies, foreign policy, renovations, or relationship with Canada. But if you are going to accuse the President of murder, corruption, self-enrichment, unconstitutional warfare, and criminal favoritism, you need to establish those claims individually with evidence.
A dozen accusations in one paragraph don’t become facts simply because they are separated by semicolons.
And Congressman Bergman should certainly be asked to exercise his constitutional responsibilities, but demanding that he endorse a prewritten list of allegations is not the same as asking him a serious policy question.
Gregory Tolman, Escanaba